A couple days ago Digby asked an interesting question: Why do conservatives often deny the existence of global warming? She writes:
Can someone explain to me why these people hate this climate science so much? I mean, I get that they don't like gays and think women should stay barefoot and pregnant. I understand that they hate taxes that pay for things that help people they don't like. Evolution -- yeah, that's obvious.
But global warming? Why? Is it all about their trucks or what? I just don't get where the passion comes from on this one.
It's a good question, and one I never really asked myself before. At least with other bizzare conservative beliefs, there's a certain structure to them. Why not gay marriage? We're stuck in the fifties! Why not feminism? We're stuck in the fifties! Why not civil rights measures for minorities? We're stuck in the fifties! Without racism! You get the idea.
So, why, in the face of overwhelming evidence, the climate change denial? Digby, glossing Amanda Marcotte (of Pandagon) writes:
What makes it an unusual issue is that pissing off the liberals really is pretty much the only motivation, unlike others which have stronger cultural ties to traditional shibboleths.
It's a temperament thing. There are people we run across in life who just hate earnestness and loathe anyone who gives a damn about anything.(They also like to hurt small animals and make fun of those less fortunate than themselves.) Most of those people join the conservative tribe. It's where they find their soul mates.
I'm not sure that's fair. I mean, pissing of the hippies can't be the only reason. Yes, there are conservatives out there who are jackasses just so that they can be jackasses, but you don't see protests and think-tanks dedicated to that kind of petty jackassery (Well, I suppose there's the entire libertarian movement...).
Marcotte makes her case a bit clearer:
The question remains: Why do conservatives insist on denying global warming, when they know that slowing down reform will result in the deaths of millions and widespread environmental destruction? There are two theories:1) They’re in deep denial.
2) They know that global warming is real, but they don’t care.
I think most cases of global warming denialism are a combination of both these urges. And different individuals have a mix to different degrees. I will never deny that there is a lot of stupidity on the right, of course, and so I’ll accept there may be plenty of morons who are more #1 than #2. But as you know, when it comes to the “stupid or evil?” question, I tend to believe there’s more evil---and that the evil occupies the important leadership roles---than stupid. The reason I think that global warming denialism is deep into the evil-over-stupid territory is this: The entire basis for denialism rests on a supposed belief in a worldwide conspiracy involving millions and possibly billions of people that are motivated by......nothing really. Arguing with conservatives about this, I’ve been informed that the entire scientific community around the world (and all their millions, perhaps billions of supporters) is in cahoots to pull this sham because that means they get more federal research money. I wish I was kidding. That’s the entire motivation for this worldwide conspiracy. Never mind that any scientist willing to sell out his soul in order to get paid would go immediately into global warming denialism, where the real money for no work is at. Or that people brilliant enough to orchestrate that kind of worldwide conspiracy could certainly use their brilliance to make more than the comfortable middle class incomes of most scientists.
Clearly, if you buy into this conspiracy theory wholesale, you are too stupid to breathe, much less argue a point. (And yes, I’ve seen those wingnuts. I won’t deny their existence.) For the rest of them, we have to ask why they’re willing to pretend so strongly that they’re not full of shit, when they know that their obstinacy is aimed towards worldwide death and destruction. For the doddering old fools in the Senate that push denialism, the answer is easy: They are unbelievably selfish. They’re going to cash their oil company checks with the assurance that they’ll be dead before any of this really goes down. But most of the denialists aren’t really getting directly paid, and many of them are invested in their own futures as well as that of their children. So why are they willing to gamble with all of that?
I’m forced to conclude that it’s because denying the reality of global warming achieves the central goal of wingnuttery: pissing off the liberals. And boy, is it effective! Those liberals sure get steamed when they think about how reckless behavior will result in millions of unnecessary deaths. They blow smoke out their ears when you drive around in an SUV precisely to show how little you give a shit if worldwide drought creates worldwide war. They may be smarter and cooler than you, but by being a mega-watt asshole of sociopathic proportions, you gain the upper hand because you piss them off. There are a lot of ways to piss liberals off. You can be pointlessly racist or sexist. You can sniff around in people’s private lives and carry on about how vegetarians are stupid. But few things really can top the global warming denialism. The sheer magnitude of the damage that it does is so severe that it’s impossible for liberals not to get upset. And so you win!
For now, of course. Unfortunately, since conservatives have to share the planet with the rest of us, the short term victory of pissing off the liberals doesn’t translate into long term gains, but in fact into long term losses. But thinking about that means admitting you share the air and the water with all those hated other people--and especially those hated liberals--and so that’s put out of the mind.
It's an interesting theory, but not the right one. That is, I think Marcotte is underestimating the degree that conservatives have been socialized against "environmental" issues.
Let me make this clearer. I think that the corporate interests with a stake in this either (1) know and don't care or (2) deep down know and don't care but are in deep denial--either way, they're bastards. But the rank and file? They've been convinced for so long that environmental concerns are stupid/unimportant/detrimental to regular 'Mericans, that when the global warming issue started coming up, they were inclined to think it's just another example of liberal alarmism--just like logging, or strip-mining, or mountain-top removal...
Krugman has another theory:
I don’t agree, although that’s clearly part of it.
[...]
What I think is that we’re looking at two cultural issues.
First, environmentalism is the ultimate “Mommy party” issue. Real men punish evildoers; they don’t adjust their lifestyles to protect the planet. (Here’s some polling to that effect. [Ed. Note: I can't figure out how to make this link... just go to Krugman's site if you want it. It's interesting: you should.)
Second, climate change runs up against the anti-intellectual streak in America. Remember, just a few years ago conservatives were triumphantly proclaiming that Bush was a great president because he didn’t think too much:Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He’s normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He’s not exotic. But if there’s a fire on the block, he’ll run out and help. He’ll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, “Where’s Sally?” He’s responsible. He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. [Ed Note: God, Peggy Noonan is a total tool.]
So they’re outraged, furious, at the notion that they have to listen to guys who talk in big words rather than sports metaphors.
I think that there is truth here--and more than in the all conservatives are jackasses theory. Although, there may be something to the Conservative Jackass Tribe. That is: there is a special kind of jackass that exists almost soley in conservativland. They're the ones who think being PC is dumb so say racist things and mean them. Of course, there is a special brand of liberal jackassery, too. You know the type: they really do look down on you if you haven't protested GMOs recently. Of course, they tend to be more harmless; they were the one's getting picked on, not the ones doing the picking in high school.
Wow, sorry about the digression. I really hated my high school.
I think, as explanations go, that most conservatives are driven by a combination of socialization to be opposed to evironmental issues and What (Nobel Winner) Paul Krugman Said.
|