It’s unfortunate that my post about denialism among Republican candidates for president, has in the comments become a discussion of what polls show.
It’s true, as Robert pointed out with this link, too many Democrats don’t believe in evolution. And yet, I doubt any Democratic running for President would dare admit to not believing in evolution in a national debate, whereas about a third of the Republican candidates did. That’s an important difference, but what accounts for it?
The answer is partly in the polling numbers. According to Robert’s link, more Democrats (49%) believe in evolution than not (47%). That’s within the margin of error, admittedly, but it’s clear that the anti-science folks have a strength among Republican voters they lack among Democrats. 49% of Kerry voters versus 28% of Bush voters believe in evolution; 24% of Kerry voters vs 45% of Bush voters want Creationism taught in the classrooms. Those differences aren’t small.
Even more important than the polling numbers, though, is how voters in each party prioritize their beliefs. Denialism exist among Democratic voters — but anti-evolution Democrats aren’t forming coalitions to elect Democrats who believe in creationism and related views. Their Republican counterparts do form such coalitions. This makes a huge difference to who is electable in each party.
Among Republicans, creationism ((“Creationism” requires a rejection of evolution. So someone who says “God used evolution to create” isn’t a creationist, in my view.)) — and the anti-science, anti-rationality baggage creationism carries — isn’t a barrier to high political office. Few Republican party activists will abandon a major Republican candidate who is a creationist; they can’t afford to utterly reject creationism, because the denialism creationism represents is a major part of the Republican coalition.
In contrast, for many Democratic party activists belief in creationism is a deal-breaker. Outside of Detroit, being a denialist on global warming is a deal-breaker. Thinking that one could diagnose Terri Schiavo via a TV screen would be, among Democratic party activists, a deal-breaker.
The issue isn’t who has a bunch of evolution denialists among their voters; both parties do (although the Republicans have many more). The issue is which party is prone to electing anti-science denialists. And this matters because anti-science denialists are incapable of governing responsibly on issues which require valuing science over ideology and religious fundamentalism.
Denialism isn’t only about creationism. It’s about FDA drug approval. It’s about who knows better what abortion procedures are safe for women: Congress or doctors. It’s about lesbian and gay couples, and about lesbian and gay parents. It’s about if Iraq is going swimmingly for the U.S.. It’s about global warming. It’s about any issue where religious fundamentalism and ideology are pulling a politician one way, while facts and science pull the other way.
And — contrary to what some of my lefty allies believe — it’s a significant difference between the two major parties.
UPDATE: Amanda comments.
Amen, Amp. I was sort of getting there when I said, in the other thread:
There’s a vicious circle here, imo. It’s more comforting to believe that God is in charge of everything and will fix everything as long as we believe in him than that we’re on our own; and if two people are telling you two diametrically opposite things, each one swearing that their version is incontrovertible fact, you’re more likely to believe the version that supports your own preconceptions. Put an antiscience theocrat like Bush in the White House, and you don’t have to be nattered at about global warming or entertain those nagging worries that maybe you should get rid of that SUV for the next four (or, sadly, eight) years. (And I could just as easily have used the FDA or Iraq or… or… as the example here.) The more antiscience theocrats are in power, and the longer they stay, the more they dumb down and bowdlerize the science textbooks, the more they forbid NASA scientists to mention global warming, and pretty soon anyone contradicting them looks like a crackpot. Mix in a heaping helping of fearmongering (if you do not do what God… er, I mean Bush says, the terrorists will have won), and you have a potent brew.
It was skillful exploitation of this vicious circle, I think, that led Rove and his ilk to think that they had built the permanent Republican majority. To a great extent it was Hurricane Katrina that blew away the house of cards. We have a long way to go, though.
And yet, I doubt any Democratic running for President would dare admit to not believing in evolution in a national debate, whereas about a third of the Republican candidates did. That’s an important difference, but what accounts for it?
Amp, I’m not going to concede this unless someone actually asks the question of a bunch of Democratic candidates, preferably under the same conditions (together as a group with press coverage). After all, lots of people were surprised by the poll results. The candidates might similarly surprise you.
Amen to antiscience attitudes in the Bush White House. Although it would be worth looking into as far as how much Democratic presidents have gotten house scientists to tell them what they wanted to hear. But by no means will I defend the current Administration’s attitudes and actions.
Failures in the preparation for Hurricane Katrina and the first few days of the aftermath belong to the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans (I can’t believe they re-elected that fool) and the Democratic Governor of Louisana, though, not Bush. He doesn’t start to wear that jacket until about Day 3. It wasn’t Bush who failed to folllow the well-written disaster plans and procedures, it was the locals who left those school buses sitting in the parking lot (as well as several other failures).
and if two people are telling you two diametrically opposite things, each one swearing that their version is incontrovertible fact, you’re more likely to believe the version that supports your own preconceptions.
Or solve the conflict by dumping the advisor who doesn’t support your own preconceptions. A common management fault, unfortunately.
I’d really like to see the Dems answer this question too. My suspicion is that most would try to please as many people as possible by saying that God directs evolution.
There is an important difference between Democrats and Republicans, though.
In fact, the reverse seems to be true. Here (via TPM) is a CBN journalist demanding to know: does Mitt Romney believe in evolution or doesn’t he?
In other words, a large bloc of Republican voters doesn’t just condone but requires denialism from presidential candidates. I think (I devoutly hope) Amp is right that Democratic voters don’t work this way. (By “[party] voters” I mean voters who typically lean toward one party or the other, not just party-enrolled voters.)
Amp I’ve never said there is no difference between the two parties (just that they differences are small, and even on issues that are supposed to be points of difference there is much agreement), but there is always more difference in their rhetoric than their actions. The point when considering the difference shouldn’t be what they say but what they do (see the number of Democratic candidates who are talking anti-war now, but voted for the war on Iraq).
One of my question is where is your line. The Democrats are roughly politically equivalent to the New Zealand National party (which is our major right wing party). It’s so weird to me to hear reasonably progressive people championing a party which has such extremely right wing policies. In fact on some issues I imagine the National party is more liberal. Imagine you live in a country where there are no Democrats, and the Republicans are the left wing party. The party to the right of the Republicans is threatening to outlaw the teaching of evolution (and make abortion punishable by death and so on). Do you vote for the Republicans uner those circumstances? Is there any line in the sand?
It’s fine if there’s not. If you’re going to vote for a lizard so that the wrong lizard doesn’t get in then that’s your call, but then it’s really important that you don’t talk up the lizards. That just because the Democrats suck marginally less, that’s no reason to talk up the differences between them.
Imagine you live in a country where there are no Democrats, and the Republicans are the left wing party.
You mean Heaven?