For example, were all Americans excited about going to the Moon? No. This poll is from 1967, two years before Apollo 11. Going to the moon is "not worth it" by 20 points.
Nearly a year after the first moon landing (and half a year after the second), the results are nearly the same.
In 1972, 58% of respondents said to reduce or end the moon missions altogether.
What about polio? As you might have heard, Americans were also wary of vaccines in the 1950s. The percentages saying they wouldn't take the miracle Salk vaccine declined between 1955 and 1956, but not by a lot!
And anyway, there remained a whole lot of holdouts. What eradicated polio was ensuring that kids had to take the vaccine. Then they grew up.
Computers? Even in the early 80s, when most Americans thought they were a net good, plenty weren't sure.
Respecting scientists? Pretty good numbers in 1973! But plenty who could only muster "some respect" (and a few "not much respect").
But by 1979, could Americans trust what experts like scientists said? 42% said they could not!
So there has long been a strain of Americans who didn't trust scientists or what they did. The numbers looked different depending on the question and the context, and politics (or at least, ideology) was certainly in play.
So what has changed? I think it's a complex question. But the obvious changes are in our media and political system: the internet and social media have made it easy for once marginal voices to get traction, and partisan media amplifies in a hyperpartisan political moment.
There's obviously much more at play: our costly healthcare system has added all sorts of skepticism and distrust of the entire medical system and those who profit from it.
But anyway I think Americans have changed less than the contexts we operate in.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As someone who’s contributed to my university’s policy on returning, this article misstates, misframes, and misinforms about what we are doing and why. No one thinks this is 3/20 & our brief window of remote instruction is precisely to insure the rest of the semester’s in-person.
Everyone on campus—students, staff, and faculty—overwhelmingly prefer in-person instruction (though we, like others, will probably experiment with more hybrid courses in the future if they work). Prof. Oster is right that the health risks now to most students are very low.
It’s true that not everyone on a campus is 18-24 years old & in otherwise perfect health. Yes, there are staff, faculty, & students who remain at greater risk, either unable to get vaccinated or for whom vaccination is insufficient protection. These will remain risks to manage.
Dholes used to live in North America but were among the megafauna that went extinct around the end of the Pleistocene.
Every time I read the latest arguments for the overkill hypothesis I'm like, of course, that makes sense. But then I read the latest objections and I'm like, damn, those sure are fatal.
Please. I beg of you. Stop using completely inapt historical analogies. Just describe what is happening.
(In 1981 there was one union that held a chokepoint on a major sector of the economy; there is nothing remotely like that for the nearly 14,000 school districts in the US.)
I actually think making K-12 schools go temporarily remote needs to be an absolute last resort. But if you're gonna say it should never happen you should also explain what to do when 10% or 20% of your teachers are home sick.
I don't know what Newark's numbers are but this is the problem over the coming weeks. What are schools supposed to do when a good chunk of teachers are out–and so are subs? This is not an easy problem to solve!
The key thing needed to understand the DLC/Third Way era is that Dems had lost the White House by considerable margins three cycles in a row. The New Deal coalition was over. Clinton came up with a strategy to win again (against an experienced incumbent who just won a war).
Then Gore won a narrow majority but lost the Electoral College. Bush won in 2004 but Obama had strong wins in 2008 and 2012. Clinton again won a good majority in 2016 buy you know what happened. And now Biden.
So Dems don’t really have a problem winning the presidency.. so…
Talking about presidential strategies doesn’t make sense! It never has. Because we are talking about Congress. And Dems have many obstacles to winning seats that can’t usually be transcended by electoral strategy.
Here’s a fun fact: the first modern Gifted and Talented programs were initially created in Georgia and North Carolina in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
They were definitely pushed by educators and psychologists who had sincere reasons for doing so—many believed there was a population of unusually bright children not only under-challenged by standard coursework but actively hurt by it.
The Cold War pressure for math-science education was another influence. The country needed more scientists and engineers!