On the 22nd of November the controversial Southern Poverty Law Center released an "Intelligence Report" which declared 18 groups to be anti-gay hate groups. The most controversial item on this list was the Family Research Council, a mainstream conservative group. Are they actually a hate group and, if so, what does it mean for conservatism?
The thrust of the SPLC's accusation is that FRC relies on and employs anti-gay bigots. The report names 4 names: former Rep. Tony Perkins, Robert Knight, Dr. Tim Dailey, and Peter Sprigg. The SPLC appears to have no issue with the other 30 members of the FRC. It also apparently has no interest in the majority of the FRC's work, which doesn't involve homosexuality. Knight left the FRC nearly ten years ago so is no longer relevant. Dr. Dailey is only condemned for the work he did jointly with Sprigg.
Is Peter Sprigg a bigot? It's an explosive charge to level, but the SPLC is not without evidence. Sprigg (and Dr. Dailey) wrote a book in 2004 called Getting It Straight, in which they assert that the majority of pedophiles are homosexual and that therefore homosexuals are disproportionately pedophilic. This is in part a definitional question (does "homosexual" refer to all same-sex attraction, or only adult same-sex attraction? Can you be a homosexual if you aren't attracted to adults of the same sex? Is it enough just to self-identify as homosexual or bisexual?) and in part dubious inferential reasoning. If this is enough to be a bigot, then Sprigg and Dr. Dailey are bigots; if not, then Dr. Dailey is cleared. Sprigg, though, has also gone on record stating that we should outlaw gay behavior and claimed (with no evidence) that ending Don't Ask Don't Tell would lead to sexual assaults by gay men on straight men. This is clearly bigoted behavior that represents the ugly side of conservative opposition to homosexuality, and it shouldn't be part of the new Right. Sprigg should renounce his anti-gay remarks or be disowned by the FRC and by the conservative movement.
What of the FRC's president, Tony Perkins? Perkins is a tough case- he engaged in some nasty behavior as a politico, but there's no evidence that he really believed in what he was doing, much less that he still believes in it. His misbehavior consists of two actions: first, when Perkins was a political operative he paid for David Duke's mailing list then filed false disclosure forms to cover it up. Second, Perkins gave a speech to a notorious white supremacist group. If FRC chooses to circle the wagons then it can make a plausible argument that Perkins isn't really a bigot; if it wants to be seen as pure and unimpeachable, though, then it should ask Perkins to repudiate his actions or leave.
The FRC is no hate group. Most of its work is completely innocent and well-intentioned. It does have a few "bad apples," however, who are spreading hate and fear in a way that doesn't fit with its noble mission. A small slice of the FRC's output spreads vile myths about homosexuals that more and more Americans are rejecting as untrue. The proportion of people supporting gay marriage, for example, has nearly doubled in the last five years. The FRC and other old-guard conservatives need to challenge their own attitudes about gays if they hope to be part of tomorrow's conservatism.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Voters Aren't Stupid
On November 8th the political scientist Charles Franklin made an unusually forthright remark. Asked why voters vote against their own interests, he answered "I'm not endorsing the American voter. They're pretty damn stupid." While it's strange to hear it spoken out loud in democracy-loving America, it's an idea we've all contemplated at some point. How else can you explain the presidential election of 2008 (or 2004, if you prefer)? Pundits have written volumes cataloging the alleged contradictions and mistakes of the average voter. The reactions to the latest debt commission are a perfect example of this - supposedly, Americans don't like its plan because they want to cut the deficit without cutting spending or raising taxes.
But is it true? While there's no specific program that a majority of Americans favor cutting spending on, when given a list of 14 priorities they favored, on average, cutting spending on two of them. They have plenty of time to be that picky about dealing with the deficit. The US currently has a middle-of-the-road ranking as the 12th highest debt-to-GDP ratio out of the OECD's 37 countries. Japan has had, for decades, a debt-to-GDP ratio nearly 3 times America's and it's been stuck fighting <i>de</i>flation. The debt just isn't that big a deal and voters know it: only 10-20% of them rank the deficit as Congress' highest priority, varying across polls. CBS's latest poll found only 4% ranking the deficit as the number one priority! It's more a bête noire for the pundit class than one of the top problems facing America.
More fundamentally, this criticism of American democracy suffers from hubris. If a decision by the polity doesn't make sense to me, the problem is more likely to be with my ability to make sense of things than the polity's ability to decide. I haven't run a country successfully for several hundred years, after all, so my resume is a bit skimpy next to the American people's. If I rush to find fault with the polity because I don't like a decision they made it would reflect a sophomoric faith in my own ability over the wisdom of trusting in an institution that's greater than any one person could be- including me or you.
