More about politics and the academy

April 6, 2005

Dan Drezner posts a summary and some thoughts on Brooks and Krugman’s NYT columns this week. There are some good points and some interesting discussion in the comments. I may add some of my thoughts on this later, if I have the time and the inclination.

LATER: OK, I don’t feel like talking too much politics right now, so I’ll just point out one comment that I found revealing:

> I dont know if anyone has run a study, but I
> guarantee a large majority of Republicans believe
> in evolution.

The difference perhaps being that Al Sharpton does not run the
Democratic party or even the left (what were his primary percentages
again?), whereas the Republican Party currently IS under the control of
the radical fundamentalists. Karl Rove may think that having called the
fundies out to vote to get W over the top he can skate by without
giving them what they want, but the Schievo [sic] situation shows that is not
going to be the case.


posted by: Cranky Observer on 04.06.05 at 09:36 AM [permalink]

So the Democrats should not be judged by one of their presidential candidates (fair enough, there are extremists on both sides), but because Karl Rove (the mention of whom sets off instant conspiracy theory warnings) said he wanted to get evangelicals to vote, the Republicans are "under the control of the radical fundamentalists." Whatever. It’s a big tent (the argument made in the Brooks article) and the evangelical (rather than fundamentalist) element, of which I am a part, is necessary, but not sufficient, to get Republicans elected. How is this different from the Democrats, who would lose many a seat if their 90% share of the black American vote were halved? Of course, Al Sharpton does not speak for all black Americans, just as Jerry Falwell does not speak for all evangelicals, and both parties tend to ignore these constituencies when they don’t have an immediate need for them. Regardless, too many words responding to a fairly inane point…go over and read Drezner’s post and his links for some interesting discussion (except the Brad DeLong thing, which was just weird…).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s