Recently, economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times that many Republicans act as if they were members of “the ignorance caucus.” As an example, he points out what House Majority Leader Eric Kantor said in a recent speech in which he intended to demonstrate his openness to new ideas.  Kantor said that he favored a complete end to federal funding of social science research. To Krugman, this was a real and obvious disconnect.

Krugman also notes that the Texas GOP recently and explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical thinking skills.”  The Republicans’ reason was that such efforts “have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

Mr. Krugman’s assertions challenge the thinking of progressives. On the one hand we are firmly committed to what President Obama calls evidence-based social policy. On the other hand, we try to be tolerant and prefer to not engage in name-calling with those with whom we disagree. How do we reconcile this conundrum?

It is not easy. At the root of our dilemma is whether we consider our positions on policy issues to be merely right, or do we anoint them as being “absolutely right.” If the issue is evolution, there is indisputable scientific information that Charles Darwin’s theory is right. For those who went to school a half century ago, Darwin’s theory was actually exciting to learn because it was science that was so readily transparent and logical. As science was becoming a cornerstone of our society in areas ranging from the Space Race to micro-biology, we knew that science held the answers to many of the questions we had about the mysteries of the world.

But things changed in the 1970s, as Christian fundamentalism was on the rise. The so-called Moral Majority was established in 1979, and more and more Americans came to find solace in religious teachings rather than science. Concurrently, it was becoming clearer that there were two distinct types of science: hard science and social science. The latter type, social science, was rarely absolutely correct and frequently problematic in its conclusions. An example would be the field of education, in which many so-called experts now believe that student performance is improved by standardized testing. There is clearly contradictory evidence to this contention and probably always will be, as long as empirical evidence in our social sciences is not firm. Examples of this would be so-called soft facts in issues such as consumer’s preferences, voter tendencies, and interpersonal relationships. We can try to “get it right,” but the best we can do is to come close.

For the most part, Democrats are comfortable with evidence from the hard sciences, and they try to apply it to policy decisions. Democrats accept the existence of social sciences and then apply analysis and intuition to interpreting it. This is where most of the intra-party disagreements lie.

Republicans accept hard science when it is convenient for them (such as riding on an elevator with the confidence that it will get them to where they are going). However, in many cases if hard science inconveniently is at odds with their beliefs, they will often side with beliefs such as “God created the world in seven days.” As for Republicans and social sciences, they frequently dismiss it. An example would be what happened in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Logical Democrats such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been dismayed at how Republicans such as John McCain readily dismisses the knowledge from observation that we do have and instead turn a tragic event into a political tool.

As a progressive, I find it very frustrating to hear Republicans oppose spending for necessary infrastructure repair or for them to contend that a ban on assault weapons undermines the entire Second Amendment. I am constantly wondering how we can change their line of thinking. On a personal level I certainly consider much of their thinking to be “not too bright.” However, calling them that will probably not advance the policies I favor. I appreciate what Paul Krugman wrote, but somehow, we progressives are going to have find new ways to understand where the hell these GOP ideas come from and how we can try to get them to a more logical position.

The post Are Republicans really the “ignorance caucus?” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Conservatives are very concerned about strengthening America’s military while reducing the debt. They are also concerned about threats of terror, sometimes when no threat exists (e.g. Iraq).

I became somewhat alarmed when it was reported that Libya has massive amount of weapons of mass destruction. This includes ten tons of mustard gas and sarin contained in thousands of canisters. Additionally it is reported that Libya has one thousand metric tons of uranium yellowcake, a stockpile of Scud B missiles and perhaps as many as a thousand shoulder-launched missiles capable of bringing down a commercial airplane.

Like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi has been no friend of Al Qaeda. An ironic difference is that Saddam did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction in the early 2000s; Qaddafi has considerable amounts a decade later. What happens in post-Qaddafi Libya is a mosaic of uncertainties. The best that most of us can do in determining who the rebels are is to speculate. Are they a revolutionary group hungering for a secular democracy or are they religious fanatics including members of al Qaeda?

Whoever comes to govern Libya post-Qaddafi will have three choices with the WMDs. They can do nothing, just let them sit. They can choose to use them, although it’s unclear against whom. Finally, they could sell them. Naturally they would want the best price, so a somewhat surreptitious auction would take place.

Who would be the bidders in an auction? From the point of view of the United States, the first question would be whether or not it wants to have a seat at the table and bid. The second question is whether the United States is prepared, in the words of John F. Kennedy, to “pay any price, bear any burden, and meet any hardship” to guarantee that it wins the bidding and takes possession of the WMDs.

For good reason, the United States has not always trusted other countries. Similarly, with good reasons other countries have not always trusted the United States. Whoever has possession of weapons of mass destruction possesses the double bonus of increasing its own arsenal while depriving potential foes of increasing theirs.

Never having been in the market for weapons of mass destruction, I’m not certain what the going price is on the black market. But with what Libya has, let’s suppose that the amount is $100 billion. Remember, we’re not talking about the cost of producing them, we’re talking about how much potential new owners are willing to pay in 2011.

Money would have to be authorized for the U.S. to purchase the weapons. The Obama Administration could openly inform Congress of its desire to make the purchase. If they felt uncomfortable with that approach, they could discuss the issue secretly with leaders of Congress and its committees on intelligence.

Interestingly, it would likely be the Democrats who would have no hesitation about stepping forward and protecting America’s national defense. I presume that Republicans would want to do likewise but could they do so considering the arguments that they made in the deficit debate?

Buying Libya’s WMDs would not be consistent with Republicans Holy Grail of cutting spending. It would be the anathema; increasing spending. Would the dogma of their opposition to increased spending trump their concern for national security?

In all likelihood, the Republicans would want their cake and eat it too. They would support appropriations for America to pay whatever is necessary to keep these WMDs out of the hands of opponents. But this expenditure would require that they find other spending to cut. The precedent has already been set. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was willing to provide federal aid to tornado-ravaged Joplin, MO if expenditures were cut for clean energy research.

Does this mean that if the U.S. bids for the WMDs that Cantor suggests taking the money from earthquake or hurricane damage to his district in Virginia? I don’t think so.

The tragedies of tornados, earthquakes, and hurricanes put us through enough pain. Do we have to further suffer from the foolishness of politicians’ responses to these tragedies? I fear asking that question to Eric Cantor, so can national leaders with an ounce of compassion come forth and ensure that America takes care of its citizens in times of need, with no strings attached? If so, let’s hear from you.

The post Would the U.S. pay for Libya’s WMDs? appeared first on Occasional Planet.