Politics and Technology

This is what I posted in reponse to a post at PajamasMedia –

( #71 [name deleted] — “The Democratic Party is together.” )

“Incorrect. The differences between factions are less. Mainstream dems may not buy into far left green global warming hysteria but allowing it isn’t a showstopper, either. Dems as a rule don’t care if other dems don’t drive a hybrid or shop at Whole Foods. Greens might, but… so?

In comparison mainstream reps (80% of the party) are hamstrung with “social conservatives” who presume they can dictate just how republican one really is based on meaningless nonsense: if you don’t support abortion bans, you’re an amoral Republican In Name Only — a RINO. You’re not a real republican. The factional differences are greater.

The far right social conservative types have seemingly never heard of Tragedy of the Commons. As a result, the republican party will continue to slide into obscurity; the party bosses seem to think that the bible thumpers, due to them being vocal, are their “base.” They will discount the moderates because they don’t understand that moderates are straight up republicans sans fundamentalist mindset (they don’t see gay marriage abortion as mega-important hot button issues that are over and above any/all other concerns.) As such they’ll misread and overreact to this election (citing CA’s prop 8 as their poster example) and nominate a Huckabee or Jindal, which will excite the social conservatives to no end and of course lose the next election cycle even more spectactularly.

There’s no republican reps in the northeast, and few in the west. If the party nominates a bible thumping Huckabee or fundamentalist Jindal type, there won’t be enough left anywhere to matter. The party will crater.

How did the biblical crowd get so vocal? Easy. Mainstream media cheers for the left. The easy and simple way to make their opponents look abjectly idiotic is to feature the silliest ones on TV and refer to them as “typical.” And who, exactly, tends to look out of touch more than someone who thinks evolution is a leftist plot? The bible crowd saw themselves on TV and reckoned they must be the average republicans. They bought the lie. So did everyone else. The average dem figures the average rep is a moron who is anti-scientific and has problems with evolution. Go to sites outside this echo chamber and — dare I say this out loud? — actually LISTEN to what they have to say. Their prejudices may be exactly that, prejudices, but they are REAL, and to those who hold them, they are facts. And they are facts to the *majority* of voters. That’s right. The MAJORITY.

The only way mainstream republicans can divorce themselves from that image is to divorce themselves from the social conservative crowd. And as you can read on this site, this is not likely. Too many people bought the same lie and it’s now a cultural truth. Orwell would be so proud.”

[end of PJM post]

****

Now, in case you’re not quite catching what I’m talking about, the underlying premise is simple: TV is used to paint with a large brush. Use of technology in action. In this case we’re talking image. And yes my facts are correct; socio-demographic polls show that it’s a minority faction of the republican party who are biblical literalists; that is, those who are the vocal ones praying on street corners at gays, demanding ID in schools, and so on. Now there’s a lot of people who go to church on BOTH sides of the politcal spectrum, but the majority seem to see biblical teachings as metaphorical, not literal. The majority “get” the idea of commandments, of allegorical stories (e.g. “Good Samaritan”) and so on; but the majority doesn’t figure the earth is 6000 years old and that Noah was 900 years old when a great flood scrubbed the planet’s suface (and inconveniently left no evidence.) The majority is OK with science, with evolution, and all of the wonders of technology in the modern world. This post isn’t about religion or what I think of it; it’s about how technology is used to present imagery. And the imagery presented is misleading and pernicious.

I can prove at least part of this. South Dakota is a “Red State.” As in really red. As in voting for McCain in bigger percentages than McCain lost to Obama by in CA. South Dakota has ballot measures akin to the Propositions in CA. In the 2004 election cycle, an abortion ban was proferred. It lost. Not to be deterred, the writers added exceptions to their ban for rape or incest. Tried it again in 2008. And… it not only lost, but was stomped. Now, how is it that a red state that is overwhelmingly republican and so on opposes an abortion ban? This is simple; most of those nice church going people in South Dakota (and most of them do go to church) aren’t biblical literalists. The image that’s presented isn’t accurate. It’s nowhere close.

