In which I ask why my dad is a Republican.

TAE has a lot of friends and family members that are both Republicans and avid Conservationists. Many are hunters, and consider preservation of wild areas specifically and the environment in general an important part of their core value system. However, as Republicans, the freedom and ability to develop individual wealth as a member of a free-market capitalist economy is also wildly important to them. TAE suggests these two concepts are directly in conflict, and have been since the 80's.

And I'm not alone. Slate writer Daniel Sarewitz writes:

It is no secret that the ranks of scientists and engineers in the United States include dismal numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans, but few have remarked about another significantly underrepresented group: Republicans. No, this is not the punch line of a joke. A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation.

Doctor Science at Obsidian Wings responds:

I think the first shift of scientists to the political left happened around April 22, 1970 -- the first Earth Day. After that, as I finished high school and went on to college, when I said I was studying "ecology" people made immediate, forceful assumptions (one way or the other) about my political views. I remember going to a panel discussion in the mid 70s about science and politics, science and religion, where the speakers agreed that "science is not politically on the right or left" -- and I know they were wrong, because I was an ecologist and that was a political label more than a scientific one, at that time
My memory of the 70s and 80s is that Republican Party was *not* particularly anti-evolution at the time. There were discussions and debates about "Evolution and the Bible" and such, but they didn't have a particularly partisan character yet.
What I recall being much more significant were environmental issues. Although the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act were passed under Nixon, by the time the Reagan administration rolled into town the Republicans were pretty strongly on the side of pollution and extinction. Many of you are probably too young to remember Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, but that Wikipedia article covers the high points. Basically, he was completely on the side of extractive industries (including forestry and mega-agriculture). He justified it with Christianism: God wants man to have "dominion" over the earth, and besides, Jesus was coming back any day now.

There are two key claims he raises here. The first is that Republicans choose the economy over the environment, starting with the Reagan Administration, and the second is that the Republicans are more of a religious party than a political one. He goes on to suggest the former is what caused the exodus of scientists from the GOP:

Basically -- because even the short version is getting to be too long -- I think that in the 80s the Republican powers saw even the hardest of hard scientists, the physicists and geologists and NASA, take positions that impeded the core Republican value of Making Money.

Perhaps. But perhaps not. There is money to be made in science, too. The drug industry makes millions (billions?) in profits every year. Were American interests so composed, a very large amount of money could be made converting homes and businesses into more energy efficient versions. Cap and trade could make a lot of people rich. Cutting edge energy technologies could not only power the American infrastructure, but also power the American economy and provide us with another layer of dominance in the global game. That should appeal to Republicans.
No, I think the source of the exodus of scientists from the GOP is not due to Republican greed. Rather, the Republicans, for at least the last 15 years, have seemed to have a crusade going against science. Because Making Money sounds good to scientists, too. I wouldn't leave the GOP because they were greedy. I can be greedy too. But when my hardened, GOP-loyal-forever elders tell me that I am going to Hell for believing the Earth was formed over a period of billions of years, I subconsciously and consciously distance myself from them. I want to make millions, one day, in a free market where people can buy my product with minimal taxation or regulation. One thing I plan to invent requires a high-performance computer running evolutionary algorithms. How can I do that, but not believe in Evolution? Creationism is almost a uniquely Republican trait in my lifetime. And then you have issues like stem cell research, which hold the very real promise that before I die of old age I could see functional, perfect human organs grown on a petri dish in a laboratory. But the ethics of using a gamete cell to do this has become a clearly "Christian vs. UNChristian" battle when in fact the ethics of American stem cell research should be a-religious and should not be decided in the realm of what "faith tells us to do." Especially not in a country where the very Republicans who tout their Christian beliefs on stem cell research are the same ones that bandy around the Constitution and Bill of Rights at any and all convenient moments.
But coming back around to where I started, I have to wonder how my dad can be a Republican when they so aggressively pursue economics over the environment? When they use Al Gore as a convenient scapegoat to laugh away actual efforts to prevent climate change? In the 90's, especially, and of course around the time Mr. Obama was running for election, my dad rallied with others against the "certain" restrictions on firearms that Democrats were bound to enact. Clinton certainly enacted some firearms legislation. So as a hunter, I can see a purist hatred of Democrats being feasible, given the illusory belief the NRA seems to project that Democrats = Gun Control. But my dad is a pretty smart fella, surely he's realized that anti-democrat doesn't have to mean pro-Republican. The proof is at the top of the post: 32% of scientists identify as independent.
But climbing into my dad's truck six long years ago, Bush Cheney 04 sticker proudly displayed on his back window (right next to the Ducks Unlimited sticker), I was very confused. How could he support people that actively want to rape the Earth for every drop of oil with no attempt - literally zero attempt - to force America off oil dependence? Bush was all about "ending dependence on foreign oil" with heavy emphasis on the word "foreign."
Four years later I watched with chagrin as my dad seemed to support McCain over Obama. This was easier to understand; the fear that a Democrat President would come for our guns (despite the fact that a Republican President had passed the Patriot Act and basically given himself the privilege to do just that) loomed very real in the hearts of any active hunter, including myself. But could my dad really believe that a Republican stooge rogue hack who went from ardent conservationist to Kyoto-hater in about 5 minutes and from claiming in 2007 that global warming was "a serious economic and security concern" and "not a Hollywood invention" to saying in February 2010 that "80% of global warming science is based on fraud and misinformation" would have done a better service to hunters and conservationists than Mr. Obama? McCain supported cap and trade right up until he won the Republican nomination for President, at which point he became an ardent critic of it.
I realize, dear readers, that there are many subtle nuances at play in the choice of political affiliation, and probably my dad is a Republican because of one of them. But I've known the man for 28 years. His three loves are 1. His Wife 2. His children 3. Hunting. Given those priorities, I just don't understand how he could be a Republican.

Update: This is an interesting, and telling list of the least conservation-friendly politicians. Note the political party trend.
_