Obviously, the political undesirability/demonization of the term "liberal," and the left-wing adoption of the term "progressive" instead, has been an epiphenomenon of a larger conservative ascendancy in American life, and as such it isn't something right-wingers can really complain about. Still, I don't think conservatives should consider it a great victory that the modern Democratic Party's leading candidate wants to associate herself with a political tradition that, insofar as it's philosophically distinct from liberalism (and obviously there are many historical complexities involved here), is from the conservative perspective more dangerously utopian as well. I take Matt's point that "Progressive" is basically just a useful umbrella term for a left-of-center coalition. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that it's a coincidence that the revival of progressivism as a political label has coincided with a more strident secularism/atheism, a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science" (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.), and a greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory among thinkers associated with the political left. In one sense, as I've argued elsewhere, conservatives should welcome the relabeling of liberalism as a blow for linguistic precision; at the same time, I think it's at least partially the reflection of trends within the left that conservatives should regard with suspicion, if not outright hostility.
« Ask Not For Whom The Cat Purrs | Main | Mendozzzzzzza!!!!!!!! »
Dept. of Pyrrhic Victories
26 Jul 2007 04:35 pm
Comments (66)
Please. Simply caricaturing a whole bunch of things that you don't like that may or may not be real, and that might be happening at near the same time, doesn't mean they are all interconnected, or important.
If you really think that the decline in identification is attributable to the writing of Richard Dawkins, make an argument, not a list.
John Hagee and Pat Robertson are way, way more tied into the GOP than Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris are with the Democratic Party. Rest easy, you're still the party of insanity.
Decline in GOP identification, I should have written.
"a more strident secularism/atheism"
This must explain why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are running around the country touting their secularist credentials and vying for the political favor of powerful humanist groups.
And in other news from Parallel Earth, matters such as so-called "health care" and minor skirmish in Iraq pale before the all-consuming progressive desire to promote condom-only sex education and spend federal research monies on "Darwin-based" social services.
"....a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science"(read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.)"
Right, because the conservative movement's antipathy to the scientific method and the technology and information it produces is clearly nothing more than left wing propaganda.
Abstinence education, cloning, stem cell research, global warming, the environment--the conservative movement doesn't have any problem with science in those controversies at all. That's why they argued that you can get HIV from sweat or that global warming is a hoax. Its because the science said so.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure that it's a coincidence that the revival of progressivism as a political label has coincided with a more strident secularism/atheism, a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science" (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.)
Of course it's no coincidence. But you've got the causality all messed up. The reason liberals are dropping the "liberal" title is the same reason atheists are becoming more strident and liberals think science is under attack--specifically, liberals, atheists, and "science" (read: climatology and toxicology) ARE under attack by the right-wing.
Abstinence education, cloning, stem cell research, global warming, the environment
Joseph's list is a kind of comedy mish-mash. There are people on the right who've said idiotic things on all these topics, in a genuinely anti-science way. But the first isn't at heart a debate about science at all: it's a debate about morals and the proper role of public education in instilling morals (or the aggressive anti-moral stance of some). Effectiveness matters, but the battle is only primarily utilitarian (in which case it appears all approaches are fairly ineffective, as far as I can tell) from certain, incorrect _philosophical and moral_ standpoints, not scientific viewpoints at all. Similarly, while some conservatives have made unfortunate claims about stem-cell research (as have supporters -- to listen to John Edwards, if only we'd fund this stuff, we'd have things tomorrow to which the miracles of Jesus would be mere party tricks), the central debate isn't about a _scientific_ matter at all.
There is more reasonable ground for complaint on the environment and global warming, where to some extent there's both science at the heart and public policy -- what to do about X, assuming Y is true. But the philosophical incoherence of claiming that attacking stem cell research is "anti-science" grates -- one may be a practicing scientist and see the benefits possible from some stem cell research (I fit both categories) and still oppose the research. If we can imagine Mengele's work as successful and leading to breakthrough, we can imagine reasons that are not "anti-science" to oppose it -- and this would be true even if most opponents were scientifically ignorant.
