In the lonely crowd of experts

Dan,
We will now all believe that no one cares about what you have to say, no matter how much evidence we get later that suggests otherwise. I guess you can kiss this blog goodbye ;)

In all seriousness, what is the relation between Brooks' piece (which IMHO is flawed because it sets up a false dichotomy, but leaving that aside) and the Vedantum article? Your post makes no sense to me.

Anti-intellctualism goes back a long way in the US and it's something you have to live with in the fabric of this country. Of course, when you consider that much elite opinion supported the invasion of Iraq, and the way the government operated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (as examples), it is hard to believe that the elites have operated in a way suggesting that they were much concerned with the burdens of prudence. When Thurston Pembroke Howell the VI behaves like Flem Snopes from Faulkner Country, there is not a whole lot to choose from, is there?

This is why campaigns persist with negative campaigning even though the public find them distasteful. They work. Initially paint your opponent as a serial-killer and he'll spend the rest of campaigning arguing that he did not, in fact, hang out with Charles Manson.

I think the key line is "political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people’s preexisting views."

When JQ Adams supporters spread rumors of Andrew Jackson's adultury, they were feeding on the preexisting perception that Jackson was a man ruled by his passions, and not constrained by convention. OTOH, Jackson supporters spread false stories that Adams had as ambassador procured American girls for the sexual gratification of the Czar. This was based on the perception that Adams was too bedazzled by foreign opinion and capable of corrupt bargains. In both instances the misinformation reflected justifiable concerns about the candidates.

[...] [Update 2008-09-16]:  Great, this refutation may actually be counterproductive! [...]