Pages

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

On the ever-changing nature of whiteness

Nick Gillespie has an excellent piece at Reason, "Will We Build a Wall Against Chinese Immigrants, Too?" on the historical illiteracy and ethnic arbitrariness of trying to preserve an America as a country predominantly (let alone exclusively: see "ethnostate") for white people. Excerpt:

When my maternal grandparents (and as many of their relatives who could scrape together the money for a steerage-class ticket) showed up in America in the 1910s from god-forsaken southern Italy (a very distinct place than practically Austrian/French/Swiss and hence semi-legitimate northern Italy), they weren't white. No, they and their dusky skin, short bodies, and (obvious!) lack of intellectual capacity and impulse control were a big part of The Passing of the Great Race, or the pollution of the Nordic blood that defined true Americans, in Madison Grant's influential, idiotic thought. One of the great achievements of the 20th century (for my family, at least) was that my parents, born of Italian parents on side and Irish immigrants on the other, emerged as fully white and American within 40 or 50 years of being born. It only took suffering through the Depression, really, and supplying infantry members in World War II and Korea....
What counts as "white" has always been fluid and fraudulent, but it often (always?) comes at the expense of some new out-group.

Me: I recently wrote about the genetic history of how light skin became common in Europe in the first place; in short, the key genes spread through mating with dark-skinned people. That fact alone shows the absurdity of the alt-right Weltanschauung (that's German, by the way, for the benefit of today's defenders of European heritage). But all this only hints at the problems the alt-rightists will have in trying to build a movement (let alone a country) that's all-white and only-white. Look at the item below, now circulating on white nationalist twitter. I for one question how well the "Spanish" guy in row 2 is going to fare in a strictly "white" vanguard, and I have doubts about the "Italian" and "French" guys as well, leaving aside the absurd stereotypical additions to the latter.

On the other hand, maybe that idiotic tweet is more open-minded than a lot of alt-right thinking, which tends to implicitly exclude self-described white Hispanics as being white. (If you were to include them in projections, the supposed problem of U.S. whites declining from majority into mere plurality looks likely to never even occur: click to enlarge table.)



So much for "white genocide." And here's a bit of history from a previous time a group of people thought they could defend the "Western world" while dropping such Western values as pluralism and democracy. It's about the Battle of Stalingrad, from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (click to enlarge):


Friday, September 9, 2016

Some history and genetics for the alt-right

I watched much of the alt-right press conference today. Whereas I recently gave some credence to Richard Spencer's claims about the movement's growing influence, I'm starting to wonder if maybe Hillary's denunciation dragged it from the shadows before its leaders were ready. The conference, with its shaky live streaming punctuated by online comments from rabid bigots, reinforced that impression. The content of the presentations also didn't strike me as likely to win many converts. Here's one tidbit about the proposed white ethnostate, as reported by Mother Jones (click to enlarge):

Me: I don't know how Episcopalians like me fit into this, but I suspect when they have a Jewish last name and partly Jewish ancestry, again like me, their status in the ethnostate would be dubious at best. It's clear that many alt-right foot soldiers are disgruntled at such waffling as their leaders show and instead prefer a straight to the gas chambers policy.

But I'll stay on the relatively polite level of discussion of Spencer and Taylor, and point out that "Jewish" and "European" have, to say the least, some overlap in terms of history and heritage. Consider this archaeological story from today: "Explore This Mysterious Mosaic: It May Portray Alexander the Great." Spoiler: it's in an ancient synagogue.

But let's go further back into the past and away from the "Jewish question" on which alt-rightists may be somewhat divided; what they all agree on is the crucial distinction between whites and non-whites, and that Western civilization was a product of whites and can only be sustained by whites. So, let's look at "How Europeans Evolved White Skin." Excerpt from a 2015 article in Science (click...):


Me: The key genes for light skin were spread by light-skinned people mating with darker-skinned people. If there had been an alt-right back then to stop this miscegenation, the skin color they prize might have remained an oddity of people around the Motala archaeological site, or died out altogether. And by the way, read this about "How a Gene for Fair Skin Spread Across India." The genes that contribute to whiteness are found in people of various pigmentations all over the world (and even in white tigers).

