Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Is the U.S. election about science?

by a siegel Fri Sep 10th, 2010 at 03:40:39 PM EST

When it comes to the November 2010 elections, few people identify science as the core issue. Economic concerns (JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!), fossil-foolish fueled anger at government, passions over the role of government, and otherwise are among the many reasons why the current vogue is to predict a Republican wave come November.  A hidden element of the election, for most Americans, is that this election is fundamentally about science.

Very simply, while most Americans continue to hold science and scientists in high regard, an increasingly large share of the Republican Party's elite, office holders, candidates, and mouth pieces are taking seriously anti-science positions.

As Nature magazine's editors summarized it in Science Scorned,

The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

This searing editorial begins with a quotation from Rush Limbaugh:

The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

While, as Nature's editors state, "it is tempting to to laugh this off," the reality is that Rush's bombast is the position taken by too many of 2010's Republican Party candidates.  Expertise and knowledge and institutions that value these are the enemy.

Sadly, Rush and ilk are making understanding and support of science an ideological litmus test.

While climate denial is central to that litmus test, it is far from the only element.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for instance, who has told his listeners that "science has become a home for displaced socialists and communists", has called climate-change science "the biggest scam in the history of the world". The Tea Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo research -- which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W. Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack Obama's promise to "restore science to its rightful place" seems to have linked science to liberal politics, making it even more of a target of the right.

It is hard to understate the damage that anti-science syndrome suffering ideologues could create.  The achievements of science are core to our existence, from medicine that saves our lives to analytical tools that enable speed-of-light communications to ... Demonization of science fosters, in the near and long-term, a weakened economic competitiveness for the United States. It literally puts lives at risk. (Should we Thank you for smoking?) And, it will lead to a much weaker nation in the decades to come due to climate chaos in addition to a weakening of America's position in the sciences.

Nature's editors are far from the only ones in prominent and respected journals calling out this growing anti-science and anti-knowledge dominance of the Republican Party.  As per the Economist, last week:

"It is troubling that the contemporary state of American political discourse obliges people who know better to stifle themselves on this issue [climate change]. So long as segments of the American political elite feed voters cynical lines on global warming, and large numbers of voters believe them, America will continue to get the political leadership it deserves, and face the serious consequences of inaction."

Few Americans put 'respect for science' and basic scientific knowledge at the top of the list when they go into the poll booth. Considering the stark contrast between the parties and the serious negative consequences of having a governing elite ignorant of and disdainful for science, perhaps it should make it higher up the list.

NOTE:  There has been a growing gap between scientists and the Republican Party. In 2009, of 2500 polled scientists, just 6 percent of the polled identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 23 percent of the overall population). The increasing number of anti-science Republican politicians (for example, on climate change issues) will harden this divide.

In a related discussion, David Roberts lays out in Grist that The right's climate denialism is part of something much larger.

Consider what the Limbaugh/Morano crowd is saying about climate: not only that that the world's scientists and scientific institutions are systematically wrong, but that they are purposefully perpetrating a deception. Virtually all the world's governments, scientific academies, and media are either in on it or duped by it. The only ones who have pierced the veil and seen the truth are American movement conservatives, the ones who found death panels in the healthcare bill.

It's a species of theater, repeated so often people have become inured, but if you take it seriously it's an extraordinary charge. For one thing, if it's true that the world's scientists are capable of deception and collusion on this scale, a lot more than climate change is in doubt. These same institutions have told us what we know about health and disease, species and ecosystems, energy and biochemistry. If they are corrupt, we have to consider whether any of the knowledge they've generated is trustworthy. We could be operating our medical facilities, economies, and technologies on faulty theories. We might not know anything! Here we are hip-deep in postmodernism and it came from the right, not the left academics they hate.

Scientific claims are now subject to ideological disputation. Rush Limbaugh is telling millions of people that they've taken the red pill and everything they once knew and could trust is a lie. They've woken up outside the Matrix and he is their corpulent, drug-addicted, thrice-divorced Morpheus. What could go wrong?

Hat tip to Joe Romm, Climate Progress.  Relevant other posts include Heather Horn, The Atlantic Wire, Is the Right Wing Anti-Science? and Branden DeMelle, DeSmogBlog, Nature editorial slams GOP anti-science tendencies

PS:  Of course, this seems to be a continuation of the Republican War on Science (Chris Mooney)

The Republicans/conservatives do not want you using your senses, thinking for yourself. That's what science is all about. They want you to do what you're told by your Lords and Masters (i.e. THEM), PERIOD!

They tried to assimilate me. They failed.
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Sat Sep 11th, 2010 at 12:50:51 PM EST
there is no surprise that Republicans are stupid. Colbert identified a profound truth when he said that "facts have a liberal bias". Republicans

Two things Karl Rove said really nail the situation. The first is famous;-

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

But the second gets closer

All politicians operate within an Orwellian nimbus where words don't mean what they normally mean, but Rovism posits that there is no objective, verifiable reality at all. Reality is what you say it is

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 01:03:37 PM EST
1980: The year the US fell down the rabbit hole.
by rifek on Wed Sep 15th, 2010 at 12:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It looks like Karl Rove himself may have nothing to do now but study the new reality.
After Rove bemoaned O'Donnell's nomination as the end of the GOP's chances to take back the Senate in a heated interview with Sean Hannity last night, pundits and tea partiers have slammed him as a traitor and even called for Fox News to suspend him as an on-air analyst.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Sep 15th, 2010 at 01:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Is the U.S. election about science?
The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media.

This is the republicans list of enemy strongholds. These are all areas where there is a risk that someone will speak from a position of authority against the corporate propaganda. Therefore it is important to have the image loaded and ready - lying scientists, power-hungry politicians, liberal media - so that the proper label can be attached immediately. Of course, these labels will only be used when enemies use the positions of authority. Essentially it is a claim to totalitarianism.

What I do not get is why the elite financing the republicans are so totalitarian. They own both parties, almost all media, finance a lot of researchers.

Is it fear? Is constant fear the price of being in the top 1% and owning the world?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Sep 14th, 2010 at 02:53:16 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]