The argument that "generally, people are stupid" is a rather compelling one, at first blush. We all have our own personal mountain of anecdotal evidence supporting such a statement.

What's scary is when people base political ideas and actions off such a silly, sweeping phrase. For one, it can lead down some disgusting paths (paeans to "those meant to lead and those meant to follow", justifications for removing power from the people to bureaucratic and elected self-proclaimed mandarins, etc.). A much better sweeping statement would be "generally people rise up (or lower down) to your expectations."

Here's some anecdotal evidence that may prove a bit of a cure to the arguments that the people Frank writes about in What's the Matter with Kansas and poor, white (and rural) Republicans in general, and a brief sketch of what the real problem may be...

One of the things that makes me most hopeful about people is that even those "bubbas," if they're really interested in something, will know everything about it inside and out, know the analysis, and are able to make reasoned judgments. I've been to my fair share of bars in the "backwards" rural areas of PA back when I lived there (we Allentowners called it "Pennsyltucky"), and I'm always amazed that the same people who have on the surface neandertal-simplistic political and social ideas are the ones who can rattle out reams of numbers about players on whatever football team is playing, know the plays inside and out, grok the politics and strategy inside the yearly draft, and will have spirited debates with other fans about those topics.

Similar things happen when I'm talking to friends who are auto mechanics and building engineers. They have a wealth of practical knowledge, and are constantly synthesizing it in very high-concept ways to come up with creative solutions to problems.

The problem at hand is not a question of intelligence, but a question of focus. Think of the thousands of rural folk, many of whom couldn't read, that followed and understood the highly technical and at times esoteric language used in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Now how to encourage those folks to shift their mental faculties from sports toward political, social and economic issues, I'm not sure. (All I know is that putting cheerleaders behind Wolf Blitzer would make The Situation Room infinitely more bearable to watch.) My point is that the bottleneck in preventing large-scale, meaningful political discussion, is in all likelihood NOT due to a lack of intelligence.

Where might the bottleneck be? Well for one, we don't have political structures that really matter to people on an immediate, daily basis. Does debating with a neighbor about the war in Iraq going to change his conditions at work? Will it make his productive life more rewarding? Will it allow him to afford to buy healthier food for him and his family? Will it reduce the co-pay on his health plan? Unless we make democracy a meaningful, consequential aspect of people's lives, we can't expect them to be mature wielders of what little democratic power they do have. Sitting in rows in a school for thirteen consecutive years (let alone seventeen), being told what to do and where to go by teachers and bells prepares us not for a vigorous democracy, but stifles our autonomous, creative and independent impulses to better prepare us for a working world where those traits are never meaningfully used.

Democracy, independence of thought and participatory socialization are acquired skills, and can only be used when one practices it on a regular basis.

So, how often do you get a chance to participate in democracy?