Let's say that for some reason, you are trying to determine whether someone is of upstanding character. For example, you want to hire them, they want to babysit your child, they want to marry your daughter, your young beautiful daughter wants to be their intern and spend time alone with them, etc., etc. The first thing you would do is interview them. Let's say that this person is extremely well spoken, charismatic, handsome, confident, and seems very believable. Let's say your instincts tell you that this person is trustworthy and capable without any doubt. In spite of this, would you not still ask around, especially people who have had dealings with him in the past, do research on him, before giving him this opportunity?
It is election time. The politicians we elect are our employees. Even if we are madly in love with them and have blind faith in them based on our instincts, would it not be a good idea to verify their worthiness anyway by doing research and seeing what those who have dealt with them in the past have to say? If the electorate's instincts are correct -and I hope they are - that is great, but if by doing research we find out these politicians are conning us, we will have committed a very patriotic act.
How to do research? I recommend listening to the academics because they have no ulterior motive. Business people may lie to you because they are motivated by profits. Politicians may lie to you because they want to be elected. However, academics are only motivated by the facts. It is true that academics are wrong sometimes, but they are right most of the time. It is better to err, if err one must, on the side of the academics. If the academics says "a hurricane is coming to location "x" with wind speed "y" with storm surge "z" at between these hours, most of us take heed and evacuate. However, if the academics says that politician "A" is going to be bad for this country for reasons "B,C, and D" shouldn't people take heed as well?
.