Watching the Republican Party morph into a cult has been extremely demoralizing–especially to the millions of sane Americans who once called that party home. I have detailed many aspects of the spiraling lunacy–the denial of climate change, the efforts of Christian Nationalists to neuter the First Amendment, the failure to admit that Donald Trump is mentally-ill and getting worse–basically, the Republican insistence on “facts” that are demonstrably untrue.
A recent editorial by Thomas Edsall in The New York Times explores yet another aspect of the GOP’s increasing retreat from reality: science denial.
In “The Polarization and Politicization of Trust in Scientists,” a paper presented last week at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, James Druckman and Jonathan Schulman of the University of Rochester and the University of Pennsylvania wrote:
Consider in 2000, 46 percent of Democrats and, almost equivalently, 47 percent of Republicans expressed a great deal of confidence in scientists. In 2022, these respective percentages were 53 percent and 28 percent. In 20 years, a partisan chasm in trust (a 25-percentage-point gap) emerged.
Edsall quoted Matthew Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University, who warns that distrust of science is “arguably the greatest hindrance to societal action to stem numerous threats to the lives of Americans and people worldwide.” As he pointed out, Americans died because they had been led to believe that mRNA vaccines were more dangerous than a bout of Covid.
Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, Dallek argued, turbocharged anti-science conspiracy theories and attitudes on the American right, vaulting them to an even more influential place in American politics. Bogus notions — vaccines may cause autism, hydroxychloroquine may cure Covid, climate change isn’t real — have become linchpins of MAGA-era conservatism.
Edsall argues that the roots of Republican science denial go back at least 50 years, to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
These pillars of the regulatory state were and still are deeply dependent on scientific research to set rules and guidelines. All would soon be seen as adversaries of the sections of the business community that are closely allied with the Republican Party, although each of these agencies and laws was backed by a Republican president, Richard Nixon.
These regulatory efforts made science a part of political debates, since federal agencies like the E.P.A. and OSHA “are considered adversarial to corporate interests. Regulatory science directly connects to policy management and, therefore, has become entangled in policy debates that are unavoidably ideological.”
Edsall quoted an academic article that found antipathy to science taking hold during the Reagan administration, “largely in response to scientific evidence of environmental crises that invited governmental response. Thus, science — particularly environmental and public health science — became the target of conservative anti-regulatory attitudes.”
Republican distrust of science became far more prevalent when an ascendant religious right began its takeover of the GOP. Religious fundamentalists supported creationism over evolution, and religious and political skepticism of science became “mutually constitutive and self-reinforcing.”
Meanwhile, individuals who are comfortable with secularism, and thus secular science, concentrate in the Democratic Party. The process of party sorting along religious lines has helped turn an ideological divide over science into a partisan one.
These days, when political tribalism shapes identity, people are more and more likely to accept scientific findings only when those findings align with their political beliefs. Edsall noted a recent survey that asked, “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety or prosperity?” Strong Democrats saw severe risk potential; strong Republicans close to none. As another scholarly paper has put it,
The fundamental principle of science is that evidence — not authority, tradition, rhetorical eloquence or social prestige — should triumph. This commitment makes science a radical force in society: challenging and disrupting sacred myths, cherished beliefs and socially desirable narratives. Consequently, science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship.
There is much more in Edsall’s essay, but the central message is clear–and very disturbing.
It is easy enough to make fun of the “anti-science” folks who–as one Facebook meme has it–use smartphones incorporating scientific discoveries to post anti-science diatribes to a science-based internet. But the consequences of the GOP revolt against evidence and empiricism has spread to rejection of other facts incompatible with religious beliefs, and to growing contempt for medical and other scientific expertise. It powers not just climate denial, but the GOP’s growing antagonism to vaccination and other public health measures.
You’d think “pro-life” people would notice that antagonism to science is often incompatible with life. You’d be wrong.
There’s a reason Scientific American endorsed Harris–only the second time it has endorsed a Presidential candidate.
To keep referencing a once-respectable Republican Party is either disingenuous or simply naive. Unless, of course, you lived during the Lincoln administration, which I seriously doubt. Republicans since the 60’s have relied on two R’s: racism and resentment. Whether it was Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Reagan’s incessant lies about welfare queens, or the party’s embrace of compulsive liars like Rush Limbaugh; it has been and remains an institution that is, was, and will remain morally, intellectually, and ethically bankrupt. Acting as if today’s deplorables are new to the party is simply wrong.
