Why MAGA hates science so much
Why does MAGA hate science? Shall we count the ways?
Because scientific advances don't discriminate between the 'worthy' and those considered unworthy, and because some in the billionaire class think they deserve to live much longer than you do.
As they prep their fancy-shmancy bunkers or delude themselves that they can one day head off to Mars to escape their wanton destruction of the Earth, the billionaire bros know they can avail themselves and their children of lifesaving vaccinations and other health care services that they are putting out of reach for many of us.
But it's not just the small — and small-minded, and small-hearted — wealthy libertarian or right-wing elite. Working people who choose to wear MAGA red caps hate science for their own reasons: It tells them things about disease and environmental destruction and, say, women's reproductive health that they cannot bear to face. Scientific findings often do not jibe with their religious beliefs. If you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old and were never taught how to distinguish between faith and knowledge, you're naturally going to have a testy relationship with science.
By its nature of openness to new ideas, scientific inquiry exemplifies the secular worldview of liberals. Science levels the playing field. It's woke. Scientists discriminate about the significance of evidence, but they do not discriminate about the significance of different human beings. (That is what the MAGA faithful think their religion is for — because Republicans have spent a long time perverting Christianity, too, to justify their greed and bigotry.)
From reading the writers of the Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson knew science was evening out the social playing field. In an article for Smithsonian magazine, historian Stephen E. Ambrose notes that amid all the contradictions of his personal life, Jefferson never relinquished his idealism about all men being created equal:
In his last message to America, on June 24, 1826, ten days before he died on July 4 (the same day that John Adams died), Jefferson declined an invitation to be in Washington for the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote, 'All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them.'
There's the danger to those who consider themselves superior — by race, color, creed or position on the Forbes annual list of billionaires — to the mass of men and women. Scientific advancements make us ever more aware that we are all the same and should enjoy the same basic rights to education, health care, civil liberties like voting, freedom of and freedom from religion, and the freedom to read or otherwise consume whatever opinions or cultural works we choose — the very things that the current occupant of the White House and his MAGA followers are working to take away from us.
Beyond the historical friction between science and religious beliefs (for which earlier scientists could be imprisoned or burned at the stake), the main reason MAGA hates science is human-caused global climate change. Al Gore famously called global warming an 'inconvenient truth,' but Donald Trump persists in calling it 'a hoax,' while defunding climate research, green technology, NOAA and FEMA. The COVID pandemic gave MAGA followers many more incoherent reasons to distrust science, while watching 'their favorite president' politicize every aspect of the response.
Apparently, millions would rather suffer mightily — or even die, as many willfully unvaccinated people did — than admit they were wrong. It's a sad aspect of human nature to feel we have such sunk costs in our often-wrongheaded opinions that we are willing to perish for them.
I was a biology major in college for a few years, with vague plans of medical school, vaguely until I switched to journalism. I would not pretend to be a scientist based on that curtailed education, but I did spend 36 years in medical publishing. As a production editor and later as a submission systems manager, I came to understand the significant work of researchers and the selfless work of the many peer reviewers who help editors determine which studies merit publication. For many journals I worked with, the acceptance rates were astonishingly small.
MAGA conspiracy heads might call that publication process elitist, and claim that people with worthwhile ideas are being kept out of the conversation. Most people in the sciences, however, understand the process as separating the wheat from the chaff by culling out the many papers that for one reason or another — perhaps poor design or insignificant findings — fail to advance scientific knowledge.
But you don't need any understanding of science to understand that what Trump and his party of grifters and religious zealots are doing to universities by withholding research funding will be economically devastating to this country, slowing scientific progress and seriously disrupting the lives and careers of many researchers, technicians, lab assistants and students.
The long-term negative effects of Trump's attack on science, which are also part of the full-spectrum MAGA assault on education and the nonpartisan civil service, will likely be even worse. Students will be increasingly reluctant to pursue careers in science. Only a months ago, STEM courses in high school and college were viewed as critical to the future of American ingenuity and enterprise, a big part of what actually made America great. It's impossible to gauge just how much damage will be done as we ban vaccines, deny climate science and make measles great again.
