3 ms·

I think if you view this through the lens of identity politics it makes a bit more sense why you're seeing such an attack on education and universities. That's

I think if you view this through the lens of identity politics it makes a bit more sense why you're seeing such an attack on education and universities. That's true, and when non-progressives are regularly called Nazis, threatened, and assaulted on campuses I can't blame the right too much for wanting to stick it to them. When climate denial and the rejection of basic science is one of the pillars of the party then this is a logical extension. Basic science like the relative safety of nuclear power and GMOs? The left is just as happy as the right to ignore the scientific consensus when it conflicts with their ideology. Specifically on climate change, if the left had been willing to focus on actually solving the problem we probably could have had a revenue-neutral carbon tax by now. Instead they've used it as a vehicle to attack businesses and demand more government control of the economy, and the inevitable result is that it makes the right interpret the question "does human activity cause climate change?" as "are you a socialist hippie?"

mikeash 9y ago
Plenty of leftists favor nuclear power and GMOs. Those issues are not an inherent part of the Democratic Party platform the way climate change denial is an inherent part of the Republican platform. Blaming Democrats for Republican attitudes toward climate change is rich. The recent trend to blame the left for all the bad things done on the right is just hilarious, given how much Republicans talk about “personal responsibility.” No, Democrats aren’t to blame for Republican denial of climate change or support for Donald Trump or anything else like that. Republicans are responsible for the stuff they do.
philwelch 9y ago
> Specifically on climate change, if the left had been willing to focus on actually solving the problem we probably could have had a revenue-neutral carbon tax by now. What the hell? Having a revenue-neutral carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) has been the environmentalist left’s primary goal this whole time. But the economic right is bankrolled by fossil fuel interests (e.g. the Koch brothers) so that is a non-starter. If you were going to criticize the left for rejecting basic science, the whole “nature vs. nurture” controversy would be a much better example. The notion that little boys and girls are exactly the same before we socialize them with gender roles is a political dogma that doesn’t hold up against the science.
- orangecat 9y ago
  Having a revenue-neutral carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) has been the environmentalist left’s primary goal this whole time. When Washington state tried to do that, most environmentalist groups opposed it because it returned the revenue to taxpayers rather than spending it on their pet projects: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112016/washington-state-carbon-tax-i-732-ballot-measure https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112016/washington-state.... (Yes, most Republicans also opposed it, and they're wrong). If you were going to criticize the left for rejecting basic science, the whole “nature vs. nurture” controversy would be a much better example. Totally agreed. I only didn't mention that because it has more of a tendency to derail the conversation.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    I live in Washington; our state’s schools are woefully underfunded and a series of ballot initiatives over the past two decades has crippled our ability to fund basic services, so “revenue neutral” isn’t going to cut it, especially when our state tax burden is extremely regressive to begin with, and especially when the tax is inherently Pigouvian and is designed to produce declining revenue in the long run. It also makes virtually no sense to tax carbon on the state level anyway.
vvanders 9y ago
I don't think you see anyone on the left arguing the science behind nuclear power, I think you see a lot of them arguing against the policy. Up here in WA state we're still having to deal with the fallout from Hanford that is causing serious problems 50+ years later. Most of the arguments around GMOs are along a similar vein, we don't deny that the science behind it works. Just that it's very poor policy to have a single giant conglomerate control the majority of the food production in the US. Heck, I think GMOs targeting drought tolerant areas are awesome, but ones where they can enforce IP control over farmers is pretty abhorrent to me. Saying that the left is ignoring science is a pretty disingenuous foundation of a position to take.

mikeash 9y ago

Plenty of leftists favor nuclear power and GMOs. Those issues are not an inherent part of the Democratic Party platform the way climate change denial is an inherent part of the Republican platform. Blaming Democrats for Republican attitudes toward climate change is rich. The recent trend to blame the left for all the bad things done on the right is just hilarious, given how much Republicans talk about “personal responsibility.” No, Democrats aren’t to blame for Republican denial of climate change or support for Donald Trump or anything else like that. Republicans are responsible for the stuff they do.

philwelch 9y ago

> Specifically on climate change, if the left had been willing to focus on actually solving the problem we probably could have had a revenue-neutral carbon tax by now. What the hell? Having a revenue-neutral carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) has been the environmentalist left’s primary goal this whole time. But the economic right is bankrolled by fossil fuel interests (e.g. the Koch brothers) so that is a non-starter. If you were going to criticize the left for rejecting basic science, the whole “nature vs. nurture” controversy would be a much better example. The notion that little boys and girls are exactly the same before we socialize them with gender roles is a political dogma that doesn’t hold up against the science.

orangecat 9y ago
Having a revenue-neutral carbon tax (or cap-and-trade) has been the environmentalist left’s primary goal this whole time. When Washington state tried to do that, most environmentalist groups opposed it because it returned the revenue to taxpayers rather than spending it on their pet projects: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112016/washington-state-carbon-tax-i-732-ballot-measure https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112016/washington-state.... (Yes, most Republicans also opposed it, and they're wrong). If you were going to criticize the left for rejecting basic science, the whole “nature vs. nurture” controversy would be a much better example. Totally agreed. I only didn't mention that because it has more of a tendency to derail the conversation.
- philwelch 9y ago
  I live in Washington; our state’s schools are woefully underfunded and a series of ballot initiatives over the past two decades has crippled our ability to fund basic services, so “revenue neutral” isn’t going to cut it, especially when our state tax burden is extremely regressive to begin with, and especially when the tax is inherently Pigouvian and is designed to produce declining revenue in the long run. It also makes virtually no sense to tax carbon on the state level anyway.

vvanders 9y ago

I don't think you see anyone on the left arguing the science behind nuclear power, I think you see a lot of them arguing against the policy. Up here in WA state we're still having to deal with the fallout from Hanford that is causing serious problems 50+ years later. Most of the arguments around GMOs are along a similar vein, we don't deny that the science behind it works. Just that it's very poor policy to have a single giant conglomerate control the majority of the food production in the US. Heck, I think GMOs targeting drought tolerant areas are awesome, but ones where they can enforce IP control over farmers is pretty abhorrent to me. Saying that the left is ignoring science is a pretty disingenuous foundation of a position to take.