
This ‘Trial of the Century' Is 100. Its Lessons Could Save the Democrats.
Despite its rather genial outcome (the Tennessee Supreme Court even overturned Mr. Scopes's conviction on a technicality), echoes from the 'trial of the century' still resound in American culture and politics a full century later. The Scopes trial was a momentous clash between modern science and traditional Christianity, represented by two of the most famous attorneys in the country: William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution, Clarence Darrow for the defense. Broadcast on the radio, it exposed the horror many urban liberals felt toward people they deemed dogmatic and uneducated. H.L. Mencken, the eloquent if arrogant critic of unrefined America, attended the trial and hissed to his many readers that Bryan was 'deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning' — 'a peasant come home to the barnyard.'
A hundred years on, many voters in rural areas still feel that the cosmopolitan politicians and advisers who run the Democratic Party look down on them. Because those voters have an outsize influence on the makeup of the Senate, Democrats will have to reckon with that perception, accurate or not, if they hope to dominate American politics again.
While teaching evolution has been legal in every state for decades, the larger antagonisms revealed by the Scopes trial persist. Americans in rural areas are more likely to identify as Christian than their urban counterparts. Those who are white overwhelmingly back politicians like House Speaker Mike Johnson, who says he takes his 'worldview' from the Bible, and President Trump, who claims he was 'saved by God to make America great again.' Americans with a strong rural identity are also more likely to bear a grudge against experts and intellectuals, heirs of the evolutionists who came to Scopes's defense.
Who should decide what schools teach remains as intensely disputed as a century ago. Bryan believed that 'the people,' not teachers, had 'the right to control the educational system which they have created and which they tax themselves to support.' If they wanted to ban the teaching of evolution with a bill like the Butler Act, they should be able to. A similar logic drives the contemporary crusade by Moms for Liberty and other right-wing groups to ban courses infected by D.E.I. and to toss books about L.G.B.T.Q. people out of school libraries.
Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's compendium of conservative ideas, called for parents to decide what students would learn. It even favored publicly funding private schools, including religious schools, that could teach children to doubt the existence of climate change, the persistence of racism and, yes, the theory of evolution.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump hikes tariffs on Canada to 35%, announces rates from 10% to 40% for dozens of countries
The White House took a step forward with President Trump's plan to remake the trade landscape by releasing new details Thursday evening that included a raft of new tariff rates, now formally authorized by executive order, which set levels from 10% to 40% on nearly every global trading partner. The move represents a giant shakeup in the US's trade order, outlining a 35% tariff on Canada (up from 25% currently) as well as rates above 30% on nations from South Africa to Switzerland. But there's a last minute catch, as nearly all these new rates (except for Canada's) will not go into effect for seven days, instead of a midnight Friday deadline Trump had previously set. "These modifications shall be effective ... on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time 7 days after the date of this order," reads the now signed order. The new tariff rate on Canada is under a different order focused on illicit drugs and and will take effect Friday, as originally planned. For other nations, the order also allows for an additional delay, with lower, previous rates applied to goods that are loaded onto ships before Aug. 7 that then enter the United States before Oct. 5. But once the new tariffs are in effect, they will be far-reaching. India, after initial high hopes for a deal that have bogged down in recent weeks, is set to face a 25% rate, though negotiators there now appear to have another week to make offers. Taiwan is another top US trading partner and is set to see a 20% rate. The White House documentation released Thursday also confirmed some of the parameters of recent deals with other top trading partners, including a 15% rate on the European Union, South Korea, and Japan. It also confirmed that 19%-20% rates are in the offing for a range of Southeast Asian nations and an unchanged 10% rate is set for the United Kingdom. Thursday's advancement did come after one significant delay Thursday, with a 90-day pause on new tariffs on Mexico, as the president decided to keep rates at 25% after a 'very successful' phone call, according to Trump. Dozens of other smaller trading partners saw their tariff rates upped to 15% from 10%, with some nations not included in Tuesday's release. Those excluded countries included many nations with which the US currently has a trade surplus. They are set to see their rates remain at 10%, in a surprise for some after comments from Trump in recent days suggested 15% would be his new minimum. Thursday's order also includes a focus on the growing issue of transshipping, promising an additional tariff of 40 percent for any goods deemed 'to have been transshipped to evade applicable duties' without providing a further definition on what would meet that standard. Thursday's announcement comes as previously announced 50% levies on copper are also set to go into effect at midnight as well alongside the new Canadian duties. The White House also has plans for 50% tariffs on Brazil which are set to be in fully in effect one day sooner — as that order is operating under its own seven-day clock that began Wednesday. The rapid-fire tariff moves also came as small business importers and the US Justice Department clashed Thursday over whether Trump even has the authority to take these actions. Trump's team relied on the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act to move around the rates, saying it authorizes the president to 'regulate' international commerce after declaring a national emergency. It's also the latest culmination of Trump's intense second term focus on tariffs. He declared "I am a tariff man" back in 2018 but has gone much further in his second term. The latest calculations from the Yale Budget Lab found that these new duties, before Thursday's adjustments, suggested consumers already face an overall effective tariff rate of 18.4%, which is the highest rate since 1933. That figure is sure to rise in the coming days as the new tariff levels are digested. The duties — as Trump himself notes almost every day — have also already set multiple new tariff revenues records even at the previous levels centered around a 10% floor for tariffs. As Trump put it on Thursday, 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again' adding that lower levels seen in previous decades were hurting America and 'now the tide has completely turned.' Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Fox News
11 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kevin McCarthy says Kamala Harris' book teaches candidates 'how not to run a campaign'
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy discusses former Vice President Kamala Harris' upcoming book on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

Wall Street Journal
11 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
The Rough Day in Court for Trump's Tariffs
WASHINGTON—President Trump's assertion of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs faced its toughest legal test yet on Thursday, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit voiced skepticism of his unilateral move to impose levies that are normally Congress's responsibility. The oral argument touched on key questions in the dispute: Do chronic problems like the trade imbalance and cross-border drug smuggling qualify as emergencies allowing the president to set aside normal laws? Do federal courts have the power to review the president's emergency determinations? And does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law known as Ieepa that Trump invoked, allow the president to impose tariffs at all?