I think it’s more egregious they don’t actually seem to know much about history. Democrats seem to think the party has always been a bastion of liberalism. And just about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard is when Republicans start talking about being the “Party of Lincoln.” The fact of the matter is that the “Party of Lincoln” was essentially considered to be composed of foaming-at-the-mouth left-wingers. That’s why they were called “Radical” Republicans. That Republican Party advocated the “government handout” (e.g. the Homestead Act) and “big government” (e.g. Radical Reconstruction, federal interference into so-called States’ Rights). The traditional left-right axis when considering only institutional change (left to right):
Radical -> replace existing institutions with new institutions
Progressive -> keep existing institutions but replace old ideas with new ideas
Status Quo -> maintain existing institutions unchanged
Regressive -> keep existing institutions but replace new ideas with old ideas
Reactionary -> replace existing institutions with old institutions
The Republicans were deemed radical because most of them believed in abolition (i.e. replacing the existing institution of slavery with a new institution of basic freedom). They were also called “destructives” because of this.
Only since around January 1981. Previously, the crazy was more evenly distributed across US political parties. Bush 41 made a reality-based critique of supply side crackpottery for example: he called it voodoo economics when he was running in the GOP primary. (He recanted afterwards after becoming VP.)
He wasn’t a dullard, but Nixon thought he was a lightweight. Nixon was correct by the standards of the day. Afterwards Bush got a lot more experienced and a little better, while GOP standards basically nose-coned. Exapno Mapcase was presumably referring to 43 though.
That depends on the degree of “historically” you’re talking about. The folks you’re describing are Social Conservatives. This is a generalization but, especially before 1964, those folks were probably Democrats, not Republicans. The electoral strength of Social Conservatism has always been based in the southern states, particularly the states of the Old Confederacy. This region was called the “Solid South” because it generally voted Democrat for nearly 100 years following the Civil War. Their vote was primarily driven by the perceived need to maintain the socially Conservative policies of Jim Crow. Until 1964, Republican Party platforms contained planks calling for equal rights for black people so the south basically operated under a one-party system where only Democrats were supported. Agitation had been building for some years but significant changes to this political paradigm did not begin to occur until 1964.
It’s not so much that Democrats are pro-science, as the facts have a liberal bias. For now. When the facts do not have a liberal bias, most Democrats oppose the facts as well as any Republican.
Not only that, but since all politicians put politics over science, in places where yuppie anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO types are strong, such as in California, they infect liberal politicians with their irrationality.
How can “facts” have a “liberal bias”? And when did objectivity become an ideological thought process? Is objective reality no longer that which is the same for everyone? I’m not questioning the notion Democrats can ignore facts as well as a Republican, only the idea that actual “facts” are ideologically biased.
Now, lets see. If you were correct then their irrationality would be a winner and Democreats in power would be following that ignorance. Right?
Wrong.
Sure, the anti vaccine people got concessions before, but once trouble comes politicians have to yield to science.
Again, it may happen that politicians put politics over science, but as Tyson told us we have to make an effort to be the self correcting system, and that is not impossible as we have seen several times already. And even in the example you presented. (that was for the anti vaccines, the GMO issue is more bipartisan)
There are times were the politicians in power are at odds on what the majority thinks and sometimes that matches what science is reporting and the Republicans are becoming experts on not giving a hoot. Regarding climate change the Republicans in power are acting in favor of their big fossil fuel contributors and not the majority of the people they represent, with the exception of course of the places were fossil fuels are a big source of employment. In that case one should had seen years ago an effort to help the people change livelihoods but the Republicans are also not much willing to pay for it.
It’s a reference to a joke from Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report.
Since then it’s become shorthand for pointing out that conservatives have a penchant for denying facts when they don’t fit their ideological beliefs. adaher, a conservative, of course wants to say that “Democrats do it, too.” IMO, a false equivalence, but I will agree that it can happen, though they don’t make denial a fetish of inclusion into their ranks.
If you don’t understand something this basic about modern political discourse, you’re going to have some problems here.
It’s fine to be opposed to some parts of free trade treaties, such as IP protections that are mainly corporate giveaways, but most Democratic opposition to free trade can be summed up in one word: protectionism.
