Climate science and fetal-tissue research under attack

I think a class action counter suit would be a goof idea. Convict them of wrongful prosecution and get them all kicked put of office. That should send the right message. No Mr. McCarthy, we will not allow that to happen again.

DS said: I think a class action counter suit would be a goof idea. Convict them of wrongful prosecution and get them all kicked put of office. That should send the right message. No Mr. McCarthy, we will not allow that to happen again.

Rep. Blackburn's just phoning it in - what a piker!

She didn't subpoena James Hansen, or anybody in Planned Parenthood, or either Clinton, or even Al Gore.

Doesn't Blackburn know there's an election on?

Rep. Blackburn’s just phoning it in - what a piker!

Science is an endeavour for increasing our understanding about how our environment works.

Democracy is a political form of government, in which the majority decides the course of actions.

Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Maybe he had in mind that the people could vote for an option that is clearly against the best current (scientific) knowledge.

I do not endorse a society governed by scientist. Even so, I think it would be wise to take into account the finds in science also in political decision making.

It appears to me that the motivation to attack science is always that the finds in the science (and the implications of those finds) are not pleasing to a person or a group. The motivation may be ideological (creationism) or simply political (climate change denial). Either way, it is perfectly allowed to oppose science in a democratic society. And – it is always a political decision to finance research on fetus tissue or space exploration.

Things get worse, when science denial is justified by mangling scientific concepts. It is understandable that at least some of the scientists will respond (3rd task of the scientists). You can believe what you like and vote as you like, but science is not democratic. Solid evidence is needed.

Any human society offers ways to misuse the very accepted rules that intend to protect the individuals. Lawsuits can be used to harass others. Police banging aggressively on the door might be frightening, but it is totally another beast. This incident, which probably seeks to add a human perspective to the story, might reflect inadequate training of the police force in the US. It is not part of science denial.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

If the politicians refuse to listen to the scientists, if they ignore them or persecute them, if they pretend that a scientific consensus does not exist, then that society is doomed. That is exactly what is happening in the United States. We are seriously considering a candidate for president who is on record as saying that climate change is a hoax. If that person is elected, you can expect more inquisitions and witch hunts. Climate change is an inconvenient truth, but truth none the less.

Matt Young said:

Rep. Blackburn’s just phoning it in - what a piker!

I do not understand - did she phone in after the segment was broadcast? Do you have a link? The link I provided still says, "(Science Friday offered Representative Blackburn’s office a chance to respond to these criticisms. As of this article’s publication, we have not received a statement.)."

Including fetal tissue research together with climate change is bizarre. The Discovery Institute does something similar when it also includes "human cloning" in the list of theories in their model "academic freedom" law.

But, unlike the other topics, fetal tissue research is not the target of denial. If it were being denied that it was possible then there would be no reason for objecting to this research because it wouldn't work anyway.

No, the real criterion for adding "fetal tissue research" to the list is "things Rep. Blackburn is unhappy with".

Matt Young: ... did she phone in after the segment was broadcast?

As Joe F notes, I used the phrase metaphorically, to indicate she was just going through the motions, not giving her project its full demagogic due. (See Benghazi hearings, etc.)

Pls recalibrate your sarcasmometer.

My sarcasmometer is fine: it is expressions coined after 2000 for which I am not responsible. Rep. Blackburn was supposed to join them by telephone -- at least was invited to do so -- but she never, um, called in. I wish she were only going through the motions, but I am afraid that she has so far at a minimum inconvenienced at least 80 individuals and institutions.

Matt Young said: My sarcasmometer is fine: it is expressions coined after 2000 for which I am not responsible. Rep. Blackburn was supposed to join them by telephone -- at least was invited to do so -- but she never, um, called in. I wish she were only going through the motions, but I am afraid that she has so far at a minimum inconvenienced at least 80 individuals and institutions.

DS said: And that should be grounds for prosecution for judicial misconduct and a class action law suit for harassment. "I don't like it" is not justification for a congressional hearing. DIdn't we learn anything from McCarthy? Are we still going to let crap like this go on in this country? What's next, evolutionary biologists? Has she actually charged anyone with anything? Has she actually uncovered any illegal activity? Is this just another political power play? Can't people just refuse to testify or plead a fifth of vodka or something?

Let me correct my comment above. I was thinking of the Discovery Institute and state legislators who have introduced "academic freedom" bills that has a list of topics that they are upset with, with "human cloning" tacked on at the end in an illogical way.

But reading the text of the NPR story linked to above, I see that Representative Blackburn concentrated on fetal tissue research from the start. So it is not a bizarre tacked-on issue. It is just that she has run wild, making it clear that legislative intent is not what she is concentrating on.

sez Matt Young: "My sarcasmometer is fine: it is expressions coined after 2000 for which I am not responsible."

If this webpage can be trusted, the idiom 'phone it in' has been in live use since before the 1950s…

Donald Trump is not the problem; Trump is a symptom. The actual problem is the however-many tens of millions of people who made Trump's candidacy possible. I don't pretend to have any solutions for this problem, but at the very least, one thing I think might be helpful is for people to stop voting Republican. For any office whatsoever. The GOP's active embrace of the bigoted, ignorant, White segment of the population has won them big political gains over the past few decades; as such, the GOP almost certainly does not see any reason to stop embracing bigoted White ignoramuses. But if membership in the Republican party becomes a liability—if that "R" next to a candidate's name starts to mean fewer and fewer votes — then the GOP will find a reason to stop embracing bigoted White ignoramuses. Or if the GOP keeps on keepin' on with their current playbook, it will continue to hang onto its majority status among an ever-shrinking demographic.

If the US population chooses, collectively, to stop voting for Republicans, either the GOP will become sane again, or it will become a political irrelevance. And… you know what? Either way is fine by me.

