Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Norman J. Wade
Oct 6, 2017, 6:05:47 PM10/6/17
to
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists?
Ask the Republican Party.
It lives in such a world.
Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table.
It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town
hall meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to
believe absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound
reasoning as the basis for public policy development.
The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't
expect it from their leaders.
They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue
with a cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
GOP's Hispanic deficit.
Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify
with or lean toward the Republican Party.
But that's a full house compared with scientists.
Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the
Pew Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the
GOP, while fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats
or lean Democratic.
We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to
evidence-based thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo,
global warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration
helping cement the image by persistently subverting science to
serve a religious agenda or corporate greed.
But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a
party in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of
embryonic stem cell research, 39 percent believe humans have
always existed on Earth in their present form, and in which only
30 percent say human activity is warming the planet.
It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't
think that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to
them.
Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise
and create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and
prosperous middle class sits on the shoulders of people who
understand and practice the scientific method.
Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the
physical universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to
professionals now represented by only one of our nation's two
major political parties ? while the other party attempts to
obstruct them.
Global warming is a prime example.
Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon
is warning that our national security is at risk if climate change
is not arrested.
All Americans and politicians should be united for collective
action.
Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring
and suppressing scientific concerns.
Even today, with the effects of global warming evident,
Republicans in Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade
energy bill, the nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough)
to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Their alternative is to offer nothing.
Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership
is not wont to do.
Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists"
with a good education, complex charts and empirical data.
They see it to their political advantage to rally people to
distrust science.
That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment
? advancements that translate directly into economic progress and
rising living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with
substantial majorities.
But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a
GOP resurgence could very well come.
Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
describe it.
Why scientists are seldom Republicans
By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists?
Ask the Republican Party.
It lives in such a world.
Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
kitchen table.
It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town
hall meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to
believe absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound
reasoning as the basis for public policy development.
The people left don't have that kind of discipline and don't
expect it from their leaders.
They are willing to believe anything some right-wing demagogue
with a cable show or pulpit tells them, no matter how outlandish.
Since the Sonia Sotomayor nomination we've been hearing about the
GOP's Hispanic deficit.
Only 26 percent of Latino registered voters now say they identify
with or lean toward the Republican Party.
But that's a full house compared with scientists.
Only 12 percent of scientists in a poll issued last month by the
Pew Research Center say they are Republican or lean toward the
GOP, while fully 81 percent of scientists say they are Democrats
or lean Democratic.
We shouldn't be surprised that people who are open to
evidence-based thinking have abandoned the Republican Party.
The GOP has proudly adopted the mantle of the "Terri Schiavo,
global warming shwarming" party with the Bush administration
helping cement the image by persistently subverting science to
serve a religious agenda or corporate greed.
But what worries me is not the shrunken relevancy of the GOP, a
party in which 56 percent of its members oppose funding of
embryonic stem cell research, 39 percent believe humans have
always existed on Earth in their present form, and in which only
30 percent say human activity is warming the planet.
It is that this nation's future depends upon people who don't
think that way and the Republican Party is closing the door to
them.
Every hope we have to invent our way out of this economic malaise
and create enough Information Age jobs to maintain a stable and
prosperous middle class sits on the shoulders of people who
understand and practice the scientific method.
Every hope we have of advancing human understanding of the
physical universe and bettering our lives in it, is tied to
professionals now represented by only one of our nation's two
major political parties ? while the other party attempts to
obstruct them.
Global warming is a prime example.
Earth is under siege by CO2 emissions to a point that the Pentagon
is warning that our national security is at risk if climate change
is not arrested.
All Americans and politicians should be united for collective
action.
Yet George Bush spent essentially his entire presidency ignoring
and suppressing scientific concerns.
Even today, with the effects of global warming evident,
Republicans in Congress are trying to bury the cap-and-trade
energy bill, the nation's first attempt (albeit not strong enough)
to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Their alternative is to offer nothing.
Why are they so blind to the looming crisis?
Because to embrace what scientists are saying about global warming
would give political liberals a win, something the GOP leadership
is not wont to do.
Republicans build their political careers disdaining "elitists"
with a good education, complex charts and empirical data.
