Why Calls for Unity Often Fail

In a special election Tuesday, Democrat Bill Owens won a seat in upstate New York that the Republicans had controlled since 1872. And if the Republican party had been able to unite behind a single candidate they would likely still control it. While local officials had nominated a relative moderate in Dede Scozzafava, conservatives in the national party—including, most visibly, Sarah Palin—backed the more conservative Doug Hoffman, comparing him to Jefferson Smith, the Jimmy Stewart character who takes on Washington in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Faced with such powerful opposition, Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed Owens.

It's not important by itself who won New York's 23rd District. But Democrats are salivating at the thought of Republicans fighting each other. By backing a movement conservative like Hoffman in a relatively moderate district and by splitting the vote—Scozzafava remained on the ballot—they gave a conservative Democrat like Owens a chance to win. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele called the election an "ugly hiccup," saying that the problem was that "a nominee who did not fit that district was chosen for purely political reasons." And, he warned, the Republicans will lose if they "play politics" among themselves.


Steele is right that it would be better for the Republican Party to unite behind a single platform. But it's not that simple. You can't tell politicians not to play politics. Conservative and moderates are fighting for a reason—the direction of the Party is important. When people say they don't want to fight, what they generally mean is that they want the other side to back down. Either candidate in the New York election could have given up and thrown their support to the other, but both felt it was worth risking losing an election to try to change the direction of the Party. Steele himself—just hours after calling for unity—told ABC News that if candidates "cross the line" on conservative principles—and in particular if they support the President's stimulus plan or the Democrats health care package—the Republican Party would come after them. Steele wants to control the direction of the Party just as much as Palin does. After all, if it's not going in the right direction, it's not worth fighting for.

With the Republican Party down at the moment and clearly need a change of course, there's a lot at stake. That's why the Party is likely going to face some difficult fights in next year's primaries. Those struggles may cost them some votes—and some elections—but it's a battle for the very soul of the party.

Plants have awareness and intelligence, argue scientists

Research in plant neurobiology shows that plants have senses, intelligence and emotions.

Getty Images
Surprising Science
  • The field of plant neurobiology studies the complex behavior of plants.
  • Plants were found to have 15-20 senses, including many like humans.
  • Some argue that plants may have awareness and intelligence, while detractors persist.
Keep reading Show less

Human extinction! Don't panic; think about it like a philosopher.

Most people think human extinction would be bad. These people aren't philosophers.

Shutterstock
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new opinion piece in The New York Times argues that humanity is so horrible to other forms of life that our extinction wouldn't be all that bad, morally speaking.
  • The author, Dr. Todd May, is a philosopher who is known for advising the writers of The Good Place.
  • The idea of human extinction is a big one, with lots of disagreement on its moral value.
Keep reading Show less

Space is dead: A challenge to the standard model of quantum mechanics

Since the idea of locality is dead, space itself may not be an aloof vacuum: Something welds things together, even at great distances.

Videos
  • Realists believe that there is an exactly understandable way the world is — one that describes processes independent of our intervention. Anti-realists, however, believe realism is too ambitious — too hard. They believe we pragmatically describe our interactions with nature — not truths that are independent of us.
  • In nature, properties of Particle B may depend on what we choose to measure or manipulate with Particle A, even at great distances.
  • In quantum mechanics, there is no explanation for this. "It just comes out that way," says Smolin. Realists struggle with this because it would imply certain things can travel faster than light, which still seems improbable.
Keep reading Show less