So, if they are not being charged with anything, why do they need representation? What would be the penalty for refusing to testify? How does a subpoena set your research back one year?

If congress wants to become educated by scientists so that they could make rational choices regarding science policies, they are certainly going about it the wrong way. If they don't want to become educated by the experts, why not? Are they going to use this circus as a pretense to cut funding to these areas of study? Is there anything that can be done to stop this madness? Anything? Or are scientists going to become the new "communist threat"?

Maybe there should be an investigation of the climate deniers, in order to determine where their finding is coming from. After that, it might be harder for anyone to call climate change a "hoax'.

Climate deniers don't receive federal research funds. So this sort of 'investigation' would not happen.

Yes, it is very disruptive to have people arbitrarily come in and require you to provide records. It is unjust if it sets back your research for one afternoon.

Someone commented on an ignorant electorate. Well, there always will be large numbers of ignorant and bloody-minded people. I don't know what the rules are for Congressional subpoenas, but if the hard-right faction can elect just a few members, it won't matter even if the vast majority oppose them.

Scientists need to form a national organization, or a branch within an existing organization, to oppose this harassment. We know what this Representative is doing; she aims to punish people who disagree with her. Again, I don't know what are the rules for this sort of thing, but there must be some limits on the triviality of Congressional subpoenas. Fighting back needs organization, and there has to be some point at which this harassment can be proved to be pure abuse of power.

Possibly the researchers can sue the government if they cannot sue the individual involved.

Can members of Congress be impeached?

If this webpage can be trusted, the idiom ‘phone it in’ has been in live use since before the 1950s…

Just Bob said: Also, I believe a congressional committee isn't necessarily looking for illegality, and doesn't need to be. The only thing they can charge anyone with is contempt of Congress for refusing to testify. A Committee can hold hearings merely to seek information, and AIUI, most are not aimed at uncovering wrongdoing at all.

A good lawyer might be able to insist on Gu being granted immunity from federal prosecution for all matters testified to. Otherwise Gu would just take the Fifth Amendment on all questions.

Joe Felsenstein said: A good lawyer might be able to insist on Gu being granted immunity from federal prosecution for all matters testified to. Otherwise Gu would just take the Fifth Amendment on all questions.

Maybe each scientist should plead the fifth to every question. But we should note that scientists don't have to be charged with a crime or even suspected to be subpoenaed in this way. There even are circumstances, not obtaining here, in which Congressional hearings might be legitimate even when crime is not suspected - the people are paying for this you know.

There is every reason to think that in this case, the subpoenas will be given and acted upon, but the hearings won't be scheduled. As we know, the Congressperson's game is to injure these scientists, not to engage in a legitimate fact-finding investigation. She will achieve her goals even if the hearings are never scheduled; testimony need not be taken to injure the scientists.

So pleading the fifth does not solve the main problem, which is delaying and inconveniencing the scientists with paperwork and the hand-over of records. This person, and the Republican Party generally, are just looking for any means to hurt people they don't like.

RJ said: - the people are paying for this you know.

If Congress is scheduling hearings to genuinely investigate what legislation is needed, they would not engage is massive over-subpoena-ing. If they were engaged in a McCarthy-style witchhunt in an atmosphere of general hysteria, they need hearings to have drama in which the victims are pressured to "name names" of more victims. Usually the issue of legislation gets shoved into the background and more or less forgotten, as the objective is to show that Congress is acting boldly to hunt down the victims, and actually coming to a conclusion and issuing a report or proposing a law would leave no excuse for doing more hearings.

The present subpoenas sound like they are designed to generate publicity for Rep. Blackburn. With no more general witchhunt under way, the hearings themselves may never occur. Nevertheless the people subpoenaed need to fund a lawyer and prepare as they never know when they might actually be called.

I remember the McCarthy period vividly -- the present atmosphere is nothing like it. This sounds like just a local sideshow, though a nasty one.

DS said: The people paid for the science to be done in the first place. Another part of the the government can't come in and deny the very science they choose to fund, just because they don't like the results.

if no wrong doing has even been alleged, it's just harassment pure and simple.

Just because one party couldn't stop them from getting the funding doesn't mean that that party can now try to sabotage everything that has been accomplished. Shooting the messenger isn't only going to end poorly just for the messenger. And the people are paying for the hearings as well. Are their best interests really being served by a witch hunt completely divorced from reality? The people will also pay for denying science or impeding science, they just don't know how big that price will be.

Hey DS, I hope you didn't think I disagree with you - seeing as I said very explicitly that these subpoenas are designed solely to harass. And I certainly agree that this bullshit clearly is wasting resources the government has put into this research.

That said, yes there are circumstances in which it would be appropriate to have Congressional hearings even with no wrongdoing alleged (eric provided one example; others are easy to generate). That does not in itself constitute harassment.

What I was saying is that there needs to be a way of remedy in a case like this, when there is not a legitimate reason to have hearings. Elections can't fix this if any individual member is free to harass federally funded scientists for political reasons. Scientists need to fight back, and now.

Can a member of Congress be impeached? If there is, there would be little prospect of success. But no matter; it would be embarrassing to that member's party, deservedly. Let's find a way that scientists can fight back, by suing or filing articles of impeachment. Members of Congress need to be disincentivized from this sort of nonsense, right now, or it will just continue.

Hardball time is here.

RJ,

No problem. It seems we are in broad agreement.

However, I feel that it is imperative that political leaders not be allowed to abuse their power to promote their own ideological or religious agenda at the expense of their constituency. If that is indeed the motivation here, it is an egregious abuse of power. This is exactly the kind of thing that destroys faith in science and government. It is disturbing in the extreme that there is no recourse to curtail such behavior. Fortunately, those who would abuse that power are impotent to change the facts of science, so harassment is all they can cling to.