"John Hagee and Pat Robertson are way, way more tied into the GOP than Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris are with the Democratic Party. Rest easy, you're still the party of insanity."
This is quite unfair to Dennett and Harris, both of whom are quite reasonable. Harris, too, has expressed sympathy with libertarianism, though I don't know if he is actually a libertarian. The only political implication of atheism that I can see is that values whose foundation is entirely religious or scriptural should not inform policy because they are not values worth having. (Thank goodness we have prisons and not confession booths, to take a dig at the wrongly uncontroversial Christian value of forgiveness.) Darwinism, too, hardly leads to a homogenous set of politics. Note the contrasting ways Dawkins and Robert Wright talk about Islam. Matt Ridley, the science writer for The Economist and a Dawkins fan, is a classical liberal.
Certain bioethical claims--the objections to stem cell research, which is grounded on arguments about ensoulment, to name the most obvious example--are rightly seen as anti-science. And the most glaring examples are empirical, not ethical. Global warming and intelligent design do not fit this neat narrative of yours, Ross.
If anything, the idea of memetics is diametrically opposed to utopian schemes. It recognizes culture as an important, complex force that can not be easily molded by the state. That said, I see a pretty clear (though by no means inevitable) pattern of progress if you look at the evolution of culture over the last 3,000 or so years. Bob Wright makes this argument in Non-Zero. Also, Steve Pinker's recent TNR article "A History of Violence" makes this point well.
marquis, Joseph's "comedy mish-mash" list was a response to the comedy mish-mash that was Ross's original post.
To wit: "the revival of progressivism as a political label has coincided with a more strident secularism/atheism, a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science" (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.), and a greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory among thinkers associated with the political left."
Robert, you're right that I was unfair to Dennett and Harris. I actually don't know what their politics are. While my counterexamples weren't very good, the GOP does remain the party of insanity. And the Democrats are simply not lurching towards "greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory," as Ross described his fantasized Democratic tilt towards a nonexistent school of thought.
Re: Certain bioethical claims--the objections to stem cell research, which is grounded on arguments about ensoulment, to name the most obvious example--are rightly seen as anti-science
Huh? While I don't agree with those who reject stem cell research, I don't see their attitude as anti-scientific. Their opposition is based solely on moral priniciples not on any rejection of scientific knowledge per se as with Youing earth Creationists. We would share it (I hope) if what we were talking about was human vivisection on, say, unwilling adults a la Dr Mengele. There's nothing at all anti-scientific about that.
a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science" (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.)
I'm a liberal, and I can tell you I'm baffled by the claim that there is a basic liberal attitude towards cloning and genetic engineering. What, precisely, are we liberals supposedly thinking about cloning? I haven't a clue.
More importantly, you have of course neglecting to mention the most damaging of the (yes, many) Republican challenges to science, the resistance to understanding and fighting global warming. Whatever controversies exist over global warming, there is no question in the serious scientific community that a)global warming exists, b)it is man made, and c)the effects are dangerous to human and other life. The vast preponderance of scientists and scientific research support that narrative. Conservatives overwhelmingly oppose it. What can opposition to science mean if not that?
PS I am also, by the way, opposed to the theory of evolution as a grand unifying theory of everything. But I don't buy the notion that it is one with particular traction in the Democratic party or within liberalism.
While I don't agree with those who reject stem cell research, I don't see their attitude as anti-scientific.
Well, you're mostly right. But while the stem cell debate isn't so much over what's true as it is over what's good (contrast with evolution debate), one side's version of good seems rooted in denial of something that's been known to be true for quite some time. Specifically, the continuum between humanity and the animal world. To oppose research on stem cells while supporting research on fully-grown animals may be a moral rather than a scientific claim--nonetheless, it's a very unusual moral claim in light of what we know about animals and stem cells. Science can't actually disprove any moral claim, nonetheless it makes some moral claims look silly.
