I'll concur here with Lance's excellent review. I consider it rather ignorance when ideologues, no matter what stripe, attempt to reduce a political viewpoint to fit onto a bumper-sticker. Or even worse, categorizing some people as liberals or conservatives without considering the actual substance of that person's ideas. When you really think about it, many of the great political thinkers of the past, going from Aristotle to today couldn't really ever be pinned as either a liberal or a conservative. These two labels are just two very broad ways of seeing the world as it is. The truth of the matter is that there are many different ways of seeing the world, and as Lance points out, the Founders of this country took that into account when they established an intricate system of checks and balances and other institutional controls to ensure that no small faction could be able to impose their will on the people. You can't have government by the people if most of them don't approve! Bottom line: people are very devoted to their opinions, and that's fine, but a free society also requires diversity of opinion. When you get voices in the political system that seek to dominate the discourse by way of convincing other of the righteousness of their values or causes rather than arguing strictly on the merits of any given issue, you have a real problem. Ask the citizens of quasi-religious governments like Iran about that.

There are ignorant people of all stripes. My greatest concern however is the dogmatism from the left who assume because their values are marked by a bracketing of comprehensive moral views they themselves aren't making a moral statement. We don't live in a vacuum and all our positions have consequences. But I ask, who are the ones normally throwing labels at the expense of free discussion? If you don't believe in an austere commitment to unecumbered human action then you're a "bible thumping zealot" the mantra goes. What about empiricist thinkers like Locke- and some of our founders- who believed through reason a rational demonstration of morals laws could be formulated for the good of society? These morals, they argued, could inform our self government- and only through self government could we alleviate the inconveniences of the state of nature. They were ingorant too? Hell what about Aristotelians who believe the state exists to promote the common good through cultivating public virtues that are recognizable through human perception? Hard to argue Aristoteleans are "bible thumpers" considering the philosophy originated before Christ. And what about founders like Madision who believed the greatest threat to the republic was isolated factions imposing their will upon the republic at large? Why did he believe the structures of government he proposed would eliminate such a threat? Are all these conceptualizations ignorant because they're antithetical to the prevailing vision of anarchic individualism defended by liberals here on a daily basis? And what is the difference between a liberal's religious commitment to their ideology and an evangelical's commitment to his? Nothing really. Was Stalin any less brutal because he was a secularist?

I can count on one hand the Republicans who are best suited to hold office in my opinion. That is my opinion, but to call them all ignorant would leave me on a level with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, & A. Coulter. I don't think this is how the Founding Fathers dreamed we would comport ourselves.

No more than anyone else.

Hey, Where my share of that assumed wealth? It hurt our budget this month getting my daughters Nike shoes she had to have.! I got jipped on that one!

Republicans are, for the most part; self-absorbed, wealthy, unwilling to help other people. They need to go to Africa and feed starving people instead of buying themselves guns to hunt.

Most of AMERICA is ignorant at times!

Not true. They are smart enought to convince America there were terrorists in Iraq.

ignorance is well-balanced between both political parties. i think this myth might extend to Southern Republicans, people who work farms etc, that don't have the educational backing, but base their vote more on faith and need. true, i believe basing a political vote on faith shows some ignorance, but i can't help but think religious ignorance falls on both sides as well. if memory serves me correct, Slick Willie was an avid church goer too.

Yes, just like the GOPers in the South, West, and Midwest.

Many Republicans aren't ignorant or at least no more so than their Democratic counterparts. The only ignorant people on the each side are those who blindly follow whatever their told.