The article on Andrew Schlafly ’81 and his misguided creation, Conservapedia (A Moment with, Feb. 24), was one of the most alarming pieces I’ve read in PAW. The final line, “Conservativism is mostly logic, and ultimately logic prevails,” is the kind of glib tautology that I would not expect from a Princeton- and Harvard-educated individual. Conservativism and liberalism are subjective values, not empirical truths or logical calculations. For example, it is inarguable that the politico-economic framework of the United States promotes wealth creation more than, say, the Scandinavian systems that are strong on social welfare. It is also inarguable that the system in the United States leads to more income disparity and higher rates of poverty. Which system is more logical or better? The conservative viewpoint favors the U.S. model, and Schlafly and his compatriots probably would say that we are already too liberal. Does this mean they don’t care about income disparity or poor people? I don’t know, but one certainly cannot argue that their position would be inherently “logical.”  

As a trained scientist (Caltech Ph.D. ’99), I was curious about what Conservapedia had to say about evolution. What I found was the drivel typical of the “conservative” position: Apparently, evolution “lacks evidential support,” and must be suspect since 60 percent of American medical doctors reject Darwinism. What does that have to do with it? In the 1600s most people, doctors included, thought the sun revolved around the earth.  

Unfortunately, until the highly educated priests of conservatism like Schlafly are more responsible with their words and deeds, there will continue to be a strong current of ignorance (and even pride in ignorance) in American discourse. When publishing such opinion pieces as the Schlafly interview, PAW should allow for a counterpoint so that its readers can see what real logic looks like.

Franklin Monzon ’93