The alt-right prides itself on being the ones who've taken the "red pill" that lets you see things as they are. But to uphold their ideology requires averting one's eyes, avoiding learning many uncomfortable facts of history and biology that don't fit the story. And when I hear the alt-right's ideologues saying that their all-white society would have maglev trains and explore Jupiter and so on, I say that those things are more likely in a society that doesn't hand out trophies for the color of your skin.

UPDATE: Related matters here.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Carbon suggestion for Gary Johnson

Here's Gary Johnson backtracking on his seeming support of a carbon tax or fee, in an interview by Nick Gillespie at Reason:


Me: If Johnson is really open to ideas, he should consider the carbon fee and dividend proposal put forward by the Citizen's Climate Lobby. It is guided by the principle stated by one prominent supporter, George Shultz, that "It's not a tax if the government doesn't keep the money," as the revenues would be sent back to households as checks. It would deal with the international aspect by using border adjustments, which are import fees on products from countries that don't have carbon pricing. It is a proposal that has been around for several years, and it would be nice if people running for president of the United States actually knew something about it.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Science needs saving from The New Atlantis [updated]

In the 1960s, "curiosity-driven" scientists took some soil samples from Easter Island. They ended up discovering the drug rapamycin (named after the island's name Rapa Nui), the importance of which--relevant to subjects ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's to longevity--is unfolding even now decades later. These scientists had no idea such a substance was in the Easter Island soil, and there were some twists and turns on the road to identifying and elucidating the drug. Read more here.

I bring this up in response to an essay in the conservative journal The New Atlantis "Saving Science," by Daniel Sarewitz, which argues that the "free play of free intellects" as scientific ideal is a "lie" that wastes time and resources generating esoteric and unreliable results, and that science ought to be far more oriented toward applied research. I'm all for applied research, but the attitude espoused in this essay would never have led to the discovery of rapamycin and, more broadly, would foreclose any number of avenues of research that may have practical benefits that are totally invisible at the outset.

We live in a world that does not always reveal its secrets in compliance with some bureaucratic program and timetable. Moreover, we live in a world that doesn't always comply with political ideology. One effect of the New Atlantis piece, and plausibly a motivation, is to reassure conservatives that the vast gap that has emerged between science and conservatism in recent years is nothing to worry about--indeed, reflects that science has gone wrong, not conservatism. We've had years of lowbrow right-wing attacks on science re climate, evolution and more. So a highbrow attack was in order, to bolster the confidence of conservative intellectuals that they still deserve the label.

UPDATE: The journal's editor got in touch with me, and I sent a letter discussing this in more detail (focused on the rapamycin story), to be published in due course.

UPDATE 8/30: In debating this topic on Twitter, I came across an amusing aspect of Sarewitz's argument. His description of curiosity-driven science is thus:
The fruits of curiosity-driven scientific exploration into the unknown have often been magnificent. The recent discovery of gravitational waves — an experimental confirmation of Einstein’s theoretical work from a century earlier — provided a high-publicity culmination of billions of dollars of public spending and decades of research by large teams of scientists. Multi-billion dollar investments in space exploration have yielded similarly startling knowledge about our solar system, such as the recent evidence of flowing water on Mars. And, speaking of startling, anthropologists and geneticists have used genome-sequencing technologies to offer evidence that early humans interbred with two other hominin species, Neanderthals and Denisovans. Such discoveries heighten our sense of wonder about the universe and about ourselves.
And he goes on to explain that this kind of science doesn't offer much in the way of practical benefits.
So one might be forgiven for believing that this amazing effusion of technological change truly was the product of “the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown.” But one would be mostly wrong.
And yet...look at one of his (few) examples of curiosity-driven science: the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome. And then look at this:

