Answers that Should Immediately Disqualify Candidates from Running for President
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend lately. Well, actually, my whole life. Candidates for political office are allowed to say the most ridiculous things, and still be elected. The media seldom calls them on it, and the voters, if they are aware, seem not to care.
During the recent Republican debates, the moderator asked if any of the candidates didn’t believe in evolution. Three of them raised their hands! Out of 10! That’s 30% of (allegedly) the best the GOP has to offer, that are functionally retarded. Yet, those candidates are still in the running to RULE OUR COUNTRY.
There are some answers which should immediately disqualify one from ever holding elected office in America. Here are a few.
Do you believe in evolution?
If answer = “No” - DISQUALIFIED
Do you ever talk to God? (if yes) Does he ever talk back?
If answer = “Yes” - DISQUALIFIED
Is it true that, “if we don’t fight terrorists in Iraq, they will to fight us here in America”?
If answer = “yes” - DISQUALIFIED
If elected, how many graduates of Pat Robertson’s law school would you employ?
If answer = “one or more” - DISQUALIFIED
Has George W. Bush been a good president?
If answer = “Anything other than no” - DISQUALIFIED
Any others?
May 8, 2007 at 11:45 am
How about “I want to run for office because…”?
As far as I’m concerned 99.999% of the folks who are attracted (for whatever reason) to running for office probably aren’t going to be worthwhile if/when they’re in office.
May 8, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I still say that all federal representatives — congress/senate, presidency, & SCOTUS Justices — ought to be elected by electoral college members solely, and that electoral college membership ought to be subject to popular vote by district; this being the sole power of the electoral college.
None of those positions ought to be popularity contests, yet that is what a direct popular vote turns them into. Instead, we ought to electing people based on whether we think they’ll choose better or worse, someone else to run the country.
May 8, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Sorry to “double-post”. No matter what, the entire process needs to be subject to 100% “Sunlight” standards.
May 8, 2007 at 1:01 pm
In the words of Kurt Vonnegut Jr: “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.”
I must admit, I was a little shocked that three Republican presidential candidates don’t believe in evolution. Yes, I would automatically categorize anybody who doesn’t believe in evolution as a “nut case”.
May 8, 2007 at 1:19 pm
ElfNinosMom: You have good reason to do so. Microevolution has been observed in a laboratory environment. “single-variable” macroevolution has been observed in the last forty years. Evolutionary rates of change have been tied to environmental rates of change; that is, regardless of long the “generation” of a given species is, it is the rate of change in their environment that leads to speciation.
Hence little things like Atlantic Blue Oysters developing a defense response against Asian crabs — the latter being an invasive species to the Atlantic. This response is measurable, and is only present in those blue oysters that reside in regions which the Asian crabs have already reached.
I don’t mean to preach to the choir, here. It’s just that what we DO NOT need in the office of the White House is someone who can’t get a grasp on the science of the day well enough to communicate effectively with the intellectual community on the issues facing it.
I mean, seriously — do we *REALLY* want the people in charge of regulating something like MNT research to be people who think that the biggest problem with nanotech is that it might “infect” us all?
May 8, 2007 at 1:34 pm
You do not understand the dangers of nanotech. Take the case of little Johnny Smith who was hooked on nanotech for three years. He would lie, cheat and steal just to get another nanotech fix, and eventually turned into a zombie before his death in 2006.
Or Sarah Adams: she once tried nanotech at a party because “everyone else was doing it.” Three hours later she was dead, eaten from the inside out by rouge nano-robots.
The dangers of nanotech are real and are affecting families across the country. How many children must die before the government does something about the evil nano menace?
May 8, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Oh, and Darwin ate babies. It’s documented.
If you want to believe a baby eater, then go right ahead.
May 8, 2007 at 1:56 pm
If I remember correctly, McCain sorta played both sides on the whole evolution question.
May 8, 2007 at 2:15 pm
So, only atheists need apply? More importantly, what the hell does one’s opinion on evolution (or global warming or the tooth fairy, for that matter) have to do with the proper role of government?
May 8, 2007 at 2:16 pm
By the way, the subject of this thread is missing a key verb, presumably “Disqualify”.
May 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I can see Robert’s point
May 8, 2007 at 2:33 pm
As libertarians, we should feel aggravated that debate moderators are even wasting time asking the candidates such irrelevant questions. They might as well be asking who they think will win the Suns and Spurs series.
May 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Am I crazy if I really could care less about evolution? I dislike Darwin, I’m not a christian extremist or an atheist and frankly, I don’t give a shit.
What I do give a shit about is girls and boys being used as cannon fodder in foreign wars.
99% percent of the time ALL of the candidates are power hungry pigs. MSM sucks just as much as they do, maybe more. That is a recipe for Craptacular - which we have right now.
