GOP, Science, Technology Ratings

By Nicholas Thompson, who ranks the GOP candidates on the basis of their stances on science and technology. Here is the opening two paragraphs, with his rankings in order, but the ranks are each discussed at the New Yorker site:

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:

Gingrich
Huntsman

Romney
Paul
Perry
Santorum

 

"You are right to note my confusing use of language, Salvatore. You understood my intent ..."

400 Years Of Silence?
"I'd respond to the Washington Examiner article with a paragraph from the article by Adam ..."

Weekly Meanderings, 16 December 2017
"I think the "400 years of silence" is more a slightly ineloquent way of saying ..."

400 Years Of Silence?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://www.TilledSoil.org Steve Wilkinson

    So…. the criteria for being ‘pro-science’ are one’s positions on global warming and evolution? (And, doubling R&D earns you a bottom of the pile status?) That is one *intersting* definition of science in play.

    What is incredibly scary is that we (as a society) can’t tell the difference between political/ideological rhetoric and real science any longer.