The "Gas-Tax Holiday" as Science Debate

By BJ

Building on what Fester, (who apparently needs to invest in a DVR), wrote this morning, Hillary’s rather shameless embrace of the anti-intellectual “truthiness” meme on the gas-tax issue has opened herself up to a whole new line of attack based on how closely she’s following the strategy we’ve seen from the Bush administration these last seven years, something folks like Steve Benen and Robert Reich have highlighted.

We all know that Hillary would be far better than Bush, but given that Bush is the worst US President in modern history, that’s not too high a bar to set. In any case, I wanted to highlight this post by science writer Thomas Levenson on the further implications of Hillary’s attack on intellectuals.

. . . The other, broader implication is that we actually just held the long hoped for science debate — and the winner is clear.

I’m going to blog this week on what John McCain’s publicly announced budget plans mean for science (nothing good, and actually worse than that) . . . He lost the science debate long ago

But what of Hilary? Up until recently, she hadn’t been doing too badly.

. . .

But now, what she said at the Indiana interview this morning changes the game. She said, in effect, if the smart boys and girls don’t agree with her, then to hell with them.

That is, of course, precisely the anti-rational madness that has dominated the George Bush years. It is inimical to science or a scientific world view. If we are to pick and choose the facts we like, it is a very short step, quickly taken, to making them up. And that way lies an ever more rapid collapse of the American republic.

. . .

Barack Obama is no perfect paragon — the vaccine stuff is a relatively minor demonstration that he can pander too, soothing a passionate pressure group despite overwhelming expert advice. He is, after all, a politician, a very good, a very compelling one. I’m willing to bet that he’ll find times when the inherent uncertainty in science gives him useful cover for the lesser but more popular choice.

But on the gas tax holiday he has been exemplary. He recognized the flaws in the idea — from the fact that it won’t work, to the realization that even if it did work precisely as designed it’s still the wrong policy to pursue if you take the issues of energy independence and global warming seriously.

. . .

We may not have had our science debate in any formal sense — but on the gas tax issue, our candidates have managed to perform a reasonable simulation of one. And as I said at the beginning, there is one clear winner.

So as not to throw Hillary completely overboard, Steve Benen does offer a way for her to redeem herself at the bottom of his post.

The irony is, Clinton is at her best, her most impressive, and most inspiring when she’s showing off the depth of her knowledge. Policy Wonk Clinton is absolutely amazing — she knows details and policy minutiae better than almost anyone on the national stage. Policy Wonk Clinton loves studies, evidence, and reason. Policy Wonk Clinton is a bit like Al Gore, only with better political instincts and shrewder campaign skills. She’s the type of candidate I can really get excited about.

Policy Wonk Clinton, however, has left the building, and has been replaced with Shameless Pandering Clinton, who sounds like Bush while promoting John McCain’s gas-tax ideas.

The sooner we can get the real Clinton back, the better.

Or, if you prefer, a bit more direct advice from John Cole:

I am now going to offer some unsolicited advice to the smartest woman in America and her joke of a campaign- stop trying to out-Republican the Republicans. They are better at it than you are, as they are actually Republicans.

Unfortunately, I don't think the silly season ever ends.