Why the Republican Party cannot, as Michael Gerson suggests, ‘raise questions’ about climate change

Last updated on: February 1, 2015 at 4:22 pm by Fred Clark

Why the Republican Party cannot, as Michael Gerson suggests, ‘raise questions’ about climate change 2015-02-01T16:22:27-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This is a welcome effort from former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson: “An invasion of artificial outrage.” It’s a belated, but commendable, attempt to address the “danger [that] comes when talk radio becomes the voice inside your head.”

Gerson makes some good points about the way extremist hyperbole “is often a form of self-elevation.” (Always good to see that somebody’s been reading his Niebuhr.) I do wonder if he’s ever thought to apply that argument to the policies and rhetoric of his own anti-abortion movement, but let’s leave that for another time.

Gerson’s description of this tendency toward extremist, sky-is-falling rhetoric is helpful:

Jindal could have used his platform as a prospective presidential candidate to make points about the (very real) dangers of radicalization. Instead, he talks of invasion, colonization and conquest.

This is both appalling and symptomatic. In our politics, ideological assertions tend to gain an immediate, massive velocity. It is not enough to raise questions about global warming; it must be, according to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” It is not sufficient to call for improved control of the border; immigrant children may be carriers of Ebola, as Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) once asserted. It is zero to 100 in no time flat.

That example of Sen. Inhofe, I think, illustrates what Gerson is missing in his observation of this “appalling” tendency toward this kind of extreme, Manichaean rhetoric. Rather than the absurd claim that climate science is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Gerson would prefer that his fellow Republicans simply “raise questions about global warming.”

OK, great. Please proceed. Raise whatever questions you’d like to raise. Ask away.

But the problem here is that asking questions entails the possibility that those questions might have answers.

This stuff traps heat, whether or not we’d prefer otherwise.

In the case of the questions that Michael Gerson or James Inhofe might want to raise about climate change, those questions do have answers. Solid, clear, formidable answers. The kind of answers that make it impossible to continue asking those questions in good faith.

And that’s why “raising questions about global warming” is not an option for a guy like Sen. Inhofe. His problem is not that he has unanswered questions. His problem is that he knows his questions have been answered and he doesn’t like the answers. He’s trying to avoid those answers — and that makes asking those questions the last thing he wants to do.

Gerson admirably would prefer that our political discourse be shaped by a calm, reasonable assessment of established facts and a prudent, logical consideration of possible actions. That’s a lovely thought, but it’s of no use to Sen. Inhofe if he hopes to continue denying the existence of climate change. Facts, reason, logic and prudence aren’t luxuries he can afford if he wants to maintain his current position.

The old lawyer’s joke explains Inhofe’s predicament: If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table. Inhofe’s “artificial outrage” may be ridiculous and dishonest, but it’s the only form of pounding on the table that’s left to him. The “questions” that Gerson would have him raise have already been answered, definitively, and there’s no way he can win this argument or this political struggle if he plays by Gerson’s rules.

There’s no way Inhofe can win if he plays by any rules. So he’s throwing out the rulebook and just making stuff up.

Inhofe, McConnell, Boehner, et. al. have shown that can work in the short term, if we accept their premise that securing short-term political advantages means something is “working.” But in the long run, they still have to live in the same world as everybody else. Denying reality doesn’t mean you can put off living in it forever.

In that sense, Inhofe and McConnell would seem to be Keynesians — agreeing with the economist’s observation that, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

They are, as Ian Welsh argues, making a death bet:

In it’s pure form, the death bet is just that, a bet that when the bill comes due, you’ll be dead. If you live a good life and die owing millions, well, what do you care?

… The death bet is why we are not dealing with climate change, even though we know that it is coming and we know it will kill hundreds of millions and might even destroy our entire society. The death bet is why our governments make huge tax cuts today knowing that either taxes will have to be increased in the future or spending will have to be drastically cut. But in the meantime the government can borrow, or print money, so who cares? The politicians who make the tax cuts won’t be in power, and many of the people who receive the cuts will be dead, so what do they care?

The death bet is why America had a 2.4 trillion dollar infrastructure deficit as of 2009. It is why Californians voted in 1978 to disallow property tax increases of more than 2 percent per year. And it is why tuition rates have increased by hundreds of percentage points more than inflation in many countries.

Michael Gerson is upset because the outlandishly false things his fellow Republicans — Inhofe, Jindal, Gingrey, etc. — keep saying make his party seem irrational and unreasonable. But if Welsh is right — and I think he is — then their apparent irrationality is actually quite reasonable. It’s the cold, pathological logic of a death bet.

Previous Post

February 1, 2015

Superb Owl Sunday

Next Post

February 2, 2015 Political news round-up posted too soon after disappointing game

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Christian" mean?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Messenger Believer Disciple Follower of Christ