May 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm
TiGirl, my sentiments exactly. The MSM always wants to focus on non-issues. I fully expect to hear some Paris Hilton questions before the debate cycle is finished.
May 8, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I didn’t see the debate. Who were these three?
MHW
May 8, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Titanium Girl; re: Darwinism — evolutionary theory isn’t Darwinian theory, though it *did* “evolve” (pun intended, sorry) from it. As a private individual I really don’t care one way or the other what you believe, as a private individual.
But to “not believe in evolution” is, frankly, a gross statement of scientific incompetence on a grand scale: and THAT is unacceptable in a leader of nations. There are plausibility questions in *historical* terms, for anything going back more than 5,000 years — the precise limits of radiocarbon dating; all other methods are far less reliable; but to question the *existence* of something that has been observed in a repeatably testable manner?
I cannot abide by that. Frankly; I am of the opinion that Chief Bush II ought to be disbarred from his office precisely for that.
May 8, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Ti-girl is spot on. The only intersecting question between government and science should be: do you think government should play a role in scientific pursuits? (and the answer, of course, is none).
Libertarians as Libertarians should care about as much about a candidate’s scientific beliefs (or lack of them) as we should his religious beliefs - NONE. By accepting belief-in-evolution as some sort of ‘litmus test’, you are assigning to science the role that religious tests played in government in previous generations. And that, my friends and fellow freedom-lovers, is a Bad Thing.
May 8, 2007 at 5:17 pm
What role does belief in scientific truth (in this case, evolution) have to play in government, and who should be president? Quite a bit, I should think. Nonsensical beliefs, even personal ones, can lead to nonsensical judgment and nonsensical policies when elected.
How can we trust someone to administer the government, even a drastically smaller one, as Libertarians desire, when they don’t believe in the scientific method?
And no one is saying only atheists should be President. I’m saying that if a man claims he hears a voice from outside himself talking to him and telling him to do things, he belongs in a nuthouse, not the White House. Didn’t Bush say that he talks to God, and that God speaks through him, and God to strike at Iraq?
I would think these things would just be common sense. And isn’t the liberty policy, libertarianism, essentially founded upon reason and logic? So, how can we trust someone who not only doesn’t believe in reason and logic, but actively defecates upon those things?
May 8, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Hmm I understand this argument more than you may think. Several years ago, I was turned on to Ayn Rand (I don’t regret this). I quickly became a bit dogmatic in the same way that she often was. I would often times state that “logic is the driving force, logic is all that matters, there is no g-d, a=a, etc, etc,). During this period of time I was an atheist, very logical, kind of angry. And I now believe that for the most part, I was very wrong.
As always I kept reading, kept thinking and became interested in Rothbard, Rockwell and Austrian Econ. I’m not sure why Rand and Rothbard disliked each other but it could be due to this very same argument (or questions posed much like this one). I don’t think government should have any views on science or religion. This is for the individual to decide for himself. Having government tell you that you have to accept the theory of evolution is downright authoritarian. On the flipside - having leviathan tell you that evolution is wrong is equally authoritarian. This is for the individual to decide, ONLY.
Having a President that claims to speak to g-d and claims that g-d speaks to him and tells him what to do is a whole other matter entirely. It is downright scary and like the “evolution litmus test” it is also authoritarian.
I actually occasionaly think about evolution and even though I don’t care what a politican has to say about it, I do have my own thoughts. I’m not a scientific person like you Ian (I’m just not the same personality type). But my thoughts on the matter are kind of funny, I won’t share them here.
May 8, 2007 at 5:50 pm
…
May 8, 2007 at 5:58 pm
I agree except for:
That’s crap. There’s plenty of perfectly intelligent, perfectly
sexylibertarian religious people out there, such as myself.May 8, 2007 at 6:17 pm
For the record, I’m not disqualifying non-atheists. Quite the contrary, in fact. I personally believe in evolution, because science proves that it exists. At the same time, I keep an open mind about the world having been created, since there is no proof that it wasn’t created. In other words, I have no problem whatsoever with a presidential candidate who has religious beliefs per se.
That being said, I am very concerned about any presidential candidate whose beliefs go so far as to discount well-established science. This probably wouldn’t have been a concern for me prior to the Bush presidency, but he proved beyond any doubt that a President’s extremist religious beliefs can alter the course of this country in a very negative way.
Of course, since this question came up during the course of Republican debates, and there is no way in hell I’d ever vote for a Republican presidential candidate, this is all academic as far as I’m concerned.
May 8, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I’m kind of torn on this one …
“Do you recognize the validity of evolution?” is not on the list of questions I’d ask a candidate. It would probably just not occur to me, unless maybe it was a candidate for school board in a town where there was a controversy over the science curriculum.
