Krugman nails the Teaparty wing


The acerbic Paul Krugman, so shrill, so uncouth, so very impolite to point out the serial misadventures of conservative economic policy, delved into a related theme in his latest column: The GOP has become the anti-science party. The consequences for this will-full idiocy go way beyond evolution and climate change:

Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense”, the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyse things like financial crises and recessions? Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges – environmental, economic, and more – that’s a terrifying prospect.

Ignoring empirical evidence is not a good way to solve problems. We didn’t wish our way to victory in World War 2 nor pray ourselves to the moon. But it’s a great way to get thousands of adoring fans and small dollar contributions from the victimized sheeple that make up today’s conservative base.

Comments

  1. txsecular says

    I read a letter to the editor in the local paper (Central Texas) Saturday that stated the idea that “fancy theories” are not to be trusted when it come to economic policy. I should have known it was Tea Party inspired.

  2. blotzphoto says

    The takeaway line:
    “So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe”

    If you are a Republican, your choices are between ignorance or cowardice…
    This makes John Huntsman the Ralph Nader of the Party of Lincoln, no?

  3. leftwingfox says

    This makes John Huntsman the Ralph Nader of the Party of Lincoln, no?

    Possibly more along the line of Joe Lieberman: even if his stance won’t win him the primary, it’ll probably get him a disproportionate amount of love in the press as a “Principaled moderate” of the party. One could build a pretty healthy career from that.

Leave a Reply