T/F: Misinformation, ignorance, and fallacy is the bread and butter of the Republican party

[TheFatKid]

@Cort

I think the reason for this may be that, among the pitchfork-wielding, anti-reality “base” themselves, the perception is that they are not getting their message out. They believe that they are victims of a vast left-wing information conspiracy and that only a few brave souls among them (who, coincidentally enough, nearly all have jobs on FOX News or AM radio) are in any position to tell them the truth. So they all pay attention and then do their best to spread the message as far and wide as possible. In their minds, they’re simply fighting the good fight. It also explains why they’re always so angry about everything.

Ayup. Very similar to CPS (Christian Persecution Syndrome – you know, folks who believe that Christians are being discriminated against and threatened with extinction in the most Xian nation on earth).

Of course, losing the White House and Congress has turbo-charged the effect. The right-wing base firmly believed they were being marginalized even when they held both branches and were dominant in the meda. Now they’re downright apoplectic.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@Cagey_Drifter

I don’t typically like extreme views, and so I don’t usually paint with a broad brush; but as I think about the Republican party, particularly in recent years, I realize that almost their entire method of propagating ideology is by erasing nuance in discussion; using fallacy to quell opposition; creating fictitious bogeymen that play on xenophobia, homophobia, and vague fears about “socialism”; spreading shocking lies that play on prejudices and “No true Scotsman”-type appeals to create groundswell support; using meaningless thought-terminating cliches to gain agreement without using logic; and the list goes on. In fact, I can’t really think of a time in the recent past in which the Republican party or its mouthpieces actually used logic or well-reasoned arguments to further political discussion or discourse. All I ever hear is elementary-school level retorts, accusations, innuendo-- which unfortunately work better in our political climate than nuanced discussion that involves complexities and being informed. For the record, I personally like certain conservative principles, like fiscal responsibility and low-government interference in personal affairs, but the Republican party doesn’t even seem to espouse these values anymore. I realize that SD probably leans Democratic, but does anyone here disagree with what I just said about Republican political strategy?

Is this supposed to be an argument? Or an object-lesson in what you accuse the GOP of doing?

[GIGObuster]

The recent stolen emails case made the usual deniers claim for 100th time that global warming was not taking place or that there is no consensus or a fake consensus.

I then remembered the presentation of Historian Naomi Oreskes on “The American Denial of Global Warming”

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/02/oreskes_on_the_american_denial.php

Long video there, but it is recommended to see it.

That presentation touches on other items that are more relevant to the discussion at hand, it points to political ideology as the main reason why mostly Republicans in recent times are embracing misinformation, ignorance, and fallacy

As the video is long, here are the highlights with the time in the video they appear:

00:00 Introduction

02:00 Frank Luntz

04:00 2001 IPCC TAR, but many decades of science before

10:30 1957 Suess & Revelle; “Big Greenhouse” in Time Magazine

14:00 1964/65 NAS Science Advisory Committee; President’s Science Advisory Committee “In those days, politicians listened to scientists”;bipartisanship.

17:30 1970s NRC; JASON; “Charney Report”

23:30 1988 IPCC formed; US National Energy Policy Act; George H. W. Bush

DENIAL

26:30 Why is there denial? Where did it come from?

29:15: 1984 George C. Marshal Institute founded by William Jastrow

Added William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz; S. Fred Singer later. Original goal: Cold War, support Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative from other physicists) Tactics: threaten PBS stations with lawsuits under “Fairness Doctrine” Create uncertainty

36:00 1990, cold war over, switch to other areas [global warming, CFC-ozone, tobacco] No Greenhouse problem, as long as free market allowed to solve!

39:00 1995 IPCC SAR, personal attacks on Ben Santer

42:00 1995 Connection with tobacco, Seitz, tactics Create doubt, do not publish science, but in popular literature, op-eds, Wall Street Journal

53:30 Why? In each case, political views [NO REGULATION, EVER] masked as arguments about science. [People can have whatever political views they want, but the proper place to discuss them is in politics, not by fudging science.]

Those groups and think tanks were notorious for coming with opinions and biased research that supported inaction by politicians regarding subjects like Tobacco, Ozone depletion chemicals, Acid rain causing chemicals, and then greenhouse gases like CO2. In all cases further research showed that outfits like the Marshal Institute were wrong.

As Naomi Oreskes notices, even with the fact that their research and opinion were debunked in the past, those outfits almost never acknowledge that they lost or are losing in the scientific arena, people going to their sites can almost never find any acknowledgment that current or new research has made their points non-operational, so then others just continue to repeat those items. It will not affect the science, the intention is to influence the politicians and the people.

Their dogma drives the opposition to any government oversight or control, even if the health of the environment and the people are at stake.

It is not a perfect match, but lately the politicians that continue to accept the verdicts of anti-science groups are coming from the Republican side of the isle.