Hmmm, a few different taxonomies in play there, cyclo. My "stupid" and your "low socio-economic" and "less educated."
I genuinely prefer the term "stupid" as getting at what I mean. For example, I know some low-education, low-SES people of whom I could say "he's not stupid." And plenty of high-education, high-SES people I think of as completely hairbrained.
But I do define intelligence according to criteria that suit me: the ability to think clearly, weigh up facts and opinion, crunch some data, work through the logic, and above all else, the ability to see the world from broader and plural perspectives. I also put too high a value on written expression. When someone's rant is grammatically correct, I automatically give it a lot more credibility.
With all due respect, the problem with your approach is that the answer is the perennial "education." This is what Marx reckoned: the proletariat needs consciousness raising, and I've never agreed with it. For me, that is condescending. If people were more educated, they wouldn't make short-term, selfish, contradictory decisions? I dunno, they might. I'd prefer to give credit to people for their narrow-minded viewpoints and play them with the full face of the bat.
Howard and Hawwke both appealed to values such as mateship, Australian-ness, the family, and so on to win over lower-middle Australia's trust. Howard, much less admirably, also used fear, resentment and xenophobia to wedge himself into the low-SES demographic. How would you describe those Western Sydney people who were won over by Howard's culture wars? Less educated? Low-SES? I think they would be much better defined by lack of wisdom, sensitivity and empathy.