If anyone thinks that it is OK to allow such behavior, just remember, evolutionary biologists could be next.

I should just comment that yes, there are ways that hearings can be held to explore important issues. One can invite people to testify, without subpoena-ing them. They might be happy to give their opinions and explain them.

I think that given the present audience, there is no need to hedge your words..."If that is indeed...". It is clear, it is obvious, that this politician is abusing power by abusing scientists and thereby vitiates the efficacy of both government and science. Whether that is true is not the interesting question, because it is obvious to us supporters of science.

The interesting question: can we do something about it, something more proactive than waiting and hoping for an eventual sea change in the electorate and politicians?

Legally, you can't do anything about it.

RJ said: Elections can't fix this if any individual member is free to harass federally funded scientists for political reasons. Scientists need to fight back, and now. Can a member of Congress be impeached? If there is, there would be little prospect of success. But no matter; it would be embarrassing to that member's party, deservedly. Let's find a way that scientists can fight back, by suing or filing articles of impeachment. Members of Congress need to be disincentivized from this sort of nonsense, right now, or it will just continue.

Joe Felsenstein said: Legally, you can't do anything about it.

eric said: Rep. Blackburn's power to harass scientists appears to be stemming from her position as Chairman of the House select sub-committee investigating Planned Parenthood

I find it hard to believe that there literally is no limit to the triviality of information requests by Congress. Can Congressman Joe Schomo of Iowa subpoena records from federally-funded electrical engineering researchers because he dislikes the hair colour of engineers at his alma mater, claiming that hair dye is a safety hazard?

At any rate, I hope that professional organizations and university representatives will at least strongly advocate on behalf of scientists victimized by assholery, loudly and unambiguously pushing the massage to national media that this politician (and others like her) is attempting only to injure people doing work she doesn't like. I hope that university researchers of all disciplines will bring up the matter every single time public perception and support of universities is brought up. People should be prepared to be a little bit unreasonable on their own behalf.

I see here a small group of individuals forced to bear a burden on their own, which belongs not to them but to the research and academic community.

DS said: what is the possible connection between climate change science and planned parenthood?

DS said:

eric said: Rep. Blackburn's power to harass scientists appears to be stemming from her position as Chairman of the House select sub-committee investigating Planned Parenthood

On what basis did she initiate a hearing on climate change?

Or is this a separate hearing for some other committee that she is on?

RJ said: I find it hard to believe that there literally is no limit to the triviality of information requests by Congress. Can Congressman Joe Schomo of Iowa subpoena records from federally-funded electrical engineering researchers because he dislikes the hair colour of engineers at his alma mater, claiming that hair dye is a safety hazard?

At any rate, I hope that professional organizations and university representatives will at least strongly advocate on behalf of scientists victimized by assholery, loudly and unambiguously pushing the massage to national media that this politician (and others like her) is attempting only to injure people doing work she doesn't like.

There is only one solution.

Elections.

Where possible, vote for their Democratic challengers.

If the Democrats are in the majority all of this stops.

Unfortunately, each party holds regional bases of power. You're not going to get rid of these people by supporting their Democratic opponent if they represent some district in Oklahoma that is 98% Republican.

Primary challenges won't work, either, because you can't find a red state Republican who isn't a rabid climate science denier and anti-contraception panderer to challenge them.

The Republicans are gone insane, but have a strong base of power. A Democratic majority shuts this down, but if a protest somewhere gets violent or OPEC raises the price of oil, Americans outside of the Republican power zone, in "purple" states, may vote in a bunch of telegenic "moderate" Republicans and the whole circus starts all over again.

There is literally nothing you can do except try to keep Republicans out of power.

I am in a position to do something about this. My congressional district is contested. Clinton is going to win my state, but the congressional district is contested between a suburban Democrat and a fake "moderate" Republican who is in a state of Trump panic. So I'll vote for the Democrat.

If you live in a district that is uncontested one way or another you can't do much. You can contribute to Democrats in competitive races.

One party is gone insane. No matter what you feel about the other party, it is imperative to limit the power of the insane party. That is the state of American politics.

I'd love to have more choices and not be locked into supporting a flawed but okay consensus party, but right now, that's literally all there is. When the dike is leaking and all you have is a finger, you have to use a finger in the dike strategy. Vote for the Democrats, hold your nose if you have to, and pray to all that is holy that some idiot thing like a Democratic sex scandal or a jerk burning the American flag on the fourth of July outside a VA hospital doesn't panic the herd back toward the poison grass again.

harold said: Primary challenges won't work, either, because you can't find a red state Republican who isn't a rabid climate science denier and anti-contraception panderer to challenge them.

There’s no reason moderate republicans can’t do the same.

harold said:

There’s no reason moderate republicans can’t do the same.

I would say there is, a simple reason. I wish it weren't true. Outside of Utah, there is no constituency for them.

Trying to fix the Republican party is like trying to fix the leak on the Titanic. It's over. Man the lifeboats and let it go down.

Elsewhere we see clear proof that Republicans would rather have a guy who goes on Howard Stern to brag about grabbing women, but denies global warming, than anyone who questions what they care about.

I don't see anything to apologize for, harold. I'd be blunter; the Republicans are against America; they hate America. The Republicans are traitors, not simply wrong. The Dems, in contrast, are mostly sincere in their refusal to admit they also are right-wingers; they don't want to believe it. On a certain level, their adherence to neoliberal dreams also is irrational, but at least they do it with a smile.

A couple of things though.

I have personal experience with Mormonism and while it is likely that they are a qualitatively less hypocritical lot than most of the fundies, there are plenty of secret drinkers and pornography consumers there too. Possibly the hypocrisy is greater for converts whose cultural heritage is Catholic. Every one of my family members has now abandoned the LDS.