Of course, this sort of knowledge has all kinds of implications for genetic counseling and genetic therapy. It turns out there are some practical consequences even to that free play of free intellects. I'm reminded of this today because a new batch of Neanderthal genome data has been released

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Candidate Kotlikoff redux

Recommended reading: "Only 6 People Can Be Elected President in November. Guess Who They Are," by Laurence Kotlikoff, economist and presidential candidate whom I interacted with a couple of times in my previous job at Research magazine. (Actually, looking through my archive, I'm reminded I also reviewed a book of his for FrumForum.) I like and respect Larry a great deal, but I should add this isn't an endorsement. I haven't made a definite decision as to whom I'll vote for in November. The only certain thing is that it won't be Donald Trump (or Jill Stein). But the liberty to think about voting for anyone other than Hillary is afforded by New Jersey being among the safest of blue states. Even so, I don't really like the idea of leaving it to others to vote Hillary and thereby stop Trump. So I'll think about it more. But I do think Kotlikoff would be a pretty good president.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The GOP has not hit bottom yet

"Has the Right Hit Bottom Yet?" That was the debate question back on Feb. 19, 2009 at one of the Lolita Bar events organized by Todd Seavey. I argued the right's comeback was already under way; Ryan Sager thought it had further to fall. There was a guy in the audience, whom I later learned was Richard Spencer, who asked a question suggesting the Republican Party should devote itself to championing the interests of white people rather than trying to win over minorities (except Asians, whom he thought natural allies with whites). I responded with something like "If the Republican Party takes that approach, it will curl up and die." Ryan was similarly dismissive.

Now, over seven years later, I'm an ex-Republican, and Spencer (now a prominent leader of the "alt right") is in Cleveland crowing "It's amazing. We've taken over the right." And it's true enough. Spencer lives in Montana now and has argued for a whites-only "ethno-state" in the Northwest; and while that may take some time to make it into the GOP platform, the party has moved in his direction by nominating Trump, to an extent I never imagined possible back at Lolita Bar.

In that long-ago debate (which I lost by audience vote), I may have been correct that a political comeback for the right was under way (the Tea Party was just starting to brew then) but I was certainly dead wrong in thinking that the right did not have further to fall--much further--morally and intellectually.  I differ with those, including some anti-Trump friends of mine, who see something worth preserving in the GOP.  So, I stand by my "curl up and die" prediction; what's different now from 2009, though, is that I'm looking forward to seeing it happen.

UPDATE 7/24: Spencer evidently no longer advocates a whites-only homeland in the Northwest but rather the more expansive goal of expelling blacks, hispanics and Jews from the United States.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Irresponsibility party

Seems to me the Responsibility Party I recently wrote about (whether that would work as a formal name or not) took a hit in the Brexit vote (and in celebrations of that vote now playing on right-wing U.S. talk radio and cable). To recap, I wrote about a putative new American party: "Let it be the party that emphasizes personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, environmental responsibility, and a U.S. foreign policy that upholds international commitments and confidence." Those seem to be unfashionable concepts at the moment, but I think they'll win out, at least in the U.S., over time. As for how the Brexit vote made a hash of international commitments and confidence, I recommend this Dan Drezner interview: "Brexit's consequences, according to an expert: 'clusterfuck.'"

Monday, May 9, 2016

Thoughts on a new party

Having terminated my longtime membership in the Republican Party, I am interested in the possibility of a new political party taking shape. How fast that can happen remains to be seen (my guess is time is too limited for this election--but I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that point). Let me suggest as a starting point Paul David Miller's recent articles "Let's Resurrect the Federalist Party" and "What the Federalist Party Platform Would Look Like." Broadly speaking, I am sympathetic to his arguments, and here below will make some points of my own about the purposes and priorities of a new party:

1. The new party should be "republican" in a small-r sense. A concise definition of what "republican" has meant through the ages comes from this book The End of Kings, that "no man shall rule alone." 