Yeah, this post is pretty baffling. The argument that "science says" we should support stem cell research and abortion rights has been made occasionally, but it's hardly mainstream. There is no progressive position on cloning or genetic engineering, as Freddie has rightly pointed out. In my experience self-described progressives are as likely to be creeped out by that stuff as anyone. (The people who really go for it are libertarians, of course.)
Anyway, just because some liberals on some blog said that conservatives are anti-science because they don't like stem cell research doesn't mean conservatives haven't actually been hostile to the empirical findings of science, again and again, over the years, and liberals/progressives are correct to be alarmed by this, and to associate it with a broader contempt for the constraints of empirical reality that led us into Iraq.
Also, what do you mean by Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory? If you mean what I think you do, then again, the people who really go for that are libertarians, and out-and-out racists like John Derbyshire and Steve Sailer (whom you periodically link to, approvingly). In fact, this universal Darwinism is antithetical to utopianism, so either the left is getting more utopian or more Darwinist. You can't have it both ways.
Also, what do you mean by Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory? If you mean what I think you do, then again, the people who really go for that are libertarians, and out-and-out racists like John Derbyshire and Steve Sailer (whom you periodically link to, approvingly).
Liberals don't believe in Darwinism as a universal theory. They believe that Darwinism is correct insofar as it provides an alternative to believing in God, but, you know, it has absolutely nothing to say about, for example, human nautre, which is entirely a product of society, which arose spontaneously and can be altered in order to change human nature into whatever we wish.
Or, more succinctly:
I hope you're still reading after a couple of trollish comments at the start. Anyway, I find your characterization of the science issue quite odd. First of all, a huge portion of the 'whole foods' left, as I think of them, are anti-cloning and genetic engineering. I think those issue are distinct from the standard complaints that conservatives have been anti-science.
When I think of conservative/republican hostility towards science, I tend to think of three things: the teaching of intelligent design in the public schools, global warming denial, and general politicization of scientists employed by the government under the Bush administration. All three are real phenomena, and I think that's what most liberals and progressives I know would think of. I'd be curious whether you have any backing for your (obviously non-standard) reading of what the current progressive rhetoric about science is.
The problem with the "progressive" label is that the contemporary left, unlike its predecessors is more sceptical of the idea of "progress" than much of the right. The real progressives (in the bad sense) are people like Glenn Reynolds.
I hope you're still reading after a couple of trollish comments at the start.
I've read and reread and I can't find anything remotely trollish in the first few comments. So I'm going to assume for you, someone is a troll if they hold a position different from your own.
"The argument that 'science says' we should support stem cell research and abortion rights has been made occasionally, but it's hardly mainstream."
Actually, John Kerry made this argument pretty much verbatim during the 2004 campaign. He said that stem-cell policy should be based on "science" not "theology." The idea that morality might have something to do with it didn't seem to occur to him.
I'm not convinced progressive = willing to let science take its course and damn the conseqs, as Ross suggests. The WSJ had a piece in the last year or so on Bruce Lahn, a genetics researcher, who'd run into serious trouble when his research began to play with the notion of differing levels of intelligence among different population groups. and Larry Summers among others can attest to the reaction many leftists have when you suggest men and women are not blank slates.
I thought the whole point of evolution was just to deny God. I didn't think it was actually supposed to tell us anything.
I don't deny that this strand of liberal thought on evolution exists, but again, it is nowhere near mainstream. In any case evolution does not offer an "alternative" to believing in God. This is philosophically incoherent.
Actually, John Kerry made this argument pretty much verbatim during the 2004 campaign. He said that stem-cell policy should be based on "science" not "theology." The idea that morality might have something to do with it didn't seem to occur to him.
Fair enough. I overreached. But I don't think this kind of thinking is inherent in the current strain of progressivism; I think there are plenty of self-identified progressives who are able to distinguish questions of science an morality.