As to conservatism, there are a fair number of places in middle America where the mainstream Dems also are Kool-Aid drinkers. Anti-Semitic, anti-evolution, etc.

I think this already has been implied or said by others, but the evidence is that the non-crazy conservatives already have switched to the Dems. And H. Clinton would have been too right-wing to get the 1952 Republican nomination. I also don't have direct evidence for this, but it seems certain that conservative scientists have also made the switch, crazy or not. A reasonably intelligent person can only take so much constant hatred.

RJ -

I strongly agree with your analysis (as always, I also agree with much of what Eric said).

I hope Eric is right.

In the end my disagreement, if you can call it that, with him, is pure semantics anyway.

The Democratic party didn't go away, but the Democratic party of 1900 is long gone in every way. There's just a party now, which has a right wing side favoring austerity economics and a low threshold for bombing, represented by Hillary Clinton. And there's a progressive side favoring the return to policies that worked great when we had them, and adoption of a few obvious policies from abroad - affordable education, decent wages, universal health care coverage, for example. I'm also against executions and private prisons. I may someday see progress on private prisons. However, both sides are genuinely opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender, race, orientation, or religion. And both sides of the Democratic party are reasonably opposed to proposing cuts in things like social security. My subjective sense is that nobody would love to "privatize social security" more than Hillary "quarter mil for a fifteen minute talk at Golden Sachs, and that's just the fee for the talk and doesn't include the private jet, five star hotel suite, five star meals, accommodations for aides, etc" Clinton, but she knows that she chose a certain party and can't go too far outside their boundaries. She got lucky running against Trump.

So sure, maybe people like Eric can bring about changes, so that some completely different party bearing little or no resemblance is called the "Republican party" in the future, and more power to them if they can.

Trump is an incredibly gifted salesman. Politics was a mistake for him. He gained tens of millions of fanatically loyal customers with his act, but in politics only the side with the most customers gets anything. I do expect to see the Trump Network, with Ailes on board, making a solid profit, soon after the election.

Trump’s strategy of being the macho guy is losing him votes.

Perhaps you don't need to be reminded that the Democratic Party in 1900 was the home of the KKK. Then as now, I suppose, you had to take the (very) bad with the (sort of) good.

On the bright side, I've heard HRC say she wants to get rid of private prisons in the near-term, and she sounded like she actually meant it. Maybe next is a realization that private control of commodity markets and utilities is a (damned obvious) threat to national security.

harold said: There's just a party now, which has a right wing side favoring austerity economics and a low threshold for bombing, represented by Hillary Clinton. And there's a progressive side favoring the return to policies that worked great when we had them, and adoption of a few obvious policies from abroad - affordable education, decent wages, universal health care coverage, for example. I'm also against executions and private prisons. I may someday see progress on private prisons. However, both sides are genuinely opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender, race, orientation, or religion. And both sides of the Democratic party are reasonably opposed to proposing cuts in things like social security. My subjective sense is that nobody would love to "privatize social security" more than Hillary "quarter mil for a fifteen minute talk at Golden Sachs, and that's just the fee for the talk and doesn't include the private jet, five star hotel suite, five star meals, accommodations for aides, etc" Clinton, but she knows that she chose a certain party and can't go too far outside their boundaries.

harold said: I may someday see progress on private prisons. However, both sides are genuinely opposed to discrimination on the basis of gender, race, orientation, or religion. And both sides of the Democratic party are reasonably opposed to proposing cuts in things like social security. My subjective sense is that nobody would love to "privatize social security" more than Hillary

She got lucky running against Trump.

So sure, maybe people like Eric can bring about changes, so that some completely different party bearing little or no resemblance is called the "Republican party" in the future, and more power to them if they can.

Re: Utah. Consider Jon Huntsman. Former governor of Utah. The only sane Republican in the race when he ran (though he didn't last very long).

After the 2012 election, the GOP put a group together to do a "post motem". This year, no one paid any attention to what they said. After this election, someone could go through, change all the dates, punch up a few points, and reissue the report. After 2012, Bobby Jindal told the Republicans that ehy needed to stop being the "party of stupid". He went on to run--using all the stupid he'd just told them not to be. He didn't even follow his own advice.

I read discussions of US politics like this one with a horrified fascination. And I worry. I can't believe that a substantial fraction of the US population - approaching half - is actually insane, but I hear Trump speak, and I see evidence for his continued popular support, and I wonder, and shudder.

When he actually dissed a decorated veteran who had died in combat, mort pour la patrie I thought, well that's that. He's gone. A conservative voter base will never tolerate that. I was wrong. When he vented insanity after insanity on the stump, everything from whacko conspiracy theory to birtherism (though he repudiated that, kinda, later), when he flat denied saying things that he was on the public record as saying, I thought, no, surely not. But I was wrong. When his answers to any question about specific policy are vague evasions, or change radically depending on his mood, I thought nobody outside the funny farm could possibly support this. I was wrong. Finally he boasts about sexual assault and FINALLY some of them jump ship. It takes that. And STILL he's in the running, and as eric says, might fall across the line, despite everything. It depends, God help us all, on turnout. If the Democrats don't turn out for Clinton, he could make it. And they might not.

I know that there is no serious constituency for actual socialism in America. OK, I know the reason for that, or think I do, and it's understandable. What I don't understand is how "liberal" came to be a dirty word in the US. I can put your gun fetishism down to history, little as I care for it, and much as I hold it to account for a homicide rate twice or three times that of any other western democracy. But your incarceration rate? Your retention of capital punishment? Your desperate reluctance to allow one-payer taxpayer-funded basic health care, despite the obvious advantages? The queer localisation of your public education system, with the inevitable consequence that the people who need it the most are least likely to get it? The corrosion of your cities themselves?

