I think the origin of this is with Global Warming. The Republican party became devoted to contesting this, which over time has meant consistently opposing the scientific consensus. Once you spend a couple decades saying/being told that the experts are all wrong, they are conspiring against you, telling you lies etc. then what do you think is going to happen?
Well, the current ruling party in america is followers of an ideology that historically have been centered around opposing democracy and secularism.
Reducing public education is arguably the most effective strategy for acheiving both those goals, so, is it really that surprising that they have a long history of opposing the scientific consensus?
And the opposition to climate science was maybe motivated by greed and this strange US obsession with everything that’s harmful to nature or people they don’t like.
But the campaign against science was informed by the previous decades’ obsession with evolution.
The "experts" have destroyed their own credibility. Do you remember the mass protests in every major and minor city a few weeks ago, where the "experts" responded by encouraging the protests, because "racism is a deadly pandemic too" or some equivocating nonsense like that? Doctors and nurses were participating in these mass protests. People were packed shoulder to shoulder for multiple city blocks. This was right after all of the "experts" forcefully condemned tiny anti-lockdown protests. Even the NYT was forced to confront the stunning hypocrisy https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/Epidemiologists-corona... . The vast majority of news outlets are still pretending that the protests had nothing to do with the spike in cases.
It also damages their credibility when they cross the line from "here are the epidemiological facts" to "here are the appropriate tradeoffs between economic stability and acute illness prevention". The latter is not a question that an epidemiologist is any more qualified to speak to than anyone else. Those are political decisions.
They do the same for global warming. The nature and extent of anthropogenic climate change is a question for scientists. But they have all also latched onto the conclusion that global wealth redistribution is the only solution. Again, they are laundering their scientific expertise into political authority. I more or less think that the scientific process moves us to toward better understanding, but the collective political opinions of scientists should not be mistaken for science.
When the experts are abusing their status to pursue political ends, then it's no surprise that the people they seek to politically vanquish put up a resistance by attacking that expertise.
This graph is a nice illustration of the principle that getting the virus under control and economic interest are not opposed, but in fact closely track each other: https://twitter.com/bopinion/status/1285517303141072898
Whilst I think there is some insight here, taking what trump says in an interview at face value seems like a poor way to divine what his actual beliefs are. Particularly on fox he’s speaking to his audience, not from his innermost thoughts.
It's very generous to assume he has inner thoughts. For all we have observed in the past years, he has as much internal state as a probabilistic prose generator.
The article simply assumes that all responsibility for Covid-19 lies with Donald Trump (who coincidentally was elected the president of the United States by its citizens).
There's not even a hand wave to Red China for first quarantining and then spewing out thousands of Covid-19 infected civilians to the USA and the rest of the world. Nothing is said about the WHO, CDC, NIH all of whom obviously had no part to play in this story. No regard is shown for our nations laws, which vest powers of control mostly with the states in regard to the control of epidemics.
> who coincidentally was elected the president of the United States by its citizens
US Presidents are not elected by the citizens, though the way they are elected tends usually in practice to align with the expressed will of the citizens, at least since the electors themselves have been elected by citizens, albeit disproportionately. But not in the case of Trump, among several other exceptions.
[+] [-] neaden|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pelliphant|5 years ago|reply
Reducing public education is arguably the most effective strategy for acheiving both those goals, so, is it really that surprising that they have a long history of opposing the scientific consensus?
[+] [-] IAmEveryone|5 years ago|reply
But the campaign against science was informed by the previous decades’ obsession with evolution.
[+] [-] tito|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildmusings|5 years ago|reply
It also damages their credibility when they cross the line from "here are the epidemiological facts" to "here are the appropriate tradeoffs between economic stability and acute illness prevention". The latter is not a question that an epidemiologist is any more qualified to speak to than anyone else. Those are political decisions.
They do the same for global warming. The nature and extent of anthropogenic climate change is a question for scientists. But they have all also latched onto the conclusion that global wealth redistribution is the only solution. Again, they are laundering their scientific expertise into political authority. I more or less think that the scientific process moves us to toward better understanding, but the collective political opinions of scientists should not be mistaken for science.
When the experts are abusing their status to pursue political ends, then it's no surprise that the people they seek to politically vanquish put up a resistance by attacking that expertise.
[+] [-] IAmEveryone|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FuckButtons|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nl|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giardini|5 years ago|reply
There's not even a hand wave to Red China for first quarantining and then spewing out thousands of Covid-19 infected civilians to the USA and the rest of the world. Nothing is said about the WHO, CDC, NIH all of whom obviously had no part to play in this story. No regard is shown for our nations laws, which vest powers of control mostly with the states in regard to the control of epidemics.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|5 years ago|reply
US Presidents are not elected by the citizens, though the way they are elected tends usually in practice to align with the expressed will of the citizens, at least since the electors themselves have been elected by citizens, albeit disproportionately. But not in the case of Trump, among several other exceptions.