News Richard Dawkins on Rick Perry (and the rest of the Republican Party)

[Ivan Seeking]

Why would you want to prevent someone that is easily attacked from running? The left is on their knees praying for Palin to announce - IMO.

You are assuming that everyone supporting the left wouldn't support a viable option from the right.

I happen to think Obama is unique and unusually talented as politicians go, so it's hard to imagine someone from the right winning me over, but I do want to see a viable and valuable right wing; not what we have today.

The US political process has effectively been reduced to a religious war.

 

[Evo]

Why would you want to prevent someone that is easily attacked from running?

Because I've never been this frightened by the people running before. I'm not kidding. I at one time considered myself Republican, 30+ years ago. Now it makes me physically ill when I look at the list of potentials and worry that one of them could get elected.

No offense to anyone intended, just really frightened for the first time in my life. What will happen to women's rights? What will happen to gay rights? What will happen to education and advancing scientific knowledge? What will happen to every freedom that we have fought so hard for all these years to make this country a decent place to live?

I don't want to be thrown back to the Salem Witch trials. These people that the candidates are surrounding them selves with believe in witches and demons!

IMO to all.

 

[WhoWee]

You are assuming that everyone supporting the left wouldn't support a viable option from the right.

I happen to think Obama is unique and unusually talented as politicians go, so it's hard to imagine someone from the right winning me over, but I do want to see a viable and valuable right wing; not what we have today.

I've never attempted to argue that President Obama is an untalented politician - quite the opposite! I just think his executive skill set is equivalent to Kim Kardashian's skills as an entertainer.

 

[Evo]

I've never attempted to argue that President Obama is an untalented politician - quite the opposite! I just think his executive skill set is equivalent to Kim Kardashian's skills as an entertainer.

I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.

 

[CAC1001]

The Republican refusal to accept evolution I'd put right up there with many of the Democratic party views on issues of economics. Both parties cling to ideology on certain issues. There's a saying: You don't want Republicans in the bedroom, or Democrats in the boardroom.

It is true, sadly, that too much of the Republican party has a populist strain that disgains intellectualism. There's probably a term for it, but it's bad. It is the opposite strain of intellectual elitism. There's the one extreme, of intellectuals who think they know what's best, that they are better than everyone else, and that they thus should be given the power to boss everyone else around. Generally these types also hold the view that if you didn't go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc...that you have no business running for President. That is wrong. But the other extreme, one exploited by populists oftentimes to win points with portions of the general public, is a disdain for intellectualism. That anyone intellectual is a cocktail-sipping elitist who has no business giving any opinions on anything and doesn't understand the real world and so forth.

That might be an exaggeration, but the debate question where every single Republican candidate raised their hand that they'd vote against a debt reduction bill that contained a 10 to 1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases was pretty telling, as was the 2008 Republican debate question about evolution, specifically (but at least that vote wasn't unanimous).

The Republicans in 2008 being against evolution was just ideology or playing to the party. Being against tax increases with spending cuts is because the spending cuts virtually never occur.

All I can say is, I wish there was a fiscally conservative party I could vote for that wasn't totally disconnected from reality when it comes to sexual politics, sex education, and evolution.

Usually in other countries, these are known as the Liberal Party (classical liberals, for inidividualism, limited government, free-market capitalism, etc...but they tend to lack the social conservatism of the American Republican party).

At what point will the right acknowledge that their movement has been co-opted by radicals who appeal to the unwashed masses?

The "unwashed masses?" That statement really says a lot.

Can anyone here seriously support Bachmann, Palin, etc? I truly hope not, though I am seeing signs of intransigence in PF that make me fear for the US.

What makes you think the general American public would vote for either of these candidates into the White House? Either of them would likely get Barack Obama re-elected. They can win points with certain segments of the American population, but the overall voting block, they will not win it.

 

[WhoWee]

Because I've never been this frightened by the people running before. I'm not kidding. I at one time considered myself Republican, 30+ years ago. Now it makes me physically ill when I look at the list of potentials and worry that one of them could get elected.

No offense to anyone intended, just really frightened for the first time in my life. What will happen to women's rights? What will happen to gay rights? What will happen to education and advancing scientific knowledge? What will happen to every freedom that we have fought so hard for all these years to make this country a decent place to live?

I don't want to be thrown back to the Salem Witch trials. These people that the candidates are surrounding them selves with believe in witches and demons!

IMO to all.