Sure there are parts of Mexico City or the barrios of South America, or the slums of Bangkok, that rival South Chicago or the south Bronx, or Detroit - but aren't you supposed to be the leaders of the western world? I can't put a name to anything in the UK, or Australia, or Europe generally, that's remotely in the same league. I saw the south side of Chicago - by pure accident and because I didn't know - and it remains graven in my consciousness as something I will give anything I possess rather than see in my own country.

Why do you hate public investment in the public interest so furiously? What on earth has given rise to a class - a large and important class - that votes and militates directly in opposition to its own interest? It defies reason. Why do you think that it is better to give money to a particular candidate's election campaign, and allow them to negotiate a maze of quid pro quos with others AFTER election, rather than support a particular party with a previously published agenda that then becomes the policy of the elected government? You might as well mandate bitter party infighting, a tendency exacerbated by your primary election system, which is a burden and a circus that might be calculated to make it impossible for the party to work within itself, let alone with others. How, in the name of all that's wonderful, do you tolerate an electoral college and an all-or-none delegate count for each State? That's stark, staring madness, guaranteed to deliver results that deny democracy itself.

What the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces can do is appalling, right there on its own. No single person should be entrusted with such power. Even Obama has, in effect, endorsed the doctrine that the US President can have anyone in the world killed on his say-so. But what Trump might do with those powers goes far beyond appalling, into realms that have no name. Trump's finger on the Button is enough to give anyone nightmares. I think of the possibility, and my flesh creeps.

The rest of the world knows that there is nothing to be done about America that Americans are not willing to do themselves. All we can do is watch and hope. But, oh brother, sometimes it gets fraught, and now is one of those times.

Dave Luckett said: When he actually dissed a decorated veteran who had died in combat, mort pour la patrie I thought, well that's that. He's gone. A conservative voter base will never tolerate that. I was wrong.

What I don't understand is how "liberal" came to be a dirty word in the US.

Why do you hate public investment in the public interest so furiously? What on earth has given rise to a class - a large and important class - that votes and militates directly in opposition to its own interest? It defies reason.

How, in the name of all that's wonderful, do you tolerate an electoral college and an all-or-none delegate count for each State? That's stark, staring madness, guaranteed to deliver results that deny democracy itself.

Wow, our perceptions of her and the Dems are totally different.

Then the GOP came back strong in the 2010 midterm, baffling those same liberals.

GOPers will be better at lowering taxes, shrinking government expenditures, etc.

Dave Luckett said: I read discussions of US politics like this one with a horrified fascination. And I worry. I can't believe that a substantial fraction of the US population - approaching half - is actually insane, but I hear Trump speak, and I see evidence for his continued popular support, and I wonder, and shudder.

Sure there are parts of Mexico City or the barrios of South America, or the slums of Bangkok, that rival South Chicago or the south Bronx, or Detroit - but aren't you supposed to be the leaders of the western world? I can't put a name to anything in the UK, or Australia, or Europe generally, that's remotely in the same league. I saw the south side of Chicago - by pure accident and because I didn't know - and it remains graven in my consciousness as something I will give anything I possess rather than see in my own country.

All we can do is watch and hope. But, oh brother, sometimes it gets fraught, and now is one of those times.

Dave Luckett -

Every rich country had radical changes in the 1960's and 1970's - widespread availability of convenient contraception leading to far more equality for women, colonial independence movements, realization of the environmental pollution and conservation issues raised by the industry of the time.

But here in the US, due to our history of slavery and segregation, and our role as the primary cold war antagonist of the Soviet Union, there was more, much more.

The first civil rights backlash election was the clumsy, heavy-handed Goldwater campaign of 1964. In a booming economy, Americans were in a generous mood, and Goldwater's excessively blatant pandering to racism led to a humiliating defeat.

But then came the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King and the subsequent unrest, and the escalation of the Vietnam war. Nixon was able to cobble together a "liberal New Deal economics but socially anti-hippie" coalition. Racists, sexists, and homophobes don't like hippies either so it worked (although maybe those homophobes might have had a few qualms about the Nixon inner circle). However, the old "anti-New Deal, austerity for the gruel eaters, filet mignon for us" wing simmered in the background, and they saw that opportunity might arise.

Then came burning industrial rivers, the oil crisis, rising drug-fueled crime, the Iranian hostage crisis, and probably more I'm forgetting.

In that time of panic, Ronald Reagan was able to amp up Nixon's anti-hippie stuff and make it a shade more blatantly racist, and use the "minorities on welfare" scheme to sneak back in the old robber baron austerity economics, now repackaged as "Reaganomics", although they might as well have called it "Coolidgeomics".

That schema worked until 1992, when Bill Clinton, with his crafty Arkansas country boy common sense, saw that if he ran as a moderate right winger, he could force them ridiculously far to the right, since they would never concede to running a "liberal Republican against a conservative Democrat", and beat them for being so far right - at least at the presidential level.

In 2000, as is now largely forgotten, they finally decided to run a "moderate". Everyone conveniently forgets that Dubya originally ran on a fake moderate, "two parties are about the same", "I'm a uniter not a divider", "I love Hispanics", "I'm a jovial guy to have a beer with" platform. He still lost the popular vote to Al Gore, but "won" the election.

Then came the World Trade Center terrorist crime against humanity, and the Dubya administration was able to use that to openly go far right wing.

But by 2008 Americans had had enough, so much so that they wisely elected a historically competent and successful president, who also happens to be black.

But he is black, so that gave the staggering beast a shot of adrenaline to keep it staggering on indefinitely.

Now they've nominated Trump, who can't even beat Hillary Clinton, but who embodies the passionate last desperate stand of the civil rights backlash.