What I mean is that the facts around the hot button scientific issues tend to favor the liberal view. At this time. Things have not always been that way, nor will they always be that way. But as long as facts support liberals’ policy preferences, liberals will be pro-science. Once the facts point in a direction they don’t like, they’ll be mysteriously against funding scientific programs that create such adverse evidence.
Unfortunately that issue is moot as it is a bipartisan idea now. But, Trump and the tea party is even more protectionist than the Democrats this time around.
Opposition to nuclear power is also bipartisan, (And I know that while there is nuclear power in Arizona the drive to build new nuclear plants is not much there** even if this is a very red state**, and you can hear crickets now after there was some noise to have the nation’s nuclear dump in Arizona if Nevada continues to oppose it) but the Democrats are not opposed to Nuclear power if it is under a framework to deal with our emissions and climate change.
Needelss to say, the Republicans have opposed bills that include support of nuclear power with the development of renewables. Because, well, shucks, Global warming is a myth. :rolleyes:
That’s a completely absurd meaningless statement. “Free trade” is not a thing that one is automatically for or against; free trade in any given context is an instance of a specific agreement usually involving a very large set of specific stipulations that should be judged on their merits. Nuclear power is somewhat the same way. I tend to say that I’m in favor of it, which I am (and I’m a liberal, how about that!) but no one should ever say, “go ahead and build whatever you want, I don’t care”. Nuclear plants need to assessed on need, cost, safety, and available alternatives.
Complete bullshit. Conservatives today are well identified as the demographic who deny well established modern science with regard to climate change, they oppose stem cell research, they believe Biblical fairy tales about creation, they deny evolution, and they implicitly deny science in some of the anti-abortion arguments by arguing for humanness and sentience in a spatter of organic chemicals. Conservatives also condemn universities as liberal enclaves because they promote science and education. When have liberals ever held such laughable counterfactual positions with respect to modern science, knowledge, and education?
Liberals actually seem quite uncomfortable with basic economic principles, supply and demand being at the top of the list. They also aren’t too fond of public choice theory, which has a habit of producing predictions that government programs won’t work nearly as well as hoped.
Bullshit too. Because the item here is what they are teaching in Universities. I worked once at UC Berkeley, suffice to say that the business library did not even have pictures of famous socialists in the building. But the biggest minds in economics through history.
Before you continue it has to be pointed out that you are found to be chronically wrong here.
If you want to talk about economics, which party and which ideology invented the fraud of “trickle-down economics”? And then, when it was discredited, tried to disguise exactly the same thing as “supply-side economics” which, when Bush the lesser tried it on behalf of his wealthy friends and benefactors, was opposed in a joint public statement by no fewer than ten Nobel laureates? And how come the economy was booming and the deficit declining by the end of the Clinton presidency, and the economy a steaming pile of rubble by the end of the Bush presidency, with its vaunted supply-side tax-cutting theories?
As for public choice theory, it’s not clear that it has any strong ideological alignment. And as far as how well government programs work, ISTM that liberals are far more willing to look to Europe and other advanced democracies for object lessons in policy outcomes, while conservatives are more inclined to a spiritual belief in American exceptionalism without any evidential basis, because, gosh darn it, they just know what works. Same way they know that God created Adam, Eve, and a talking snake.
As a pro-nuclear liberal, I wish the other side spent more time making the argument that more investment in nuclear power would go a long way towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, they seem more interested in arguing that anthropogenic global warming is a lie spun by unscrupulous scientists.
I’m not saying the Democrats always listen to the science, but I haven’t seen them intentionally sow outright distrust of and disdain for scientists the way the modern Republican Party has. Ignoring science leads to bad public policy - but telling people that scientists are liars undermines our chances of ever electing anyone who will fix those policies.
Right, but in practice, these topics are more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no”. Otherwise there would be no debate.
“Liberal bias” in the sense that more left-leaning positions are supported by objective facts and evidence. For example:
-Conservative views on guns providing safety vs actual gun death statistics
-99% of the scientific communities position on global warming
I feel like there was a time when there was more reasonable fact-based non-crazy positions that could be taken by both sides on pretty much any issue. But not any more. With the internet and 24 hour news, it’s all about getting moderately to uninformed people riled up.