Many MAGA supporters don't want to share 'their' America with brown people who may or may not be citizens; too many of them welcome the persecution and deportation of longtime U.S. residents who put in long hours at child care centers, hotels and restaurants, construction and landscaping companies, hospitals and nursing homes, and in agricultural fields, doing the thankless and often grueling work of picking and delivering the crops that feed the nation.
Britain's decision to leave the European Union — one of the worst self-inflicted wounds of recent political history — has cost the U.K. an estimated 6% drop in GDP so far. The probable result of MAGA's lust to spend billions on hiring more masked, secret police-style ICE agents to deport hard-working, tax-paying immigrants, even if we look beyond the human suffering, will be a Brexit-level recession on steroids.
Ultimately, what our felonious, ever-grifting president wants to do is to destroy all expertise in this country. That's what autocrats do. The manchild MAGA leader can't stand for any so-called experts to question him when he makes idiotic suggestions about public health proposes setting off nuclear bombs inside a hurricane or tries to change the longstanding name of a geographical feature to gratify his fragile ego. He wants to claim that his supposedly big and beautiful bill is the most popular legislation in history and that he's the greatest president ever, and doesn't want to hear egghead historians tell him otherwise.
Trump hates to be questioned — so he hates journalists, scientists and anyone else with the kind of education that encourages critical thinking. That's why he has surrounded himself with an entire Cabinet of white nationalist frat boys, shameless sycophants and fellow grifters — not to mention a supermajority of right-wing Supreme Court justices who appear ready to hand him absolute power.
'American Robin,' a poem by Barbara Crooker that was recently featured in George Bilgere's 'Poetry Town' newsletter, is about our inability to respond appropriately to the devastation of human-made climate change. But it applies equally well to all the anti-science, misogynist, racist, Dark Enlightenment nonsense coming from the right that seeks to rob you, your children and your grandchildren of a financially and environmentally secure future. It begins this way:
Here's that bird again, launching from the rhododendron, banging his forehead on my living room window. Thump. Thump. Does he see his own reflection in the glass or does he see a rival, a threat to his nest? I hang a black raptor silhouette in the middle square, but that does not deter him. Knock yourself out, I keep thinking. Next, I try cardboard, then a sheet of newspaper smeared with its terrible news. He comes back. Do I admire him for his persistence or shrug at his stupidity? Thunk. Thunk.
Read the whole poem; I'll wait. One could read Crooker's dismay at the American robin's thumps and thunks against her windowpane as a rhyme for the name of a certain infamous conman turned populist demagogue. But that is perhaps unfair — to the poet and the bird.
This article previously appeared in slightly different form at Medium. Used by permission.
