When President Obama released his long-form birth certificate, I was skeptical about its chances of killing the myth that he was not born in this country:
Will Wednesday's release of Obama's long-form birth certificate put an end to the birther myth?
The odds aren't good. The problem is that people can be extremely resistant to unwelcome factual information...
Given how much evidence is already available, it's hard to see why a long-form birth certificate would suddenly change the minds of people who are predisposed to believe in the myth. The hardcore are already shifting to new rationales for questioning Obama's right to hold office and deconstructing the PDF released by the White House for supposed evidence of forgery.
As expected, the fringe continues to search for rationales to discredit the birth certificate -- the birther movement isn't going away. However, the Washington Post released a poll conducted after the birth certificate's release (but before news of Osama bin Laden's killing was released) showing that that birther beliefs dropped by half compared to April 2010:
I've been waiting to see if any other polls were conducted, but it looks like the Post is the only media outlet that polled on this issue. Since bin Laden's killing created a bounce that will affect responses to questions about Obama for a while, it's probably the only clean pre-/post-comparison of birther beliefs that we're going to get.
So why was this correction so effective when others tend to fail? (PDF) The answers aren't entirely clear yet, but here are some initial thoughts. First, the birth certificate's release was an unusually definitive debunking that became a major news event, so there was saturation coverage of some very strong corrective information. Second, no prominent elites on the right contested the validity of the birth certificate, which meant that coverage of its release was almost entirely one-sided. Finally, it's possible that support for the myth was soft because poll respondents didn't really believe it but were using poll questions about Obama's religion and place of birth as a way to express disapproval (as some commentators and pollsters have argued).
Does this mean that people's minds can be changed? Yes (though I will be curious to see if these effects hold over time). In cases where the first and second conditions described above hold (very strong corrective information, saturation coverage, no elite controversy), it is possible to convince people who aren't hardcore believers and conspiracy theorists. However, these conditions rarely materialize for prominent political misperceptions, which tend to be controversial among elites and harder to definitively debunk.
To underscore why misperceptions are so difficult to correct, consider the case of the Duelfer Report, a comprehensive CIA-commissioned report released in September 2004 which found no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or an active weapons of mass destruction program. Even though the release of the report was a major news story confirming that Iraq did not have WMDs, no one could not prove they hadn't been hidden, moved to Syria, etc. and conservatives continued to dispute the claim. As a result, half of Americans were still telling pollsters that Iraq had WMDs as late as 2006.
In short, the release of the birth certificate is something of a best-case scenario for misperceptions. The Post poll results are a victory to be celebrated, but we should be cautious about extrapolating from this case to other, more stubborn myths.
Update 5/13 2:03 PM: Gallup just released a poll conducted May 5-8 (after bin Laden's killing) confirming that birther beliefs were cut roughly in half:
As in the Post's poll, Gallup found that the decline was most significant among Republicans (who were most likely to endorse the claim before the release of the birth certificate):
These results are an encouraging sign that the effects of the birth certificate's release are persisting, though we should be cautious given that the Gallup poll was conducted after bin Laden's death.
Cross-posted to brendan-nyhan.com
Follow Brendan Nyhan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brendannyhan
3a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions
they can't believe this then their whole life is ruined and what do they have left but
their guns and broken dreams?
To avoid these problems, I think when a person runs for President there should be a requirement to show a birth certificate (long form), passport along with proof of residency (we already get financial statements). And throw in whatever else (high school and college transcripts not needed as they don't tell us much of nothing and will probably be obtained by the media somehow). These requirements may seem a bit ridiculous and they are, but it will avoid the circus we just went through.
I thought all the clowns were great fun!
Article II, section 1 - No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
There you have it. It's ALREADY a requirement. There shouldn't be any doubt in your mind about President Obama. He would've had to fool 50 states to even get on the ballot in violation of the US Constitution. Now THAT would've been a huge conspiracy.
Showing of the BC isn't required the person running only need be a natural born citizen or a citizen of the US.
That said, I find it almost senseless to analyze and justify this birther madness. It has always been a lie. The people behind it have been shown clearly it is a lie. They continued to tell the lie and expand upon it.
To discuss it like it is a legitimate option in an argument is to support birtherism itself. We do not give neither equal time or credence to the Nazi's arguments, or the militant extremists who assaulted our nation. Why should birther madness, which is just as ridiculous, receive such respect.
Birther madness has always been foolishness espoused by fools. The only variable worth exploring is the degree of racism of a particular birther fool -on a extreme between dangerous and rabid. Beyond that, these investigative niceties just help legitimize undeserving bad air.
Certianly we have had the Hawaiian official in charge of such information who has officially stated on multiple occasions that the birth has been verified in their records, including now providing a copy of those records.
We absolutely know beyond a reasonable doubt. We have a verified record which was posted for all to see before the President was even elected (birther claims that it wasn't adequate proof were incorrect), This was a record that could easily be refuted by any Hawiian official if it weren't genuine. We have confirmation by Hawaiian offiials. We have political opponents who have investigated and rather than finding evidence to the contrary, have found further evidence of the birth. The list goes on and on.
On the opposite side, all you have is people posing more and more unlikely ways that they think the alternative could theoretically be true.
We know. It is only you that doesn't know, because you are unwilling to consider the evidence.
Good Post
F&F
This is a fantastic strategy. Extreme unrelenting mockery.
Heh. You know, Ive had a thought for a while. What if we tried to pass a bill giving republicans total and ultimate control of the country? Theyd filibuster it because obama supported it. Likewise, we could try to pass a law that states that the conservative/GOP is a valid political entity in the US. Theyd scuttle it too.
And we'd laugh and laugh.
Thatd be the boy who cried wolf. You probably knew that but im a huge obsessive fairy tale fan so I have no idea if what is common knowledge to me makes sense to anyone else. Im often told to stop using metaphors that only I understand.