An irony of Donald Trump's recent statement “don’t forget, this is called the Republican Party. It’s not called the Conservative Party” is that he has violated not only conservative principles but republican ones. He epitomizes the idea of one-person rule, with the leader receiving deference and adulation while operating by whim and intimidation. Having formed in opposition to Trump, a new party should have in its DNA a deep resistance to any form of authoritarianism or cult of personality.

2. The new party should have some reasonable amenability to ideological diversity. A brilliant aspect of federalism is that it allows people of divergent views on various issues to live together in one nation with reduced tensions. Why should my home state of New Jersey have the same social and economic policies as, say, North Carolina or Wyoming, places that are very different culturally and demographically? Striking a dynamic balance between state and federal authority offers some flexibility for experimentation, and a party that favors such an approach would more or less by definition include people of diverse views. On a related point, there are many good reasons to be opposed to Trump, and his deviations from conservative ideology are not the only such reasons.

3. The new party should offer creative policy solutions that neither Democrats nor Republicans have rallied around. On an issue of climate policy, for instance, I'd hope the new party would be willing to consider carbon fee and dividend, a framework that holds the prospect of actually making a difference on climate change and avoiding the economic harms of the regulatory-heavy methods propounded by the Democrats. It may be that many #NeverTrump ex- or soon-to-be-ex-Republicans are also skeptics of the need for action on climate change, but at the very least such an issue needs to be openly debated in the new party and not treated as dogma.

4. What to call the new party? I am wary of going with the "Federalist Party" as it evokes an organization that flourished over two centuries ago, even it is less musty than "Whigs." To indicate a forward-looking quality, I would prefer the "New Federalist Party" and am wondering whether there is a better name out there that strikes a good balance between enduring principles and fresh thinking.

5. Perhaps it could be called the "Responsibility Party" or just "Responsibility" for short. Let it be the party that emphasizes personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, environmental responsibility, and a U.S. foreign policy that upholds international commitments and confidence. (I presented related ideas, in proto form, in a brief FrumForum post years ago.) Let the Responsibility Party be the party you can trust, while other parties go YOLO and roll the dice with our children's future.

6. Anyone interested?

UPDATE 5/17: The Renegade Party forms.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Not a RINO anymore

Ending a relationship of 32+ years, I mailed this today. (Click to enlarge.)


As I noted on Twitter, it's too bad there's no Federalist Party on this thing. But given the available choices, I'm with her.

P.S., no Trump running mate selection would change my mind, except to lower my opinion of the person who accepts.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Elusive wildlife in Nepal

I've been busy and traveling. Can you spot the rhino in the picture below?



That was taken at Bardia National Park in Nepal a few weeks ago. So was the pic below--where's the tiger?


It's in the water, a white dot just right of upward stem in foreground. It's not easy to get to see a tiger in the wild, so we were grateful for this sighting, even if it wasn't on par with our experience in 2009.

For some interesting recent material on eco-tourism in Nepal, start here.  Count me as on the pro-ecotourism side.

Anyway, one merit of being that far away was a sense of liberation from news about Donald Trump. Sadly, though, it looks like future posts will have to return to that deplorable subject.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Federalist comeback

This blog will be on hiatus for some time; but for those following the political situation, I recommend this article by Paul David Miller: "Let's Resurrect The Federalist Party." Excerpt:
Finally, the party simply got it wrong on some policy issues. I voted for Republicans because I cannot in good conscience support the progressive worldview embodied by the Democratic Party—but I always had to live with the discomfort of knowing that Democrats did a much better job emphasizing the importance of environmental conservation and alleviating poverty. They never had good ideas about how to protect the environment or solve poverty because Democrats have a blind faith in the power of bureaucracy, but at least they gave the issues the attention they deserved. 
Critics are fond of accusing wonks like me of being RINOs for saying such things. Turns out they were right. The Republican Party has settled its mind on these issues, and it is wrong—just one more nail in its coffin.
Me: Having recently seen the fantastic musical "Hamilton," as well as watched the disintegration of my longtime if uncomfortable political home, count me in for a new Federalist Party.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

