Today's Know-NothingsBy Gary Bauer "Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus." — Margaret Thatcher
The "false consensus effect" is a scientific term explaining the behavior of people who believe that the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Psychologists believe the condition arises from a subconscious bias in which an individual's preferences affect his beliefs in an optimistic direction, one favoring his own payoff. In public life, few politicians are immune to occasional bouts of this normally innocuous phenomenon. In the hands of the political left, however, the "false consensus effect" has been developed into something much more pernicious: a public-relations tool used to bludgeon skeptics and sway a largely uninformed public.
Consider global warming and the recent Live Earth concerts. Introducing Al Gore in New York, actor Leonardo DiCaprio claimed that "a consensus has emerged in our scientific community that global warming is... a crisis with truly global implications." In a statement about the event, Sen. Hillary Clinton cited the alleged source of the supposed crisis, saying, "The scientific consensus is clear and overwhelming: We are causing the planet to warm, with potentially devastating consequences to ourselves and our children." Of course, the notion that there is scientific unanimity on global warming — not only about its existence and exigency but also the precise magnitude of the human impact — is hardly new.
As far back as 1992, Mr. Gore declared about global warming: "The time for debate is over. The science is settled." But there is a growing list of prominent scientists who oppose the claims of man-made global warming. A group called "Once Believers, Now Skeptics" includes an impressive list of geophysicists, and NASA's top official, Michael Griffin, has publicly questioned the need to combat global warming. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body, concedes that global warming is "a very slow-moving process." And the public isn't buying the left's rhetorical overreach, either.
Polls show a majority believes that global-warming fears are exaggerated. Astute Americans may recall the "global cooling" craze of the 1970s, when Newsweek pronounced that meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from cooling of the earth's core, while the New York Times forecast another Ice Age. Unfortunately, the "false consensus effect" isn't limited to so much hot air over global warming.
Consider the debate over embryonic stem-cell research. When President Bush recently vetoed legislation that would have compelled taxpayers to fund embryo-destructive stem-cell research, Rep. Diana DeGette, Colorado Democrat, a primary sponsor of the bill, was nonplussed, insisting that "there is a national consensus favoring all forms of ethical research, including embryonic stem-cell research." But again, the tale is only half-told by the left. Polling indicates a significant minority opposes embryonic stem-cell research on moral grounds, and even more disagree with forcing taxpayers to foot the bill.
Interestingly, the tremendous successes of adult stem-cell therapies — which Mrs. DeGette erroneously claims are "years behind the progress of embryonic stem-cell research" — have gone unheralded and un-championed by those who insist that consensus is key. There are more than 70 diseases and conditions that have been successfully treated using stem cells derived from umbilical cords and adult stem cells. By contrast, most scientists admit we are many years — even decades — away from medical treatments derived from embryonic stem-cell research.
Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, a practicing physician who has used adult stem-cell therapies in his medical practice, believes he knows what's behind the false claims about embryonic stem-cell research: a desire for research subsidies, grants and perhaps earmarks. "The true consensus," Dr. Coburn insists, "is about money, not science." The political calculus behind the left's use of consensus rhetoric is as clear as it is contemptible. It suggests to the public that since unanimity exists among the experts, there is no need for them to consider the matter further. That's why consensus chatter pervades the left's discussion on so many issues, from the war in Iraq to the so-called "consensus" immigration bill, which went down to ignominious defeat in the Senate.
Often, however, even a casual examination of these issues reveals not a consensus but a diverse range of views among experts and the public, whose nuanced opinions underscore the need for more debate, not less. Worse is how skeptics of the conventional wisdom are routinely dismissed as ignorant extremists and equated with Holocaust deniers. When Mr. Griffin, NASA's administrator, questioned the need to combat global warming at his agency (which recently removed the words "to understand and protect our home planet" from its mission statement) his subordinates called him "incredibly arrogant and ignorant"; "totally clueless"; and "a deep anti-global warming ideologue." At the Live Earth concert in New York, environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. berated global-warming skeptics in government, crying, "...this is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to talk-show critics of the failed Senate immigration bill as "generators of simplicity." In the end, public-opinion polls do reveal a consensus about one thing: Although Americans are tired of government paralyzed by partisanship, they are equally weary of those who would prematurely cut off discussion on our most pivotal issues for the sake of a fashionable, and false, consensus.
Gary Bauer is president of American Values.
