Why are climate deniers usually anti-immigrant?

[BlueSwan]

One thing has puzzled me for a while. It has to do with what really constitutes social conservatism. It is perfectly logic that people who are anti-gay would often also be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, favouring punishment over prevention, etc. Basically just classic tribal conservatism.

But what about the environment and the climate?

If you meet a climate denier, said person almost inevitably seems to be from the hard social conservative right. I'm talking about the real climate deniers - the ones who think it is a hoax - not the business conservatives who know that climate change is real but just don't want to do anything about it.

But why? What is the inherent logic behind this? Any takers?

[136or142]

One thing has puzzled me for a while. It has to do with what really constitutes social conservatism. It is perfectly logic that people who are anti-gay would often also be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, favouring punishment over prevention, etc. Basically just classic tribal conservatism.

But what about the environment and the climate?

If you meet a climate denier, said person almost inevitably seems to be from the hard social conservative right. I'm talking about the real climate deniers - the ones who think it is a hoax - not the business conservatives who know that climate change is real but just don't want to do anything about it.

But why? What is the inherent logic behind this? Any takers?

To the degree this is true I'm sure there is no causal connection.   So, in terms of them being correlated:

1.Climate denial is a partisan Republican thing.  I suspect anti immigration Democrats know that climate change is real.

2.An increasing number of social conservatives seem to also be Alex Jones type loons. So, the climate change theory being part of a conspiracy fits right in.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

One thing has puzzled me for a while. It has to do with what really constitutes social conservatism. It is perfectly logic that people who are anti-gay would often also be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, favouring punishment over prevention, etc. Basically just classic tribal conservatism.

But what about the environment and the climate?

If you meet a climate denier, said person almost inevitably seems to be from the hard social conservative right. I'm talking about the real climate deniers - the ones who think it is a hoax - not the business conservatives who know that climate change is real but just don't want to do anything about it.

But why? What is the inherent logic behind this? Any takers?

Anyone, of any political persuasion, can end up in a place where their beliefs on some topic are more important to them than objective fact-based analysis. But it's only on the hard right where you find rejection of the very idea of critical thinking and education as core parts of the belief structure. That makes them very vulnerable to the nonsense-peddling that is denialism. That it opposes the liberal, scientific, educated, globally accepted consensus means that doing so feeds their tribalism too. So denying climate change is a win-win for the those on the right: they avoid thinking AND they get to validate their membership in the cult.

[TJ in Oregon]

Global warming is treated as the expression of an identity rather than a discussion about a physical reality in American politics. Most of the left acts as though the issue as a way to affirm their  identity as forward-thinking progressive science-believing people rather than an issue to actually be addressed. For evidence of this, consider that people with a college education actually believed/supported/shared on the internet things like Solar Freaking Roadways. And yet still no political discussion whatsoever about nuclear power when pretty much every engineer I know agrees that's really the answer. Part of this goes back to the 60s and 70s where environmentalism became associated with radical left counterculture movements, and if you want right to support environmental policies, some effort needs to be made to break that association.

On the right, climate change has been used as a way of motivating people against a perceived tool of the progressive elite to undercut them. Policies that penalize carbon usage do predominately punish rural and industrial workers rather than knowledge economy workers and the sort of people who are anti-immigrant more or less overlap with the losers from carbon restrictions. Of course, that it is actually true matters little to people, though with the way the left acts about it, it's hard to blame them.

[rob in cal]

  In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

[Tintrlvr]

One thing has puzzled me for a while. It has to do with what really constitutes social conservatism. It is perfectly logic that people who are anti-gay would often also be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, favouring punishment over prevention, etc. Basically just classic tribal conservatism.

But what about the environment and the climate?

If you meet a climate denier, said person almost inevitably seems to be from the hard social conservative right. I'm talking about the real climate deniers - the ones who think it is a hoax - not the business conservatives who know that climate change is real but just don't want to do anything about it.

