This is an updated re-release of an old post from Dec 10, 2010. I have applied a bit of polish and a spit shine, but not much. Since I wrote this, political correctness has morphed into wokeness.

==========

I keep hearing comments by conservative people who are obsessed by what they call political correctness. In these commentaries, some kind of sarcastic parody is made regarding an alleged trend to ban the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas”.  Neoconservatives latch onto this like barnacles on the bottom of a tramp steamer. Inside their heads they imagine that a cabal of liberals are scheming to take their guns and their religion from them.

At the most recent liberal cabal meeting, we decided to let the gun owners keep their damned guns. There was a vote, however, where a proposal was made to require gun owners to take turns cleaning up the blood and guts after a shooting and to pick up the funeral costs.

Ok, that was a joke. Actually, we voted on something else.

If other liberals are like me, then not only do we not want to deprive them of their damned firearms and religion, minimally we would simply like to be out of shooting range.

Christmas has a secular component and practice that even a bitter, crusty, non-religious liberal like myself can feel comfortable with. But as far as possible insensitivity to Christians, they’ll just have to get over it.

In my limited sphere I don’t know of a single liberal who is trying to replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays”. The only time I hear of it is when a conservative repeats it sarcastically as a token of disapproval. Only conservatives carp about this.  It’s a red herring promulgated by that famous dead yapping cur himself, Rush whatshisname, in the name of ratings.

——————

I’m moved to comment on what makes some people liberal.  A recent article in Slate was written by a conservative, Daniel Sarewitz, who seems to be genuinely perplexed at the apparent trend of scientists, or at least academics in general, to be liberal. It is though he is talking about a smallpox epidemic.  While I have no idea as to the conservative/liberal ratio of scientists and academics, I can say that from my perch on a small and obscure branch of the tree of science, scientists tend to be overall a bit left leaning. However, make no mistake, there are plenty of conservatives in the group as well.

Indeed, many of the industrial chemists I am in contact with are libertarians, religious conservatives or just plain-vanilla orthodox conservatives. So, from my limited data set,  Sarewitz’s complaint appears a little specious to me.

He probably refers to the life and eco-sciences, earth science, astronomy, big-time-physics, etc. I suspect that the balance is different in these fields.

But why would scientists trend towards a liberal viewpoint?  I have some ideas. First, the scientific approach to the world relies on study, measurement and analysis.  Scientists tend to study analytically or, to use another term, critically. Critical study of the physical world requires a willing suspension of belief. A formal education in science takes the student through many, many opportunities to see how scientific knowledge was acquired by successive approximations and sometimes led into fruitless cul-de-sacs. A scientist must keep a loose grip on theoretical viewpoints because experimental results frequently contradict fundamental assumptions. Fame and glory in science goes to those who tip over the apple cart of concepts and theories.  All scientists are excited at the prospect of looking at something in a new way or bringing a puzzle into sharper focus.

“But, it’s just a theory …” I hear this ignorant comment frequently. A theory is just a model of a particular aspect of reality that is then strengthened or weakened by experiment. It is not uncommon for theories to be tossed aside in the junk pile when data or a better theory comes along. Science advances by successive approximation. One does not “believe in” a theory. It is not a “devotional” thing. You agree with it to some extent or you dispute its accuracy. It’s an “analytical” thing. A theory does not have to be completely accurate to be useful. Even a faulty theory may provide certain perspectives that are useful.

Many conservatives whom I know also appreciate study and measurement. Numbers people are greatly influenced by numerical data regardless of their political stripe. But in the religious realm there is often a trend towards devotional study rather than critical study. Devotional study is about finding a greater understanding of doctrine or greater fidelity with a catechism of beliefs.

Religionists upset with the notion of the separation of church and state often assert their right to be heard and to express their religiosity in public spaces.  Some might take this as a simple matter of freedom of speech. And if that is all the religionists want, that would be fine. But if you look closely, they don’t want just speech, often times they want government endorsement of their doctrine. They want equal time in the public schools. They want to bring the civil sphere into alignment with their beliefs. “Go ahead and teach Darwinian evolution, but Creationism should get equal time.” Creationism is just a Christian conservative flavor of denialism. It is the denial of evidence in favor of a magical world of spirits and things that cannot be physically evaluated.

Religious services are about the veneration of the sacred. The word “sacred” means that which is beyond question or understanding.  In a real sense, holding something sacred is to set apart a concept or doctrine from critical analysis. Religionists are not interested in a public critical analysis of their precepts. They are interested in broader devotional coverage, i.e., the fruits of evangelism.

It isn’t unusual for a liberal person to be compelled to do critical analysis of their basic beliefs over a lifetime.  The very notion of spiritual sacredness is antithetical to one who seeks analytical truth. The policy that some belief systems are beyond analysis is simply a form of thought control and is more suited to the iron age than the present. Being a nontheist I hold human life sacred. I’m very partial to kindness too. But this does not require that I believe in a supernatural universe.

For a great many people, college is a time and a place for intellectual experimentation and exploration. It is a place where you can have chance or purposeful encounters with new ideas, people and careers that were beyond your previous horizon. The university is an institution where critical analysis of the great world systems takes place. The active examination and betterment of our world is the realm enjoyed by the progressive.  Progressives push the boundaries of knowledge and thought. Sometimes focused analysis reflects well on our human or national institutions and sometimes it does not. But knowledge hidden is knowledge abused. That universities are loaded with liberals is a natural outcome of the youthful intellectual adventure the students are taking. It is a journey of discovery of the self and one’s place in it. It can be both joyous and a bit disappointing. New lands and new boundaries are there to be found.

The current efforts by American conservative Christian nationalists to scour out all traces of liberalism in education is worrisome and frankly, a little stupid. The assault on New College by the governor of Florida is a dark example of state government taking a giant step backwards by imposing one-sided political controls on a public resource. This in itself shows that American education has failed a great many people. America has generally failed in citizen’s knowledge and practice of civics and the long, troubled path of history to the present.

Just take a long look at the MAGA movement. Make America Great Again. When was this actually? If you look below the surface in any period of US history, you’ll find political problems and upheavals galore. There have always been social struggles in our history. Formerly venerated American Heros like Buffalo Bill Cody and the near extinction of the buffalo. General Custer and what he was really doing at the little Bighorn. Or the revered westward expansion with the Gold Rush and migration of the pioneers which were part of our celebrated manifest destiny. These were national enthusiasms that have been endlessly celebrated and woven into textbooks for generations of school kids.

The ugly truth to much of the actions of our ancestors is that a great many innocent people died as settlers began to occupy North America. Land was stolen, European diseases were spread, native Americans were murdered and robbed of their land and resources and their children were reprogrammed in government schools. Survivors were herded into reservations with little in the way of amenities or natural resources that we take for granted. Treaties were made and broken. This is also part of our history.

There is no benefit in self-flagellating ourselves over the sins of the past. However, what we need to do is to take note of the mistakes of the past and steer a better path to the future.

Do I believe that American conservative thinking and liberal thinking are equally right? Not at all. I’ll take progressive liberalism any day.