Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 March 26

= March 26 =

Politically conservative parties and climate change denial
Climate change denial is common within the Republican Party in the United States, and also has some supporters in the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom and the Liberal Party in Australia. However, according to various articles I've read, the Republican Party is the only major conservative (in the US sense of the word) party in the world that leans towards climate change denial; the same articles state that the Tories and Australia's LP (among other parties) as parties support climate change legislation, even if some individual members don't. And the same articles state that conservative parties in other countries such as Norway (which, like the US also has a strong oil industry) are also supportive of such policies and do not deny climate change.

So the question is: why has climate change denial not caught on as much as it has in the Republican Party among other conservative parties in the world? Even climate change denial is milder with the Tories and LP as both parties officially support renewable energy policies (among others), and according to at least one article I've read (can't remember by whom, but might have been from Oxford), climate change denial is uncommon among conservative parties other than the Republican Party. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Many people would turn the question around, and ask why it is that the U.S. GOP seems to be uniquely eager to disregard facts, evidence, and science in order to live in their own little ideological fantasy world of "alternative facts"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that these are the same folks who deny evolution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * However, this question is only on the topic of climate change denial: specifically, why the Republican Party has embraced it but other conservative parties are cold on it. As I've mentioned in my previous questions on this, oil lobbying can't be the only reason: Norway is one of the world's biggest oil producers, but the country (including its conservative party) is leading the way in renewable energy use, so the oil industry can't be the sole factor here. Previous answers have mentioned anti-intellectualism, but that happens in other countries too, and organized climate change denial is still rare outside of the US. The question isn't why the Republican Party does what it does, it's why other parties don't follow its lead. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do those other entities adhere to an anti-science policy in general? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is quite insightful. A significant part of the Republican base rejects the theory of evolution based on their religious beliefs. This has brought up an elaborate industry denying mainstream science and its institutions. And this machinery has been re-used by people opposed to regulation based on ideological or economical considerations. It's not an accident that the National Center for Science Education has taken on climate change as its second ever topic after evolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In Europe, which I know best, no mainstream "conservative" party (which we would usually identify as "centre-right") is anywhere near as conservative as the US Republican Party. To find equivalent views in Europe, you would have to look at the more extreme right-wing groups, like UKIP, the Front National or the AfD. Wymspen (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same here in Canada, the Republicans are quite a bit further to the right than our Conservatives, and the Democrats are quite a bit further to the right than our Liberals. Some may argue that the Democrats are the conservative party when comparing to liberal states and the Republicans are the super-conservative party. Of 19 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is oversimplified. There is a significant part of the conservative wing of the US Republican party whose inspiration is not "conservative" in the European sense at all, but rather classically liberal.  It is civically nationalist but not ethnically nationalist, and supports free markets, international trade, due process, individual liberties.  In Europe, it would not be considered right-wing at all; it would be something like the German Free Democratic Party (albeit probably more anti-tax and more religious).
 * The Trump wing of the party is the novelty; that's the ethnic-nationalist segment that would be at home among the European right. --Trovatore (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the fantasy that "conservative intellectuals" in the U.S. like to spin, but it doesn't fit the facts. The Republican electorate's views are widely malleable to whatever the party leaders espouse (or supposedly espouse); there is no strong ideological commitment to "free markets" and the like. Authoritarian and white nationalist beliefs are also widespread. The Republican Party elite may be more or less inclined to a position than the party as a whole, and this is a common phenomenon in politics, where elite opinion differs from that of the general electorate, but let's not conflate the two. The reality is that the from the 1970s onward the Republican Party has been a coalition of a party electorate of white nationalists, Christian fundamentalists, and authoritarians led by a laissez-faire, corporatist, militarist, and globalist party elite: the product of the Southern Strategy and the "political activation" of Christian fundamentalists. The ongoing Republican intra-party conflict is the party base rebelling against the leadership. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the libertarian–conservative fusionist aspect of the party. I will grant you that it is not in control of the party, and to some extent is currently losing out in the internal struggle, but it is there.
 * And here's the point I'm really getting at: It refutes the narrative that American conservatives are cleanly to the "right" of European ones (and in some sense shows the inadequacy of the whole left–right spectrum).
 * For example: Is Jeff Flake "left" or "right" of Donald Trump?  In American terms, Flake is much more "conservative" than Trump.  It's not even close.  So I'd say he's to Trump's "right".  But in European terms, where the axes are different, I'm pretty sure he comes out to Trump's "left", and to the "left" of European right-populist figures as well.
 * So it's not just a matter of a single scale with a different center, as the simple American-politics-is-right-of-Euro-politics narrative would suggest. --Trovatore (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, any attempt to classify political positions onto a one-dimensional axis is going to be reductionist. I do think "left" and "right" are overused, though sometimes they can be useful shorthand. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt they can be a useful shorthand, but for that purpose they work best within a fairly narrow given context. Attempts to compare them between widely varying ambits, like Europe and America, require carefully stating what you mean.
 * The claim that the American spectrum is centered to the "right" of the European one is an example. If you state carefully what you mean by it, you might be able to make a statement that is useful and true.  But if the claim is that, say, the American spectrum is more ethnically nationalist than the European one, well, I think that's just wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The Conservative Party (UK) introduced The Green Deal as its new energy policy from 2012 to 2015, but eventually aborted it. In 2016, Theresa May shut down the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The old Department has been merged into the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which is now responsible for the United Kingdom's climate change policy.

Which Department of the United States is responsible for climate change policy? Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * See also Theresa May puts tackling climate change back on Tory agenda (Dec 2017) - they might not want to spend too much money on it, but they're far from denying that it exists. (NB: here "Tory" = Conservative Party (UK)). Alansplodge (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, the GOP is further to the right than "conservative." The party is more ideological, which puts them in the realm of the True believer. True believers accept their doctrine as axiomatic, so any facts that appear to contradict the doctrine must be incorrect. People who subscribe to an ideology are very likely to subscribe to related ideologies. Google for "climate change and fundamentalism" to see a number of studies of this phenomenon. -Arch dude (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let’s not stereotype half the population of the United States. The GOP is actually a fairly big tent. Yes, there are deniers in the party (who tend to be very vocal in their denial)...  however, the majority of Republicans fully accept the findings of science when it comes to climate change.
 * Where they disagree (with Democrats and among themselves) is what to DO about climate change (and even if there is anything that CAN be done). Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Proclaiming that climate change cannot be stopped or lessened is simply denying a different bit of meteorology. There are many reasons to vote for Republicans and climate change is not on top of everyone's list of concerns, so of course many Republicans don't dispute climate change science, but let's call a spade a spade here. 93.136.85.241 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, just don’t lump all tools together under the sobriquet “spade”. There are shovels and trowels and other tools in that garden shed we call the GOP. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My point is that one can have an opinion on what should be done, but to decide whether anything CAN be done is up to science, not up to voters (much like deciding whether climate change is real and man-made). 93.136.111.251 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nitpick: climate change is about climatology, not meteorology. Weather is not climate; lumping them together is what leads to, "It snowed somewhere so how can the Earth be warming?" --47.146.60.177 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The membership of neither the Republican nor Democratic Parties constitutes half of the U.S. population. Even assuming you meant "eligible voter population", only about 67% of said population is registered to vote. Party identification is split about evenly within that, so only about a third of the eligible voter population belongs to or "leans towards" a given major party.
 * As for Republican acceptance of climate change, I'm afraid you're not correct. Only half of Republicans accept that climate change is happening at all, and only 31% accept that it's caused by humans. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * More directly to the topic of the section, here's a summary of a study on the psychology of climate change denial: it correlates with high social dominance orientation. --47.146.60.177 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's curious that the democratic and republican parties used to be much more in-sync on environmental issues. They were certainly more popular among democrats, but not to the polarized degree it is now. The massive gulf appeared around 1990, and some attribute that to the fall of communism. The correlation is certainly there, and furthermore, the major conservative critiques of environmentalism that appeared around that time were essentially cut-and-paste from screeds against communism and socialism, but with a few words changed to make it the green menace instead of the red menace. I think we also can't ignore that this shift occurred during the rise of neoconservative thinking in the republican party, in which anything can be politicized. Al Gore, Bill Clinton's running mate in 1992, was already extremely vocal about climate change. I think about how many people on every part of the political spectrum hate a policy proposal that they don't remotely understand, simply because 'the other side' proposed it. Well, the thinking goes, if the democrats think we need to do something about this 'global warming' thing, then we must be opposed to it. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The neos differed from traditional conservatives mostly in foreign policy (neos are more interventionist and more pro-Israel). I don't think climate policy was a big differentiator.
 * Also, as little love as I have for the neocons, I don't think you can really blame universal politicization on them. At least in America, it was the left that started that (see the personal is political). --Trovatore (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Group of Old People are also counting on being long dead before their foolish policies see full fruition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Someguy1221 -- I'm not sure the details of your history are correct. The Reagan administration had very little to say about climate change as such, since it wasn't much of an issue back then, but already at that time Ronald Reagan was saying that most pollution came from trees, while James G. Watt was implying that there was little reason to enforce environmental regulations, since the Second Coming would occur fairly soon anyway.  Since Reagan's time, there have been two major waves of congressional GOP ideological conservatism (the 1994 elections in which Gingrich emerged as the leading GOP figure and the 2010 Tea Party elections) and a steady process of accommodating all congressional GOP economic policies to the interests of wealthy donors (including fossil-fuel interests such as the Koch brothers)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic AnonMoos mentioned is better covered in the article Environmental policy of the United States, though it could use more citations:


 * "Ronald Reagan entered office skeptical of environmental protection laws and campaigned against harsh government regulation with the environmental arena in mind. As Reagan entered office, he was given two transition reports – one called "Mandate for Leadership" from the Heritage Foundation and one called "Avoiding a GOP Economic Dunkirk" from conservative Congressman David Stockman(R-MI) – that called for drastic changes in environmental regulation, primarily through administrative changes. In pursuit of this strategy, Reagan gradually reduced the EPA's budget by 30% through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, cut the number of EPA employees, and appointed people at key agency positions who would enthusiastically follow the administration line. Appointees such as Anne Burford at the EPA and James G. Watt at the Department of the Interior were overtly hostile to environmental protection. Through his appointments, Reagan changed the operations of environmental protection from stiff regulation to "cooperative regulation." "
 * "Under this administrative strategy of regulatory relief, environmental laws were written and interpreted more favorably for industry interests. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was also given new powers to write regulations. During the first Reagan administration, the OMB was given the power to require a favorable cost-benefit analysis of any regulation before it could be implemented. This was used to delay new regulations, and changes that resulted in regulatory relief often had this requirement waived. At the beginning of the second Reagan administration, the OMB was given more power- all regulatory agencies were required to submit proposals each year for all major environmental regulation- allowing it to reduce regulatory efforts before such proposed regulations became public."
 * "Within few months from entering the White House, Reagan removed the solar panels that his predecessor Carter had installed on the roof of the White House’s West Wing. "Reagan's political philosophy viewed the free market as the best arbiter of what was good for the country. Corporate self-interest, he felt, would steer the country in the right direction," the author Natalie Goldstein wrote in "Global Warming.". In October 2010, president Obama planned to reintroduce the solar panels on the White House roofs, after 31 years. " Dimadick (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Which positions have the politcal parties in the UK about how to deal with the Brexit vote?
Hi,

I read in the past in the English Wikipedia an overview about which positions have the political parties in the UK how to deal with the Brexit vote. For example, party A wants after the Brexit negotations a new referendum about the Brexit treaty, party B wants only a vote about the treaty in the British parliament, party C wants to ignore the referendum. Maybe it was mainly an article about the party positions (leave/remain) about the referendum itself.