We'll see where it goes from here.

harold said: These are meaningless propaganda slogans. They're primary use is to sugar coat the motivations of the Trump wing.

if you want to make the Republican party more sensible on science, more power to you, but you’ve got your work cut out.

I would think everyone would want that. It is better to have both parties using sound data to arrive at policy decisions rather than one.

But I think the rank and file are sincere about wanting them.

Well harold, we don't have an interlocutor to answer your questions. But the preferences expressed by the Republicans are indeed incoherent; there is no reasonable answer to your questions. A conservative intellectual who cares about America must not vote for the party until large changes are made.

Forget liberal; when people are polled and asked if they want heavily socialistic programs - without mentioning socialism or liberalism - they often go for them in big numbers. Yes, the same people who say they are against HRC because 'taxes', if you ask them the right way, are in favour of expanded Social Security, free tuition, free healthcare, even democratic control over economic investment. "And we could have those things were it not for those treacherous liberals and high taxes!!"

My conclusion is simple - 'we're fucked'.

harold said: A good test for whether someone really wants something, or is claiming to want it to disguise a hidden agenda, is that if they really want it, they'll be able to articulate specifically what they want.

So if someone really wants to "shrink government" or "lower taxes" and it's not just repetition of "nicer sounding" slogans to disguise a different agenda, they should be able to answer my questions.

So, are you telling me I ‘don’t really’ want to lose weight because I can’t answer your questions to a specific detailed level?

harold said:

So, are you telling me I ‘don’t really’ want to lose weight because I can’t answer your questions to a specific detailed level?

Yep. Of course. Obviously. The person who has some kind of a plan and makes some kind of an effort, even if not the most rational approach, wants to lose weight. The person who says they "want" to lose weight but can't say how much and gets evasive when you ask about it, or defensive when you mention things that work for others, on that subject only irrevocably full of shit. Absolutely. 100%. I guarantee that 95% of adult Americans are keenly aware of what the two parties actually endorse and actually do. And when they pull that lever, they know what they're pulling for. And if they say "Oh, Trump is just terrible, but I had to vote for him because I 'support smaller government' in some vague way", they're lying about why they voted for Trump. One hundred percent.

“white middle class people”

Whoops, I should have said more accurately "middle class people".

Bottom line, I don't mean to be insulting or anything, but saying you want "smaller government" without having any idea of smaller than what or how to achieve it is a purely empty slogan.

It's not ethically wrong or anything. It's just not meaningful.

And I'm going to try to stop talking about this now.

Eric -

Okay, actually, one more rhetorical question.

I have enormous respect for your contributions here and we agree on the basic issue in this thread - parties should respect science.

I will close with this set of rhetorical questions, but just for completeness, and it's not a big deal -

If you say you want "smaller government", buy you can't say how small or how to get there -

How will you know when the government is small enough?

How do you know it isn't small enough now?

How can your representatives figure out which legislation they should represent you with, if you don't tell them anything specific about how small you want it and how to get there?

Republicans pointed don't make the government smaller; is it possible that failure to communicate what you want in a clear way is giving them carte blanche to say "we'll make the government smaller for you" and then do anything they want, since you have no way of evaluating their progress - all you can ask is that they endorse a vague claim to "want to make the government smaller"?

How do you know there aren't things that would "make the government smaller" but that you would oppose, that you could invoke by blindly asking for "smaller government"?

You didn't answer my other questions, so I don't expect answers here, and that's fine. These questions are somewhat rhetorical.

Having now read the article, it appears that the climate scientist was served a subpoena to appear before another committee chaired by another person. But that's also disturbing, since that means that the 80 subpoenas served were all supposedly to fetal tissue researchers. It also means that this is not the only committee that has taken it upon itself to subpoena scientists. How much more of this kind of thing is going on? Once again, are these really the biggest budget items that they should be investigating, or just the most political hot button topics to get press for?

DS said: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson If the politicians refuse to listen to the scientists, if they ignore them or persecute them, if they pretend that a scientific consensus does not exist, then that society is doomed. That is exactly what is happening in the United States. We are seriously considering a candidate for president who is on record as saying that climate change is a hoax. If that person is elected, you can expect more inquisitions and witch hunts. Climate change is an inconvenient truth, but truth none the less.

So the Chairman of the Science Committee is a climate denier who is charged with overseeing those who research climate change. And he has chosen to accuse them of lying and hiding data, all without any evidence of wrong doing whatsoever. Does this sound familiar? Now he chooses to ignore their conclusions and harass them instead. Just more sour grapes from the party of sour grapes. They can't do anything about the science, so they attack the scientists instead.

Oh and did I mention that he's in the pocket of big oil?

eric said:

Dave Luckett said: How, in the name of all that's wonderful, do you tolerate an electoral college and an all-or-none delegate count for each State? That's stark, staring madness, guaranteed to deliver results that deny democracy itself.

Ah, but it's a self-imposed madness. :) The states decide how to apportion their votes. The constitution says nothing about it and they don't have to do majority-gets-all. The problem is, it's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma; when one state uses the current system, national politicians have more incentive to pay attention to them because that pot of votes is huge. So the incentives are to 'defect' and do a winner take all method.

harold said: The person who says they "want" to lose weight but can't say how much

and gets evasive when you ask about it, or defensive when you mention things that work for others, on that subject only irrevocably full of shit.

And if they say "Oh, Trump is just terrible, but I had to vote for him because I 'support smaller government' in some vague way", they're lying about why they voted for Trump. One hundred percent.

harold said: If you say you want "smaller government", buy you can't say how small or how to get there - How will you know when the government is small enough? How do you know it isn't small enough now? How can your representatives figure out which legislation they should represent you with, if you don't tell them anything specific about how small you want it and how to get there?

Republicans pointed don't make the government smaller; is it possible that failure to communicate what you want in a clear way is giving them carte blanche to say "we'll make the government smaller for you" and then do anything they want, since you have no way of evaluating their progress - all you can ask is that they endorse a vague claim to "want to make the government smaller"?

You didn't answer my other questions, so I don't expect answers here, and that's fine. These questions are somewhat rhetorical.

DS said: It also means that this is not the only committee that has taken it upon itself to subpoena scientists. How much more of this kind of thing is going on? Once again, are these really the biggest budget items that they should be investigating, or just the most political hot button topics to get press for?

W. H. Heydt said:

Dave Luckett said: How, in the name of all that's wonderful, do you tolerate an electoral college and an all-or-none delegate count for each State? That's stark, staring madness, guaranteed to deliver results that deny democracy itself.

the state by state "winner take all" however is NOT written into the Constitution. Each state gets to decide how to apportion it's electoral votes. There are two states--Nebraska and Maine--that are NOT "winner take all".

eric said: None of those questions need be answered in order for our hypothetical smaller government voter to evaluate a candidate. They simply ask the candidates: do you plan on increasing the government budget, or decreasing it? Do you plan on increasing the civil service work force, or decreasing it? "Decreasing" is their proxy measure for "smaller."

And no, they don’t have to have some objective measure of size in mind; one can have a rate and direction of change as a goal. Using my analogy, it is perfectly possible for me to have a goal of “lose, not gain, weight this week.” Our hypothetical small government voter can want the government to lose, not gain, weight this term. That could be their policy goal. In fact, every time you hear some economist or political person propose we reduce the deficit by X, they are proposing a rate goal rather than an objective $ goal for the debt.

eric said:

DS said: It also means that this is not the only committee that has taken it upon itself to subpoena scientists. How much more of this kind of thing is going on? Once again, are these really the biggest budget items that they should be investigating, or just the most political hot button topics to get press for?

This sub-committee was formed by the GOP in response to the PP 'gotcha' videos about selling fetal tissue that surfaced about a year ago. So while I don't have an answer to your bigger question, I'd put this particular one in the "hot button topic" category rather than the "big budget concern" category.

PaulBC said: I am not optimistic enough to believe that there is any big realignment coming that will diminish Republican influence.

In fact, gerrymandering is going to pay great political dividends though 2020 and probably longer.

harold said: Nevertheless, his own analogy compels me to point out the problems in his arguments here. It is not at all rational to have "rate and direction of change" as a goal in either case.

harold said: It is 100% meaningless, or arguably, and irrational obsession, to say that you want "smaller government", if you don't have some idea how small it should be, and why, and how to achieve that. It's a gimmick. And although I doubt that the likes of Paul Ryan even get its coded origins, it's a gimmick with its roots in Goldwater civil rights backlash.

As I said above, I think most voters have a sense that they want to keep more of their money and spend less time on permits and inspections.

harold said:

As I said above, I think most voters have a sense that they want to keep more of their money and spend less time on permits and inspections.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I wonder how many people who comment here as proud supporters of science have directly voted for politicians who deny evolution, deny global warming, and support harassing scientists, and will continue to, and claim some desire for a "smaller government", that they can't even define, and thus wouldn't even know if was achieved (but which presumably includes tax-funded harassment of scientists) as the rationale.

DS said: It's as if facts and the truth mean nothing to these people.

A UK perspective on ‘smaller government’ : Compared to the US I imagine the UK’s government is pretty ‘small’ anyway, but the sort of person who would like it smaller is someone who essentially wants to do stuff that the taxman or the local council says they can’t. For instance, a millionaire who wants to build a garish mansion in the middle of protected land in the ‘greenbelt’ is often fond of ‘smaller government’; an employer who doesn’t want to contribute to workplace pensions might be against ‘big government’; and a person seething that the value of their property has gone down because the council has approved a development they don’t like would want to ‘fight the system’.

These are usually the people who would like a bigger military, stronger ‘Border Force’, and more police on the streets, but I guess these don’t count as ‘government’.

Since 2008 there’s also been a growing trend in UK media to portray all government services – the public sector – as ‘bloated’ and in need of trimming, which the Conservatives kicked off in the 80s and has always been an underlying theme since. The sort of person who hates that kind of ‘big government’, I find, complains that the pensions of public sector workers are ‘excessive and funded by the public purse’ and that public sector workers are ‘inefficient and always on strike’ (whilst neither saving for a pension nor joining a union themselves).

This has been a very concerted attack on unions and on services which has suited the last two governments very well in their agenda to cut costs and promote things like private security firms (to run prisons), private healthcare, private pensions, etc. A cynical man might wonder how many politicians of this stripe leave politics to join the board of a private security firm, health trust, national bank….

harold said: I wonder how many people who comment here as proud supporters of science have directly voted for politicians who deny evolution, deny global warming, and support harassing scientists, and will continue to, and claim some desire for a "smaller government", that they can't even define, and thus wouldn't even know if was achieved (but which presumably includes tax-funded harassment of scientists) as the rationale. I wonder how many will in the future.

DanHolme said: A UK perspective on ‘smaller government’ : Compared to the US I imagine the UK’s government is pretty ‘small’ anyway,

Partisans often have a form of blindness, where they can’t see how anyone could look around at the world and arrive at any conclusion other than theirs. They conclude from this that anyone reaching some other conclusion must not be rational.

Harold has made no claim, none at all, about whether people might want smaller government in a rational, articulate way. The empirical evidence is that for the vast majority of those that say they want it, it's a mere mantra, a tribal signifier, and/or code for 'I hate the blahs."

- "Hey, I just want smaller government."

- Our public transit is pathetic; you said so yourself. So you want more cuts to it? "No, government needs to get its hands off our buses. I just want smaller government."

- Well, I guess I could agree with you on one aspect. Our military does little to protect Americans and really is all about offence, not defense. It's very expensive; we desperately need to cut military spending. "No, we gotta kill the ragheads. I don't want to betray our defenders. I just want smaller government."

- I agree with you on another aspect; we should stop giving so many wasteful hi-tech gadgets to police departments. "The police protect us; they need that gear. I just want smaller government."

- Well, the private sector has shown little appetite or ability to maintain our nation's infrastructure. You say it's crumbling, and I agree with you. But how do you propose to renew it without public spending? "We can't have new highways because taxes are too high. Smaller government would bring better infrastructure. I just want smaller government."

- Both your grandmothers are able to pay their mortgages with the help of Social Security. You want to cut that? "No, I just want smaller government."

- Do you think cement companies should be able to dump their wastes in rivers? "Of course not; I just want smaller government."

These are not strawmen. They are the sorts of things that people say, much more than any real arguments for smaller government.

There is a particular individual who said something pretty fatuous above, and I think there is a connection with the refusal to admit that a large plurality of American conservatives have deeply incoherent preference-sets. A person who can say or type, with a straight face, that no-one could have predicted the strong nativist turn in the Trump campaign is a person who has not been listening. There has been a lively and well-documented Internet discussion on this matter going back at least to 1993. Books too. The nativist turn did not need to be 'predicted'; it was noted and identified a long time ago.

There is a difference between coherent and reasonable desires, worthy of moral respect (even from those that disagree) and the fleeting inarticulate 'want' of small government typical of American conservativism. The vast majority of American conservatives who express a desire for smaller government have not 'arrived' at a 'conclusion'.

Those practicing compulsive centrist disorder like to present themselves as the reasonable center and act all appalled when leftists say they bear some responsibility for conservative wackiness, maybe more than the Newt Gingrichs of the world. Well, the shoe fits, and I'm not sorry when I claim this. To zeroith order: the centrist 'why can't we all just get along' liberals bear more responsibility for Republican nativism than do Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Those arguing with Harold: are you willing to admit that he did not express an inability to see how someone could disagree with him? The accusation of blind partisanship was actually kind of vicious. Are you willing to admit that there is a qualitative difference between a 'wanting' that is articulate and actionable, and a 'wanting' that is at best pure air? If not, I think maybe they are engaged in tribal signalling.

By the way, I am not claiming any special virtue for leftists or liberals as individuals. My general sense is that 90% of liberals and leftists don't have any good reasons for their beliefs. For hardcore Donald Trump supporters, though, it's close to 100%.

RJ said: If you can’t articulate what you want, you don’t really want it, you just want people to hear you say you want it.

Those practicing compulsive centrist disorder like to present themselves as the reasonable center and act all appalled when leftists say they bear some responsibility for conservative wackiness, maybe more than the Newt Gingrichs of the world. Well, the shoe fits, and I'm not sorry when I claim this. To zeroith order: the centrist 'why can't we all just get along' liberals bear more responsibility for Republican nativism than do Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Are you willing to admit that there is a qualitative difference between a 'wanting' that is articulate and actionable, and a 'wanting' that is at best pure air? If not, I think maybe they are engaged in tribal signalling.

eric said:

RJ said: If you can’t articulate what you want, you don’t really want it, you just want people to hear you say you want it.

My father has cancer, and it will probably kill him within a year. I want a cure for cancer. I have no idea how to achieve it. I have no plan to learn biochemistry just so I can articulate more specifically what I want. So, do you and Harold doubt this is a sincere want? Are you going to tell me that I don't really want it, I just want people to hear me say I want it? If your answer to that is "no eric, I recognize that you may have a legitimate want here," then don't you recognize that someone voicing a similarly vague and shallow want for political conservative points might be equally sincere?

Those practicing compulsive centrist disorder like to present themselves as the reasonable center and act all appalled when leftists say they bear some responsibility for conservative wackiness, maybe more than the Newt Gingrichs of the world. Well, the shoe fits, and I'm not sorry when I claim this. To zeroith order: the centrist 'why can't we all just get along' liberals bear more responsibility for Republican nativism than do Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

I generally lean left (I think this is the third time I've had to say that). What I object to is, basically, people I agree with not being able to comprehend that their political opponents have the same human wants, desires etc. as them. That their political opponents may be just as sincere in wanting to improve the country and just disagree with you about how to improve it and in some cases what "an improved country" looks like. Basically, I see a lot of political attribution biases. Prime example: "the Republicans are against America; they hate America. The Republicans are traitors, not simply wrong". That, to me, fairly screams attribution bias.

Are you willing to admit that there is a qualitative difference between a 'wanting' that is articulate and actionable, and a 'wanting' that is at best pure air? If not, I think maybe they are engaged in tribal signalling.

So, my wanting a cure for cancer is pure air? I don't really want my dad to live, I'm just doing some tribal signaling? I agree with you that many voters may have a shallow understanding of important political issues. Much like my very shallow understanding of oncology. But shallowness is not the same thing as insincerity and it certainly doesn't imply ulterior motives (or, going back to your quote, hatred for the US and treason).

harold said: This is completely non-analogous. "Better treatments for cancer" is not a mindless slogan. You can define what you want as the outcome within a reasonable way. You can intelligently discuss what general policies we can pursue, at what cost, what else we might prioritize basic and clinical cancer research over.

For the record I believe that we should consider markedly increasing biomedical research.

So you think that Republicans never use the term "small government" as a group-identifying slogan or coded pandering to less popular ideas. Fine.

Nobody here is dehumanizing Republicans or using absurd, over the top language.

Why won't you just let it go?

For the record, the "Other side are traitors" stuff was initiated by the right wing and especially used during the Bush II era.

Do some research if you aren't convinced.