Democrats and liberals are fond of calling their conservative and Republican adversaries “anti-science.” To the extent that the right espouses “creation science,” or disputes established facts about environmental degradation, it’s an appropriate label.
That’s right. Go right for the lone countervailing example, but mention nothing about the Left’s embrace of lysenkoism, eugenics, acid rain, ozone depletion, coral reef die-offs, endangered species, the “fragility” of a desert environment, old-growth deforestation, the supposed dangers of DDT, hormone-based contraceptives, and the current big wheeze, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — sorry (scorn quotes) “climate change”.
The real fact of the matter (But when would a news organization ever report “just the facts, ma’am”?) is that, whenever a Leftist (or a Democrat, but I repeat myself) accuses someone of being anti-[anything] what he’s really saying is that his defendant is actually opposed to the leftist’s misappropriation of the facts for political ends.
The Right isn’t opposed to women’s having access to contraception (per se). Just having to pay for it.
The Right isn’t anti-woman when it argues that forcing a religious institution to violate one of its principle tenets (which, BTW, the Right also argues is just plain good sense for humanity at large) is, perhaps, a violation of one of the tenets of the foundation of the state.
Nor is the Right anti-woman, or anti-choice when it observes that, once a woman is pregnant, the choice has been made — long before — and argues that, for the species, rampant termination of pregnancies is both murderous and suicidal. Nor is it anti-science to observe that, with the advent of ultrasound and intrauterine micro-photography (i.e., the advancement of science), we have a finer-grained appreciation of the instantiation of human life than the old Spartan, If it survives exposure on the mountainside, it’s a person.
The Right isn’t engaged in a war on science when it insists on proof of global warming before dislocating the entire global political and economic infrastructure, resulting in millions — or, perhaps even billions — of deaths.
The Right isn’t engaged in a war on women when it suggests that, maybe, interrupting a natural process with major surgery or radical hormone “therapy” might not be a good thing for the woman involved.
The Right isn’t engaged in a war on the poor when it observes that coerced charity (read: state welfare programs) is corrosive for both the giver and the recipient, and perhaps the state oughtn’t be in the charity business. (And, given the role that religion has historically played in charity, isn’t the welfare state an establishment issue?)
And the Right isn’t anti-science when it points out that electric cars were abandoned over a century ago in favor of the hydrocarbon-fueled internal combustion engine because the one works and the other doesn’t, and nothing substantial has changed in the interim; that wind power died out with the clipper ships for approximately the same reason. Yes, sail power works, but it doesn’t scale. Who’s ignoring the established facts now?
People, you have to resist the otherwise laudable impulse to grant the Left the benefit of the doubt. They start from operating in bad faith; they have no principles they will not abandon — those objects leftists hold which you might see as principles are infinitely mutable depending on the situation. They not only won’t give you the benefit of the doubt, they will lie about you and distort your positions to put you in the worst possible light.
And, yes, in reply to Mrs. Bush (41), compromise with these people is a dirty word.