At 9:05 -0600 02/05/30, Jim Elwell wrote: >I think you folks make a mistake by equating "liberal = pro-metric" >and "conservative = anti-metric." While there may be some weak >correlation at the extreme anti-metric end (meaning that rabid >anti-metricationists may generally be nationalistic which may mean >politically conservative), in general I doubt there is much >correlation at all.
Jim, we certainly appreciate that QSI employees can be both pro-metric and conservative. However, looking at the history of metrication in France and other countries, a slightly significant tendency might be derived, where "left" or "liberal" governments are more in favor of metrication than "right" or "conservative" ones. Some examples : - whilst prepared by some scientists in preceding centuries, metric system was developed in France during the revolutionary period from 1790 on. In principle those in command at that time could not be qualified as "conservatives"! - metric system was adopted by Russia and China as soon as their people's republics were established - in Canada metrication did progress under Liberal Trudeau and suffered sever setbacks under Conservative Mulroney. - in the USA progresses in metrication were significant under Carter (D) but halted under Reagan (R). - in UK metrication process was initiated under Clement Attlee (Labour). I agree, these are just examples and many exceptions could be found. But I was told that "right" governments are more reluctant than "left" ones to introduce measures which are not really supported by population - which more often than not is the case of metrication. Could some members of the list elaborate? Louis
