Mr. Shenkman, the author of the new book, Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter (Basic Books, June 2008), is an associate professor of history at George Mason University and editor of the university's History News Network.

The shock with which the media establishment greeted Sarah Palin’s selection was wholly understandable given her brief resume. But that the pundits have been shocked by her popularity is inexcusable. The last few decades have proven that the American voter often places a higher priority on a candidate’s pleasing personality and panache than his/her resume. Expertise in foreign affairs is almost never considered a prerequisite. Of the last six elected presidents only two had substantial foreign policy experience prior to their election. Few voters seemed to mind.

Many claim to be disturbed by Palin’s popularity in the face of ever-more evidence that she is out of her depth in discussing world affairs. If they truly are it means they haven’t been paying attention. Surveys over the last half century have consistently demonstrated that voters simply do not know much about politics nor care about it. A majority of Americans cannot name the three branches of the federal government. Only one in five know we have 100 United States senators. Most think a president’s veto of legislation is final and that the Congress cannot override it. A near-majority—49 percent—believe the president can legally suspend the Constitution.

As citizens of our 21st-century consumer’s republic they know the price of a gallon of gas or the cost of a fast-food pizza. And they are experts in pop culture. While only one in four can name more than one of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, a majority can name at least two members of the cartoon Simpson’s family. If I may: We need more Lisa Simpsons, the brainy one in the cartoon bunch, and fewer Homers. Alas, just as Lisa is outnumbered by the lovable dolts in her family, so are well-informed voters in the real world.

How important a factor is a candidate’s personality? For millions of voters it’s just one among many of the variables that affect voting behavior. For these voters party identification, ideology, attendance at church, and cultural resentments all affect the way they cast a ballot. But for millions of others, often the millions who are the key to victory or defeat, personality is a central concern.

What the voters who fall into this group are looking for is to have an affinity with the candidate. Elections aren’t quite like high school contests for class president where the kid with the most pleasing personality wins. Sarah Palin’s luck is that a lot of people seem to identify with her, or at least with the image she has thus far projected on television. They see in her a little bit of themselves, giving them a comfort level they lack with many other politicians whose resumes are more compelling.

What’s particularly galling is that many of the same pundits who claim to be puzzled by Palin’s popularity work in television, the very medium that has done the most to place an emphasis on personality in politics. Television has played a leading role in the decline of the party system and is responsible for the superficiality that marks so much of modern American politics. After contributing to the dumbing down of American politics the media now are in the position of expressing shock—shock!—that a person with Palin’s thin resume but enticing personality goes over well with the American public. This is the height of hypocrisy. Perhaps if they stopped focusing on the candidates’ personalities the voters would too.

Ultimately, you get the media you deserve. And the media are merely reflecting the concerns of the public. If the public wanted to discuss issues we’d be discussing issues all the time.

Many liberals have expressed shock that women who backed Hillary Clinton in the spring are now supporting Palin. They have to get over their rational approach to politics. It’s a definite liability.

Remember when Hillary shed a tear—or seemed to well up at least—back in the New Hampshire primary? That humanized her and gave many voters a reason to identify with her and vote for her, leading perhaps to her upset victory over Barack Obama. I don’t recall many of Clinton’s supporters complaining back then that voters were acting irrationally. Admittedly, Obama and Clinton shared a similar political agenda. But reason, pure reason, seemed to have little to do with her come-from-behind victory.

Why do we find it hard to confront the truth about the often-ignorant and irrational American voter? Because we all have a stake in democracy and want it to succeed we find it difficult to admit that the voters aren’t the fountain of wisdom. But maybe it’s time we admit that. The alternative, living in a fantasy world in which voters make rational choices, makes us look rather foolish. And who needs that?