Voce pode estar admirando o proximo presidente, nao necessariamente do Brasil...

Bem, sem exageros, mas certos primatas estão mais propensos a aceitar certas fatalidades darwinianas do que quase a metade dos republicanos (americanos, of course, embora eu não descartaria o Brasil nessa involução...).

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

The Grand Old Primate Party?

By FRANCIS X. CLINES

Take Note,  blog by the NYTimes, December 31,2013

Bernd Wustneck/DPA, via Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAn orangutan at the Darwineum in Rostock, Germany, on Nov. 18, 2013. 

A Pew survey released yesterday on the public’s view of evolution shows Republicans growing more skeptical of Darwin’s findings, with only 43 percent now endorsing the theory — a drop of 11 points since 2009. Most Democrats are steady believers, with 67 percent in favor, a rise of three points. What all this means for social issue politicking in the new year remains to be seen. But the net effect is a remarkable 24-point evolution credibility gap between the two parties, more than double the 10-point gap of four years earlier.

Overall, the Pew Research Center poll, with a 3-point margin of error either way, found 60 percent in the survey of 1,983 adults agreed that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” In contrast, 33 percent thought these life forms “existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

Among believers in evolution, 24 percent held that “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.” Thirty-two percent of evolutionists think it is “due to natural processes such as natural selection.” The phrase natural selection was crafted by Darwin in summarizing his laborious research findings that have come to be accepted as the scientific consensus. The poll did not quote Darwin’s punchier view that “Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped.”

============

The Washington Post Opinions

The GOP’s Darwinism

• Share to Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Add to PersonalPost
• Share via Email
• Print Article
• More

By Dana Milbank, Published: December 31

Has the Republican big tent evolved into a house of worship?

For several years, the two major parties have been moving gradually toward opposite poles: Democrats growing more liberal and secular, Republicans becoming more conservative and religious. But a survey out this week shows just how far and how fast the GOP has gone toward becoming a collection of older, white, evangelical Christians defined as much by religion as by politics.

Dana Milbank

Dana Milbank writes a regular column on politics.

Archive

• @Milbank
• Facebook
• RSS

Gallery

Tom Toles draws Republicans: A collection of cartoons about the GOP.

You may also like...

Ruth Marcus

The insufferable whistleblower

Richard Cohen

Hillary’s unlucky year

The nonpartisan Pew Research Center recently released the results of an extensive poll done in 2013 on Americans’ views of evolution. Like other polls, it shows that overall views are stable: Sixty percent believe that humans have evolved over time, the same as said so in 2009.

But within those results, there was a huge shift in the beliefs of Republicans: 48 percent say that humans have existed in our present form from the beginning, compared with 43 percent who say we have evolved, either with or without help from a supreme being. That’s an 11-percentage-point swing from just four years ago, when 54 percent believed in evolution.

Forget climate-change skepticism: Republicans have turned, suddenly and sharply, against Darwin.

How to explain this most unexpected mutation? Given the stability of views on evolution (Gallup polling has found responses essentially the same over the past quarter-century), it’s unlikely that large numbers of Republicans actually changed their beliefs. More likely is that the type of people willing to identify themselves as Republicans increasingly tend to be a narrow group of conservatives who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible — or partisans who regard evolution as a political question rather than one of science.

The Pew poll also found that the share of Republicans who attend worship services weekly or more is 52 percent, up five points from 2009, and that the proportion who self-identify as conservative is 71 percent, up six percentage points from 2009. The party remains overwhelmingly white, at 86 percent, and the number of those ages 50 to 64 and 65 and older climbed seven points and two points, respectively.

Not all of these changes are statistically significant, but they are consistent with other findings. For example, an analysis of exit polls from the early Republican primaries in 2012 by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition found that more than 50 percent of participants were evangelical Christians, a record high, up from 44 percent in 2008.

This continues a long-term trend in which both parties are shrinking into smaller entities at opposite extremes. The gap on social issues between Democrats and Republicans (and independents who lean toward one party or the other) has nearly doubled over the past quarter-century.

Republicans are by far the more ideologically homogenous of the two (seven in 10 are conservative vs. fewer than four in 10 Democrats who are liberal). Because Republicans were already about as religious as they could get, most of the growing gap in recent years has come from Democrats becoming more secular: The share of Democrats who say they never doubt the existence of God has dropped 11 percentage points over the past quarter-century, to 77 percent, while the proportion of Republicans who have no doubt is 92 percent vs. 91 percent 25 years earlier.

That’s what makes the evolution survey extraordinary: The Republican Party is achieving the seemingly impossible feat of becoming even more theological. Democrats and independents haven’t moved much in their views, while Republicans took a sharp turn toward fundamentalism. “The increasing gap isn’t surprising,” says Alan Cooperman, my former Post colleague who is now director of religion research at Pew. “What’s surprising is it’s the Republicans shifting, not the Democrats.”