I'm starting to think the 2012 ticket will be Romney and Rubio - although I'm not sure of their personal relationship.

 

[CAC1001]

Because I've never been this frightened by the people running before. I'm not kidding. I at one time considered myself Republican, 30+ years ago. Now it makes me physically ill when I look at the list of potentials and worry that one of them could get elected.

I agree here, but mostly due to their lack of intellect, not per se their views on issues. their views on issues are no different then they always have been.

No offense to anyone intended, just really frightened for the first time in my life. What will happen to women's rights?

What makes you think Republicans would curb women's rights? Or that they even want to?

What will happen to gay rights?

Things like gay marriage might get stalled, otherwise I don't see much to fear here.

What will happen to education and advancing scientific knowledge?

What makes you think Republicans would curtail education? Or that Democrats would improve it? the Democratic party answers to the teachers unions, whose interests may or may not be aligned with actually educating the children. Our last Republican president expanded the power of the federal government into education. You could look at Jeb Bush's record on education in Florida, as education is a topic he is very passionate about. Strict conservative Republicans would pull federal involvement out of public education, but they aren't going to do anything to curtail it.

What will happen to every freedom that we have fought so hard for all these years to make this country a decent place to live?

Last I checked, the Republican party is all about preserving freedom, with the exception of occasionally trying to ram religion down people's throats. The party hellbent on regulating everything from what I've seen is the Democratic party (with a few exceptions). Furthermore, the Republican party will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will interpret the Constitution as it is written. The Democrats seek to appoint justices that will interpret the Constitution according to how they think it should be written as opposed to what it actually says.

Republicans tend to be economically liberal, socially totalitarian. Democrats tend to be economically totalitarian, socially liberal. The way to prevent either party from getting out of control is to keep a balance in the government. Remember, the president isn't a king. Having adequate Democrats in Congress will hamstring efforts by a Republican president and having Republicans in Congress can hamstring efforts by a Democratic president if either try to push for reforms seen as radical.

 

[Evo]

What makes you think Republicans would curb women's rights? Or that they even want to?

A woman has a right to decide if she wants an abortion, IMO.

And you didn't respond to the demons and witches.

 

[WhoWee]

I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.

I remember.

I think the woman the left fears most at this point is Nikki Haley - rather than Bachman or Palin. It's too soon to run her as VP now - but 2016 is another story.

Btw - I heard someone on the radio today calling for Bachman to be the Attorney General under Perry.

 

[CAC1001]

A woman has a right to decide if she wants an abortion, IMO.

Republicans might seek to limit abortion to the point at which the fetus becomes sentient to pain, but otherwise, outright stopping abortion would require the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v Wade, which is unlikely but even if that happened, I think we would see a Constitutional amendment make it through that would allow for abortion. Also, with the current issues regarding the economy, the American people are not going to like it if the Republicans win the presidency and then start trying to curb abortion.

And you didn't respond to the demons and witches.

I thought that was a little tongue-in-cheek on your part. Are there candidates that have stated they believe in both demons and witches? (demons I can see a person believing in, I mean if one is a Christian, they can very much believe there are demons, witches that's another story).

 

[Evo]

Btw - I heard someone on the radio today calling for Bachman to be the Attorney General under Perry.

You're so cruel, you really want to give me nightmares, don't you? You know I don't sleep well as it is.

 

[CAC1001]

I remember.

I think the woman the left fears most at this point is Nikki Haley - rather than Bachman or Palin. It's too soon to run her as VP now - but 2016 is another story.

Btw - I heard someone on the radio today calling for Bachman to be the Attorney General under Perry.

Nikki Haley is very well-spoken, I think she has great potential.

 

[CAC1001]

BTW Evo, the Republican party being pro-life is nothing new, it's not like that is a radical departure from their normal stance or something

 

[Evo]

I thought that was a little tongue-in-cheek on your part. Are there candidates that have stated they believe in both demons and witches? (demons I can see a person believing in, I mean if one is a Christian, they can very much believe there are demons, witches that's another story).

I posted it earlier.

Two ministries in the movement planned and orchestrated Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent prayer rally, where apostles and prophets from around the nation spoke or appeared onstage. The event was patterned after The Call, held at locations around the globe and led by Lou Engle, who has served in the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders of the NAR. Other NAR apostles endorsed Perry's event, including two who lead a 50-state "prayer warrior" network. Thomas Muthee, the Kenyan pastor who anointed Sarah Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church in 2005, while praying for Jesus to protect her from the spirit of witchcraft, is also part of this movement.