On the other hand, if I knew that the answer to that question was “no,” even though I hadn’t sought that answer out, I’d dock the candidate big-time points, same as if I knew he didn’t “believe” in gravity or algebra.
Let’s not make this into a religious thing, though. One need not be an atheist to embrace science — and possessing a religious faith is neither the same thing as, nor an excuse for, not living in reality.
May 8, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Succinct as ever. Yeah, that was kind of an out of the blue question, considering the other pressing issues that are on the table for the candidates to debate.
But since they asked…
May 8, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“I fully expect to hear some Paris Hilton questions before the debate cycle is finished.”
Since some people are looking for a constitutional amendment to allow foriegn born people to run for president the request for her pardon is sure to come up.
May 8, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Re: the Paris Hilton sentencing, I thought this commentary was spot on:
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/012905.html
May 8, 2007 at 10:11 pm
#1: Who cares? Are they running for president of science club or something? Furthermore, scientific theories are always waxing and waning in popularity. Why punish someone who might be on the wrong side of the curve? Oh yeah, I forgot: it’s a good way to baptize one’s prejuidice against religious people.
#2: Wait, you’re willing to display your anti-religion animus in all it’s glory! Yeah, religious people are scary. Maybe you should try to put them in a camp or something. Extra libertarian points for you!
#3-5 are about right, but you are a trip!
May 9, 2007 at 5:05 am
Tom I can understand them shying away from algebra since it is of Arabic origins. WE wouldn’t want to encourage engaging with the enemy.
On second thought this sounds like a plot for a movie script.
MHW
May 9, 2007 at 6:26 am
So, let’s get this straight. I say that we ought not let people who claim to be able to communicate with supernatural beings hold the highest office in the land. So, I must be a Nazi.
?
May 9, 2007 at 6:43 am
Whether or not “scientific theories are always waxing and waning in popularity”, that is not the issue. The truth is the truth even if it is not currently popular. Truth does not depend on a majority vote. If someone believes that reptilian aliens are running the world I would not trust him to make wise decisions in other areas either. Same with creationism. As long as he or she doesn’t make a big deal of the superstitious beliefs, we might never know and would not use them as a measure of other actions. I also think that one’s religious beliefs are not relevent to politics, unless one chooses to make them an issue. Then if you harbor bizarre ideas I can run away from you quickly.
May 9, 2007 at 6:46 am
When I was a little kid in the USSR, the communist bosses of the regime were professed (although, in most cases, not actual) atheists. This did not qualify them to run a good government.
Now that I am an overgrown kid in the USSA, the fascist bosses of the regime are professed (although, in most cases, not actual) Christians. This also does not qualify them to run a good government.
May 9, 2007 at 7:00 am
Why should we care of candidates for President believe the earth is round?
So, President Knucklehead, you had all the troops for Iraq shipped across the Pacific and Indian oceans, instead of flying through Europe, because you knew that *the earth is flat*, and anyone traveling across the Mediterranean to Asia is certain to fall off the edge of the world?
I confess, though I was more listening than watching, I had the impression that the number of Republicans who had doubts about evolution was more like 7 than 3, but I as not in line of sight of the TV screen when all this happened, and may have misunderstood.
Of course, the progress from George Washington to George Bush is a serious challenge for evolutionary theory. Washington’s successors now appear to have crawled back into the trees and then burrowed back into the ocean mud.
May 9, 2007 at 9:10 am
I’d say it’s more like a “punctuated devolutionary equilibrium.”
Washington was not yet in the grave when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed.
He wasn’t long dead when Jefferson had Burr et al imprisoned by the military for an extended period without charge or trial, and used cat’s paws at the state level to prosecute a critic for libel, holding that criticism of the president was impermissible even if said criticism was true.
When you get down to it, we haven’t really come a long way, baby.
May 9, 2007 at 9:24 am
“So, let’s get this straight. I say that we ought not let people who claim to be able to communicate with supernatural beings hold the highest office in the land. So, I must be a Nazi.”
Not a Nazi exactly, but certainly not a particularly tolerant or openminded person either. To disqualify a wide swath of people from representing you merely because they have a different opinion on something that can be neither proven nor disproven smacks of prejuidice and collectivism. Those were two of Nazisms distinguishing characteristics.
Be careful, lest you, in your zeal to make America “safe for secularism”, help to make it safe for religious intolerance.
May 9, 2007 at 9:36 am
Any government powerful enough to promote your religion today will be powerful enough to prohibit it tomorrow.
May 9, 2007 at 10:35 am
“scientific theories are always waxing and waning in popularity” This is up there with the opinions of the Republicans who do not believe in evolution.
Where did the Republican Party find these characters? There are only 60 milion or so Republicans, and they found a stack of them?