They see it to their political advantage to rally people to
distrust science.
That means our nation is only likely to advance to meet the heady
scientific challenges of the future, on health and the environment
? advancements that translate directly into economic progress and
rising living standards ? if the Democrats remain in power with
substantial majorities.
But if the nation's economic situation doesn't turn around soon, a
GOP resurgence could very well come.
Then scientists will once again be on the defensive against a
Republican Party that left them behind in favor of the Tea Party
crowd, the birthers, and the people who shout at town halls that
government better keep its hands off their Medicare.
Theirs is a world without scientists, and scary doesn't begin to
describe it.
Joe
Oct 7, 2017, 4:55:39 AM10/7/17
to
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 22:05:46 +0000 (UTC)
"Norman J. Wade" <norma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Republicans....
> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound
> reasoning as the basis for public policy development.
>
>
That would be the kind of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and
sound reasoning that proposed Hillary Clinton for president because 'it
was her turn', would it?
This kind of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and sound
reasoning?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/amazing-video-compilation-devastated-dems-freaking-out-over-trump-victory
The kind of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and sound reasoning
that these students are being taught?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-15/student-kicked-out-class-disagreeing-trump-election-was-bad-911
From outside the US, your precious Democrats look like fruitcakes, to a
man (and woman). As for 'scientists', many of them work for one or
other branch of government, so there is no way to know their political
sympathies. They must all claim to be Democrats, or else lose their
jobs, in that hotbed of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and
sound reasoning (and above all, impartiality and fairness) that is the
US (and UK) public sector.
And to mention 'sound reasoning' and 'public policy development' in the
same sentence, that's quite impressive, though possibly not in the way
intended. We all know what drives 'public policy development'.
--
Joe
"Norman J. Wade" <norma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Republicans....
> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound
> reasoning as the basis for public policy development.
>
>
sound reasoning that proposed Hillary Clinton for president because 'it
was her turn', would it?
This kind of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and sound
reasoning?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-10/amazing-video-compilation-devastated-dems-freaking-out-over-trump-victory
The kind of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and sound reasoning
that these students are being taught?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-15/student-kicked-out-class-disagreeing-trump-election-was-bad-911
From outside the US, your precious Democrats look like fruitcakes, to a
man (and woman). As for 'scientists', many of them work for one or
other branch of government, so there is no way to know their political
sympathies. They must all claim to be Democrats, or else lose their
jobs, in that hotbed of intellectual rigour, objective evidence and
sound reasoning (and above all, impartiality and fairness) that is the
US (and UK) public sector.
And to mention 'sound reasoning' and 'public policy development' in the
same sentence, that's quite impressive, though possibly not in the way
intended. We all know what drives 'public policy development'.
--
Joe
Gronk
Oct 20, 2017, 10:51:26 PM10/20/17
to
Norman J. Wade wrote:
> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> scientists?
>
> Ask the Republican Party.
>
> It lives in such a world.
>
> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> kitchen table.
>
> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town
> hall meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to
> believe absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
>
> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound
> reasoning as the basis for public policy development.
Here's another clue
> Why scientists are seldom Republicans
> By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist
>
> Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
> scientists?
>
> Ask the Republican Party.
>
> It lives in such a world.
>
> Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party
> anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there
> won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a
> kitchen table.
>
> It is no wonder the Republican throngs showing up to disrupt town
> hall meetings on health care reform are so gullible, willing to
> believe absurd claims like the coming of "death panels."
>
> Their party is nearly devoid of neuroscientists, astrophysicists,
> marine biologists or any other scientific professional who would
> insist on intellectual rigor, objective evidence and sound
> reasoning as the basis for public policy development.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340
Doonald Trump isn’t a simpleton, he just talks like one. If you were to
market Donald Trump’s vocabulary as a toy, it would resemble a small box
of Lincoln Logs. Trump resists multisyllabic words and complex, writerly
sentence constructions when speaking extemporaneously in a debate, at a
news conference or in an interview. He prefers to link short, blocky words
into other short, blocky words to create short, blocky sentences that he
then stacks into short, blocky paragraphs.
0 new messages