Why Gop Hates Science, And Dems Hate Economics

OLYMPIA - If Republicans had it their way, this state would bring back chlorofluorocarbons, better-known as CFCs, the chemicals most scientists agree are burning a hole in the earth's atmosphere.

House Bill 2421, co-sponsored by a dozen Republican lawmakers, would legalize the manufacture and use of CFCs despite broad scientific agreement that substitutes achieve the same results without damaging the environment.

Most of the same Republicans support HB 2381, which would ban fluoridation of public water systems. Never mind that scientists say fluoride reduces tooth decay for millions of American kids. Call it the Dentists' Full Employment Act.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich and his House Republicans are busily slashing budgets for research and dismantling environmental regulations that attempt to protect nature and science.

So why do Republicans hate science?

Probably for the same reasons that Democrats hate economics.

Look what they're up to. Democratic lawmakers have a bill to force "gender equity" in dry cleaners and hair salons; if you charge more for a woman's haircut than a man's, you're breaking the law.

Many of the same Democrats support spending billions to restore salmon runs on the upper Columbia River, paying for it with higher costs for power and irrigation - costs likely to fall heavily on low-income people.

Democrats defend an Endangered Species Act that respects biodiversity, whatever it costs. They listen to biologists and tell the economists to take a hike.

This is no accident. Most of the scientists I know lean Democratic. They believe that problems in nature, from salmon runs to global warming, require big and bold solutions. And that usually means government.

Democrats don't trust economists. They believe the marketplace is unfair. It rewards greed and penalizes people for being poor. It encourages greedy businessmen to build housing developments in sensitive wetlands or to develop mines next to national parks - all at the expense of other people.

Most of the economists I know lean Republican. They believe that problems are best solved by people making decisions in a free market. If people really want to save salmon runs, they will begin making decisions that favor salmon. Government, for all its fine intentions, will just screw things up.

Republicans say there's nothing wrong with "good science." But they don't trust science in the hands of scientists who pursue secret, liberal agendas. Besides, they understand that all science, good or bad, has a cost - a truth too often ignored by the other side.

"The Democrats don't recognize the fundamental laws of human behavior," says Dick Zerbe, a Seattle economist. "And the Republicans simply don't believe that CFCs are a serious problem.

"In both cases, it's a hubris, a fundamental arrogance in the face of complex problems."

Each side places great faith in its discipline. Scientists and Democrats read the New York Times, listen to National Public Radio and subscribe to the laws of nature and the scientific method.

Economists and Republicans read the Wall Street Journal, listen to Rush Limbaugh and follow the dictates of the market.

Unfortunately, neither science nor economics leaves much room for compromise. They play by different rules.

So when nature collides with the marketplace, as it is wont to do, our political parties promptly and reflexively choose sides. This saves everybody the aggravation of having to think things through for themselves. Instead of wisdom, we get doctrine. Instead of debate, we get partisan squabbles. Instead of real solutions to real problems, we get proposals to ban fluoridation or impose price controls on hairdressers.

To fix this, we could send our politicians back to school. Before taking office, all Democrats could be required to pass Economics 101. They would learn that prices are determined by what consumers are willing to pay, that people behave largely in response to economic incentives, that markets promote efficiency, and that government intervention does not.

Republicans could be required to pass a course in basic environmental science. They would learn that we live in a complex environment where nature matters. To abuse the environment because it appears profitable can be dangerously shortsighted. Science may not be price-sensitive, but we ignore its lessons at our peril.

OK, I know the pols won't be going back to school. And if they did, we have ample evidence of their learning disabilities. That's why both sides appear to be sinking their heels, more determined than ever to ignore the other's wisdoms.

But science and economics teach many of the same lessons. If nature abhors a vacuum, then so does the marketplace. There are intriguing analogies between economies and ecosystems; both are rooted in the survival of the fittest. Good science and a healthy Mother Nature favor a robust economy, while the market offers promising tools for preserving nature.

The political landscape is ripe for people who understand and respect both. If Republicans and Democrats refuse to make room for us, then somebody else will.

I've never been excited about a third party; the two-party system has served us well. But millions of Americans are adrift, turned off by one party that rejects science and another that defies economics. We're looking for a party open to both. If that happens to be a third party, then so be it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Anderson's column appears Wednesday on editorial pages of The Times.