The problem with the Republicans regarding science isn't so much with individual areas like global warming - it's that they put politics first and reality second. Objective scientific data is essential for informing any number of government decisions; but we are often getting the scientific equivalent of "they'll greet us with flowers" and "of course Halliburton is the right choice for the job." So lead safety levels are determined by people with industry ties rather than expertise. We hire someone to edit NASA web sites casting doubt on the big bang. The administration tries to censor climate science, rather than argue environmental policy based on the merits.
As in so many other areas, the impact of the administration has been destructive, and they've worked hard for the contempt we feel for them.
"First of all, a huge portion of the 'whole foods' left, as I think of them, are anti-cloning and genetic engineering. I think those issue are distinct from the standard complaints that conservatives have been anti-science".
I would qualify the above by saying that while the "whole foods left" may be against cloning and genetic engineering of plants and animals, their aversion does not extend to human genetic and cloning research.
"It's for the greater good of mankind" is not an acceptable response to those who say the research is moving ahead of the moral, ethical and legal considerations.
The British parliament just approved the cloning of animal-human hybrids. Where that will lead nobody knows.
Conservatives really need to stop using 'Darwinism' as a synonym for 'evolutionary theory.' They certainly aren't the same thing, and it's not a neutral error. Implying that evolutionary theory still follows Darwin exactly, about 150 years after The Origin of Species, makes it easier to claim that evolution is a "humanistic religion" dominated by dogma.
. . . a greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory among thinkers associated with the political left.
Could you provide some evidence for this astonishing notion? I try to keep up with mainstream progressive advocates, in and out of politics, and they never even mention Darwin except in response to Conservative attacks on the Theory of Evolution and religious freedom. I assume there must be some scholars, somewhere, advocating this position, but could you name a few? And show evidence that a sizable number of important people in the progressive even know their names?
"Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory" was, and has been since the age of the Robber Barons, an anchor of corporate conservative philosophy. The fragile partnership between business conservatives, who equate free market capitalism with Social Darwinism, and populist conservatism, with its moral basis in Evangelical Christianity, has broken down under the Bush-Cheney administration. The current generation of Republican political candidates, lacking Ronald Reagan's charm or Karl Rove's propaganda skills, make themselves look like fools and hypocrites in public forums because they can't sell that notion that "survival of the fittest" economics and Libertarian legal theories have anything to do with either traditional Christian brotherhood or modern Fundamentalist paranoia.
The
"While I don't agree with those who reject stem cell research, I don't see their attitude as anti-scientific"
There are all sorts of anti-scientific ideas on the anti-stem cell side of things. There's the idea that there is a "moment" of conception and a "beginning" of life: neither of which actually exist in the process of reproduction. There's the perception that genes essentially teensy homunculi, rather than what they actually are: a long set of recipe instructions contingent on all sorts of other external factors to eventually develop into an individual, instructions that at the stem cell stage have only barely begun to be carried out. And so on. The very picture of "unique humanity" that most stem cell opponents have simply can't hold up to reality very well.
And nothing is quite so hilarious as all the focus on adult stem cells. If research on adult stem cells continues to be successful, the result will be... something functionally equivalent to an embryonic stem cell, which if implanted in a womb will grow into a person (or, of course, two people, or even four, or hundreds). That is, is conservative "thinkers" on stem cells get their wish, and their distraction from the promise of research on embryonic stem cells proves more and more useful, it will only end up dramatically illustrating the absurdity of their whole position (better not scratch that itch: you could be killing millions of potential people!)
"Conservatives really need to stop using 'Darwinism' as a synonym for 'evolutionary theory."
But then how else will they send a coded message to creationists that they are on their side politically (even if they, in fact think most creationist beliefs are silly)?
a greater obsession with the supposed right-wing threat to "science" (read: left-wing policy preferences on stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering, etc.)
The right-wing attack on science is voluminously documented in political speeches, court cases, reports on political interference with government reports, etc. Google some of the topics you mention and you can produce a library of examples.
To collate points others have made: none of these issues needed to be focused on science/anti-science arguments, and, up until the 1990s, they usually were not argued that way.
