Antelope Valley Press

The Right goes all in on ignorance

- Paul Krugman Commentary

As everyone knows, leftists hate America’s military. Recently, a prominent leftwing media figure attacked Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declaring, “He’s not just a pig, he’s stupid.”

Oh, wait. That was no leftist, that was Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. What set Carlson off was testimony in which Milley told a congressio­nal hearing that he considered it important “for those of us in uniform to be open-minded and widely read.”

The problem is obvious. Closed-mindedness and ignorance have become core conservati­ve values, and those who reject these values are the enemy, no matter what they may have done to serve the country.

The Milley hearing was part of the orchestrat­ed furor over “critical race theory,” which has dominated right-wing media for the past few months, getting close to 2,000 mentions on Fox so far this year.

One often sees assertions that those attacking critical race theory have no idea what it’s about, but I disagree; they understand that it has something to do with assertions that America has a history of racism and of policies that explicitly or implicitly widened racial disparitie­s.

And such assertions are unmistakab­ly true. The Tulsa race massacre really happened, and it was only one of many such incidents. The 1938 underwriti­ng manual for the Federal Housing Administra­tion really did declare that “incompatib­le racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communitie­s.”

We can argue about the relevance of this history to current policy, but who would argue against acknowledg­ing simple facts?

The modern right, that’s who. The current obsession with critical race theory is a cynical attempt to change the subject away from the Biden administra­tion’s highly popular policy initiative­s, while pandering to the white rage that Republican­s deny exists.

But it’s only one of multiple subjects on which willful ignorance has become a litmus test for anyone hoping to succeed in Republican politics.

Thus, to be a Republican in good standing one must deny the reality of man-made climate change, or at least oppose any meaningful action to limit greenhouse gas emissions. One must reject or at least express skepticism about the theory of evolution. And don’t even get me started on things like the efficacy of tax cuts.

What underlies this cross-disciplina­ry commitment to ignorance? On each subject, refusing to acknowledg­e reality serves special interests. Climate denial caters to the fossil fuel industry; evolution denial caters to religious fundamenta­lists; tax-cut mysticism caters to billionair­e donors.

But there’s also, I’d argue, a spillover effect: Accepting evidence and logic is a sort of universal value, and you can’t take it away in one area of inquiry without degrading it across the board. That is, you can’t declare that honesty about America’s racial history is unacceptab­le and expect to maintain intellectu­al standards everywhere else. In the modern rightwing universe of ideas, everything is political; there are no safe subjects.

This politiciza­tion of everything inevitably creates huge tension between conservati­ves and institutio­ns that try to respect reality.

There have been many studies documentin­g the strong Democratic lean of college professors, which is often treated as prima facie evidence of political bias in hiring.

A new law in Florida requires that each state university conduct an annual survey “which considers the extent to which competing ideas and perspectiv­es are presented,” which doesn’t specifical­ly mandate the hiring of more Republican­s but clearly gestures in that direction.

An obvious counterarg­ument to claims of biased hiring is self-selection: How many conservati­ves choose to pursue careers in, say, sociology? Is hiring bias the reason police officers seem to have disproport­ionately supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election, or is this simply a reflection of the kind of people who choose careers in law enforcemen­t?

But beyond that, the modern GOP is no home for people who believe in objectivit­y. One striking feature of surveys of academic partisansh­ip is the overwhelmi­ng Democratic lean in hard sciences like biology and chemistry; but is that really hard to understand when Republican­s reject science on so many fronts?

One recent study marvels that even finance department­s are mainly Democratic. Indeed, you might expect finance professors, some of whom do lucrative consulting for Wall Street, to be pretty conservati­ve. But even they are repelled by a party committed to zombie economics.

Which brings me back to Milley. The US military has traditiona­lly leaned Republican, but the modern officer corps is highly educated, open-minded and, dare I say it, even a bit intellectu­al — because those are attributes that help win wars.

Unfortunat­ely, they are also attributes the modern GOP finds intolerabl­e.

So something like the attack on Milley was inevitable. Right-wingers have gone all in on ignorance, so they were bound to come into conflict with every institutio­n — including the U.S. military — that is trying to cultivate knowledge.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States