“To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”—Jon Huntsman, tweet, August 18, 2011“Yeah well, I’ll be the first one to take him up on his offer.”—Rick Santorum, MSNBC, August 19, 2011
The Republican Party has often been the party of science and technology. Abraham Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences and earned a patent on shipping technology. The creationist Democrat William Jennings Bryan twice lost to the Republican William McKinley. Dwight Eisenhower was perhaps the most forceful Oval Office advocate for science and technology of the last century. By the nineteen-seventies, Republicans—particularly Richard Nixon—had begun to view scientists as agitating liberals. But through the Cold War, Republicans often backed the greatest scientific and technical schemes: from missile defense to the ARPANet.
Now, tragically, science has been made partisan, and the tech world, with its liberal Silicon Valley center, is headed that way. In 2003, Nicholas Lemann, writing for The New Yorker, asked Karl Rove to define a Democrat. “Somebody with a doctorate,” Rove said. “What was Daniel Bell’s phrase? The information class.” The divide, however, is not total. The Democrats still have their Bryans, and the Republicans still have their McKinleys. In the spirit of giving the most pro-science and pro-tech members of the G.O.P. their due, here’s a ranking of the six remaining Presidential candidates:
1) Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman may have the most rational scientific and technological policies of anyone in the field, but Gingrich, sometimes called Newt Skywalker, has far more passion. As Kelefa Sanneh argues in the current issue, the philosophy of Gingrichism is nothing but a combination of the idiosyncratic views of the man himself—which include his beliefs in the virtues of space exploration and his opposition to regulating the Internet, even when it comes to porn. He was anearly adopter of Twitter, and he once made the cover of Wired. He is ranked atop Scientific American’s recent “Geek Guide” to the 2012 candidates. As Sanneh notes, one of Gingrich’s manifestos about information policy includes a preface by the science-fiction writer Jerry Pournelle, declaring, “It’s raining soup, and Newt Gingrich has the blueprints for soup bowls.”
His record is scarcely perfect. As Speaker, Gingrich abolished the Office of Technology Assessment—a move reminiscent of Nixon abolishing the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. But, for the most part, Gingrich has moved policy in the right directions. And he gets extra credit for sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about global warming.
2) Jon Huntsman
Huntsman almost edged out Gingrich. His tweet about global warming was the single most pro-science action of any of the candidates. Also, as the Boston Globe noted in an endorsement that included a heavy amount of science policy, Huntsman has a strong position on increasing the number of Americans who can get H-1B visas, which helps our tech sector hire talent from around the world. In one admirable move as governor of Utah, Huntsman blocked a misguided law on video-game regulation, which is the sort of bill that enthuses social conservatives but that rarely does any good.
3) Mitt Romney
Romney has connections to Silicon Valley, and the right view on the most important tech issue of the day: the nefarious Stop Online Piracy Act now working its way through Congress. It’s a dangerous sop to Hollywood, which Romneyopposes.
But Romney’s position on global warming is, well, Romneyesque. He’s trying to signal to deniers that he’s on their side, without saying anything actually nutty. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” Or: “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” All true! Spending trillions and trillions of dollars—in a total budget of three and a half trillion dollars—would indeed be a bad idea. His position on evolution is also rational, but he comes as close as he can get to using “intelligent design” and “creationism,” the two main phrases of deniers. “I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”
4) Ron Paul
Dr. Paul is the candidate of Reddit. (Check out this awesome thread when it appeared that he might pull off a victory in Iowa.) And libertarianism is a good policy for Internet regulation. By the time government passes a law, the technology has moved on. Paul, predictably, has come down firmly against the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Libertarianism is not, however, the right philosophy for science. There are projects, and types of basic research, that the private sector won’t fund and that non-profits can’t fund either. These efforts need government. And do we really want someone in the White House who has said, “It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using.”
5) Rick Perry
Governor Perry failed organic chemistry as a young man and famously wants to cut the Department of Energy. He’s skeptical about evolution and climate change. But, to his credit, he stood up for science during one of the testiest moments in the Republican debates. The question was why he had pushed for mandatory vaccinations of girls against the H.P.V. virus, which can cause cervical answer. He responded, with some hems and haws, but ultimately said, “At the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives.” As Michael Specter has pointed out, and out, and out, vaccinations matter and are one of the touchstones of rational science policy.
6) Rick Santorum
Parts of Santorum’s platform are pro-science and pro-tech. He wants to almost double R.&D. tax credits, and he’s cautious of Internet regulation. But the two most pro-science moments in the campaign—Huntsman’s tweet and Perry’s defense of vaccinations—have inspired Santorum to attack. He barked back at Perry in that debate, and pounced on Huntsman. The climate does indeed change over time, he said, but it’s crazy to think that man is “somehow the tip of that tail that wags the whole dog.” It was an unfortunate metaphor to use, because Santorum has been engaged in a long and losing war with the Internet largely because of dogs.
Jon Huntsman may have the most rational scientific and technological policies of anyone in the field, but Gingrich, sometimes called Newt Skywalker, has far more passion. As Kelefa Sanneh argues in the current issue, the philosophy of Gingrichism is nothing but a combination of the idiosyncratic views of the man himself—which include his beliefs in the virtues of space exploration and his opposition to regulating the Internet, even when it comes to porn. He was an
His record is scarcely perfect. As Speaker, Gingrich abolished the Office of Technology Assessment—a move reminiscent of Nixon abolishing the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. But, for the most part, Gingrich has moved policy in the right directions. And he gets extra credit for sitting on the couch with Nancy Pelosi to talk about global warming.
2) Jon Huntsman
Huntsman almost edged out Gingrich. His tweet about global warming was the single most pro-science action of any of the candidates. Also, as the Boston Globe noted in an endorsement that included a heavy amount of science policy, Huntsman has a strong position on increasing the number of Americans who can get H-1B visas, which helps our tech sector hire talent from around the world. In one admirable move as governor of Utah, Huntsman blocked a misguided law on video-game regulation, which is the sort of bill that enthuses social conservatives but that rarely does any good.
3) Mitt Romney
Romney has connections to Silicon Valley, and the right view on the most important tech issue of the day: the nefarious Stop Online Piracy Act now working its way through Congress. It’s a dangerous sop to Hollywood, which Romney
But Romney’s position on global warming is, well, Romneyesque. He’s trying to signal to deniers that he’s on their side, without saying anything actually nutty. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.” Or: “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.” All true! Spending trillions and trillions of dollars—in a total budget of three and a half trillion dollars—would indeed be a bad idea. His position on evolution is also rational, but he comes as close as he can get to using “intelligent design” and “creationism,” the two main phrases of deniers. “I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body.”
4) Ron Paul
Dr. Paul is the candidate of Reddit. (Check out this awesome thread when it appeared that he might pull off a victory in Iowa.) And libertarianism is a good policy for Internet regulation. By the time government passes a law, the technology has moved on. Paul, predictably, has come down firmly against the Stop Online Piracy Act.
Libertarianism is not, however, the right philosophy for science. There are projects, and types of basic research, that the private sector won’t fund and that non-profits can’t fund either. These efforts need government. And do we really want someone in the White House who has said, “It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using.”
5) Rick Perry
Governor Perry failed organic chemistry as a young man and famously wants to cut the Department of Energy. He’s skeptical about evolution and climate change. But, to his credit, he stood up for science during one of the testiest moments in the Republican debates. The question was why he had pushed for mandatory vaccinations of girls against the H.P.V. virus, which can cause cervical answer. He responded, with some hems and haws, but ultimately said, “At the end of the day, I will always err on the side of saving lives.” As Michael Specter has pointed out, and out, and out, vaccinations matter and are one of the touchstones of rational science policy.
6) Rick Santorum
Parts of Santorum’s platform are pro-science and pro-tech. He wants to almost double R.&D. tax credits, and he’s cautious of Internet regulation. But the two most pro-science moments in the campaign—Huntsman’s tweet and Perry’s defense of vaccinations—have inspired Santorum to attack. He barked back at Perry in that debate, and pounced on Huntsman. The climate does indeed change over time, he said, but it’s crazy to think that man is “somehow the tip of that tail that wags the whole dog.” It was an unfortunate metaphor to use, because Santorum has been engaged in a long and losing war with the Internet largely because of dogs.
Original Article
Source: New Yorker
No comments:
Post a Comment