How Progressive Are You?

[Darth Wagtaros]

257

[garbon]

257

That was my house number!

[dps]

Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it. 

Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct.  In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.

[vinraith]

Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it. 

Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct.  In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.

Granted, but one party panders to it much more strongly than the other. One party encourages it much more than the other.

Look back at the way education was regarded during the Cold War, and look at how it's regarded now.

[dps]

Granted, but one party panders to it much more strongly than the other. One party encourages it much more than the other.

That only seems to be the case because so many Democratic politicians are psuedo-intellectuals, and conservatives enjoy deflating their pretentions, but unfortunately often do it in a way that does pander to anti-intellectualism instead of pointing out that a lot of Democratic leaders are simply full of themselves.

Look back at the way education was regarded during the Cold War, and look at how it's regarded now.

Care to elaborate what you're getting at here?

EDIT:  Im logging off now;  it's after 1 AM here, but I'd like to continue this later.

[vinraith]

That only seems to be the case because so many Democratic politicians are psuedo-intellectuals, and conservatives enjoy deflating their pretentions, but unfortunately often do it in a way that does pander to anti-intellectualism instead of pointing out that a lot of Democratic leaders are simply full of themselves.

Speaking as a scientist, it's pretty easy to tell which party is in power just by looking at the budgets for the various national science agencies. It goes beyond deflating some pontificating Democratic Ivy leaguers, there's a distinctly anti-science undercurrent to the modern Republican party (in large part driven by the fundamentalist right, no doubt). It started in earnest with Reagan's anti-pure-science stance and continues through to McCain panning planetariums in the debates and well beyond.

Care to elaborate what you're getting at here?

EDIT:  Im logging off now;  it's after 1 AM here, but I'd like to continue this later.

During the Cold War, science and technology were viewed as key to keeping up with/beating the Communists, and consequently education in general and science and engineering in particular tended to be held in much higher regard. I'm curious, without pointing any fingers, to understand how we've gotten from, say, October Sky to the kind of anti-science nonsense we see today. 

[BVN]

316/400 and extremely progressive apparently...

[Neil]

Look back at the way education was regarded during the Cold War, and look at how it's regarded now.

On the other hand, look at how it was regarded in the 20s and 30s, and prior to that.  Sputnik (and to a lesser extent, the atom bomb itself) did a magnificent job of shocking the American system.  These days, I doubt that there's anything that could do something similar.

[Alatriste]

355, extremely progressive by American standards.

Neil, wait until a Chinese taikonaut walks on the Moon, or even worse/better, China is the first to stablish a Moon base... you just need competition, otherwise the race isn't funny.

[Neil]

That only seems to be the case because so many Democratic politicians are psuedo-intellectuals, and conservatives enjoy deflating their pretentions, but unfortunately often do it in a way that does pander to anti-intellectualism instead of pointing out that a lot of Democratic leaders are simply full of themselves. logging off now;  it's after 1 AM here, but I'd like to continue this later.

Well, going after scientists is often useful to large elements of the Republican Party.  The fundamentalist Christians hate science in all circumstances, as it relies on a materialism which is religiously unacceptable to them.  The business lobby has had environmental scientists after their balls for decades now.  Then there were a number of high-profile scientists who were communists or socialists of one stripe or another.  And then there's the fact that the Republicans have taken great care over the last 30 years to market themselves as the party of the masses, whereas being a scientist requires years of education.

[dps]

During the Cold War, science and technology were viewed as key to keeping up with/beating the Communists, and consequently education in general and science and engineering in particular tended to be held in much higher regard. I'm curious, without pointing any fingers, to understand how we've gotten from, say, October Sky to the kind of anti-science nonsense we see today. 

I think you're seeing a lot of anti-science bias on the right that isn't actually there.  I here a lot of people complaining about government spending on science, especially space sciences, but that is almost allways followed up with comments about how that money would be better spent on helping poor people pay for medical expences or for low-income housing, things that are certainly not conservative notions.

And I think that the attitude toward science and learning in general that you see in October Sky was always an exception.  My grandfather, who we lived with until I was almost 6, didn't have a lot of formal education, but he was a smart guy, and put a lot of value on learning.  We had tons of books around the house, and they weren't there for show--they were there to be read.  My stepfather was bascially the same, though he had a bit more formal education.  But among our neighbors and family friends, there weren't many other people who read much.  And among the kids that I grew up with, there were few other than myself who liked to read and enjoyed learning.  I got called an egghead and otherwise picked on a lot because of it--and this isn't in the Reagan 80's I'm talking about, but the late 60's.  And very few of those kids were from families that were politically conservative, nor as a group were their families particularly religious.

[Razgovory]

Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it. 

Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct.  In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.

This is probably just because of the people you hang out with

[Neil]

Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it. 

Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct.  In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.

This is probably just because of the people you hang out with

How would you know?  You don't hang out with anyone.

[dps]

Apologies, I meant "modern American conservatives," there's less of an anti-intellectual bent to conservativism in other countries as I understand it. 

Vinnie, while I wouldn't quite put it the way Neil did, I think that (unfortunately) he is basically correct.  In my experience, most of the public is anti-intellectual, regardless of their political, ideological, or religious beliefs.

This is probably just because of the people you hang out with

As much as possible, I try to hang out with people who aren't anti-intellectual.  It's generally more fun to be around people who share your interests.  That's one good thing about being a wargamer--wargamers may be nerds, but given the rules complexities of most wargames, the hobby does select against stupid--though a few get through (and not all people who are anti-intellectual are stupid per se.

Besides, from what you've posted here in the past, you don't know anything about hanging out with people anyway.

EDIT:  Bah, Neil beat me to the punch with the snarky comment about your lack of a life.

[Neil]

I think you're seeing a lot of anti-science bias on the right that isn't actually there.  I here a lot of people complaining about government spending on science, especially space sciences, but that is almost allways followed up with comments about how that money would be better spent on helping poor people pay for medical expences or for low-income housing, things that are certainly not conservative notions.

Bitching and moaning about money that's not being spent to help them is a universal poor person thing.

That said, the Democrats more elitist than the Republicans, and so it's easier for them to do as they please in that respect.  Sure, the Democrats might bang the class warfare drums when it suits them (and some individual Democrats do so constantly), but ultimately it's the limousine liberals that run the party, with Obama being the most prominant example.  They'll talk about the great things they want to do, and pass some of them, but ultimately they dig science, and are willing to pay for it.  These are the people who Carl Sagan was aiming at, years ago.  While some Democrats no doubt gnash their teeth every time a half-billion dollar space probe goes up, the peace holds, because their issues still get money and attention.

Compare this to the Republicans.  They also have elite technocrats, the sort of people who ran the party in the Nixon years and earlier.  However, Reagan's tapping of the 'Moral Majority' brought large numbers of extreme Christians into the party at the exact same time that modern society was stamping out their morality and modern science was stamping out their god.  They were highly motivated, rather wealthy and dangerous to the fragile partnership that had been formed between the government and science during the 50s, 60s and 70s.  These people didn't begrudge the dollars being spent on science, they opposed the existance of modern science itself.  With their numbers and dollars, they stand tall in the party, to the point that the party elders are obliged to be responsive to some degree.  At this point, the Christians have even infiltrated the party leadership.  We'll see what happens in the future, but if Sarah Palin gets nominated in 2012, I would say that the Christian tail will have come to wag the entire Republican dog.