As a matter of political Darwinism, the Republicans’ mutation is not likely to help the GOP’s survival. As the country overall becomes more racially diverse and more secular, Republicans are resolutely white and increasingly devout. If current trends persist, it will be only a couple of decades before they join the dodo and the saber-toothed tiger.

But give Republicans credit for this: They don’t just doubt the theory of evolution; they’re out to prove it wrong. If they believed in the survival of the fittest, they’d be expanding their racial and ideological diversity. Instead, they’re trying to demonstrate that devotion to God can trump the Darwinian rules of politics.

Keep them in your prayers.

Twitter: @Milbank

Republicanos ortodoxos, democratas gastadores: as sauvas dos EUA

Este economista sensato explica como, sob quais condições, chegar a um consenso sobre a divisão que paralisa atualmente o governo americano: republicanos que não aceitam nenhum aumento de impostos, democratas que querem aumentar impostos e continuar gastando...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Opinion

The Problem With ‘No New Taxes’

By TYLER COWEN

The New York Times, October 1 2011

IN a debate in August, Republican presidential candidates were asked whether they would support a budget deal that bundled $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases. All said no. They rejected any deal that involved raising taxes.

Curiously, though, if this approach actually were to become government policy, it would have a surprising effect: it would surely lead to higher rather than lower taxes.

Consider the example more closely. Cutting $10 in spending for every $1 in tax increases would result in $9 in net tax reduction. That’s because lower spending today means lower taxes tomorrow, and limiting the future path of government spending does limit future taxes, as Milton Friedman, the late Nobel laureate and conservative icon, so clearly explained. Promising never to raise taxes, without reaching a deal on spending, really means a high and rising commitment to future taxes.

Furthermore, this refusal to contemplate a tax increase — which I’d characterize as an extreme Republican stance — has brought what seems to be an extreme Democratic response: President Obama’s latest budget plan is moving away from entitlement reform and embracing multiple tax increases on the wealthy. We may be left with no good fiscal options.

The problems with a no-new-taxes stance run deeper. Because it’s unlikely that spending cuts alone can balance the budget, politicians who espouse extreme antitax views often end up denying the scope of our long-run fiscal problems.

The reality is that a mix of our aging population and rising health care costs will create acute budgetary pressures in about 10 years. If Medicare costs rise, say, 5 percent a year, such costs will roughly double in 14 years. Imagine that Congress freezes spending generally. Doing that for Medicare would, in essence, cut the size of the program in half over that period. Since the number of older Americans is rising, the per capita Medicare benefit would fall even more, with increasingly drastic results as the years pass.

That’s politically unlikely, and insisting upon it, or refusing to acknowledge that this is what a spending freeze means, ends up as another way of running away from fiscal reform. Focusing on cutting discretionary spending, a common political tactic, isn’t enough to balance the books.

Another conservative economist and Nobel laureate, James M. Buchanan, emeritus professor of economics at George Mason University, argues that deficit spending leads to yet more spending, and higher future taxes, compared with a pay-as-you-go approach. A move toward balancing the budget may mean some tax increases up front, he says, but future taxes as well as government spending will be lower than they would be otherwise.

In other words, the current antitax strategies advocated by the Republican candidates are unlikely to lead to fiscally conservative ends.

Conservatives may distrust the idea of making a grand fiscal bargain with President Obama. Some may believe that the balance of political influence is shifting in their favor anyhow. Yet from a 10-to-1 starting point, or even from 6-to-1 (one of the deals rumored to be on the table a few months ago) the bargain cannot improve all that much more in favor of spending cuts over taxes. Refusing such a bargain also requires an extreme estimate of how much American public opinion will swing in the conservatives’ direction. Keep in mind, too, that once Republican politicians are in power, they are often less keen to cut spending.

Of course, it may be rational to worry that a grand fiscal bargain isn’t much of a bargain at all. A prudent deal may postpone much of the spending reductions until the economy picks up. Perhaps we’ll end up getting the tax increases up front, and the promised spending reductions will never materialize. Congress may break its word and not make those cuts in future years, or maybe a national emergency — real or fabricated — will bring a completely new fiscal plan. Even so, it’s hard to see the harm in having tried to reach a deal, and taxes will eventually go up in any case, because they must.

What’s more, a vote for a grand fiscal bargain, in which both Republicans and Democrats have at least once endorsed a common vision of reducing entitlement spending, would increase the chance that reform would stick.

The more cynical interpretation of the Republican candidates’ stance on taxes is that they are signaling loyalty to a cause, or simply marketing themselves to voters, rather than acting in good faith. It could be that candidates are more worried about having to publicly endorse tax increases than they are about the tax increases themselves. If that’s true, it is all the more reason to watch out for our pocketbooks; it means that the candidates are protecting themselves rather than the taxpayers.

The final lesson is this: Many professed fiscal conservatives still find it necessary to pander to voter illusions that only a modicum of fiscal adjustment is needed. That’s an indication of how far we are from true fiscal conservatism, but also a sign of how much it is needed.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.