The Trump moment (updated)

I find the Trump developments rather grotesque and horrible, and this feeling is not alleviated by my having argued last August that his winning the nomination, and for that matter the presidency, was not all that implausible:
Do I think Trump has any chance of winning the GOP nomination? Yes, though I would certainly bet against it. Do I think he has any chance of winning the presidency? A slim one, but not negligible. If he won the nomination, his credibility by that point would be considerable; and it's not as if the Democrats have a frontrunner currently whose viability looks to be assured going forward. But the likelihood that Trump would lose in a general election has sparked some genuine agonizing on the right, and it's kind of funny to watch conservative pundits suddenly embrace the pragmatic electability criteria they spent the past couple of cycles disparaging.
Going forward: mark me down with Ezra Klein in regarding Trump as a genuine threat to American democracy

Mark me down also as disagreeing strenuously with those (including some I respect highly such as Virginia Postrel) who argue that John Kasich should drop out of the race on the putative grounds that this would make a Trump victory less likely. The way to stop Trump is not by rallying behind someone else who offers a diluted version of his terrible attributes, as Rubio does in his ideological shape-shifting and implicit promise to torture terrorism suspects to "find out everything they know."

Moreover, my concern about Trump is not that he'll go on to be the losing nominee but that, if he is the nominee, there is a chance that he might win the presidency. I would prefer a Kasich presidency over a Clinton presidency, but anybody now running --including Sanders and Cruz -- is manifestly preferable to the authoritarian potential of a Trump presidency.

Finally, I should add that I do share one thing with Trump and his supporters, which is that I now care little about the future of the Republican Party (of which I've been a member since 1983). A party that could get itself into this predicament is far from an indispensable bastion of anything worth preserving. The country does need alternatives to the Democrats, but right now the GOP mainly serves the purpose of making the Democrats look more attractive than they deserve.

UPDATED 2/26: I still would like Kasich to be the nominee, but I have to admit my opinion of Rubio has gone way up in the past 24 hours.

UPDATE: But not as much as my estimation of Chris Christie has gone down.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Who wrecked the GOP?

For the record, I agree with this post by Kevin Drum.

UPDATE: Also, I see a glimmer of hope, but it's narrow at the moment.

UPDATE 2: The glimmer of hope gets slightly brighter. Would Vox and the Daily Beast be going after a candidate over nothing if they didn't think he had some chance to win?

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Shultz, climate and why Breitbart.com can't handle the truth

George Shultz has been a voice of reason within the Republican Party on climate policy. The following two paragraphs, from a Washington Post op-ed of his last year, "A Reagan Approach to Climate Change," sum up his approach (click to enlarge):


This is just one of many places in which Shultz advocated a carbon tax, with the caveat that the money should be returned to taxpayers. Now, one reaction on the right to this kind of thinking has been the "everyone makes a mistake once in a while, even George Shultz"-type dismissal given by (now thankfully former) presidential candidate Chris Christie a few months ago. Another reaction is to simply deny that Shultz has said what he's said. That's the tack taken at Breitbart.com today, in a piece by Chriss W. Street titled "Jerry Brown Tries to Flog a New Carbon Tax." Excerpt:

Notice that there's a link to something or another Laffer said, but nothing substantiating the statement that Shultz has "never backed a new carbon tax." That's because it's demonstrably false.

There's a lot wrong on the right these days, and I would put climate science denialism high on that list. But an unwillingness even to face readily evident facts about who disagrees with you is a sure sign your position is in serious intellectual trouble.