The post Why MAGA hates science so much appeared first on Salon.com.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kevin McCarthy: 'Create Something That Outlives You'
With a staunchly divided Congress, it can be easy for politicians to focus on dominating the other side, rather than compromising, but is that the best way to create lasting change? Former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is on the podcast today to examine the issues in the modern political landscape, from partisan infighting, the difficulty in electing moderate candidates, and the constant tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats that often leads us in circles, rather than forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit


CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why it matters that top Republicans are deferring to Trump on a possible Maxwell pardon
Plenty of Republicans are walking a tricky line right now on the Jeffrey Epstein files. But few have walked one as tricky as congressional leadership in recent days. Asked about President Donald Trump potentially pardoning Epstein's convicted sex-trafficking accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell – something Trump conspicuously left the door open to Friday and then again Monday – House Speaker Mike Johnson punted on Sunday. 'Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president,' he told NBC's 'Meet the Press,' adding: 'I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane.' When pressed, the Louisiana Republican relented a bit and said that the idea gave him 'great pause' because of her 'unspeakable crimes' – while again emphasizing that's 'not my decision.' Similarly on Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune would not say if Trump should rule out a pardon for Maxwell. 'Well, that's up to him,' the South Dakota Republican told CNN's Manu Raju. 'But it looks to me like she's going to spend a good long time in jail.' Maxwell, who's serving 20 years, is a convicted sex trafficker. Of children. Leadership's message to Trump seemed to be: Please don't do it. But also, just in case you do pardon a sex trafficker of children, I need to cover myself and emphasize that you have the full right to do it. And they weren't the only Republicans to curiously avoid rejecting such a pardon. 'I don't know enough about Maxwell or the conversation to even weigh in on that,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday. So why on earth are Republicans treating this seemingly unthinkable maneuver so gently? Would Trump actually do such a thing? And how on earth would that not blow up in his face? It's difficult to see how. And indeed, this prospect seems to work better as a carrot for Maxwell, who met last week with the deputy attorney general, than as a legitimate possibility. You could certainly be forgiven for thinking Trump wants Maxwell to believe she might get a pardon – or other help in her ongoing appeals – even if that's not realistic. The conventional wisdom among some on the left has been that Trump has indeed cued up a Maxwell pardon, ever since his administration made interviewing her its first big move to allay concerns about its handling of the Epstein files. The idea would be that Maxwell will say the things the Trump administration wants – such as clearing the president and/or implicating others – and he rewards her with a pardon. Trump certainly hasn't shied away from controversial pardons before. He has gone to historic lengths to pardon allies. He has granted clemency to virtually all January 6, 2021, defendants – including hundreds who were convicted of assaulting police. But even against that backdrop, pardoning a convicted sex trafficker is on another level. Let's say Trump does it. The idea would apparently be that Maxwell provides Trump and his team enough information that they can change the subject by focusing the conversation on other people she might implicate. (It's worth noting that Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.) But what happens then? Maxwell clearly has a credibility issues and reason to say what helps her in this moment. And that's not just me saying it; it's Trump's own Justice Department, circa 2020, which called her a brazen liar. A pardon would only reinforce the idea that this was some kind of corrupt bargain. About the only way to combat that would be if she gave information that actually panned out. But justice takes a long time to be served. The Justice Department needs time to build cases, and those cases might or might not succeed. Are you really going to pardon her before any of that happens? What happens if the end result is that the only Epstein associate to actually be convicted walks free? It also seems likely that a pardon would only add new fuel to a subject that Trump badly wants to move on from. If other people were implicated, that would create all kinds of threads to be pulled moving forward. That would also inject new life into theories about a possible cover-up. The question would become whether these people were subjects in the various investigations, and whether those leads were followed up. It would also lead to questions about whether other people could be brought to justice, which would make withholding the Epstein files even more difficult for the Trump administration. And that's a very big risk here. Polls show huge numbers of Americans already believe there is some form of a cover-up at play. A Reuters-Ipsos poll this month showed Americans agreed 60-12% that the federal government was 'hiding information' about Epstein's death, and 69-6% that it was hiding information about his clients. That latter belief was overwhelmingly bipartisan, with 82% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans agreeing. These people would have their fears confirmed – and probably would want to know more. And then there is just the 'yuck' factor. Trump's January 6 pardons were highly unpopular; a February Washington Post-Ipsos poll showed Americans opposed the pardons of violent offenders 83-14%. At the same time, the president doesn't seem to have paid much of a price. Those pardons during his first week back in office quickly faded amid a barrage of early Trump maneuvers that competed for the