Ben Carson Says Evolution is a Fairy Tale

[overtone]

I see Democrats backing H. Clinton, and if either Trump or Carson gets the nod, most Republicans will be backing H. Clinton also.

The problem is illustrated thereby. What do you mean by such a condition for supporting Clinton?

 

Because there isn't anyone waiting in the wings, either. After those two comes Cruz. Fiorina. You are talking about taking somebody like Jeb! or Rubio as your "responsible" candidate - seriously? That isn't a joke?

 

What you have here is a situation in which even a smidgen of sanity would have most Republicans throwing not only their vote but their money and public endorsement behind one of the Democratic candidates - any of them would represent the supposed ideology and political stances of the Republican Party better than any of the Republican declared. Instead, you have a Party that not only nominated but then voted for W, Romney, even Palin.

Edited November 16, 2015 by overtone

[sciwiz12]

There seems to me to be an indefinite culture war in the US that has been raging since about the 60s more or less. At one point conservativism and scientific rationality didn't really seem opposed to one another but around the time of the war in Vietnam we saw counterculture take root in college and academic environments where learned students and professors raved first against the war, and then against the man. Following that the silent majority took over feeling that the counter culture was dangerously close to becoming the culture culture and I think Carsons is just the latest example of the fallout from that area, when conservative started to become synonymous with anti-academic.

[iNow]

I believe the timeline you mention in the US is more closely linked with the Southern Strategy, but anti-intellectualism itself as a political force is far older.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Distrust_of_intellectuals

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

Barry Goldwater played an important role, too, and he awoke some long dormant trends across large swaths of the populace: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

Edited November 17, 2015 by iNow

[sciwiz12]

Anti-intellectualism was predominant in revival movement rejection of hard lined "there definitely is no God, that's silly" empiricism. However there's an argument for a close relationship with both the southern strategy and the opposition to counter culture in terms of increased part centralisation.

I should clarify that I can see an argument for the southern strategy as related to anti-intellectualism if you also allow that intellectualism has become intertwined with progressivism and civil rights.

[iNow]

Can you elaborate on your thinking? Anti-intellectualism intertwined with progressivism and civil rights, in what way?

 

In my view, many parts of the civil rights movement were used as core wedge issues that the political strategists and power-seekers used to stoke passions among single issue voters (segregation, Vietnam, then later guns, gay marriage, climate change, etc.). These issues tended to split the populace in practically seismic ways where people retreated to like-minded camps, and I see the "don't trust those dirty elite university professor-types" as part of that us/them split (though, as we both acknowledge, it's a process that has been happening for ages). In terms of the current discussion about something changing in the 60s, I suggest anti-intellectualism became just another way to enforce tribal identities alongside those other issues like segregation and war that were already driving divisions.

[sciwiz12]

To which I would largely agree. In saying the concepts have become intertwined I suppose it would make more sense to say that the same left leaning political faction in favor of progressivism and civil rights became largely associated with their academic supporters as colleges tend to breed a style of thinking that favors civil rights but demands knowledge of the sciences as a matter of practice among other core academic pursuits.

 

I think it's as you say, a matter of enforcing tribal boundaries. Still there have been times where conservativism didn't go hand in hand with distrust in academics and sciences, but embraced those along side everyone else as we embraced the promises of nuclear energy, though perhaps my perspective has been skewed by too much fallout 3&4.

 

Anyway it seems that as more prominent scientists and professors spoke out against southern strategy racism, and the Vietnam war, the view of academia and science as strongly left leaning ideals began to emerge. Then again as I said before my idea of what the 50s were like is a bit skewed admittedly.

[iNow]

there have been times where conservativism didn't go hand in hand with distrust in academics and sciences, but embraced those along side everyone else as we embraced the promises of nuclear energy, though perhaps my perspective has been skewed by too much fallout 3&4.

I think what you shared is largely true/accurate. I see it as a relatively recent phenomenon that anti-intellectualism became so heavily coupled with the right-wing / conservative base. IMO, that was not the case before the 70s/80s.

 

My guess is that some important shifts happened around the time of the Reagan administration (when also at this time the NRA completely changed from a gun safety and training organization to an activist political propaganda machine after an internal coup) and likely the effect was magnified by the Bush/Gore election wherein Karl Rove saw it as a winning strategy (though, Newt Gingrich and others clearly played similar roles during the Clinton administration).

 

There's a poster here named Overtone with whom I don't always agree, but I find his posts on this subject to be pretty largely on point and informative. I'm curious if he'll step in to share what his take is (or others whom I also enjoy reading!).