TW: I agree with Sullivan in that I suspect many scientists are not so liberal on many economic and national security issues but when the right stresses anti-intellectualism so strongly relative to social issues then it becomes tough for them to identify with the conservatives. As I mention frequently Rockefeller Republicanism is a popular political strain it has merely been eradicated almost completely from the Republican Party and absorbed, if not fully at least partially, into the Democratic Party.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Robin Hanson points to the above graph from a recent survey and posits:
'If the public knew the truth, I expect two effects:
The public would consider scientists to be less authoritative as a neutral source on policy questions, and
Since scientists are respected, the public would become less conservative and more liberal.'
The public would consider scientists to be less authoritative as a neutral source on policy questions, and
Since scientists are respected, the public would become less conservative and more liberal.'
But it seems to me that scientists may simply be responding to the redefinition of conservatism in America as a fundamentalist...religious grouping that denies evolution, favors (intellectually indefensible) Bibical literalism, and has a problem with the Enlightenment. Many scientists might remain conservative in the sense I hold - belief in limited government, pragmatic change, individual freedom - but feel they have to call themsleves "liberal" considering the views of those who now go by the name "conservative."
No comments:
Post a Comment