Adding to Richardallen’s rant let us not forget Reagan’s response to the aids crisis.
Richardallen, thank you for clearing the air with a truthful perspective on the “once-respectable Republican Party,” one that has needed airing on this blog for quite some time. If an extremist MAGA takeover of the Party was required to reveal to diehards the extent of its rotten underpinnings, so be it. Let’s not continue to ignore the political SCIENCE in order to assuage misguided personal feelings.
Every science educator I knew told similar stories about students approaching them to tell them that their ministers and Sunday schools told them that science was wrong and that everything was due to God. I’ve been called the spawn of Satan because I taught factual science – as my states required.
So, yes, Republicans will turn themselves into pretzels to win power. Power over what? Money and people. As mentioned above, there is no intent to govern for the people of our nation. The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove/Dick Armey assault on reason was facilitated by none other than George H. W. Bush when he was RNC Chairman. THAT is where the Southern strategy sprang from.
G.H.W. Bush was raised by a very strong-willed mother who inculcated him with the one basic philosophy: WIN AT ALL COSTS. And therein lies the root of the unethical, swine-ish operating schemes of the Republican party. It was easy, therefore, for a con man like Trump to gain favor with Republicans. He is unethical, amoral and lacks any intellect except for self-service. So, it was an easy call for Republicans to nominate him three times. They have nowhere else to go.
The body of human knowledge contains many proven factual details about how everything in the universe behaves: energy, matter, and place-time. We can sense some of it, but much more occurs beyond our senses because they inform us solely of threats and opportunities where we are, when, and at our scale of size and frequencies of light and sound.
Research scientists use their education to measure, at all scales and accuracies, to, in some cases, change the hypotheses in their imaginations into proven facts.
We call science specialty knowledge because people engaged in those proofs have invested in education that the vast majority deemed unnecessary for themselves. They might instead invest in other specialties like medicine, law, teaching, welding, heavy machine operation, or any other of the myriad means to provide products and services that other humans value.
Our minds imagined all of it and much more, some of which science has proven and more that remain imagined. Media of all types feeds more into our imaginations daily, and we typically feel good about a world that meets our expectations.
That complex abstraction is our species’ unique talent and potential downfall.
We live in a unique mythical world suited to us as individuals, but we are social because we must collaborate to get things done and trust each other’s unique views of the world.
The lack of that societal trust is what is currently dragging us down. Unfortunately, leading us to operate dysfunctionally like that is a lucrative business, and others profit from dragging us down.
Re: science based regulatory agencies and the enforcement of rules, I feel compelled to remind people that our friends on the supreme court ended Chevron Deference.
So… you know… It’s going to get worse.
Well, the next time a covid epidemic strikes, the ranks of the MAGA group should decrease precipitously. Darwin would understand.
I looked back into the 1960s, known as the Decade of Assassinations, I well remember the Republican outcry when John Kennedy was the nominee that America would never elect a Catholic president to be ruled by the church. I didn’t understand it at that time but the Republicans have become what they most feared, the domination of the Catholic church over government and the nation. Calling themselves White Nationalists doesn’t cover up their foundation of government rule by creation as found in the many versions of the Bible and primarily contradict democracy, Rule of Law and the Constitution.. During the days written about in Bibles, science was totally unknown, not even spoken of as fiction. The pseudo-christians currently sitting in the Legislative Branch are protecting and escalating the Catholic rule using the Supreme Court. “That GOP Retreat From Reality” is now their foundation and that which they feared most when John Kennedy was elected and quickly disposed of along with his brother Bobby and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by the then GOP base.
“You’d think “pro-life” people would notice that antagonism to science is often incompatible with life. You’d be wrong.” Is there a final count of the loss of life during the actual Pandemic as we waited for science to find, if not a cure, a prevention or easing of Covid-19 other than injecting Clorox?
There are intelligent people on every side of a political argument. To say those who oppose a rational argument are not intelligent people loses the argument of the science of the human mind. Smart is often used to describe a person who has improved their mind through study and learning, while intelligent is used to describe a person who was born with mental sharpness or is naturally good at learning. You CAN say those who obstinately believe in anti-science are not smart people. There are a lot of folk who apply their naturally born intelligence to make claims and choices not very smart or wise. They do not know what they do not know. None are fit to hold public office. But today, there are enough unsmart folk to get behind unsmart people with charisma to carry their tune. Turn your back to the false trumpet and VOTE SMART.
