Year 3, Month 2, Day 4: Nattering Nitwits of Know-Nothingism

The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette, LA) runs another in a series of rueful analyses from former Republicans who’ve broken with the batshit crazies now running their party:

The abuse directed at climate researchers sheds light on a tragic political truth — a cancer is consuming the soul of American conservatism. Conservatism is taking on many of the hallmarks of a cult — one in which information and doctrine are received, without question, from recognized authority figures or sources, and in which dissent cannot be tolerated. The conservative cult views the political process in apocalyptic terms, and sees its opponents as demonically evil. Sadly, climate denial is a key pillar in this cult’s ideology.

Under these circumstances, conservative scientists like Hayhoe and Emanuel are particularly dangerous. They demonstrate that there isn’t a fundamental incongruity between religious faith, or conservatism, and accepting the science behind AGW. They are heretics, calling to other conservatives from beyond the walls of the cult compound. And that’s a mortal threat to the climate deniers, and perhaps to the very existence of the cult itself.

In the end, the bullying and abuse of scientists is a sign of growing desperation. The cult must be defended, by any means. Dissenters must be intimidated into silence. With everything else against them, conservative climate deniers have only one option left – it’s time to get personal, and pound.

So the GOP’s full of crazy, huh? Gosh! Wouldn’t have expected that. Wonder why? Sent January 29:

Michael Stafford’s analysis of Republican cultishness (with particular reference to climate change denial) is exactly accurate. The exclusive reliance on received knowledge, the glib dismissal of ideologically inconvenient facts, the Manichaean mindset in which subtlety is inconceivable and compromise impossible — behold the public face of American conservatism today!

But how did the GOP turn into an apocalyptic, willfully ignorant mob? Mr. Stafford, a former party official, is readier to deplore his erstwhile compatriots’ behavior than to acknowledge the party’s complicity in its own degradation.

It’s undeniable: conservative politicians have long cultivated a virulent strain of electorally useful anti-intellectualism. Demagogues have been elected all over America by railing against “pointy-headed professors”, and “so-called experts.”

Who’d have thought that fifty years spent attacking intelligence, reason and scientific expertise would build an ignorant, unreasonable, and scientifically incompetent constituency? A few liberal intellectuals, perhaps — but their opinions didn’t count. Buncha damned hippies!

Warren Senders

Month 8, Day 28: That’ll Teach You To Be Sensitive and Caring!

More hippie-punching from the current administration.

I expect it from my enemies. Getting hippie-punched by the Cheney administration was a badge of honor. Getting it from the Obama team is utterly dispiriting.

Dear President Obama,

Your administration’s brief in Connecticut v. AEP argues that regulatory action by Federal agencies negates the legal standing of states or private entities to employ common-law “nuisance” provisions to protect their interests. The Solicitor-General argues that since the EPA has begun addressing carbon-dioxide emissions, the use of nuisance law to create de facto regulation of polluters is superfluous and legally ambiguous.

That’s a pretty tenuous rationale for a legal position that amounts to siding with major polluters on the interpretation and implementation of the Clean Air Act — especially given that your Administration didn’t even need to intervene in the case to begin with. If you couldn’t see your way clear to supporting the rights of individuals to sue for regulation of nuisance pollution, why not just stay out of the way?

Yes, it would be better to have strong statutory language specifically delineating a robust regulatory policy on emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. But is climate legislation with any teeth actually going to happen in the current political climate? The chances are slim to non-existent.

Who decided to intervene in Connecticut v. AEP? And why did they not consult any members of your administration with scientific or environmental expertise?

Mr. President, I worked and donated to ensure your election. As an environmentalist, I had confidence that you recognized the genuine existential threat posed by global climate change, and would be prepared to utilize your considerable rhetorical and oratorical skills to marshal support for climate/energy legislation in the current congress. I expect to work and donate for Democrats this fall, but with greatly diminished enthusiasm; “vote for us because our opponents are even worse” is a weak political motivator.

Nuisance law has long been an important avenue for citizens to address corporate criminality on a local and regional level; your administration’s contribution to Connecticut vs. AEP is an advocacy of disempowerment — precisely the opposite of your message to the nation in the election of 2008! What (besides being justifiably concerned about the future of our species) have environmentalists done to merit such shabby treatment?

Yours Sincerely,

Warren Senders