But why? What is the inherent logic behind this? Any takers?

"The politicians and media sources I trust to agree with me on socially conservative issues say it is a hoax, and it would cause cognitive dissonance for me to trust them on social conservatism but not on climate change, so I have to believe climate change is a hoax, and I'm too science-ignorant (like most people, including most people who agree climate change is real) to be able to form a coherent thought on the issue by myself."

[Associate Justice PiT]

Global warming is treated as the expression of an identity rather than a discussion about a physical reality in American politics. Most of the left acts as though the issue as a way to affirm their  identity as forward-thinking progressive science-believing people rather than an issue to actually be addressed. For evidence of this, consider that people with a college education actually believed/supported/shared on the internet things like Solar Freaking Roadways. And yet still no political discussion whatsoever about nuclear power when pretty much every engineer I know agrees that's really the answer. Part of this goes back to the 60s and 70s where environmentalism became associated with radical left counterculture movements, and if you want right to support environmental policies, some effort needs to be made to break that association.

On the right, climate change has been used as a way of motivating people against a perceived tool of the progressive elite to undercut them. Policies that penalize carbon usage do predominately punish rural and industrial workers rather than knowledge economy workers and the sort of people who are anti-immigrant more or less overlap with the losers from carbon restrictions. Of course, that it is actually true matters little to people, though with the way the left acts about it, it's hard to blame them.

     You didn't even get into the hysteria over GMOs, and only touched indirectly on the cult of innovation surrounding Silicon Valley, where a fundamental rot is ignored in the name of buzzwords.

     The problem is that most people don't get this stuff and only rely on secondary (and often biased) sources, often choosing to evaluate it in political terms when no such thing is appropriate. If the far-right's vice is the open rejection of critical thinking, the far-left's vice is that it pretends to not reject critical thinking. Sadly, that pretending is enough pretext to try and corner the market on science when their grounds to do so are quite spurious. Good science must not be beholden to politics of any kind.

[Jeffster]

  In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

[dead0man]

the same reason anti vaxxers and are always anti gmo too, crazy attracts crazy

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If one identifies with a party over a few core issues, one will come to support the party stance on issues one doesn't care about. This phenomenon has been examined in political science literature.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On the flip side, you have Justin Trudeau who pretends to care about the climate, but said "No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.” Canada has less than 0.5% of the world population, yet that would raise world temperatures by 0.15C by itself.

[Famous Mortimer]

Climate deniers are usually right wing because the only reason to deny climate change is because you worship business.

I don't know why you single out the immigration issue though, rather than just asking why climate deniers are right-wing in general. Many right-wingers are pro-immigration, particularly the pro-business kind who are most inclined to be climate deniers.

[136or142]

Global warming is treated as the expression of an identity rather than a discussion about a physical reality in American politics. Most of the left acts as though the issue as a way to affirm their  identity as forward-thinking progressive science-believing people rather than an issue to actually be addressed. For evidence of this, consider that people with a college education actually believed/supported/shared on the internet things like Solar Freaking Roadways. And yet still no political discussion whatsoever about nuclear power when pretty much every engineer I know agrees that's really the answer. Part of this goes back to the 60s and 70s where environmentalism became associated with radical left counterculture movements, and if you want right to support environmental policies, some effort needs to be made to break that association.

On the right, climate change has been used as a way of motivating people against a perceived tool of the progressive elite to undercut them. Policies that penalize carbon usage do predominately punish rural and industrial workers rather than knowledge economy workers and the sort of people who are anti-immigrant more or less overlap with the losers from carbon restrictions. Of course, that it is actually true matters little to people, though with the way the left acts about it, it's hard to blame them.

     You didn't even get into the hysteria over GMOs, and only touched indirectly on the cult of innovation surrounding Silicon Valley, where a fundamental rot is ignored in the name of buzzwords.

