Letters

11101MAGE Facts and Values Editors: Abby J. Kinchy and Daniel Lee Kleinman chide critics of the Bush administration's misuse of science for assuming that "sound science" alone can dictate their preferred policies ("Democratizing Science, Debating Values: New Approaches to 'Politicized' Science under the Bush Administration ," Summer 2005). Facts do not speak for themselves, and progressive policy arguments need to draw explicitly on progressive values. But by insisting that such arguments are "essentially based on values," and that "values, not science, provide the best justifications for progressive policy positions," the authors err in the other direction. Despite correctly identifying the value dimensions of scientific claims, they neglect the scientific dimensions of value claims. They even recommend that progressives not focus on the administration's misuse of science, "because the same argument will be (and has been) used against the left." To overstate the point: they substitute a decisionist conception of expertise for the technocratic view they criticize. A more prudent approach would recognize that "ought" implies "can," and that the strongest policy arguments depend on closely relating facts and values. MARK B. BROWN Sacramento, Calif. Abby J. Kinchy and Daniel Lee Kleinman Reply Mark Brown comments that we neglected the scientific dimensions of value claims and suggests that the strongest policy arguments link facts with values. We agree that information about the natural world is an important element of many policy positions, particularly on matters of health and the environment. However, our point is that, in recent years, the values behind many progressive policy positions have been obscured by an over-emphasis on scientific justifications. If we wish to gain broader acceptance for progressive positions on reproductive health, the consumption of fossil fuels, agriculture, and many other issues, we believe it would be more productive to talk openly about values, rather than pretending that policy disagreements can be resolved by straightforward appeals to science. Lincoln and his God Editors: John B. Judis cites Abraham Lincoln's description of the United States as "the last, best hope of earth" as evidence of a U.S. president suggesting that we are God's chosen nation ("The Author of Liberty: Religion and U.S. Foreign Policy," Fall 2005). The implication is that Lincoln, like so many other U.S. leaders, claimed that we are doing God's bidding and that therefore God is on our side. But to my knowledge, Lincoln never made such an argument. Quite the contrary. In his Second Inaugural— surely the most important speech by any U.S. president on the nation's relationship to the divine—Lincoln declares in anguished terms that both North and South in the Civil War "pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other." But: "The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully." And then: "The Almighty has his own purposes." Lincoln was not a conventionally religious man, but he thought deeply and seriously about divine judgment and the relationship of politics to theology. He did offer the hope, in his 1862 message to Congress, that ending slavery is a path that "the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless." But I don't think he ever argued jingoistically or arrogantly that he or his government was following God's orders or that God is on our side. The Almighty has his own purposes. DAVID BLANKENHORN New York, N.Y To Letter Writers • We welcome succinct letters from our readers. But because we have a long lead time for each issue , you have to send us your letter within three weeks of getting an issue of Dissent in order to get it into the next issue. • Letters must be no more than 500 words, and must carry the full address, phone number, and name of the sender. We reserve the right to edit letters to fit our space and to choose which shall be printed. We accept e-mail submissions to editors@ dissentmagazine. org. DISSENT / Winter 2006 NM ...