Traditional politicians of all views, from Thomas Jefferson's day up until the last decade or so, took pride in science: it was a body of knowledge that set "modern," Western Culture apart from our medieval ancestors and other traditional cultures Americans considered inferior.
Attacking science became a propaganda tool of movement conservatism in the 1980s and 1990s because it allowed them to whip up resentment of the establishment among populist conservatives and because it was an easy way to defend their corporate allies from scientific research about threats to health and the environment. They have harvested a whirlwind of anti-science and anti-intellectual hatred from their supporters, a passion that remains one of the strongest pillars of their movement. Many progressives, as other comments have noted, have serious moral conflicts with modern science. However if their political enemies attack it as a way to defeat progressives on other issues, even the most virulently anti-science leftists find themselves defending it.
You know, I keep trying to figure out why not to call you "Ross Asshat" every time you put your stubby little fingers to keyboard, but I can't help my own progressive little self.
Science? In quotes? The alantic should be embarresed.
It's writers like Ross Douthat, (and of course the move from Boston to DC) which led me to drop my subscription to Atlantic. I miss James Fallows, but not so much that I would support the bastardization of one of the finest magazines published in America. The current owners will continue to destroy The Atlantic until they decide to dump it, hopefully at a huge loss. After that, it's my hope that the next owners know a bit more about their readers.
wow. this is my first visit to ross assh--umm, douthat's column, and I have to ask ... are they all this pompous and incoherent? did ross dip into the cooking sherry before putting fingers to keyboard?
let's keep it simple. the right wing threat to science (with or without quotes) is real, regardless of how you feel about stem cells, clones, and polar bears floating on rapidly melting sheets of ice.
I'm old enough to remember when things like science weren't considered especially partisan. now even the cable news station you watch or the food you eat comes prepackaged with a political label.
yes, "liberal" is now a dirty word, thanks to the viciousness of right wing trolls and the cringing ineptness of liberals themselves.
like many people who do not subscribe to the idiocy and crassness of the current administration and its toadies, I prefer the term "progressive." I don't think that means I'm required to then follow the tenents of everyone else who has called themselves "progressive".
for me progressive means a willingness to give up treasured icons of the left -- like support for the moribund labor movement or the inevitable growth of the welfare state -- to find solutions that work. I don't see big government as a good thing. at the same time, I think the biggest threat we face is from big corporations, so I'm not anti-regulation. (dubya is really just their toady.)
"liberal" just doesn't fit. too constricting. "libertarian" is a bit too adam smith/milton friedman -- the rich and power just get more rich and powerful. but progressive, that works.
no doubt the right wing propaganda machine will manage to pollute that term as well, and mr. douthat will write another column praising their success. no big. we'll just come up with another word that means the same thing.
wow. this is my first visit to ross assh--umm, douthat's column, and I have to ask ... are they all this pompous and incoherent? did ross dip into the cooking sherry before putting fingers to keyboard?
let's keep it simple. the right wing threat to science (with or without quotes) is real, regardless of how you feel about stem cells, clones, and polar bears floating on rapidly melting sheets of ice.
I'm old enough to remember when things like science weren't considered especially partisan. now even the cable news station you watch or the food you eat comes prepackaged with a political label.
yes, "liberal" is now a dirty word, thanks to the viciousness of right wing trolls and the cringing ineptness of liberals themselves.
like many people who do not subscribe to the idiocy and crassness of the current administration and its toadies, I prefer the term "progressive." I don't think that means I'm required to then follow the tenents of everyone else who has called themselves "progressive".
for me progressive means a willingness to give up treasured icons of the left -- like support for the moribund labor movement or the inevitable growth of the welfare state -- to find solutions that work. I don't see big government as a good thing. at the same time, I think the biggest threat we face is from big corporations, so I'm not anti-regulation. (dubya is really just their toady.)