     The problem is that most people don't get this stuff and only rely on secondary (and often biased) sources, often choosing to evaluate it in political terms when no such thing is appropriate. If the far-right's vice is the open rejection of critical thinking, the far-left's vice is that it pretends to not reject critical thinking. Sadly, that pretending is enough pretext to try and corner the market on science when their grounds to do so are quite spurious. Good science must not be beholden to politics of any kind.

Except the far left is maybe 20% of the Democratic Party whereas the far right is close to 100% of the Republican Party.  The so-called establishment Republicans are every bit as extreme as the far right Republicans, it's just their tone is more reasonable and they are slightly more willing to compromise.

To be sure, an increasing number of Republicans seem to be finally acknowledging that AGW is real, but for people living below the Mason Dixon line it should be virtually impossible to continue to deny it.

[136or142]

  In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

[muon2]

I suggest that the correlation comes from the political connection at the time the issues really connected with the public. Pubs controlled the Senate at the time of the Kyoto climate agreement in the late 1990's. It wasn't a good deal for the US with respect to trade compared to India and China but the Senate could finesse the diplomatic issues by attacking the science (which wasn't so well established then).

There was a renewed push for official English language laws in the mid 90's as well, driven in part by the new Pub majorities. Laws were passed in AK, GA, MO, MT, NH, SD, VA, and WY, adding to the dozen states that responded to the original push in the 1980's. At that time the debate in most states was about immigrants, not illegal immigrants which only became the talking point after 2001.

So by the end of the 1990's many of the same Pub leaders were speaking against both climate change and excessive immigration. That message stuck with their supporters, and is now part of the canon 20 years later.

[BlueSwan]

One thing has puzzled me for a while. It has to do with what really constitutes social conservatism. It is perfectly logic that people who are anti-gay would often also be anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, favouring punishment over prevention, etc. Basically just classic tribal conservatism.

But what about the environment and the climate?

If you meet a climate denier, said person almost inevitably seems to be from the hard social conservative right. I'm talking about the real climate deniers - the ones who think it is a hoax - not the business conservatives who know that climate change is real but just don't want to do anything about it.

But why? What is the inherent logic behind this? Any takers?

Read this article to understand why:

The Strict Father Is at the Core of Conservative Ideology and Values

Very interesting!

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

1. That's why I disagree with people who say we need to constantly grow our population because it's the only way to have a healthy economy. Increased productivity, especially through automation, can give you a healthy economy so long as those gains aren't concentrated in just the top 1%

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't deny climate change , its just that I'm not willing to pay higher prices , taxes , and have more government regulations to deal with the issue.

The solutions I'm willing to accept is tax incentives to alternative energy companies , green infrastructure, and to encourage innovation.

[Jeffster]

So we need to worry about paying for the retirements of the people in the green box (boomers), but not the people in the yellow box (millennials)?



Even though Millennials are having children at historically low birth rates, that are even starting to freak out some demograghers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/06/30/the-u-s-fertility-rate-just-hit-a-historic-low-why-some-demographers-are-freaking-out/?utm_term=.c1c26a1495c9

So it's not a short term thing, if we want to keep funding Social Security we will need to continue to bring in immigrants to make up for the low birth rate for the rest of the century. And I have to ask again, how is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable?

[136or142]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

That could be true, but the immediate problem is the need to finance the present baby boomer retirees (both the social security and their health care.)  What happens with retirees in the future and  not having a replacement rate of births:  We'll climb that hill, no matter how steep, when we get up to it. 

[Jeffster]

 In terms of logic, it would make sense for climate deniers to be pro-immigrants from the "hey lets grow the economy even more than it is now with lots more people, lots more consumers, lots more workers into our economy" and climate believers to say "hey wait a minute, lets slow immigration because we really don't need all this extra economic growth and activity and more fossil fuel consumption".

That's my position. If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet.