It also true that a majority of democrat voters don’t merely disagree with republicans, but see them as filtered by TV as being a little off. This is easily seen in comment sections everwhere from DailyKos to DotEarth and so on; the rank and file democrat/leftist voter seems to associate republicans with an anti-science attitude, and especially so where it concerns skepticism of environmental issues. I find this interesting. (Most of the brighter minds I know re science knowledge are in fact moderate republican types, not democrats/leftists. In fact my experience is that the anti-science perception is almost entirely backwards; most of the painfully ignorant types are the lefties. But I digress.) The point is that the painting of ALL republicans as being bible toting anti-evolutionist neanderthals is quite successful despite this image being applicable only to small and dwindling minority.

Obviously the republicans need to get wise and figure out how to use technology to their benefit. Admittedly there’s a blur here in this entry regarding technology vs marketing and not the usual subject of engineering, but the thing is, this marketing, this associating/painting that’s going on, this couldn’t have happened in an earlier era, and I find that interesting. Technology does wonderful things. It also helps us learn that which isn’t so.

The Pro-Life Lobby Has Lost. Deal with it.

In a blog regarding technology one might wonder how on earth the topic of abortion would be addressed, especially with the premise that the pro-lifers have lost the case. Read on.

It was about 1903 that the pro-life lobby lost the case. This was before the pro-life lobby was even started as we know it, so how can that be? Simple. The argument was lost before it began, and it lost when the Wright brothers flew their plane. Their wonderful invention opened up opportunities, including air travel for the masses. The invention of the jet and the coming age of widespread, inexpensive jet travel sealed the deal. Anywhere on the planet was reachable quickly. But… how is this relevant?

Simple answer: let’s assume that the pro-lifers manage to get abortion banned. How much is a ticket out of the country to a clinic elsewhere? Cheap. Currently it’s about $300 to $500 if you buy an advance ticket. A clinic visit is not expensive either. Nor is RU-486 (no clinic necessary.) This is easily afforded by the middle class. I could afford this. I’ve been able to afford this for most of my working life. An abortion ban would not stop abortions from happening, especially for anyone middle class and up. And frankly my guess is that an abortion ban would have planned parenthood taking donations for plane flights. Lots of donations. Even many of the poor would not be affected. Technology — jet travel in this case — makes the entire argument moot.

Some abortion foes try to make the case that, well, aside from this being a moral issue, they’ll argue that this is really a state’s rights case. Leave it up to the individual states, they say, and take it from the feds because the federal government shouldn’t be “inventing” new constitutional rights. Damned activist judges, anyhow. And of course they reckon that at the state level they can get the state legislatures to put a stop to it (the two for one special.) Ummm… no. The same rules apply; those wanting an abortion can just drive to CA or wherever they’re legal. When SCOTUS rendered the Roe v Wade decision, smarter and cooler heads knew that all it would take is ONE (1) state to allow it, and all bets are off. And that one state would probably be California. The state’s rights argument is simply impractical.

In short, the pro-life stance has been defeated by technology, and there’s no going back. One would hope that the socially conservative brand of republicans would learn some pragmatism here, that they’re wasting time, money, and political capital on a battle that even if they win, they still lose. There’s little point to owning the moral high ground if a) nobody really gives a damn, and b) ownership means never getting elected. The point of politics is to get elected, after all.

Michael Crichton, RIP

Of all of the authors I’ve read, Crichton always delivered readability, a great story, and made science subjects I thought I had a handle on even more fascinating than I could have imagined. He embodied the premise of genius, where it’s said that the mark of genius is understanding something and then explaining it to the rest of us. Star Trek inspired a generation of electrical engineers to figure out how to make communicators, and we have them. Jurassic Park alone has had the same effect; we have a generation of bio-scientists who know that somewhere somehow it’s possible to resurrect a T-Rex. Mr. Crichton was a cultural icon.

I’ve read a number of posts, largely from the environmental crowd, dismissing him as a “hack” due to his work on State of Fear regarding global warming. Ironically the most vociferous denunciations prove the underlying thesis of that book and also condensed in his speech comparing environmentalism to religion. I tended to think he had it assessed correctly, and the vitriolic piling-on confirms it. Crichton bashers, take note: it’s usually not a good idea to dismiss the smartest guy in the room out of hand.