Even if they don't say they personally believe, guilty by association. If you sleep with dogs...

BTW Evo, the Republican party being pro-life is nothing new, it's not like that is a radical departure from their normal stance or something

That's why I haven't been able to support those that push banning abortion, not all republicans make it a big deal.

Some people make it sound like abortion will be forced upon women, no, it's an option. If it's not an option a woman wants, then she doesn't have to consider it. I think child abuse is a worse option, IMO. I do not want to derail this thread however, nor do I want a side discussion of it. It's personal IMO.

 

[CAC1001]

Even if they don't say they personally believe, guilty by association. If you sleep with dogs...

Remember Sarah Palin isn't a presidential candidate though, I can see the point about Rick Perry however. She might run, but that's a really big might. I find it really ironic that she was anointed by a Kenyan pastor though (!). So Barack Obama's father is from Kenya and Palin was anointed by a Kenyan pastor, that's a one of those coincidences that's a little too strange.

 

[Evo]

Remember Sarah Palin isn't a presidential candidate though, I can see the point about Rick Perry however. She might run, but that's a really big might. I find it really ironic that she was anointed by a Kenyan pastor though (!). So Barack Obama's father is from Kenya and Palin was anointed by a Kenyan pastor, that's a one of those coincidences that's a little too strange.

But that same witch pastor is part of Perry's religious group.

 

[CAC1001]

But that same witch pastor is part of Perry's religious group.

Yup, I said I see the point about Rick Perry though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Republican refusal to accept evolution I'd put right up there with many of the Democratic party views on issues of economics. Both parties cling to ideology on certain issues. There's a saying: You don't want Republicans in the bedroom, or Democrats in the boardroom.

Not the same argument. Differing views on economics is a legitimate point of contention. Not understanding the difference between that and faith-based arguments that deny scientific evidence, is a huge part of the problem. One is absolutely NOT the same as the other. One is a rational disagreement and the other is not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.

I about fell out of my chair when I was first introduced to Obama on Meet the Press, in 2006. In fact, I can still remember my first thought immediately after the interview - "Damn! I wish this guy was white!".

I thought his color, [not to mention his name! who woulda thought?!] was a deal breaker in practical terms; just another token black candidate. IIRC, at that time he hadn't announced that he would run but it was strongly rumored that he would. He was getting a lot of pressure.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've never attempted to argue that President Obama is an untalented politician - quite the opposite! I just think his executive skill set is equivalent to Kim Kardashian's skills as an entertainer.

You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make Bernanke guilty of treason.

 

[CAC1001]

Not the same argument. Differing views on economics is a legitimate point of contention. Not understanding the difference between that and faith-based arguments that deny scientific evidence, is a huge part of the problem. One is absolutely NOT the same as the other. One is a rational disagreement and the other is not.

Differing views on certain economic issues is a legitimate point of contention, but the Democratic party's adherence to quite a few economic views seems to be based more out of pure ideology and an ignoring of the scientific evidence of economics then a legitimate disagreement, at least from what I have seen. That said, I think the right adhere to some strictly ideological views regarding certain economic issues as well.

 

[CAC1001]

You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make Bernanke guilty of treason.

Perry's Bernanke comment is a prime example of far-right ideology regarding economics.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Differing views on certain economic issues is a legitimate point of contention, but the Democratic party's adherence to quite a few economic views seems to be based more out of pure ideology and an ignoring of the scientific evidence of economics then a legitimate disagreement, at least from what I have seen.

Its important to realize that economics isn't really a science, its a social science. This is a big difference- making predictions can change behavior, can break the models, etc.

Further, lots of economics simply doesn't have much empirical support- what evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? Micro-economics is too "pure" to be easily empirically observable in the actual economic word (consider the Card-Krueger minimum wage study),and macro relies so much on expectations that something like the fed holding a press conference can change the empirical picture dramatically.

This can be contrasted with evolution or climate change (which is actual science) where the evidence is much less ambiguous, and easily replicable.

Its one thing to say "I don't believe raising the minimum wage will have much of an impact on unemployment"- there is legitimate empirical evidence to suggest this is true, and a micro-economics model to suggest this is false. Its another to say "I don't believe man is causing global warming"- here there is a causal mechanism that can be readily observed in a high school science fair project,and there is tons of empirical evidence.