Then we have the contradictory stance by so-called "experts" that says global population will stabilize by the end of the century as the third world transforms into higher standard of living economies, while at the same time the first world countries as we know them, can continue to take immigrants from those former third world countries in order to maintain population growth.

So either those third world countries will never level off in population growth, and the first world will absorb their excess population through immigration to maintain their own population growth. But that means those third world countries will never achieve that high standard of living like those countries in the first world, otherwise they'd have a similar drop off in population growth. Or, the population growth of the third world will drop off as they modernize, but then the first world countries will steal their population through immigration causing the population of those third world countries to decline. Which if economic growth is tied to population growth, would mean their economies would suffer in order to transfer enough people to the first world.

As a follower of Neoclassical economics I disagree with a lot in this.
1." If your economic system requires constant population growth to function, then it is simply unsustainable on a finite planet."

I dispute that the economic system does require that.  Per capita GDP growth relies on productivity gains.  By definition per capita GDP growth can't rely on a growing population.

2.I think the high level of immigration to many western nations is based on the need for younger workers to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers.  This is a short term thing.  To be sure, countries that have declining populations like Japan have had economic problems.

2. Wrong. Say you bring in young workers to pay for the retiring baby boomers in the short term, but the young population still don't have enough children to pay for their own retirements benefits down the road, it will mean you need to bring in even more immigrants later on to pay for the retiring millennials benefits, then even more immigrants to pay for whatever generation comes after generation Z's retirement benefits. Social Security requires an ever growing population, otherwise the burden on the working population to pay for retirees will become too much. Birthrates of advanced economies are below replacement, especially for people born there, so the only way to maintain these old age pension programs is to grow the population through immigration, which is unsustainable in the long term.

That could be true, but the immediate problem is the need to finance the present baby boomer retirees (both the social security and their health care.)  What happens with retirees in the future and  not having a replacement rate of births:  We'll climb that hill, no matter how steep, when we get up to it.  

What a load of crap. "Push it off onto future generations, it'll be their problem so long as I get mine." That's what you're saying. How is a system that requires constant population growth sustainable? If one of you guys will finally admit that it isn't, then which future generation will you burden with getting screwed over?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Global warming is treated as the expression of an identity rather than a discussion about a physical reality in American politics. Most of the left acts as though the issue as a way to affirm their  identity as forward-thinking progressive science-believing people rather than an issue to actually be addressed. For evidence of this, consider that people with a college education actually believed/supported/shared on the internet things like Solar Freaking Roadways. And yet still no political discussion whatsoever about nuclear power when pretty much every engineer I know agrees that's really the answer. Part of this goes back to the 60s and 70s where environmentalism became associated with radical left counterculture movements, and if you want right to support environmental policies, some effort needs to be made to break that association.

On the right, climate change has been used as a way of motivating people against a perceived tool of the progressive elite to undercut them. Policies that penalize carbon usage do predominately punish rural and industrial workers rather than knowledge economy workers and the sort of people who are anti-immigrant more or less overlap with the losers from carbon restrictions. Of course, that it is actually true matters little to people, though with the way the left acts about it, it's hard to blame them.

     You didn't even get into the hysteria over GMOs, and only touched indirectly on the cult of innovation surrounding Silicon Valley, where a fundamental rot is ignored in the name of buzzwords.

     The problem is that most people don't get this stuff and only rely on secondary (and often biased) sources, often choosing to evaluate it in political terms when no such thing is appropriate. If the far-right's vice is the open rejection of critical thinking, the far-left's vice is that it pretends to not reject critical thinking. Sadly, that pretending is enough pretext to try and corner the market on science when their grounds to do so are quite spurious. Good science must not be beholden to politics of any kind.

Except the far left is maybe 20% of the Democratic Party whereas the far right is close to 100% of the Republican Party.  The so-called establishment Republicans are every bit as extreme as the far right Republicans, it's just their tone is more reasonable and they are slightly more willing to compromise.

