Dishonesty in Action

One of the key ways dishonest hacks get away with being dishonest hacks is by ignoring facts. Let's look at one recent example: Megan McArdle responds to Nate Silver:

Health care's popularity drops any time Congress discusses it. With respect to Nate Silver, who argues that the bill would be popular if they ever passed it and could discuss what's in it, you cannot "prove" that voters like a bill because various bits of it poll well on their own. Do I want a sous vide machine? Certainly! I could take a poll that would show nine or ten wonderful things I would love about owning a sous vide machine. Am I going to buy one? No I am not, because it costs hundreds of dollars I need for other things.

McArdle dismisses some parts of the poll and ignores others . But let's go back to the beginning. Nate Silver stated:

[David] Brooks' analogy to the debate over health care, then, is somewhat ironic: once again, one side has told a lot of lies to help alter the course of public opinion. Some of these lies, like death panels or the government takeover meme, are not very subtle. Others are a little more clever: the notion, for instance, that we could easily require insurers to cover all people with pre-existing conditions without either adopting an individual mandate or substantially escalating premiums.

And those lies have had an impact.

McArdle responded:

People aren't responding to "lies". They are saying that they do not believe administration claims that this program will reduce the budget deficit without impacting quality of care--a pretty safe bet, to my mind. But even if you disagree, it is not crazy and delusional to believe that government programs often do not deliver what the politicians who enacted them promised. It's a pretty safe reading of history, actually.

Silver:

With due respect to Megan, however, the debate over health care is not playing out like the one in elite circles of public opinion, in which Ezra Klein and I represent the pro-bill coalition and she and David Brooks the opposition. As this month's tracking survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation makes clear, there are a lot of beliefs the public has about the bill which are objectively wrong.

[snip]

What we see is that most individual components of the bill are popular -- in some cases, quite popular. But awareness lags behind. Only 61 percent are aware that the bill bans denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Only 42 percent know that it bans lifetime coverage limits. Only 58 percent are aware that it set up insurance exchanges. Just 44 percent know that it closes the Medicare donut hole -- and so on and so forth.

"Awareness", by the way, might be a forgiving term in this context. For the most part in Kaiser's survey, when the respondent doesn't affirm that the bill contains a particular provision, he actually believes that the bills don't include that provision. 29 percent, for instance, say the bill does not contain a provision requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions; 20 percent think it does not expand subsidies.

How would public opinion change if people were fully informed about the content of the bills? It's hard to say for sure, but on average, the individual components of the bill are favored by a net of +22 points. An NBC poll in August also found that support went from a -6 net to a +10 when people were actually provided with a description of the bill.

[snip]

Lastly, it's much harder to read the opinion polls as a "mandate" against the health care bill when much of that opinion is based on demonstrably false beliefs, some of which have been perpetuated deliberately by opponents.

Silver looks at the evidence: support for the bill (not health care reform in general--support for the actual bill) increased from -6 to +10 when people saw what was on the bill. The poll questions include questions on cost; the price tag is unpopular, but people still regard the bill with favor. Few people enjoy paying for what they need, but most people who are not tea baggers realize that you have to pay for services, even if you don't want to pay. McArdle's response:

Health care's popularity drops any time Congress discusses it. With respect to Nate Silver, who argues that the bill would be popular if they ever passed it and could discuss what's in it, you cannot "prove" that voters like a bill because various bits of it poll well on their own. Do I want a sous vide machine? Certainly! I could take a poll that would show nine or ten wonderful things I would love about owning a sous vide machine. Am I going to buy one? No I am not, because it costs hundreds of dollars I need for other things.

Almost everything polls well on its own, except tax increases. But as in my example, deciding whether you want something is not a matter of simple addition of positives and negatives. Some negatives, like price tag, can outweigh even a stunning array of positives. The things that poll badly: price tag, excise tax, individual mandate. These are crucial components that can't be gotten rid of.

An intelligent person might conclude that if health care polls well when the bill itself is presented and polls badly when Congress describes it and people are being lied to about health care, then Congress is lying about health care. Which is actually happening. Instead, McArdle states that people don't believe the positive aspects of the bill will be enacted, the price tag outweighs the benefits, and people hate the health care bill. She offers no proof whatsoever, of course. That is how she responds to facts--with her opinion. Then we are graced with sermons such as this one:

Obviously, Nate believes that the bill will improve things like out-of-pocket costs and choice of doctor. That's why he supports it. But those aren't scientific facts; they are opinions. In fact, in Massachusetts, the new system has led to considerable bottlenecking of health services which has reduced access for those who already had care--it's harder to get a doctor's appointment, etc.

If you make the mistake of thinking that your opinions are scientific facts, then it's obviously going to be mysterious and not a little scary that people believe otherwise. Then you have to start inventing shadowy conspiracies against The Truth.

McArdle calls Silver's facts opinions. She then calls her opinions facts. Ipso facto, McArdle is right and Silver is wrong! Mirabile dictu!

And all you have to do is ignore reality for the fantasy land in your head. No wonder David Brooks loves McArdle's work. His latest column is based on the lie that America is the land of opportunity. All you have to do is ignore the facts and you can say whatever stupidity you want. McArdle can't think logically or make good decisions and choices because she ignores facts in favor of self-flattering or self-aggrandizing opinions. It makes her stupid, and it makes her dangerous.