UPDATE: Aaron Huertas points out that Breitbart.com's Laffer link leads to something not by Laffer.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Clinton mention

Hillary Clinton, campaigning in Iowa, took note of DeWitt Clinton (not a relation of hers):
“I did a little research,” Mrs. Clinton said at a town-hall-style event at Eagle Heights Elementary School in Clinton on Saturday. “Clinton County is named for DeWitt Clinton, the sixth governor of New York,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “He was the person who said, ‘We’re going to build a canal from the Hudson River down to Lake Erie all the way across New York.’ ”
Me: It was odd to see the subject of my in-progress book show up on the campaign trail. This political season has been a rather engrossing distraction. One thing I admire greatly about DeWitt Clinton is that, even though he was a professional politician, his interests outside politics were many, deep and varied.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

A benefit of fighting climate change

There's an interesting piece at Bloomberg Gadfly "Oil's Sum of All Fears" (found via David Frum) discussing that oil prices have departed from their historical tendency to spike when there is geopolitical tension (especially in the Mideast). This passage suggested some factors helping explain what's changed:
In October, BP's chief economist gave a speech on the "New Economics of Oil". In this brave new world, shale resources' vast reserves, short lead times and low upfront investment upend the notion that OPEC's own underground riches are bound to rise in value over time as everyone else's wells run dry. Adding to this is pressure on the demand side in the form of political and technological momentum to limit the burning of fossil fuels.
That last line points to one of the great under-appreciated but obvious facts of our time: trying to limit climate change is not a distraction from our geopolitical problems (as it's often presented as being on the right) but rather an integral part of dealing with those problems. Less dependence on fossil fuels brings a raft of economic and national security benefits, as well as environmental ones: less vulnerability to oil price spikes; and less revenue for terror groups and hostile states. And that's even without assuming any success in fighting climate change; any benefits on that score also have geopolitical benefits, such as less likelihood of droughts such as can exacerbate refugee crises.

If you want better national security, avoid at all costs candidates who say things like this, and ones who don't even understand their own obscurantist arguments about a global warming "pause."

Monday, January 4, 2016

Rethinking the 6% scientists are Republicans meme

I used to be more impressed by these figures, which were cited today by Paul Krugman.


I cited the "6% of scientists are Republicans" figure in various discussions and articles a few years ago. At the time, I also noted that there was some uncertainty as to how accurate the figure was, given that it was based on a sampling of AAAS members. That concern has grown in recent months, precisely because I lately have become an AAAS member in order to subscribe to the journal Science. I already knew that becoming a member does not require being a scientist (I am a part-time science journalist) but the distinction between "AAAS member" and "scientist" has been underscored for me by (a) actually attaining membership for the price of a magazine subscription and (b) receiving subsequent mailings inviting me to further professional memberships, such as in a chemical society, and even being told I was "specially selected" as an AAAS member or some such.

Lest I be misunderstood, I continue to believe that the 6% figure, though clearly not a precise measurement, points to a real problem of heightened alienation between scientists and Republicans. But seeing it repeated now, years later, with no qualifications, does not much incline me toward Krugman's argument, to wit that there's no sign of academia moving left, it's just that crazy Republicans moved right. The current GOP overall is indeed too right-wing for me, as I've made clear, but craziness at one end of the political spectrum often begets and is abetted by craziness at the opposite terminus, and pretending that's not so is a sign you may be succumbing to it yourself.

BTW I came across Krugman's piece via this tweet, with which I sympathize greatly,  by Jonathan Haidt:


Friday, January 1, 2016

Some mostly math-related books

I've just made a few purchases of math-related books:


Edward Frenkel's phenomenally good book Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Reality is out in paperback, and I wanted to have it on hand. I interviewed Frenkel about a year ago, after reading a library copy of the hardcover. I'd certainly add this if I were doing a new version of my 10+ most influential books, as it got me into learning and writing about math on an ongoing basis.