To be sure, an increasing number of Republicans seem to be finally acknowledging that AGW is real, but for people living below the Mason Dixon line it should be virtually impossible to continue to deny it.

     When I look at an issue like immigration (where the Dems don't even really touch the issue of border control anymore), I can't help but think that "20%" wields pretty out-sized influence. As it happens, the critical mass needed for an extremist element to co-opt a movement is pretty low; just become a particularly ornery part of the base and politicians will be tripping over themselves to serve you.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't deny climate change , its just that I'm not willing to pay higher prices , taxes , and have more government regulations to deal with the issue.

The solutions I'm willing to accept is tax incentives to alternative energy companies , green infrastructure, and to encourage innovation.

lol...''I dont want to pay 2% more taxes to avoid the destruction of the Earth as we know it''

LMAO at the fact you think more goverment regulations will solve climate change , you wanna stop it push for pro innovation policies

[OSR stands with Israel]

I don't deny climate change , its just that I'm not willing to pay higher prices , taxes , and have more government regulations to deal with the issue.

The solutions I'm willing to accept is tax incentives to alternative energy companies , green infrastructure, and to encourage innovation.

lol...''I dont want to pay 2% more taxes to avoid the destruction of the Earth as we know it''

LMAO at the fact you think more goverment regulations will solve climate change , you wanna stop it push for pro innovation policies

Government investment and innovation using our tax dollars is responsible for nearly ever major invention in the 20th century.

Do it by cutting spending in other areas not by raising taxes

[136or142]

Global warming is treated as the expression of an identity rather than a discussion about a physical reality in American politics. Most of the left acts as though the issue as a way to affirm their  identity as forward-thinking progressive science-believing people rather than an issue to actually be addressed. For evidence of this, consider that people with a college education actually believed/supported/shared on the internet things like Solar Freaking Roadways. And yet still no political discussion whatsoever about nuclear power when pretty much every engineer I know agrees that's really the answer. Part of this goes back to the 60s and 70s where environmentalism became associated with radical left counterculture movements, and if you want right to support environmental policies, some effort needs to be made to break that association.

On the right, climate change has been used as a way of motivating people against a perceived tool of the progressive elite to undercut them. Policies that penalize carbon usage do predominately punish rural and industrial workers rather than knowledge economy workers and the sort of people who are anti-immigrant more or less overlap with the losers from carbon restrictions. Of course, that it is actually true matters little to people, though with the way the left acts about it, it's hard to blame them.

     You didn't even get into the hysteria over GMOs, and only touched indirectly on the cult of innovation surrounding Silicon Valley, where a fundamental rot is ignored in the name of buzzwords.

     The problem is that most people don't get this stuff and only rely on secondary (and often biased) sources, often choosing to evaluate it in political terms when no such thing is appropriate. If the far-right's vice is the open rejection of critical thinking, the far-left's vice is that it pretends to not reject critical thinking. Sadly, that pretending is enough pretext to try and corner the market on science when their grounds to do so are quite spurious. Good science must not be beholden to politics of any kind.

Except the far left is maybe 20% of the Democratic Party whereas the far right is close to 100% of the Republican Party.  The so-called establishment Republicans are every bit as extreme as the far right Republicans, it's just their tone is more reasonable and they are slightly more willing to compromise.

To be sure, an increasing number of Republicans seem to be finally acknowledging that AGW is real, but for people living below the Mason Dixon line it should be virtually impossible to continue to deny it.

     When I look at an issue like immigration (where the Dems don't even really touch the issue of border control anymore), I can't help but think that "20%" wields pretty out-sized influence. As it happens, the critical mass needed for an extremist element to co-opt a movement is pretty low; just become a particularly ornery part of the base and politicians will be tripping over themselves to serve you.

I strongly disagree with your premise that 'Democrats don't even really touch the issue of border control anymore.'  President Obama certainly did.  I think you are taking Fox 'News' way too seriously.