"liberal" just doesn't fit. too constricting. "libertarian" is a bit too adam smith/milton friedman -- the rich and power just get more rich and powerful. but progressive, that works.
no doubt the right wing propaganda machine will manage to pollute that term as well, and mr. douthat will write another column praising their success. no big. we'll just come up with another word that means the same thing.
"I don't see big government as a good thing. at the same time, I think the biggest threat we face is from big corporations, so I'm not anti-regulation."
Book rec:
"Shaping Political Consciousness: The Language of Politics in America from McKinley to Reagan. by David Green."
It lays out the history of these terms ('liberal' v. 'conservative,' 'reactionary' v. 'progressive,' 'paternalist' v. individualist - that last pair is dead now) over the last century.
They often switch sides, esp. when FDR took the label "liberal" and applied it to the opposite of what that label used to mean.
Like dt, this is my first visit to this site, and it's hard to believe that The Atlantic, which I had thought was a respectable publication, would let themselves be associated with someone quite this proud about his ignorance. Does anyone associated with the magazine ever take a gander at crap like this post?
Okay, I don't have to call it the right-wing threat to science if it suits Mr. Douthit, I'm quite comfortable with calling it the Bush administration's threat to science instead--though it will clearly continue after Bush leaves office, based on recent images of the Republican contenders falling all over themselves to prove they are charter members of the Flat Earth Society. But it's nonetheless a downright lie to imply that their cooking and/or suppressing of the scientific evidence (similar to their cooking the intelligence on Iraq) is a figment of our imagination, or that science merely consists of "left-wing policy preferences." As an aside, I'd like to hear him point out specifically how cloning and genetic engineering are "left-wing policy preferences--my brother, who is about as rock-solid Republican as one can get, sees nothing wrong with genetically engineering plants, etc., while I'm waiting for a little more evidence on long-term effects of such things. So what rock did they turn over to find this guy?
Did someone actually pay this "man" for that illogical partisan screed?
lol. You can always tell when a post is linked to from a lefty blog, because of the cascade of "late-to-the-party" crummy commenters who seem proud to display that they haven't even read the column they are commenting on, but display plenty of vicarious blograge from whichever link they followed.
Sorry folks, but if you'd read the column, you'd realize that the quotes around science are not scare quoting science itself, but rather the idea that people on the left portray many of their political positions as pure science issues when in fact they are combinations of policy and moral and scientific issues. You can take issue with that claim as well, of course, but a bunch of confusing comments based more on some bloggers' quick "scan and screech" than on the actual article are not exactly enlightening.
Why does the Atlantic give space to Douthat? He basically puts lipstick on the Conservative pig. That he would write "Science" rather than Science just shows how much water he carries for reactionary religious whackos. Do not be fooled by this charlatan just because he has a good pedigree. He is Newt Gingrich with an Ivy League degree.
Cool guestbook, interesting information... Keep it UP. excellent site i really like your stuff.
Hi, my name is disman-kl, i like your site and i ll be back ;)
Hi, my name is disman-kl, i like your site and i ll be back ;)
my best mp3 comedy music download library ;)
show pharmacy - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
sorry if i mistake this field
show pharmacy - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
pills , diet pills, weight loss pills , best diet pills , cheap pills , buy diet pill online , sleeping pills , prescription diet pills
pills , diet pills, weight loss pills , best diet pills , cheap pills , buy diet pill online , sleeping pills , prescription diet pills
lingerie , lingerie, lingerie
shop zithromax welcome
xanax
xanax
viagra
viagra
viagra
kubis
kubis
stromkern
top lamisil discount
top lamisil discount
top lexapro discount
top lisinopril discount
top lisinopril discount
top hoodia discount
top glucophage discount
ymeawfr nwymvqh eoba khlecj cabusq dxmihqga wuxyav
ymeawfr nwymvqh eoba khlecj cabusq dxmihqga wuxyav
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
a greater sympathy for Darwinism-as-a-universal-theory among thinkers associated with the political left
What?
Posted by jenny | July 26, 2007 5:24 PM