One of the first things I did in that direction, after reading Frenkel's book, was take Jo Boaler's class How to Learn Math: for Students, which was valuable for thinking about math education (the course had only a limited sampling of math), which I'm interested in as a personal and political matter. I've now ordered her book Mathematical Mindsets: Unleashing Students' Potential through Creative Math, Inspiring Messages and Innovative Teaching, and may review it at some point here.


Also ordered: Patterns of the Universe: A Coloring Adventure in Math and Beauty, which certainly looks interesting.

Recently finished reading: Finding Zero: A Mathematician's Odyssey to Uncover the Origins of Numbers, by Amir Aczel, which is a nice blend of math, history and travelogue, and involves searching for the first zero through South and Southeast Asia.

Current non-math reading: Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush, by Jon Meacham. Quite interesting thus far (I'm up to around 1960) and elegaic, with much of the world described seeming not quite as distant as the ancient civilizations described in the zero book above, but pretty distant nonetheless.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

The terrible reality of the GOP race

I haven't had much time to blog lately, but the Republican presidential race is going in too much a worst-case-scenario-ish direction to be ignored. Those of us who tried pushing the Republican Party onto a reformist and moderate track have to acknowledge that the effort has been manifestly unsuccessful. Those who took the view that a harder-line or more forceful conservatism (or just "say it louder") is the right direction will now have to face the grim reality of their wish coming true.

I agree with this headline and the gist of the article: "Win or Lose, Trump Has Already Left His Mark on Republican Primary." Excerpt (click to enlarge):




Me: Jonathan Chait's piece "How Donald Trump Opened the Door for Ted Cruz to Win," also aptly summarizes the state of the party, even if I don't feel quite as confident that Cruz will come out on top (though he may well). The thing we can be most sure of is that what once would have been considered a hard right candidate is likely to emerge, and any semblance of moderation will only be an illusion created by the alternatives along some dimension of policy or affect. Excerpt from Chait (click to enlarge):



Me: To describe all the above as anything short of a disaster would, it seems to me, require some shielding from reality. It's a disaster for the GOP and ultimately for the United States, which needs but does not have a rational and lucid alternative to the Democrats. I have voted Republican in every presidential election since my first (1984) with one exception (1992) when I voted Libertarian. But even with a flawed prospective candidate, the Democrats can expect -- and by current trends, will deserve -- a landslide in 2016, and my vote with it.

UPDATE 12/11: I am in strong agreement with this passage from Jennifer Rubin (click to enlarge):

















UPDATE 2/16: The race of course has gotten even worse, but there are moments when Marco Rubio makes me rethink the negative assessment above.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Antiscience identity politics

There was a time, aka the 1990s, when the postmodern left and science were notably at odds. I've long cherished this anecdote:
When social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth took the podium at a recent interdisciplinary seminar on emotions, she was already feeling rattled. Colleagues who'd presented earlier had warned her that the crowd was tough and had little patience for the reduction of human experience to numbers or bold generalizations about emotions across cultures. Ellsworth had a plan: She would pre-empt criticism by playing the critic, offering a social history of psychological approaches to the topic. But no sooner had the word "experiment" passed her lips than the hands shot up. Audience members pointed out that the experimental method is the brainchild of white Victorian males. Ellsworth agreed that white Victorian males had done their share of damage in the world but noted that, nonetheless, their efforts had led to the discovery of DNA. This short-lived dialogue between paradigms ground to a halt with the retort: "You believe in DNA?"
Then a lot happened. Postmodernism faded as an academic force. Tensions between conservatives and scientists increased, most saliently on climate and evolution. Left-wing antiscience turned into a relatively obscure issue, albeit one that this blog, with its affinity for obscurity, occasionally visited.

However, if anyone thinks that science is going to be untouched by the current inflammation of PC leftism on campuses and beyond, let's just say "You believe in DNA?" has spawned more questions in febrile young minds:

I've written in the past about a possible switcheroo of pro- and anti-science positions in the political spectrum. I was thinking of a decades-long timeframe, but it may not be such a long wait.