PBS NewsHour’s weekly recap with New York Times columnist David Brooks and Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart began with a discussion on, of all things, Republican attitudes towards climate change. During the discussion, Brooks, the supposedly conservative half of the duo, reduced oil drilling to a simple way of Republicans to offend elite sensibilities.
Host Amna Nawaz wondered, “David, there's a little bit of a chicken-and-egg argument here. Republican candidates aren't talking about it because people don't think it's a threat. But if they talked about it more, would people think it's a threat?”
Brooks replied that “I think so” and lamented “I'm old enough to go back to John McCain and Lindsey Graham 20 years ago, who supported — who proposed a big climate change bill. Back then, you had Republicans and Democrats both with climate change proposals. Back then, there was about a 20-point gap between Democratic views of climate change and Republican. Now it's a 50-point gap.”
In Brooks’s mind the “most important” reason for that gap is “it's just become a sign of political machismo that whatever polite opinion — if polite opinion says A, then we say Z. And so, drill, baby drill, is a way to offend the elites.”
Alternatively, it simply works. If elites are offended by that, then that’s their problem. Still, after running through some polling data, Brooks added, “So the Republicans who have taken this extreme position are not only, in my view, going against the science. They're going against pretty large majorities on a bunch of these subissues.”
Nawaz then turned to Capehart, “Well, Jonathan, this is grounded in science and data, right? But climate change has now taken on a political tenor. One of my first bosses said it's better to be effective than to be right. So, can you, can anyone, Republican leadership, find an effective way to convey that message to their electorate?”
Capehart also accused Republicans of having ulterior motives, “I don't know. I mean, talk about chicken and egg, you know, they're so worried about primary challenges and looking like they're bending to the woke crowd that they won't do things that are affecting their own constituents in real time.”
After lamenting that Brooks “stole my line” about McCain and Graham, Capehart added:
And yet, this summer, we have seen spectacular stories, and bad spectacular, the ocean off Florida above 100 degrees, heat domes over various parts of this country, but also Europe and Asia, the wildfires that are turning cities orange because of the smoke blowing from Canada, not to mention the wildfires burning from Portugal to Turkey because of the high temperatures.
So, if the politicians don't think that it's something that needs to be addressed, there are people — their own constituents are living through it right now.
Naturally, Capehart never said what Republicans could do to diminish the frequency of Canadian wildfires.
This segment was sponsored by viewers like you.
Here is a transcript for the August 4 show:
PBS NewsHour
8/4/2023
7:43 PM ET
AMNA NAWAZ: All right. I wanted to revisit a quick look at William's report there, because one number really stuck out to me, and I want to get your take on it. When Americans are asked about whether or not climate change is a major threat, overall, about 56 percent say yes it is.
But when you break it down into partisan lines here — this is among Republicans — only 28 percent think it's a major threat, 37 say it's a minor threat, 33 don't believe it's a threat at all.
David, there's a little bit of a chicken-and-egg argument here. Republican candidates aren't talking about it because people don't think it's a threat. But if they talked about it more, would people think it's a threat?
DAVID BROOKS: I think so. I'm old enough to go back to John McCain and Lindsey Graham 20 years ago, who supported — who proposed a big climate change bill. Back then, you had Republicans and Democrats both with climate change proposals. Back then, there was about a 20-point gap between Democratic views of climate change and Republican. Now it's a 50-point gap.
And so why is that? Well, one, everything's more polarized. Two, Republicans are more manufacturing than they used to be. And, three, and I think most important, it's just become a sign of political machismo that whatever polite opinion — if polite opinion says A, then we say Z.
And so, drill, baby drill, is a way to offend the elites. And the weird thing is that, if you look at a bunch of other numbers — and I looked at some Pew data — three-quarters of Americans support global climate change treaties, 69 think — percent we should be carbon-neutral, 66 percent support government subsidies for wind and solar.
So the Republicans who have taken this extreme position are not only, in my view, going against the science. They're going against pretty large majorities on a bunch of these subissues.
NAWAZ: Well, Jonathan, this is grounded in science and data, right? But climate change has now taken on a political tenor. One of my first bosses said it's better to be effective than to be right.
So, can you, can anyone, Republican leadership, find an effective way to convey that message to their electorate?
CAPEHART: I don't know. I mean, talk about chicken and egg, you know, they're so worried about primary challenges and looking like they're bending to the woke crowd that they won't do things that are affecting their own constituents in real time. I don't remember — and you stole my line, because I'm old enough to remember John McCain and Lindsey Graham being the Republicans leading — helping to lead the charge and be serious about climate change.
And yet, this summer, we have seen spectacular stories, and bad spectacular, the ocean off Florida above 100 degrees, heat domes over various parts of this country, but also Europe and Asia, the wildfires that are turning cities orange because of the smoke blowing from Canada, not to mention the wildfires burning from Portugal to Turkey because of the high temperatures.
So, if the politicians don't think that it's something that needs to be addressed, there are people — their own constituents are living through it right now.
