Italian philosopher and political scientist Norberto Bobbio argues that attitudes towards equality are primarily what distinguish left-wing politics from right-wing politics on the political spectrum:  “the left considers the key inequalities between people to be artificial and negative, which should be overcome by an active state, whereas the right believes that inequalities between people are natural and positive, and should be either defended or left alone by the state.” (link)

In 2020, scientists performed an astonishing feat. In less than one year, they produced not one but several safe and effective vaccines against the novel coronavirus, sars-cov-2. Yet, by the summer of 2021, barely half of all Americans had been fully vaccinated, even though free vaccines were widely available. By the autumn of 2021, ten thousand deaths following vaccination had been reported, and only six positively attributed to the vaccine, with more than four hundred and fifty million vaccine doses administered. This is a vaccine-death rate of 0.00000001 percent.¹ Yet public health officials still struggled to persuade the remaining Americans to get vaccinated. Commentators have read this opposition as evidence of a crisis of public trust in science. (link)

Scientists and conservatives have not gotten along for a while and they aren’t getting along now. Although this may be seen as bias on the part of scientists, it is the conservatives who have turned away from science and encouraged the public to go with them.

Mistrust in science has been seeded for a while, lead by conservative business leaders in the US who do not want regulations. The environmental and public health movements scared them and they saw these ideals as eating into their profits. Conservative people hate the environment so much, they won’t even invest in it. They like science well enough when it is related to production of goods but otherwise, it and the government, are expected to get out of their way as they do what they please. Interestingly enough, the anti-science attitude is strongest in educated Republicans, who then use money and influence to infect other Republicans with this view, which is basically anti-government. The anti-government movement funded think tanks at The University of Chicago which basically didn’t believe in public good. They don’t believe in helping people. Is it any surprise that Iowa’s attorney general is a product of that?

Government is not supposed to help people with science problems because then, people might want to government to protect them from the maladies businesses have created. In fact, these conservative business leaders go out of their way to block government solutions because they want the government to look bad. They do not want government to lend a helping hand.

One mastermind in this conservative movement is the National Association of Manufactures. You can see their leaders here. You’ll note that the head of both Pella Corporation and Vermeer Manufacturing are on their board of directors. A former head of Vermeer Corporation received their award recently and dutifully repeated some of their anti-government talking points. You may recognize a business ally of Trump’s. NAM has flooded newspapers, radio, and television stations with their messaging—enterprising businessmen heroes fighting pesky environmentalists and socialist moralists who seek a fair and safe workplace. These companies donate to their favorite charities, advertise in local media, in effect silencing them from speaking out on issues. Our lips are sealed.

One recent result: In Iowa, the public harassed a local weather man to the point that he left the state. Read more here. His crime? He talked about climate change as being science. Which it is. We Midwesterners have lost our niceness and it’s no accident. We’re trusting the wrong people.

It’s important to realize that much of the anti-science, anti-regulation rhetoric is myth, a right-wing myth that enriches a few. For our own good, for our health and safety we need to see it as the PR stunt it is.

Recently, I asked Pella’s Planning and Zoning director about flooding in town. Climate change models predict extreme weather, including flooding over much of the US. He said we have regulations to prevent flooding from 100-year floods but to push these limits would be too expensive. Here in a self-proclaimed religious city, protecting each other is too expensive. Maybe we should care more about our neighbors. My property is not at much risk for flooding. How about yours?

You have the right, as a citizen, to expect your elected officials to listen to basic science and take the appropriate steps to protect you. One small step you can take will be to push “delete” if you get a voting guide from a member of NAM. Another is to adopt some skepticism. A friend once joined a pro-business group, because he had a small business, and received their newsletters. He noticed that every issue had a right-wing spin. He tossed his membership in the garbage.

There is nothing wrong with manufacturing. It’s been with us since the industrial revolution. But, like Botox, too much used carelessly in the wrong place will hurt you. It can even affect your empathy for others. There’s no reason to trust right-wing business leaders on matters of science. Regulation can slightly raise costs, but it does protect the community.  It also encourages innovation. The environmental costs of their neglect will be paid by the rest of us. Look through the PR stunt. Meanwhile, here comes the rain again.

Much of the information in this piece comes from this source (MIT Press)