attention of the media and news consumers. But the attack on the US Capitol was also years in the past by that point. People were probably unfamiliar with the many hundreds of defendants, and many Trump supporters had been convinced over many months that these people were railroaded. It just wasn't as much of a political hot potato, even as it was unseemly in most Americans' eyes. It's difficult to see how a Maxwell pardon wouldn't instantly be news for days and weeks, because of how people feel about her crimes and the entire Epstein saga, and because of questions about whether this was some kind of corrupt trade. It would also force GOP lawmakers into some very uncomfortable interviews. (A president indeed has the power to pardon whomever he wants to. That doesn't mean every pardon is morally just.) For all of the MAGA movement's seeming willingness to go along with whatever Trump says, it's hard to see how even much of the base would be okay with all that. The question of whether Trump pardons Maxwell might not even be the right one. A better one might be whether Trump's Justice Department could do something else to help her – such as in her ongoing appeals. Maxwell's legal team has based its appeal around the idea that the 2008 non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured in Florida should have covered Maxwell. To this point, the Trump administration has rejected that argument, saying earlier this month that Maxwell was 'not a party to the relevant agreement.' Perhaps it could change its tune? Even that seems pretty far-fetched, though. While this would be a more limited step, it would still look pretty bad and would lead to all kinds of questions about quid pro quos with a convicted sex trafficker. In the end, this debate seems a whole lot more valuable to Trump in the abstract than in reality. Maxwell didn't just talk to a top Trump appointee in the Justice Department last week, she could soon be testifying to Congress. What better way to guide what she says than to have her believe maybe the administration could do her a solid. Or perhaps this is just another example of Trump's strange commentary about Maxwell – remember 'I wish her well' – and never wanting to rule things out. He loves to keep his options open, even when one of those options seems to be ridiculous. But at least for now, it's apparently significant enough for Republicans to treat it as a real possibility. And that, in and of itself, is shocking.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
One Texas redistricting map puts Lubbock, San Antonio — 350 miles apart — in same district
Redistricting traditionally takes place following the decennial U.S. Census Bureau population count or as a result of a court mandate. But Texas Republicans now plan to redraw maps mid-decade. At the urging of President Donald Trump, the Texas Legislature is being asked to redraw congressional boundaries ahead of next year's midterm elections, aiming to secure five additional Republican U.S. House seats. If enacted, this would make it harder for Democrats to retake control of the House and push back against Trump's political agenda Texas currently has 38 seats, with Republicans holding 25, Democrats 12, and one seat vacant following the death of a Democratic representative. One map shows Lubbock to San Antonio One proposed map stretches a single district from Lubbock to San Antonio — a roughly 350-mile span designed to consolidate Republican advantage. What is the current Texas congressional map? What is redistricting? Redistricting is the process of drawing lines for legislative districts from which public officials are elected. When it's conducted fairly, it reflects population changes and racial diversity, and is used by legislators to allocate representation in Congress and state legislatures equitably. Is redistricting the same as reapportionment? No. Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts, such as congressional, state legislative, or local political districts. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, reapportionment is the process of redistributing the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the 50 states based on population changes revealed by the decennial Census. What is gerrymandering? Gerrymandering is the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to give an unfair political advantage to a particular party, group, or class. It is a form of redistricting, but done with the intent to influence election outcomes rather than ensure fair representation. According to the Campaign Legal Center, there are usually four tactics politicians use to gerrymander maps to disadvantage voters to improve their political interests. Malapportionment – drawing districts with deliberate differences in population, which causes constituents in highly populous districts to have effectively less voting strength (drawn to disadvantage the opposite political party or voters of color) than their counterparts in more sparsely populated districts (drawn to advantage voters of the same political party as the map drawer). Racial voting dilution –redistricting plans that minimize or cancel the voting strength of Black and brown voters. Partisan gerrymandering – creating political maps that enable a political party to gain a systemic advantage for itself. Racial Gerrymandering – sorting voters into districts with a predominant focus on race. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that an excessive focus on race in drawing districts offends the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution unless there is sufficient justification, such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). How to submit your own congressional map proposal Texas residents can submit map proposals through the Texas Redistricting website. Submitted proposals are uploaded to the legislature's redistricting software, RedAppl, where House and Senate redistricting committees, other legislators, and the public can view and comment on them. For details on how to submit a public redistricting proposal, refer to the Redistricting Proposals from the Public resource. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: One Texas redistricting map shows Lubbock, San Antonio in same district