Last week, in a comment on one of my posts, Virginia asked a question which she characterized as "simple and naive." It is, however, neither simple nor naive. Here it is:
"Why is it that those people that tend to care about the environment fall mostly on one side of the political aisle? Why is caring for the environment not bipartisian? I mean really... we all have to breath the same air and drink the water.... If you had to boil it down to a simple explanation... what would you say? (Is it just all about the mighty buck?)"
I promised her I'd give this some thought, and get back to her. I had planned to use Chris Mooney's book The Republican War on Science in my answer, with quotes from some of his reviewers. Then yesterday Bruce actually answered her question, in this post, using Mooney's book himself. Bruce quotes Andrew O'Hehir's review of War:
"The Republican War on Science" is nothing short of a landmark in contemporary political reporting. Mooney compiles and presents an extraordinary mountain of evidence, from several different fields, to demonstrate that the conservative wing of the Republican Party has launched an unprecedented and highly successful campaign to sow widespread confusion about the conclusions of science and its usefulness in political decision making. Using methods and strategies pioneered under the Reagan administration by the tobacco industry and anti-environmental forces, an alliance of social conservatives and corporate advocates has paralyzed or obfuscated public discussion of science on a whole range of issues. Not just climate change but also stem cell research, evolutionary biology, endangered-species protection, diet and obesity, abortion and contraception, and the effects of environmental toxins have all become arenas of systematic and deliberate bewilderment.
The two sides of the aisle in this discussion are not necessarily as clearcut as Republican vs Democrat, although it is indeed currently the conservative wing of the Republican party that is mainly the chief ally of the corporate advocates. Historically, the Republican party has been a good steward of the American environment. This big change in policy moved in with Reagan and his administration and has only grown worse under the Bush reign, most notably while GWB has been in office. (I have to say that I see few Democrats speaking out strongly for decent environmental science, as they too are slaves to the corporate donors. During the debate on the Energy Bill a few Democrats made some weak attempts to actually address issues that would move towards solving our energy problems, but nothing like what was needed.) Here are some quotes from Boyce Rensberger's article on Mooney's book in the current Scientific American, Science Abuse: Subverting scientific knowledge for short term gain:
Many conservatives, he argues, have stopped regarding science as an objective search for truth (conditional as that truth necessarily is). Instead, they see it as just another realm of naked power politics or, less cynically but more ominously, as a contest between a pseudo-socialistic, tree-hugging worldview and one that is avowedly pro-Christian and pro-capitalist.
....................................
More ominously, some of those in power may grasp how research works but nonetheless are willing to subvert science's knowledge and expert opinion for short-term political and economic gains.
"When politicians use bad science to justify themselves rather than good science to make up their minds," Mooney writes, "we can safely assume that wrongheaded and even disastrous decisions lie ahead."
So, Virginia knew the answer to her question all along, when she said, "Is it just all about the mighty buck?" Yes, it seems to be. Political power and economic gain for the politicians and the corporations, polluted water/air/soil, global warming, habitat loss, toxic poisoning, be damned. This explains the politics behind the denial of good science, but what it doesn't explain is how those in the position of policy making can fool themselves, or rather, how long they will be able to fool themselves, and the American people. As Virginia says, they inhabit the same planet as the rest of us. As the constituents of these politicians wake up to the environmental and resource losses occurring as a result of government working hand-in-hand with corporate donors, as they stop blindly trusting the word of those at the top and start thinking for themselves, perhaps public discussion will become more honest. People will no longer be willing to accept confusion and obfuscation, but will themselves demand honest answers, will take responsibility for decisions to be made on sound science, not "short-term political and economic gain."
