To Solve the Conservative Intellectual Crisis, Work With Democrats
Nicholas Grossman
296

Nicholas Grossman,

Are we to believe that Barack Obama, the man who demanded that his supporters bring a gun to a political knife fight, and then encouraged Philadelphians to do just that (because “folks in Philly like a good brawl”), is, in fact, a post-partisan president; that his messianic image as the word HOPE made flesh does not belie his administration’s manipulation of the IRS at the expense of conservative leaders and select nonprofit organizations; that his surrogates’ depiction of Mitt Romney as a criminal and a “vulture capitalist” does not sully Obama’s reputation as The One; that he still retains the power to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet; that he can end a war, secure our nation and restore our image as the last, best hope on earth?

When, for that matter, did the loyal opposition forfeit its right to block a president’s agenda because of partisan motives or philosophical reasons?

Should Republicans in the House and Senate discard their politics, since Barack Obama is a president of transcendent principles?

Should the GOP worship a would-be demigod — and a demagogue, when it suits his purposes — because he is an agent of goodness in a city of petty disputes and sinful behavior?

When did it also become acceptable for liberals to politicize science?

How can Democrats self-identify as the party of science, when they try to extinguish the essence of scientific discovery and scrupulous dissent?

Is it immoral to concede that temperatures are on the rise, while questioning the accuracy of computer models — and the efficacy of legislative proposals — that do not appear to solve this problem?

Is global warming even a problem, if we consider the commentary of the physicist Freeman Dyson?

When did the number of scientists who agree about something supplant the need to know if they are right about anything?

I end with a quote from Richard Feynman, another physicist of genius and intellectual independence, because his statement is as true about science as it is timely about our purportedly brilliant commander in chief.

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.