www.csua.org/u/ibb -> economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/03/why_republicans_1.html
Why the right goes nuclear over global warming, by Jonathan Chait, Commentary, LA Times: Last year, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?"
he UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%. Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican. The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand. But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs. The truth is more complicated -- and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement. Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus. National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue. Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties. The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way. You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard. In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies! The thinking may have been led by a few, but they found many willing followers. I think the influence of business in the GOP, not just the energy industry, is a factor. The fear is that any policy to address global warming will require business to implement costly changes, or, in the case of unilateral action by the US, reduce competitiveness causing profit to fall. Thus the policies, and even the idea the global warming exists are resisted. With Libertarians joining them based on their general opposition to any government interference, opposition has become, as Jonathan notes, part of the party's core principles.
Brad DeLong says Jonathan Chait should ask a deeper question: Why have the industry shills and the hard-core ideologues led the thinking for the whole conservative movement? They have led the thinking because the energy industry has funded them.
Why Republicans are Skeptical about Global Warming: Comments robertdfeinman says... Actually there has been a lot of discussion lately about those with a "follower" type of personality. There is a high correlation between those who believe in a hierarchical type of organization led by a strong leader and a right wing orientation. Psychologist Robert Altemeyer has studied this subject for 40+ years and coined the phrase "right wing authoritarian" (RWA) to describe the type. His work was the basis of John Dean's recent book "Conservatives without Conscience". Altemeyer has now written a free and online book himself which summarizes his work in non-technical terms. He has even tested elected officials to see how strong the correlation is. I suggest anyone interested in why groups talk past each other read his book.
Link to Comment | Mar 25, 2007 9:10:43 AM reason says... I liked Altemeyer's book by the way and I like your website. "or, in the case of unilateral action by the US, reduce competitiveness causing profit to fall." It could be surely be offset by exchange rate movements (not to mention by the benefit of technical innovation stimulated by the new regulation). Conservatives only ever seem to think ceterus paribus (except when it comes to tax cuts when they believe in magic steroid effects).
Link to Comment | Mar 25, 2007 9:29:55 AM real person from the real world says... I've seen ideologues of every stripe, including old wobblies pushing a marxist-union line. I have nothing against unions, and perhas some version of them may come back in vogue and be helpful to us on the lower end of the financial totem pole, but that remains to be seen. Certainly, lots of the older generation, like my father, who often did not have a good education, tended to go with the party line, but I think that many education people tend to be far more objective and independent in their thinking. Also, there needs to be broader education, away from narrow areas like business curiculums and into humanitities and libral arts.
Link to Comment | Mar 25, 2007 9:39:08 AM Petter says... Well well, so why then doesn't the democrats and other left-leaning parties around the world confess to the theory of free trade and the efficiency of free markets? There is after all an OVERWHELMING AND NON-DISPUTABLE C O N S E N S U S among economists that that's the best policy for all? Oh, it must because they think that GWB is for it, and they hate GWB, so they're against it. Other than the obvious passion for being the number one in the care-about game.
Link to Comment | Mar 25, 2007 9:41:28 AM Mark Thoma says... Petter: Your assumptions about my position on trade are wrong. And one small point because it's a common error by defenders of "free markets." Free markets are not necessarily efficient as you imply. Free does not mean competitive, and if the markets aren't competitive or suffer from other failures, there's no reason to believe they will produce an optimal outcome. For example, with factors such as the tragedy of the commons involved, does anyone really believe a free market for resources without well-defined property rights will be efficient? I believe in markets, but unlike some on the other side of the political fence, I also believe they should work. Thus, my belief in markets compels me to believe we should fix them when they are broken and sometimes that requires governme...
|
http://csua.com/feed/