Liberalism’s Gray Zone

Where science and culture meet

It is interesting that liberalism has wrapped itself in the mantle of “science” in the past couple of decades. On the one hand this makes sense, given that the vision and actuality of modern science is achieving progress through the application of materialist humanism. The Left is all about progress, materialism and humanism, so on the surface it seems a nice fit. It also sets up as a nice false dichotomy with the “Christian right,” allowing the Left to paint conservative religious folks as superstitious and irrational on pretty much any issue they please.

On the other hand, this is not a comfortable fit. Modern liberalism is at root a romantic and emotional movement, not much given to number crunching or the scientific method. During the Cold War years science was seen as the handmaiden of the military industrial complex, facilitating the weapons of destruction. The scientist in enormous horn rimmed glasses, short sleeve button down shirt and pocket protector was about as far as could be from the preferred laid back, pot-smoking, granola-eating, hemp wearing earth mama, hippy dippy, Ben & Jerry’s, commune diggin’ vibe of the 60s and 70s left.

So has the left just grown up? Or is it seeking tactical advantage in an area that is ultimately at odds with its core principles? Will it become the 21st Century Champion of Science, or will its internal contradictions make this approach unsustainable? Let us examine a couple of areas at the intersection of science and policy.

Abortion. This is one area where it becomes clear that when science and policy conflict for the left, it is science that goes out the window. Not only has medical technology made the concept of fetal viability much more elastic, but genetic science proves one of the fundamental pro-life axioms: Life begins at conception. If one removes “values talk” from the mix, the cold hard scientific fact is that a new human life is created at the point of conception. Period. New, unique DNA that has never existed and never will exist again has been created. When that new human life becomes deserving of protection is not a question that science can offer answers for. It is a question of what values our society wished to apply to the situation. I, like most conservatives, am perfectly happy with this state of affairs. Science gives us the tools to understand important facts about life. But values are what give those facts meaning. By all means let us debate the issue in terms of values. The left’s romantic heritage is obvious in its almost use of the emotional value of “reproductive choice” to trump science.

Until one begins talking about stem cell research. Then it is in the left’s interest to use science to trump values. Or at least science-talk. For if you think about it there is very little actual science in the debate. It is more deference to the emotional notion of science. It is casting science in the role of ”Dad” to set boundaries and cut off debate. Conservatives seek to inform the debate with values. But as much as leftists do this with abortion, they reject it with stem cells. Any reference to values in this context is treated as if it were nascent theocracy.

Thus can one neatly see the contradictions of liberalism and science.

Another good example is “Global Warming” or, for the preferred new moniker, “Climate Change.” The science of how our climate changes, what role man plays in the type, nature and rate of that change, and what impacts various sorts of changes will have are important and meaningful areas of scientific inquiry. And have virtually nothing to do with the politics and policy of Global Warming. The Left is not crazed about Global Warming because of what the science says. They are crazed because it so perfectly fits the leftist “template” of the evils of modern, Western, industrial capitalism. And their self-perception as visionaries and knights in shining armor coming to rescue the world from us. It is, in short, a perfect romantic vision. In this context science is once again invoked as an emotional accelerant, a means to jazz people up about the issue and set the terms for debate as favorably as possible for the left. But the science is not the driver. It is the servant of the left.

For any movement or party to proclaim itself to be “for” science is a huge red flag. For science does not lend itself to movements. It is clear that the left has bought into the tactical use of “science” as a means to move its agenda forward. But it is also clear that its core is just as romantic as it was at Woodstock. The left is not the home of science.

Neither is the right. But then we don’t claim to be. We understand that while science plays a valuable role and answers many important questions, the central issues of human existence depend not on science but on values. Science is morally neutral. What we do with the results defines how good and worthy we are as a society. I think the American people intuitively understand that, and would welcome a voice that reminds us that scientific and material progress tempered by faith and values lies at the very heart of the American genius. That combination is a profoundly conservative vision. Let’s not let the left decide who is and isn’t “for science.” Let’s take that ground back.

Archives of "The View from the Ground"

Send an e mail to Patrick J. Shanahan

Visit his website at: