Skip to main content Accesibility Help

Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters “Simply Ignorant?” A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in “Homer Gets a Tax Cut”

  • Arthur Lupia (a1), Adam Seth Levine (a2), Jesse O. Menning (a3) and Gisela Sin (a4)

In a recent issue of Perspectives on Politics, Larry Bartels examines the high levels of support for tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001. In so doing, he characterizes the opinions of “ordinary people” as lacking “a moral basis” and as being based on “simple-minded and sometimes misguided considerations of self interest.” He concludes that “the strong plurality support for Bush's tax cut … is entirely attributable to simple ignorance.”

Our analysis of the same data reveals different results. We show that for a large and politically relevant class of respondents, conservatives and Republicans, rising information levels increase support for the tax cuts. In fact, Republican respondents rated “most informed” supported the tax cuts at extraordinarily high levels (over 96 percent). For these citizens, Bartels' claim that “better-informed respondents were much more likely to express negative views about the 2001 tax cut” is untrue. Bartels' results depend on the strong assumption that if more information about the tax cut makes liberals less likely to support it, then conservatives must follow suit. Our analysis allows groups to process information in different ways and can better help political entrepreneurs better reconcile critical social needs with citizens' desires.Arthur Lupia is the Hal R. Varian Collegiate Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan ( Adam Seth Levine is a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan ( Jesse O. Menning received a Master's Degree in Political Science from the University of Michigan in 2005. He is currently an information technology consultant ( Gisela Sin is Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois ( We thank Scott Althaus, John Bullock, Nancy E. Burns, James N. Druckman, Elisabeth R. Gerber, Orit Kedar, Kenneth W. Kollman, Arthur Lupia Sr., Jan Lupia, Diana C. Mutz, Samuel L. Popkin, Markus Prior, Paul M. Sniderman, and Kaare Ström for advice. We thank Larry Bartels for his generosity and assistance in our replication efforts. We thank David Howell and the NES Staff for assistance with the NES data set. This article uses data from the 2002 American National Election Studies, sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York (grant B7532), the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, the Russell Sage Foundation (grant 83-02-05), and the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, Office of the Provost, Office of the Vice President of Research, and Department of Political Science for funding the 2002 National Election Studies; Nancy E. Burns and Donald R. Kinder, Principal Investigators.

Hide All


Althaus, Scott L. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Andreasen, Alan R. 1995. Marketing Social Change: Changing Behavior to Promote Health, Social Development, and the Environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bartels, Larry M. 2005. Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics 3 (1): 1532.
Brady, Henry E., and Paul M. Sniderman. 1985. Attitude attribution: A group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review 79 (4): 106178.
Chubb, John E., Michael G. Hagen, and Paul M. Sniderman. 1991. “Ideological Reasoning.” In Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology, ed. Paul M. Sniderman, Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1993. Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 1179206.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1986. “Whither Political Information.” Report to the Board of Overseers and Presented at the NES Pilot Study Conference. Ann Arbor, MI.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. “Shortcuts to Political Knowledge: The Role of Selective Attention and Accessibility.” In Information and Democratic Processes, John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.), pp. 160185. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Hacker, Jacob S., and Paul Pierson. 2005. Abandoning the middle: The Bush tax cuts and the limits of democratic control. Perspectives on Politics 3 (1): 3353.
Krupnikov, Yanna, Adam Seth Levine, Markus Prior, and Arthur Lupia. 2006. Public ignorance and estate tax repeal: The effect of partisan differences and survey incentives. National Tax Journal 59 (September): 42537.
Lupia, Arthur. 2005. “Questioning Our Competence: Improving the Relevance of Political Knowledge Measures.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association. Chicago, IL, April 7–10.
Lupia, Arthur. 2006. How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Critical Review 18: 21732.
Mondak, Jeffery. 1999. “Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge.” Political Analysis 8: 5782.
Mondak, Jeffery, and Belinda Creel Davis. 2001. Asked and answered: Knowledge levels when we will not take “don't know” for an answer. Political Behavior 23: 199224.
Shapiro, Walter. 2005. “What's the Matter with Central Park West?Atlantic Monthly, March. Available at
Zaller, John. 1986. “Analysis of Information Items in the 1985 NES Pilot Study.” A National Election Studies Pilot Report available at
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Perspectives on Politics
  • ISSN: 1537-5927
  • EISSN: 1541-0986
  • URL: /core/journals/perspectives-on-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed