Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy (and why it scares me)

[n2doc]

By John Timmer | Published a day ago

"To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." With that tweet, Jon Huntsman set himself apart from every other candidate in the Republican primary field. Despite his phrasing, Huntsman, who is barely registering in most polls, was clearly hoping that the public would believe most other candidates to be a bit loopy by contrast.

Agreeing with the scientific community has become a key issue in recent presidential campaigns. Evolution came up at a debate during the previous Republican primary season, and Rick Perry, the current front runner, was put on the spot about it at a recent campaign event (he flubbed his answer on several levels). And, as Huntsman's tweet suggests, the reality of climate change has been a hot topic.

How did science become such a prominent political football? It really hasn't. The candidates' responses to questions on scientific information have become a proxy for other things, and people across the political spectrum are listening to what those responses say about the candidates' way of thinking.


...

So, what have we learned from this? With the exception of Huntsman, the candidates don't know science, haven't bothered to ask someone who does, and, in several cases, don't even know anything about the settled policy issues (judicial precedent and investigation of claims about fraud). Why would we want these traits in a president?

more
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/why-we-care-what-politicians-think-about-science.ars

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I agree.

Science is the first hurdle to getting the masses to believe on faith whatever they are told. Science, like mathematics, is fact-based, meaning that you only accept something as fact or truth after a premise has undergone analysis and challenge against evidence that may contradict it.

Example: a premise may be that a frog belongs to the mammal family. The biological/zoological characteristics of a frog are isolated and compared to the characteristics of all members belonging to the mammal family. The frog having gills and being cold blooded exclude it from being classified as a mammal and thus, the premise can't be used as a fact.

If my given premise had been made by a member of the Tea Party and/or republican, they would dismiss all proven scientific principles and tell their minions that science is bunk and that anyone with common sense can see that a frog is a mammal. Take it on faith.

If enough politicians, leaders can get enough people to put aside all principles of science they were taught (assuming they weren't homeschooled or went to fundamentalist academies), then they can get the same people to stop thinking, stop using logic, and just accept whatever they say as truth. It won't matter if it doesn't make sense. The masses will just accept it as proverbial
Gospel.

And that's another reason why there is a stepped up attack on public schools. To destroy even the minimum chance of inculcating critical thought.

[n2doc]

2. I think there is a big push to see what people can be brainwashed into thinking

And the real goal is to make sure people see making the rich more rich and powerful is a good, natural, and 'godly' goal.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Exactly.

It can be done. Media. Repeated messaging. Confirmation and repetition by co-workers, friends, family.

Joseph Goebbels.

'Nuff said.

[Occulus]

4. That's also why NCLB, Race to the Top, and other education-related ills (like Arne Duncan) have

gained such traction. The fact that that angle has been embraced by Republicans and Democrats alike scares the hell out of me. We are heading for an entire generation of not only non-critical thinkers, but of people who are actually proud to not have much schooling, who are proud that they're "just plain folks", who value "common sense" over facts, logic, and analysis (a word they will probably eventually consider a sex act because it contain the word "anal").

If that becomes the case, the nation will be very, very ripe for a charismatic Authoritarian Leader personality type (such as Bachmann!) to take the reins of power. When that happens, the USA will- not may, but will- descend to a place darker than the world has seen in more than fifty years.

It's some scary shit, isn't it?