Aug 2, 2019
Seattle Political Committees Use Anti-Science Rhetoric to Distract Voters from Supporting Bold Progressive Policy.
Here’s How You Can Tell.
We are part of a growing movement of scientists fighting political attacks against evidence-based research nationwide. These attacks are usually designed to give cover to lawmakers in Congress who want to slash funding for scientific research that challenges the status quo, delay studies that spur government to act more progressively on critical issues, and disempower scientists from having a real say in lawmaking.
Recently, a series of political mailers sent by “People for Seattle” reminded us that these attacks don’t just emanate from the White House. For example, one mailer sent to District 4 voters characterizes scientist Emily Myers as an “extremist” candidate for her evidence-based positions on homelessness, housing affordability, criminal justice reform, and addiction. Nearly identical mailers have attacked other progressive candidates, including Tammy Morales, Lisa Herbold, and Zachary DeWolf. And, in all these propagandistic cases, Kshama Sawant is held up as the ultimate “extreme” candidate.
The rhetoric and communication from the so-called “progressive” People for Seattle organization is eerily similar to propaganda from the far right of the political spectrum: it attacks the messenger rather than unpacking the message and preemptively circumscribes policy debates to erase extensive research done by our colleagues at the University of Washington and elsewhere.
These tactics are used by other groups including Speak Out Seattle and Moms for Seattle. These fear-based organizations are attempting to steer Seattle away from evidence-based policy solutions. But here is the thing: You cannot pick and choose the science or evidence that fits your political worldview and still self-appoint as “progressive”. Anti-evidence policy is not progressive, it is regressive.
Here are a few ways such anti-science rhetoric misrepresents and erases the research behind policy that addresses the interconnected issues of homelessness, housing affordability, criminal justice reform, and addiction:
Zoning: Defenders of single-family zoning in Seattle ignore the fact that current zoning laws and exclusionary neighborhood down zoning in Seattle are the historical byproducts of racist redlining policies. Data show that these laws entrench segregation. Moreover, researchers also know that suburban expansion and sprawl (a necessary outcome when we do not build missing middle housing like duplexes and triplexes in all our neighborhoods) can lead to habitat loss, increased car emissions, and increased wildfire risks.
Encampments: Great work has been done at the University of Washington to study how homeless populations living in encampments can be best supported, and assertions to the contrary are not supported by research. Permanent affordable housing is obviously the first and best policy for addressing encampments. Responding to homeless encampments requires compassionate, evidence-based approaches which acknowledge and address interconnected societal factors such as domestic violence, mental health, drug use, and debt. The assertion that “cleaning-up” is the answer is grossly dehumanizing and simply disconnected from real actionable solutions.
Safe Consumption: Safe consumption sites save lives and reduce HIV/Hepatitis transmissions, and serve the portion of our community afflicted with the illness of addiction, a medical condition with biological underpinnings(read as “addiction is not a moral failing”). The funding of chemical dependency clinics, including medically-assisted treatment programs, safe consumption sites, and needle exchanges, is a consensus position supported by Mayor Durkan, County Executive Dow Constatine, data from UW scientists, and the conservative Cato Institute. Rhetorical attacks on safe drug consumption sites imply that such policies are “enabling” drug users. It is cruel and inhumane to treat sick people as a disposable blight and to attack policies designed to reduce harm
Congestion: Congestion pricing isn’t a “scheme” or tax increase. Rather, it’s a thought-out and centrist proposal supported by most of the candidates in the race, practiced in other major cities, and actively studied by both the city council and the mayor. Programs in cities like London, Stockholm, and Singapore have led to the creation of new buses and bus routes, bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and more park and rides for suburban commuters to access transit. These programs lead to decreases in traffic, increases in transit use and reduced transportation emissions. For a city like Seattle, where the majority of carbon emissions come from passenger vehicles, congestion programs are climate solutions. Policy positions which do not actively reduce automobile use are a form of climate denial: that’s how this works.
In forming our organization, Seattle 500 Women Scientists, we took a pledge that “Science is foundational in a progressive society, fuels innovation, and touches the lives of every person on this planet. The anti-knowledge and anti-science sentiments expressed repeatedly during the U.S. presidential election threaten the very foundations of our society.” Fulfilling this pledge means speaking out when science is under attack and when powerful interest groups attempt to sway voter opinion against evidence-based policy, especially right here at home in our Emerald City.
Sarah Myhre, PhD
Laura Osburn, PhD
Jeanna Wheeler, PhD