Science Matters for Americans who Respect Truth … Vote SMART.
If you’re really looking into history, I recommend you go to1876. The blame for that fiasco belongs to Florida, whose 20 electoral votes were thrown out. Samuel Tilden had a majority of the EC votes, but in the Compromise of 1877, Republicans stopped reconstruction in exchange for the power of the Presidency.
That was, IMHO, the beginning of today’s Republican Party. It seems they traded a belief in a fair and just country for political power.
Peggy,
Thanks for that bit of history. Add Andrew Johnson to list of Reconstruction failures too. As I said before, Republicans are only interested in winning for power and money.
Wow, nothing but bombs dropped by each poster today, including Sheila.
Pete, your comments touched on Albert Einstein’s famous dictum, “Why Socialism?” written in 1949. What would our country be like today, especially our educational system, had Truman and the politicians in Washington adopted his ideas? We sure wouldn’t be approaching WW3 on three fronts!!
The anti-science Oligarchs are in evident and prominent industries. General Motors killed the first original electric car with the help of Texas oil barons. What’s funny now is US automakers need protection from China’s EV industry because China makes a superior product at a lower cost because of robotics.
What about the high-speed rail system in the US? Oh yeah, it doesn’t exist. I could go on and on about the Washington politician’s anti-China campaign because it’s all propaganda to protect American Exceptionalism. Sorry, but it’s why I laughed at Obama’s speeches about that topic.
The Oligarchy that founded this country has always been anti-science, especially after the significant industries established themselves and their trusts. I should say anti-progress since they use science to make profits but use propaganda against science to protect those profits.
That last sentence is why I am so concerned about the trend of US politicians reducing their financial support for the university system so that corporate donors can step in and control university presidents. We all know the Kochs invest in over 150 university economic departments.
How are they quashing scientific advancement for the betterment of society when those advancements would interfere with their dark network’s profit-making?
As for the Republican cult, what kind of intelligent mammals support policies that cause its own enslavement and destruction?
#oppression
Todd … you wrote: As for the Republican cult, what kind of intelligent mammals support policies that cause its own enslavement and destruction? …
Intelligent … just not very smart.
Intelligence is the ability to learn. Smart is having learned. But nobody can be smart about everything and in that case we are all ignorant, just ignorant of different things. Success lies in cooperation with a dash of competition thrown in for motivation. If competition is the spice in our society’s recipe, we sometimes seem to have made a pepper roast without the meat of cooperation.
The existential threat of climate change may bring us together, but not if we deny the science which proves it. Choosing religion OVER science puts us on a path to extinction.
“Edsall quoted an academic article that found antipathy to science taking hold during the Reagan administration….”:Reagan appointed, as head of the EPA, a fellow who did not believe in evolution, talk about idiocy!
And, to repeat myself, there was the neighbor, only about 7 years ago, who interrupted the conversation we were having, when I spoke the word “evolution,” to tell me that he could not continue said conversation, because his minister had told the congregation that evolution was a bogus idea. The neighbor was a nice guy, but blindly following the blind.
To quote a real smart fellow, Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
The number of weather-related disasters with damages over $1 billion has increased from an average of 3.3 per year in the 1980s to more than 17 per year from 2014–2023. Can you spell C-L-I-M-A-T-E C-H-A-N-G-E??
Democracy only works by balancing the dumbs of one persuasion against the dumbs of the other. The dumb votes are cancelled, and the smarts swing the elections. When a pied piper can rally the majority of the dumbs behind him, he can use democracy to destroy itself.
The only answer is massive emphasis on education both to create smarter voters and to offset the deliberate disinformation of religions and business interests.
We just didn’t do that, and now it may be too late.
Todd,
Isn’t the irony delicious that those anti-science oligarchs you mentioned used science to make themselves filthy rich and able to bear the title “oligarch”.
Vernon. It’s kind of like people trying to rationally prove that people are irrational. Or people trying to logically prove that logic is useless. Or people citing facts to prove that facts don’t exist. Is there a word for that?
Sharon,
The only word that comes off the top of my head is COUNTER-INTUITIVE.