Clueless: What women don't know about politics - gender gap - Brief Article

National Review, Oct 9, 2000 by Kate O'Beirne

The suburban Missouri mom who recently told the Washington Post, "I know there's a Bush and there's a Gore," represents the large number of inattentive women voters who could swing this election, despite their lack of specific knowledge about the candidates. Many polls attribute Al Gore's current lead to a double-digit advantage among female voters, who perform more poorly than men in most surveys measuring political knowledge. In his chat with Oprah, George W. Bush could have best helped himself with uninformed women voters by suggesting that she add some remedial reading on politics to her list of recommended books.

The evidence of this gender gap continues to mount. After this year's hotly contested primaries, a survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that women were considerably less likely than men to know who among the candidates was a former POW, a former basketball player, or a current governor. Women were also less likely than men to know the candidates' positions on such issues as universal health care and instant gun checks.

The population as a whole has an unimpressive grasp of national issues, but men routinely outperform women on these measures. In one of Kellyanne Fitzpatrick's surveys earlier this year, only 27 percent of women knew that Republicans control both the Senate and the House, in contrast to 46 percent of men who correctly identified the majority parties. In early September, when asked what comes to mind about candidate Bush, 23 percent of women (and 15 percent of men) either didn't know or refused to answer. (There was no need for a sophisticated analysis of the candidate, as acceptable responses included such insights as "guy running for president" and "father.")

While there is plenty of discussion about the gender gap that has boosted Gore in the polls, the gender gap in political knowledge is largely ignored. It's clear that women are significantly less interested than men in national policy, but Sen. Barbara Boxer reflects the conventional wisdom in her explanation of women's support for Gore: "Three reasons. Issues, issues, and issues."

In their exhaustive 1996 study, What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters, Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter found that three-quarters of women score well below the male average on tests measuring knowledge of national politics. The gap has existed for 50 years, and it persists regardless of education and income levels. In a representative survey, men were significantly more likely to be able to identify Boris Yeltsin, explain the role of the Supreme Court, and state the unemployment rate. (There is a reverse gender gap when it comes to local politics, with women more likely to know what's going on closer to home; for example, more women than men were able to name their school superintendent.)

Women's relative lack of knowledge about national politics produces the kind of fickle female voters who were supporting Bush just a few weeks ago but now back Gore. Unsurprisingly, Delli Carpini and Keeter point out that better-informed voters have more stable, internally consistent opinions, and are resistant to irrelevant information. The authors concede that issues matter to less-informed voters, too, but there is a weak correlation between these voters' stated positions on issues and the views of the candidate they choose to support.

With women significantly more likely than men to get their news from television, general impressions are more important to them than policy specifics. Gov. Bush is routinely advised to appeal to women by talking about "kitchen table" issues such as education and health care; given the detachment of so many women voters, he would practically have to be at their kitchen tables to focus their attention on the complicated differences between the candidates' proposals.

The fact is, women aren't swooning over Al Gore's 191-page economic plan. He has succeeded, rather, by playing to their anxieties about the economy, and their concerns about the safety net; that's why he labeled Bush's reforms "risky schemes." According to Karlyn Bowman, the American Enterprise Institute's polling expert, the risk-averse nature of women has an effect upon their approach to politics. Women's concern that a broad safety net of programs be available contrasts sharply with the general male view of government's role. In a recent ABC poll, 67 percent of men preferred a smaller federal government that provided fewer services, while only 46 percent of women wanted a reduced role for Washington. Married women are less likely to look to Uncle Sam for help in shouldering the load, and a majority of them support Bush.

Bowman notes that women as a group are a "lagging indicator" on the state of national affairs, and so, for example, are less likely than men to count on the strong economy, or trust in future budget surpluses. Al Gore has dispatched the character issue by reassuring women about his devotion to Tipper and the kids, while portraying Bush's agenda as threatening to the surplus and entitlements.