Sure, Proxmire was a Democrat, but philosophically he was a Conservative budget hawk. If you actually read the list of Golden Fleece awards, the majority attacked government waste outside of science programs. Science programs are disproportionately represented as easy targets because their rationale is harder to explain, but it just doesn't wash to imply that Proxmire was motivated by an anti-science attitude.

I think the essay brought up an important issue when it talked about American anti-intellectualism, and the pandering thereto by politicians. The existence of anti-intellectualism shouldn't be controversial, and I hope I don't have to catalog the dreary history of "egghead" as a peculiarly American epithet, most particularly in the political arena.

I also wouldn't expect, at least here in this crowd, that it would be controversial to observe that anti-intellectualism and the concomittant embrace of irrationality and superstition is a sign of sickness in a society.

But it strikes me that you're trying to steer the discussion away from consideration of the blog essay's implication that anti-science cheap shots reliably draw applause much more on one side of the political spectrum than the other. And you certainly hope that we won't analyze the rhetoric of the two sides to discern which political philosophy has made anti-intellectualism its signature rhetorical tactic.

Anti-intellectualism is one of the issues being put before the voters this campaign season, and so it's legitimate to explore this issue. Remember the Republican candidates in a debate proudly raising their hands to express their support of creationism and rejection of evolution? It's on the table, Tom, and needs to be discussed.