Profound words from the Daily Howler

[dsc]

I often have gone after what I believed were misuses of math to 'prove' the election of 2002 was stolen. I took a lot of grief for that. I stand behind what I did though and this is why:

KRUGMAN: The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn't have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.
We haven’t studied “intelligent design,” and we don’t want to weigh in on the evolution debate. But note the larger process described here. When standard intellectual procedures are undermined, those who have “political muscle” can step in and rule the roost. So it will go if libs become freepers—if we too make up quotes; invent pleasing “facts;” indulge in weird logic; and demonize wildly. When any damn fool can say any damn thing, the damn fools with power will win every time. Over the course of the past several centuries, the traditions known as “fact” and “logic” have served as brakes on desires of the powerful. The king could no longer simply say it. He now had to show it was true.
In our view, standard intellectual rigor will typically serve progressive interests. Libs would be foolish to adopt the gong-show behaviors which have defined the talk-show right all these years. Given the hapless conduct of liberal elites in the dozen years, it’s easy to see why progressives and libs might find themselves drawn to these gong-show behaviors. But this would be a path straight to hell. In our view, accurate facts clearly explained will normally favor progressive interests. We’ve been sad to see some on the liberal web starting to ape the gong-show pseudo-right—and praying for prosecution of the bad men we’re too inept to defeat on our own. (And too lazy; and too undisciplined; and too riddled with conflict of interest.)

This morning, Krugman describes an instructive process. Those who have “political muscle” will typically welcome intellectual chaos. If they can simply spread doubt and confusion—if they can undermine normal intellectual methods—then their muscle will start to take hold. So it will be in the wider discourse if we—like those whom we have long ridiculed—start to take our daily pleasure in the methods of gong-show discussion.

Funny, isn’t it? When we got into this business, we thought it would be a way of expanding and, in some sense, reifying the ephemeral daily conversation that humans engage in. Now, we think we might see something else developing—something less noble, less fine.

end of quote

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080505.shtml

I was no where near as clear and concise when I discussed my reasons but this is exactly it. Facts, real ones not made up ones, favor progressives. Similarly statistics, real ones not made up ones, favor progressives. We can never win battles of strength if we throw out our best weapon.