I searched a lot for this article, but I don't find it again. Could you help me with a link to it? Thanks in advance. --Xacyllum (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The best fits seem to be: United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 and Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. All the articles relating to Brexit ought to be listed at Category:United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. It may be that the article which you saw has been either merged with another or substantially rewritten in the interim, as events have moved on. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was also my guess that the article where I read about that was rewritten. I think that's a pity, because it's interesting if there will be a new referendum after results of the negotiations are clear [probably there won't a 2nd referendum because the position in the government is clear, but it's historically interesting, especially of the elections in 2017].
 * But I can't change that lack of information atm, have to read in the history of the Brexit articles and maybe get it back in the article after discussing about it. Thank you for your answer! --Xacyllum (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Catholic Church not a member of the World Council of Churches?
Question as above. I could only find "The RCC's self-understanding has been one reason why it has not joined." --Viennese Waltz 07:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Things do seem to be moving towards greater participation; Vatican confirms Pope to visit Geneva to mark World Council of Churches milestone (2 March 2018). The article contains the most wonderful piece of obfuscation: "Asked about why the Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, Koch said that the papal office has a special responsibility as an agent of Christian unity, and it would be inappropriate to confuse that with the role of other ecumenical agencies and instruments". Alansplodge (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this blog, the main problem is: “Membership in the WCC is by national churches... There may be 35 national Lutheran churches and 45 national Anglican churches who are members of the WCC... our way of relating to other world Christian bodies is not by national churches but as one international Christian communion... The Catholic Church seeks to move together on the questions we face” (quoting Father Jim Puglisi, a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement who heads a Rome research center that focuses on ecumenical studies). Reading between the lines of earlier comments in the same text, I suspect that there is some inertia from conservative Catholics who see membership of the WCC as an admission that other traditions have equal validity with their own, but everybody is too polite to mention it. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While the WCC accepts,in principle, that the Roman Catholic Church could join, there are protestant churches which feel that because of the sheer size of the RCC it would have a too dominant position, and are therefore happier with the present situation which allows a degree of co-operation without a risk of domination. Wymspen (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fulton Sheen has some thoughts on the church's intolerance in "Moods and Truths":

"Now this is precisely the attitude of the Church on the subject of the world conferences on religion. She holds that just as the truth is one in geography, in chemistry, and mathematics, so too there is one truth in religion, and if we are intolerant about the truth that two times two equals four, then we should also be intolerant about those principles on which is hinged the only really important thing in the world, namely, the salvation of our immortal soul."
 * I won't link to copyvios, but Google can find you a longer excerpt. shoy (reactions) 15:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Viennese_Waltz -- the "self-understanding" referred to is probably that the Catholic church's ecumenism does not take the form of seeing itself as merely one "denomination" among many. However, I bet that many Catholic prelates were just as happy not to be formally affiliated during the cold war years, when many churches in Communist countries which sent delegations to the WCC were heavily infiltrated and dominated by regime secret police, and the infamous Programme to Combat Racism was funding various sleazy violent armed struggle groups in third-world countries. AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Church and ecumenism has some information. The Catholic Church's specific position on ecumenism is expounded upon explicitly in official church dogma such as Dominus Iesus and Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, where the Church expresses those those churches that are in full communion with Catholicism (or rather, what is required of a Church to be bilaterally recognized by the Catholic Church as in full communion, rather than a formal list); the lack of formal participation in eccumenical bodies such as the WCC is likely driven by that dogma. -- Jayron 32 16:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Where are some of the places in this video located?
Muzzleflash (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Southern China Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Helps a bit. But any specific locations? Muzzleflash (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Anna Frodesiak could probably help. 164.38.133.11 (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)