More On the Republican Anti-Fact Shield

So after I posted my tantrum about George Will the other day, I felt a little guilty.  Maybe I had been too hard on The Tory Bowtie.  After all, maybe his putting “facts” in scare quotes was just a slip.

Then I saw this piece on the Washington Post editorial page by Republican pollster Ed Rogers, on what the Republican base wants from a candidate.  His words, not mine:

Even though Cain won’t be the nominee, his candidacy tells us a lot about the psychology of GOP activists. Our team wants someone authentic, creative, fresh, bold and likeable. And we don’t have much tolerance for too many facts or too much information. In politics, a bumper sticker always beats an essay. Cain’s 9-9-9 is a bumper sticker; Romney’s economic plan is an essay. Perry’s rationale for giving the children of undocumented workers in-state college tuition rates is an essay. No hand-outs for illegal aliens is an effective bumper sticker.

This is getting a little too easy, people.  It’s clearly true that in politics a bumper sticker beats an essay, but that’s far from saying that your most energetic supporters don’t want your bumper stickers to be backed by an essay.  Modern-day Republicans?  Don’t confuse us with facts.

Those people still naive enough to believe in “consensus bipartisan solutions” to climate change should take note.

, , , , , ,

Reader Comments

2 Replies to “More On the Republican Anti-Fact Shield”

  1. Jonathan said;
    “…Those people still naive enough to believe in “consensus bipartisan solutions” to climate change should take note…”

    Dear Jonathan,
    This is a good point that should be repeated. There is no scientific or bipatisan consensus and any “solution” is merely a political gimmick and not a feasible and effective solution.

    Each of us makes a personal choice about whether we allow this issue to cause us alarm and discomfort. As individuals, we can find great psychological and emotional comfort, and more free time, when we choose to ignore climate rhetoric and focus on the real and present things in life that are far more important.

    Life is short and it is foolish to waste too much time worrying about highly speculative adverse scenarios which we have no control over. I hope this helps some of the poor souls who are struggling with fear and anxiety.

  2. Jonathan said;
    “…Those people still naive enough to believe in “consensus bipartisan solutions” to climate change should take note…”

    Dear Jonathan,
    This is a good point that should be repeated. There is no scientific or bipatisan consensus and any “solution” is merely a political gimmick and not a feasible and effective solution.

    Each of us makes a personal choice about whether we allow this issue to cause us alarm and discomfort. As individuals, we can find great psychological and emotional comfort, and more free time, when we choose to ignore climate rhetoric and focus on the real and present things in life that are far more important.

    Life is short and it is foolish to waste too much time worrying about highly speculative adverse scenarios which we have no control over. I hope this helps some of the poor souls who are struggling with fear and anxiety.

Comments are closed.

About Jonathan

Jonathan Zasloff

Jonathan Zasloff teaches Torts, Land Use, Environmental Law, Comparative Urban Planning Law, Legal History, and Public Policy Clinic – Land Use, the Environment and Loc…

READ more

POSTS BY Jonathan