« Overstating Reagan's effect on public opinion | Main | No Labels = no supporters »

February 01, 2011


Tom Jacobs wrongly implies that Tea Partiers, who he equates with "skeptics", don't believe the globe has been warming. It's true that most Tea Partiers oppose Cap and Trade and other big government (supposed) solutions to the (alleged) global warming threat. However, someone who believes that the globe is warming might still oppose Cap and Trade if s/he also believes any of the following:

1. It's not proved that man-made CO2 has been the primary cause of global warming.

2. Global warming will not be a disaster.

3. Cap and Trade is inadequate to fix the problem of global warming.

4. There are other, better solutions to global warming.

My guess is that most "skeptics" agree that the globe has been warming, but don't believe it's proved that man-made CO2 has been the primary cause.

Point #3 is generally ignored, but it shouldn't be. If the disaster models are correct, then Cap and Trade and other proposed remedies are entirely inadequate to prevent disaster.

I believe a political double standard applies to minorities. Conservative minority figures can be insulted or demonized in ways that would be unacceptible for non-conservative members of the same minority.

One example was Julianne Malveaux stating on a PBS TV show, "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease....He is an absolutely reprehensible person." Malveaux is President of Bennett College. I think if someone had made the same comment on nationwide TV about Thurgood Marshall, the speaker would be persona non grata.

Sarah Palin has been demonized beyond any woman I can think of. That's particularly noteworthy, because she hasn't done anything wrong. She hasn't committed any crime or been found guilty of any corruption. She hasn't made any off-color statements. She wasn't unfaithful to her spouse. She didn't mistreat her children. As far as I can tell, her "crime" is being an attractive, popular Republican.

Anyhow, my own discussions with people close to me would support David Smith's study. I think many people would refuse to vote for Romney because he's a Mormon. I think many who hold that position are not conservative Christians.

Yet, I've never heard or read of a single complaint anywhere about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Mormon religion. Conservatives find lots wrong with Reid's performance, but I've never heard critics bring up his religion. I think most people are unaware of Reid's religion.

Smith says his paper "explores the extent to which anti-Mormonism may affect voter evaluations of Mormon political candidates in the United States," yet the paper doesn't mention of Harry Reid.

In short, like gender and race, the Mormon religion seems to be a problem only when the Mormon happens to be a conservative.

In that Malveaux quote above, she was talking about Clarence Thomas. Sorry for the omission.

As a footnote to David's comment about Harry Reid's religion, whereas for Mitt Romney Mormonism is the faith he inherited from his parents, Harry Reid chose as an adult to convert to the LDS Church. For better or worse, he made a conscious choice to sign onto Mormon beliefs.

The comments to this entry are closed.