But is it true? While there's no specific program that a majority of Americans favor cutting spending on, when given a list of 14 priorities they favored, on average, cutting spending on two of them. They have plenty of time to be that picky about dealing with the deficit. The US currently has a middle-of-the-road ranking as the 12th highest debt-to-GDP ratio out of the OECD's 37 countries. Japan has had, for decades, a debt-to-GDP ratio nearly 3 times America's and it's been stuck fighting <i>de</i>flation. The debt just isn't that big a deal and voters know it: only 10-20% of them rank the deficit as Congress' highest priority, varying across polls. CBS's latest poll found only 4% ranking the deficit as the number one priority! It's more a bête noire for the pundit class than one of the top problems facing America.
More fundamentally, this criticism of American democracy suffers from hubris. If a decision by the polity doesn't make sense to me, the problem is more likely to be with my ability to make sense of things than the polity's ability to decide. I haven't run a country successfully for several hundred years, after all, so my resume is a bit skimpy next to the American people's. If I rush to find fault with the polity because I don't like a decision they made it would reflect a sophomoric faith in my own ability over the wisdom of trusting in an institution that's greater than any one person could be- including me or you.
Deal With The Devil
Creationists sporadically get angry at their elected representatives for not doing enough to “teach the controversy,” meaning allowing or even mandating the teaching of Christianity in science class. They feel hoodwinked, so they try to nominate a far right politician to be more obedient to their agenda. They’re wrong to do this, though, and they ignore the principled case for moderate conservatives taking their votes while ignoring the specifics of their demands.
First we need to deal with the spurious arguments that creationism or “intelligent design” are science and at home in the science classroom. They aren’t. The scientific method, and the reason we teach kids science, are about asking “why?” and looking around for the answer. It’s the opposite of science to put a halt to that search by invoking an undetectable, unpredictable entity. Kids don’t become engineers by praying over a set of blueprints; they become engineers by asking “why?” and searching for the answer.
That doesn’t mean science is mutually exclusive with religiosity. The scientific method can’t lead one to God, but that’s because it doesn’t purport to answer many of life’s toughest questions. Religion is an appropriate tool, and science an inappropriate tool, for answering questions like “why is life worth living?” That question is essential to leading a good life but inappropriate for the science classroom. So is the method for answering it.
So why do people use religion as a tool for answering questions that science can answer? Because science’s answers are necessarily uncertain and temporary. Religion offers eternal verities. It’s fine for someone to prefer the latter to the former, but it’s not fine to deny children access to the former because you want to emphasize the latter. For better and for worse we need science’s fluid epistemology to handle the modern world and to stay competitive.
This disposition towards preferring eternal truths and constancy still ought to be represented in a democracy, however, even if teaching creationism is an unworkable plan. That’s where moderate conservative politicians come in. It’s their role to preserve the truths worth preserving without preventing the change that’s necessary to avoid stagnation and self-destruction.
To succeed as a society we have to recognize the wisdom we've inherited in our ways of life. We also need to recognize what we need to change to adapt to a changing world. To do the latter we sometimes have to abandon ideas that appear to help with the former. That’s why creationists have to trust moderate conservatives to represent them even when those politicians aren’t enacting the creationists’ specific wishes.
First we need to deal with the spurious arguments that creationism or “intelligent design” are science and at home in the science classroom. They aren’t. The scientific method, and the reason we teach kids science, are about asking “why?” and looking around for the answer. It’s the opposite of science to put a halt to that search by invoking an undetectable, unpredictable entity. Kids don’t become engineers by praying over a set of blueprints; they become engineers by asking “why?” and searching for the answer.
That doesn’t mean science is mutually exclusive with religiosity. The scientific method can’t lead one to God, but that’s because it doesn’t purport to answer many of life’s toughest questions. Religion is an appropriate tool, and science an inappropriate tool, for answering questions like “why is life worth living?” That question is essential to leading a good life but inappropriate for the science classroom. So is the method for answering it.
So why do people use religion as a tool for answering questions that science can answer? Because science’s answers are necessarily uncertain and temporary. Religion offers eternal verities. It’s fine for someone to prefer the latter to the former, but it’s not fine to deny children access to the former because you want to emphasize the latter. For better and for worse we need science’s fluid epistemology to handle the modern world and to stay competitive.
This disposition towards preferring eternal truths and constancy still ought to be represented in a democracy, however, even if teaching creationism is an unworkable plan. That’s where moderate conservative politicians come in. It’s their role to preserve the truths worth preserving without preventing the change that’s necessary to avoid stagnation and self-destruction.
To succeed as a society we have to recognize the wisdom we've inherited in our ways of life. We also need to recognize what we need to change to adapt to a changing world. To do the latter we sometimes have to abandon ideas that appear to help with the former. That’s why creationists have to trust moderate conservatives to represent them even when those politicians aren’t enacting the creationists’ specific wishes.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)