As a scientist, I’ve been confused by the correlation of increasing fascism and anti-science rhetoric during the last two years. I’m particularly disturbed with the rejection of science, especially science-based regulation, advocated by many nationalists. To me, I’ve noticed a steady improvement in the quality of life attributable directly to advances in science. Science-based regulation has delivered tremendous improvements to our society. Yes, it has taken decades, but who would want to go back to the 1960s or so?
In a discussion with a colleague, I offered that the current landscape reminded me of the Luddite movement in the 1810s. They attacked automation in weaving and other industries, longing to return to the (then) old days with labor-intensive technology, which gave them jobs. There seem to be similar cries today with tariffs, “clean coal,” and rejection of science-based regulation. Correlation does not prove cause, but I wondered, is there a connection? My colleague implored me to read How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them1 by Jason Stanley.
The book seems highly relevant to today’s conflict in the U.S.A. Chapter 3, in particular, addresses the anti-intellectualism found in several nationalist governments. But is nationalism necessarily anti-science? After all, Germany has a record of invention, including the V-1 and V-2 missiles, and another program to build nuclear fission devices. Yet, in the years 1930–1945 it comes to mind when one talks of fascist governments. This seems to argue against a causal relationship between anti-science and fascism.
Stanley describes several general characteristics of emerging fascism, including how strongmen manipulate weaknesses inherent in democracy and human nature to grab power. The nationalist goal seems to be grabbing power by “hypocritically waving the banner of nationalism in front of the working-class whites to funnel the state’s spoils to the oligarchs.”1
He notes several obstacles along the way to creating a fascist state. These include lawyers, government, press, and intellectuals, including scientists. Each is a potential threat that can be marginalized. Typically, the press is the most difficult to control. Marginalization tactics include attacking credibility of stories, coverage, and staff—for example, claiming bias for not covering the nationalist position favorably.
Anti-intellectual attitude seems to be focused on free speech and social values. Egocentric leaders ridicule universities that offer forums for anti-nationalist (fascist) thought leaders. In an egocentric, policy-driven society, there can be only one source of vision. The MO: better silence potentially competitive thought leaders, i.e., scientists and the press. Stanley notes, “By rejecting the value of expertise, fascist politicians also remove any requirement for sophisticated debate.”2
According to Stanley, the primary method that fascist leaders use is the “we/they” model. Nationalist leaders seek to create a target class (they) that a large segment of society will be manipulated to deplore. Often, the MO for fascist leaders is to make extremist characterizations that create an outcast class. Stanley reports, “A fascist politician seeks to replace reasoned debate with fear and anger.”3 He also asserts that “Regular and repeated obvious lying is part of the process by which fascist politicians whip up the ‘we’ while destroying the information space.”4
But why focus on science? Scientists are adept at evaluating hypotheses. It is unlikely that scientists, as a group, can be counted on to blindly toe a party line. Intellectuals and academic leaders especially enjoy a certain prestige based on their position as thought leaders. This competes for attention with the egotist. Plus, scientists are the primary source of inconvenient truths, such as global warming.
Since scientists and science cannot be counted as supporters, the emerging leader will see science, including staff and work product, as nonsupporters and seek to marginalize our influence.
Now I understand.
References
- Stanley, J. How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House: New York, NY, 2018.
- Ibid., 53.
- Ibid., 57.
- Ibid., 57.
Robert L. Stevenson, Ph.D., is Editor Emeritus, American Laboratory/Labcompare; e-mail: [email protected]