Washington Post Death Spiral Watch

Outsourced to Kevin Drum:

The Washington Monthly: THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE....Michael Gerson today:

There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a "war on science."

....For the most part, these accusations are a political ploy — actually an attempt to shut down political debate. Any practical concern about the content of government sex-education curricula is labeled "anti-science." Any ethical question about the destruction of human embryos to harvest their cells is dismissed as "theological" and thus illegitimate.

The disingenuousness here is breathtaking. Yes, liberals and conservatives have different views about sex education and stem cells, but those aren't even close to being the core issues in the liberal critique of the Republican war on science. The core issues, rather, are global warming denialism; creationism and intelligent design; the Gingrich-era shutdown of OTA; the promotion of phony cost-benefit analysis; and politically motivated lying about things like Plan B, breast cancer links to abortion, and condoms and STDs. Gerson surely knows this, but chooses to ignore all these genuine issues because his goal isn't to talk about science at all. What he really wants to talk about is a conservative trial balloon of fairly recent vintage: namely that liberal support of abortion rights and genetic screening constitutes a "new eugenics" in which science trumps morality and Dr. Mengele has the last laugh on all of us. Liberals' blind support of science über alles, he concludes ominously, is leading them into a "war on equality."

Good luck running that up the flagpole, Michael. Better than flag lapel pins, I suppose. In the meantime, what do you think about global warming, evolution, and condoms?

Comments

[Doctor Jay]

With regard to Michael Gerson, I believe the problem is self-delusion, not disingenuosity. Michael Gerson ought to be a Democrat, but he thinks of us as baby-killers, and he can't get past that. Everything is viewed through that prism, I'm afraid.

[Jay]

Off topic, but....

Guess which way capacity utilization went? Down. 85% for the past week. Looks like refiners are "maxing out" capacity alright.

[Ginger Yellow]

Actually, I think sex ed is at the heart of "Republican war on science" critiques. The Republicans and the Bush administration in particular have ignored and in some cases attempted to suppress studies on the effectiveness of different courses, while promulgating false information about contraception (eg condom failure rates) to make their preferred policy seem better. It's an archetypal example of the Republican war on science. Stem cells are slightly different, in that it's much more of an ethical than a scientific issue, although again the Republicans have twisted science to make their ethical case.

Gerson's piece is typically mendacious, though, and as Kevin notes, reminiscent of the intelligent design campaign. Of course we don't object to "any practical concern" about sex ed or "any ethical questions" about stem cells. We object to blatant lies and willful ignorance of science.

[Q the Enchanter]

Shorter Michael Gerson: There's no conservative War on Science. And besides, science will lead us down "a dark path" if we don't *stop it.*

[Neal]

Get it right!!

It's not a war against science--it's a war against inconvenient science.

[Barry]

Whenever reading something by Gerson, remember that he was the Wh*reson's chief liesmith. His *job* was crafting and polishing Bush's lies. If he breathes, let alone speaks, truth is dying somewhere.

[Just Sayin']

One would wish to detail the whole sorry pattern, the latest of which was revealed last week: having the Pentagon and OMB weigh in at the earliest stage of EPA's reviews of chemicals for toxicity. And thereby essentially stop the review. And have their objections shielded as "deliberative". Yo, Michael--it's that kind of s**t that we are talking about, not some bogus red-herring mention of 19th century eugenics.