So that being said, in what areas are the democratic party's views on economics based on "pure ideology"? What mainstream economic areas do democrat's strong ideological beliefs blind them to? Also, what about the gold-bug republicans? Rick Perry has made derogatory comments about the fed, Ron Paul has crusaded for a gold-standard for years. These aren't mainstream positions!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Differing views on certain economic issues is a legitimate point of contention, but the Democratic party's adherence to quite a few economic views seems to be based more out of pure ideology and an ignoring of the scientific evidence of economics then a legitimate disagreement, at least from what I have seen. That said, I think the right adhere to some strictly ideological views regarding certain economic issues as well.

That point is, whether one economic theory or another is superior is debatable and dependent on the times. In my view, it is clear that the core conservative principle of deregulation is primarily what caused the economic collapse. The report showing this from the budget office, or maybe the GAO, has been posted before. So while there may be evidence that some liberal principles and policies have failed, there is certainly evidence of the same for conservative principles and policies.

Again, this is nothing like the distinction between faith-based arguments, and economic models, and not knowing the difference.

I would add that while we have been in a classic "liberal spending spree", it was started by one of the most iconic free marketeers of all time - Paulson. When people like Paulson are forced to adopt classically liberal policies, and when Bush nationalizes the two biggest banks in the country [technically a socialist action], one has to recognize that these are extraordinary times. We are still in crisis management mode. One can't judge Obama according to ordinary economic standards. You can be sure that he didn't want to inherit the worst economy since the great depression.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is really scary about the tea party and people like Bachmann is that they would destroy the economy based on faith and ideology. They opposed the bailout when indeed the future of the global economy was at stake, and Bachmann's recent fiasco with the debt ceiling shows that she is also irrational. What she proposed was absolute nonsense and S&P agreed. She even denied their own reasoning for what they did!

Again, when people like Paulson break ranks and the Republicans start nationalizing banks, it is pretty clear that ideology has to go out the window. This is math problem, not one of philosophy.

 

[CAC1001]

Its important to realize that economics isn't really a science, its a social science. This is a big difference- making predictions can change behavior, can break the models, etc.

Further, lots of economics simply doesn't have much empirical support- what evidence is there for an upward sloping supply curve? Micro-economics is too "pure" to be easily empirically observable in the actual economic word (consider the Card-Krueger minimum wage study),and macro relies so much on expectations that something like the fed holding a press conference can change the empirical picture dramatically.

Economics I'd say is definitely a science, but not a "hard" science in the way say physics or chemistry is. But it still has theories and hypotheses. It's a social science as you say, and you can't test it in the way you can other sciences, but it is still a science. You can present hypotheses and theories and then put them to the test to see if they work or not. By contrast, some "hard" sciences cannot be tested in a laboratory, such as astronomy or even much of climate science.

This can be contrasted with evolution or climate change (which is actual science) where the evidence is much less ambiguous, and easily replicable.

I don't know if evolution is replicable so much as there is just a lot of evidence for it and there really is no alternative explanation. But no one has really actually seen it happen, at least not on a large scale. Climate change, the evidence I think is much more questionable and not easily replicable either. As said, we can't really conduct experiments with climate change.

Its one thing to say "I don't believe raising the minimum wage will have much of an impact on unemployment"- there is legitimate empirical evidence to suggest this is true, and a micro-economics model to suggest this is false.

Well it depends. Raising the minimum wage too high will raise unemployment by simple supply and demand, as it's a price control. You raise the price on something higher than what it should be and you will end up with a surplus. It isn't completely cut and dry, just as the price of gas can go up, it doesn't mean the demand automatically drops off, but after a certain point, people begin to change their behavior significantly.

Its another to say "I don't believe man is causing global warming"- here there is a causal mechanism that can be readily observed in a high school science fair project,and there is tons of empirical evidence.

The global climate is a lot more complex than a science fair project though, and the empirical evidence issue is controversial as well. There's also a problem with politics in it, as any university or scientist that doesn't adhere to the line of man-made climate change runs a serious risk to their career and ability to get grant money.

For example, the Sun influences the climate as well; CERN recently concluded in an experiment that climate models will need to be revised because of this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/ .

So that being said, in what areas are the democratic party's views on economics based on "pure ideology"? What mainstream economic areas do democrat's strong ideological beliefs blind them to?

Bigger government is always the solution, government is very competent, restraining free trade preserves jobs, belief in a living wage, blind faith in massive fiscal stimulus, a large social welfare state to fix poverty problems (without which the claim is poverty will skyrocket), etc...there are some others I am just not remembering them.

