Party of Palin? Why Almost No Scientists Are Republican

[unhappycamper]

http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/almost-scientists-republican.html

Party of Palin? Why Almost No Scientists Are Republican
By contributors | Aug. 11, 2014
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks:

“”A large majority of the public (76%) and nearly all scientists (97%) say that it is appropriate for scientists to become actively involved in political debates on controversial issues such as stem cell research and nuclear power.

Among the public, substantial majorities of Democrats (80%), independents (76%) and Republicans (75%) say it is appropriate for scientists to take an active political role on such issues. While older Americans (those older than 50) and less educated people are somewhat more likely to see scientists’ political involvement as inappropriate, majorities in all major demographic and political groups find this appropriate.

Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”; 20% see them as politically liberal and 9% say they are politically conservative.”* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.”

[cprise]

1. This is actually a big change from 15 years ago.

IIRC most scientists back then leaned toward the Republican party and conservatism.

[MisterP]

2. that's actually quite salient: it shows that the GOP has become *the* party for the far right/corpos

presumably causing heavy load-shedding: the GOP is simply no longer respectable, and definitely not targeting itself above the 4th grade (outside perhaps New England)

but then again the far right viewpoint (as opposed to "Republican" or "conservative" ones) has never had a big academic presence: going through the books on, say, Iran-Contra you get a disproportionately small but still visible sampling of conservatives amid all the Marxist structural analyses, Derrideans complicators, theological interpretations, litterateurs, etc.

the far-right perspective is only provided by like 3 Heritage Foundation books that were obviously just written to rile people up, a Moonie documentary, and maybe a tattered Accuracy in Media pamphlet on how not a damn thing happened in El Mozote and that archeology is full of commies so you can't trust what they dig up; there's a few White House or Heritage articles on how great the Shuttle and Pol Pot's freedom fighters are

but no real analysis

[WeAreKochs]

3. Anti-Intellectual

There is actually an "anti-technocrat" or "anti-intellectual" wing within both parties. However, the Republicans' is just far larger and has been actively cultivated. Voters tend to prefer candidates they can "have a beer with" to those they view as "smart, competent, or well-informed". As a result, the thinking in some GOP circles goes (particularly post-GWB), better to have candidates that are stronger in the first dimension than the second.

The partisan difference stems from the fact that the GOP establishment actively encourages candidates like Bachmann, Palin, etc. to run for office and accentuate their folksiness rather than conceal it. In contrast, the Democratic party has been much better at marginalizing anti-intellectuals and those with political views outside the mainstream.