mencken, he star reporter, they define. and other modernists in the major cities major that most americans, even though legally the scopes trial was victory for the prosecution, made sure it was not a victory in the culture wars of the twenties. a few other states passed evolution laws. most americans continue to believe in the biblical account of creation. this was a fact that most americans, according to polls, still do believe in. they rejected the idea that religious truths were more legitimate and should overshadow scientific ones. biology classes in most of the country are not censored. and fundamentalists after scopes trial for the most part retreated from the public arena and focused on building their institutional base, fundamentalist ceremonies seminaries and magazines. and h. l. mencken commence brian -- the teaching of evolution in the public schools who was opposed to scientific truths, is an idiot. as bryan was an idiot. here is a little bit of h. l. mencken's obituary of bryan who died five days after the sco

mencken's famous definition of democracy as the belief that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. it seems to me that conservatism wants public opinion adhered to, but it wants it refined and tempered and filtered through representative institutions. representation, which is the essential doctrine of republican form of government, means that the people do not decide issues, they decide who will decide. people will say, "well, that sounds inherently elitist," to which the answer is guilty as charged. the question is never, "will elites rule?" it's, "which elites will rule?" and the challenge of democracy is to get broad consent to worthy elites. and that is what conservatism should be set in its mind to, not pandering to the pubc by telling them that every gust of public opinion should blow the country hither and yon. >> so, in your current book, you have several columns where you disparage anti-capitalist conservatives, like senator marco rubio with his common-good capitalism and market -- market-skeptic republicans like josh hawley. and you also write tha

want to help but there are the usual motivations and then for the politicians i like to quote hl mencken who is a journalist in the earlier part of the 20th century. it's the purpose of practical politics is to keep the public by the series of mostly imaginary top so they can be led to the safety and whether it is the claimant or immigration or any number of another thing you can cite is also something that is motivating people. >> we had a question about the phrase deficiencies in the educational system in the pipeline of bringing scientists into the work and public policy debate. both of the characteristics for the system that lead to the debate that becomes often hated, emotional not that that's new in human history but there's particular new debate that seems to act ignite that. i would ask is that the nature of the system we have or is it efficient compared to when you and i went to school? >> people go to physics for different skepticism's. i've not interacted with students at the k-12 level but i do teach graduate class in energy and climate to mostly engineers. it is a joy for me

the usual motivations of academic prestige and so on and then for the politicians, i like to put hl mencken was a journalist in the early part of the 20th century and he's got online to check within the book, i don't know if i get it exactly right but politics is to keep the public along by a series of mostly imaginary hobgoblins so that they will be to safety and whether it's the climate or immigration or any one of a number of other things you can cite i think that is also something that's motivating people. >> a related question came through about it was phrased the deficiencies in will call it the educational system, the pipeline of bringing scientists into the work and the public policy debate. i'll expand by not asking about deficiencies per se but the characteristics of the system that lead to tikind of the nature of the debate we have which becomes often heated, emotional and ad hominem. this particular debate seems to really ignite that. the question is as phrased is that a deficiency, i would ask for is that the nature of the system we have or is it deficient now compared to way i

and mencken's view about bryan convinced many americans any american who supported banning teaching evolution in public schools who was opposed to scientific truths was an idiot as bryan was an idiot. here's the obituary of bryan who died five days at the end of the scopes trial of diabetic shock. this is his obituary. not the kind of obituary anybody really wants. quote, he seemed like only a poor clod like those around him filled with almost pathological hatred of all learning, all beauty, all fine and noble things. bryan was a peasant to the barnyard. he looked like a dog in rabies in the dayton courtyard, with rabies. finally he liked people who sweated freely. this is an obituary of one of the most popular politicians in america at his time. so this aspect of the culture wars was already being won by the modernists, clearly, as were most of the others. film and of course prohibition itself was of course repealed in 1943. in 1933. the traditionalists didn't go down easily. they continued on pass anti-evolution laws. they continued to think it was good idea and continue to nurture a sense