One can make arguments for all or most of the above, but too many on the Left have a blind adherence to them not based on really understanding the issues.

Also, what about the gold-bug republicans? Rick Perry has made derogatory comments about the fed, Ron Paul has crusaded for a gold-standard for years. These aren't mainstream positions!

I agree 100% here, hence my comment above on the Right adhering to some views on economics based much more so out of ideology as well. Other such right-wing views are: all taxes bad, all government bad, smaller government is always the answer, government cannot do anything right, etc...

 

[CAC1001]

That point is, whether one economic theory or another is superior is debatable and dependent on the times. In my view, it is clear that the core conservative principle of deregulation is primarily what caused the economic collapse. The report showing this from the budget office, or maybe the GAO, has been posted before. So while there may be evidence that some liberal principles and policies have failed, there is certainly evidence of the same for conservative principles and policies.

It's more complex than that, too little government in certain areas, too much in other areas. For example, one of the most unregulated portions of the financial system, the private equity funds and the hedge funds, did not contribute to bringing down the system. Between 2000 and 2009, thousands of such funds failed. None got a bailout. It was the highly-regulated investment banks that nearly brought the system down in that sense, and that was because they were not behaving like free-market institutions. They took on massive risk under the assumption the government would bail them out (which just incentives even more recklessness).

You had the ratings agencies which rated securities triple-A that shouldn't have been, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which George W. Bush tried to subject to greater regulations (this after he signed the Sarbannes-Oxley regulations, which were a response to the scandals that occurred at Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, etc...Enron in particular operating in a very regulated industry), there was the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low, etc...it is more complex than simply too little or too much regulation.

Again, this is nothing like the distinction between faith-based arguments, and economic models, and not knowing the difference.

Not when the Left are not arguing via differing economic models, but simply out of ideology. Just because there is an economic model to support one's position doesn't mean one is arguing based on that model.

I would add that while we have been in a classic "liberal spending spree", it was started by one of the most iconic free marketeers of all time - Paulson. When people like Paulson are forced to adopt classically liberal policies, and when Bush nationalizes the two biggest banks in the country [technically a socialist action], one has to recognize that these are extraordinary times. We are still in crisis management mode. One can't judge Obama according to ordinary economic standards. You can be sure that he didn't want to inherit the worst economy since the great depression.

I'd say we can judge him somewhat by how he and the Democrats pushed through a massive stimulus in a manner where they acted as if there was no question that was what needed to be done, when it was extremely questionable, and how he has likely hamstrung the economy with regulatory uncertainty via Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill, his pushing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and so forth.

 

[ThomasT]

@ NeoDevin

I agree with Dawkins' and your comments. Lack of understanding of basic science is definitely a 'deal breaker' for me, although I don't think I'd characterize it as signifying a "fundamental disconnect from reality" insofar as it's a social norm wrt many (most?) communities in the US.

It's a pleasure to read the learned and eloquent expositions of people of Dawkins ilk, as opposed to the pronouncements of people like Perry, Bachmann, Palin, etc.

Whether Perry is a 'true believer' is anybody's guess. If he isn't, then he's just a typical pandering politician who will deliberately misrepresent pretty much anything if he deems it to be in his best interest to do so. If he is, then he's just willfully ignorant (ie., advocating and adhering to the dictates of theistic religion). Unfortunately, US politics, insofar as it's dealing with a largely apathetic and/or willfully ignorant population, apparently only allows those two alternatives (either a Christian or lying about it), as proclaiming disbelief wrt the dominant theistic religion of the society is assumed to be 'political suicide'.

I agree with the suggestion that people like Perry, GW Bush, Bachmann, Reagan, and their ilk, become politically prominent because the US political process and the viability of a candidate is largely based on something other than reasonable and critical vetting of ideas, positions and policies.

 

[daveb]

Getting back to the OP, I have a problem supporting anyone who would disregard well established science and/or evidence in favor of their own blind and/or unscientific religion and/or ideology.

 

[turbo]

I was never an Obama fan, I only backed him after McCain announced Palin. At that point, I would have supported Porky Pig.

Me, too. And I was quoted out of context, insulted and called a liar by someone on this forum that should know better, just for saying that I was leaning toward McCain.

Clinton carried a lot of baggage and Obama was not well-known, so my wife and I were leaning toward McCain until he glommed onto Palin. I was still fence-sitting when Katy Couric "ambushed" Palin with really difficult questions like "what periodicals do you read?" That is so sad.