Hang on a minute, there, Brainfire.
I thought we were talking about understanding “the other side” of the political divide. If you’re a physicist doing research on the problem of global climate change then you certainly have a good grasp of the problem we’re dealing with – better than my own, no doubt. But the focus of the discussion was trying to understand the mindset of, say, conservatives who oppose doing anything about the problem of global climate change, rather than the actual minutia of the problem itself.
You offered two possible conservative positions:
Okay, some conservatives are uninformed – but they are also resistant, even immune, to being informed.
Climate change deniers inhabit the conservative side of the political spectrum almost exclusively. For various reasons they were able to exploit the US media to create the illusion of an ongoing controversy regarding the consensus view of anthropogenic forcing long after that controversy had been resolved. This small group of climate change deniers were subsidized by large industries who had a vested interest in continuing with business as usual.
So – some conservatives who deny the empirical evidence of ongoing climate change are simply uninformed. Provided with correct information, they will change their mind. It is easier for me to understand this group, because they are rational, and can change their opinion in the face of new information.
However, it seemed to me that many of them were extremely resistant to the evidence, and in fact held out until the last possible moment before finally giving up and saying, “Okay, you’re right. It’s happening.” Long, long after the scientific community reached consensus, for example, the Bush administration held out, claiming it needed to “study” the phenomena further before pronouncing judgment. It hired a 24-year-old lackey to edit out references to global warming in the scientific papers written by James Hanson, for example. The Bush administrations willful attempts to edit the scientific consensus to serve its own political priorities is well documented. This is not as easy to understand: a pronounced antipathy towards the scientific process, and towards uncomfortable truths that must be addressed. It strikes me as, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, a crime against the planet. They’re quite literally playing with the lives of future generations.
And, at the top of the conservative pyramid, it strikes me as being based on selfish, ruthless greed. As you move downward, we encounter the so-called “right-wing authoritarians” in the conservative movement whose position is based solely on the fact those higher up in the hierarchy have a certain view – which is, admittedly, also difficult for a leftie to understand.
Then there are those conservatives who are utterly immune to logical arguments and matters of fact. No amount of evidence will convince them that their position is wrong, and they will use every rhetorical trick in the book to simply deny that they’re wrong. There are a number of posters like that at the SDMB. This group of conservatives is much harder for me to get my head around.
Understanding encompasses both an intellectual and an emotional dimension. The emotional dimension is usually understood as empathy, or maybe, to speak in psychoanalytic terms for a second, as identification. With regard to this particularly extreme group of conservatives: 1) intellectual understanding is impossible, because there is no real logic to their worldview; and 2) empathy is difficult, if not impossible, because the view they espouse is so fundamentally dangerous and destructive, both to themselves and to others.
I want you to present for me a way of understanding the rationality of conservatives who still ardently deny, in the face of all evidence, the reality of global climate change and the role human activities play in that change.
First you argue that this particular conservative stance is understandable because, at our current state of knowledge, “doing something” is “a symbolic act that in no way alters, reduces, or otherwises does anything to the problem”, then, later, you concede:
?
I don’t understand how “slowing down the acceleration of the process” does not equal slowing down the process. Your argument is incoherent to me. Even if Obama’s proposals aren’t enough – and I certainly don’t think they are – I don’t see how this equates to a decision to nothing instead.
May I employ a metaphor? Breast cancer is a deadly illness. With proper treatment, we can reduce the risk of fatal outcome from ~95% to ~51%. Just because we can’t cure breast cancer outright, does that mean we should forgo all treatment?
Natty Bumppo:
I don’t know if she’s the norm for conservatives. But I do know that 28% of US voters still support Bush. We know that there have been emails circulating that accuse Obama of being a Muslim. These emails don’t exist i vacuum.
I think I’m suggesting that a certain strain of conservatism is sort of the political expression of a certain kind of nationalistic, jingoistic, willful ignorance.
Oh, absolutely. And there are also very intelligent, enlightened conservatives who have my utmost respect. Patriot X, Collunsbury (I think), and Airman Doors spring to mind.
Yup.
Tee hee! I’ve been here eight years, on and off, pal.
Here: try this, if you have the patience.