May 9, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Either it’s a theory, a verifiable fact, or a point of faith. Since we don’t have concrete, reproducible proof of it, and since you say my characterization of it as a theory that could wax or wane in popularity is just ridiculous, I guess it follows that, for you at least, evolution is a point of faith.
I think evolution is a possible explanation for life on earth. In a certain mood, I even find it probable. What I never do is make my personal feelings a litmus test for others.
May 9, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Matt, you are, unfortunately, dead wrong in this last comment — the unfortunate part is that this inaccuracy is something that only someone with an extremely strong layman’s comprehension of evolution & science in general could grasp intuitively.
I’ll explain, however. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory is a theory. Darwinian theory is an outdated/outmoded theorem from which evolutionary theory has evolved. The evolutionary theory of origin is separate from evolutionary theory itself.
Most “Creationists” with any strong scientific awareness freely acknowledge microevolution; the contest/controversy only arises when macroevolution is discussed.
So; for a candidate to answer the question, “Do you believe in evolution” with, “no” is to demonstrate a deep and abiding lack of awareness of science itself. (Frankly, it’s a ‘leading question’ but that’s another story.) Why? Because evolution has been documented to occur. We have witnessed it in protozoic & eukaryotic microscopic life. We have documented it in virii. The mechanism by which evolutionary speciation occurs has even been documented in macroscopic life. Supporting documentation here:
http://calvin.st-andrews.ac.uk/external_relations/news_article.cfm?reference=423
discussed here:
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=biology&Number=-168466&fpart=1
Why is this relevant in a national leader? While I could go into the difficulties of scientific analysis of things like global warming (and the differences between heliogenic mean global temperature modification, anthropogenic mean global temperature modification, and exogenic mean global temperature modification), I won’t. I will instead discuss mercury vapor; a substance which by all agreements is toxic.
The question is — how much of it is toxic and at what levels of exposure? At what levels are the benefits of its presence sufficient to outweigh the costs of it? These are questions that only someone with a solid comprehension of the *MECHANISMS* of scientific study could answer, yet they are also questions on which US society’s answers rest more heavily than you’d believe on the President; not merely because they make decisions themselves, but because they *choose* who does the analysis!
I refuse to accept the statement that a lack of scientific understanding does not disqualify you from a position which requires scientific understanding to be competent in your performance of your duties.
The POTUS office requires exactly that. Enough said.
May 9, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Forgot to add something: the mercury vapor question is relevant in the light of the fact that all compact fluorescent bulbs use mercury vapor. It’s inherent to the technology.
May 9, 2007 at 3:47 pm
It just like to stay away from being dogmatic. I think evolution makes sense, and I think that creationism requires faith in order to believe. I don’t see anything wrong with not having an opinion on the matter, because personally I have no opinion of my own. I used to think that all this talk of aliens was ridiculous. I believed that there was no other form of life on this universe. Now, I realize how ignorant I was in being so absolute about the matter. The truth is I don’t know. Much of life is a mystery and nobody has all the answers. That’s part of our quest here on earth, to search for knowledge.
I think it is more important that our president is a decent human being. Someone who is unwilling to sell his soul for profit, someone who works for his constituents and moves towards liberty. I don’t want a Rhodes scholar. I want an honest and true human being who truly wants the best for everyone in his country.
Think about it - the Presidency should be much like a customer service job. Does someone have to be a Rhodes Scholar to provide you with quality service? Of course not, they just have to be someone concerned about doing their job well.
The problem here seems to be that the public is brainwashed into believing that their Customer Service Rep must be Ivy League educated and connected financially.
We are never going to get a good President with this mode of thought. Just more Ivy League cookie cutters that could care less about civilization and freedom.
May 9, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Is there a reason my previous comment is still under moderation?
Titanium Girl — that’s true enough in its own way. But when it comes down to it, the job of understanding what is and is not a hazard is something that requires a certain level of understanding.
I don’t like to do this, but what you’re saying here boils down, essentially, to preferring somebody who has a friendly face and a message you like — regardless of how competent they are for the job.
And *that* is how we got into this mess in the first place. :)
May 9, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I think the real evidence is that for evolution to have been the cause of the diversity of life we see around us, no new laws of physics or biology or chemistry need to be discovered or invented. It is plausible and reasonable even with our current incomplete understanding of the universe. No paradigm shift is needed. Science builds upon the past. Newton’s discoveries were not tossed out by Einstein’s discoveries, but were discovered to be a small part of the puzzle that fit with the larger picture of reality. They worked just fine if one did not look too closely or measure too precisely, and still do. It is simply a matter of fine-tuning.
For a supernatural event to occur at all, there would need to be new “worlds” or realms of reality that can affect our plane of reality in order to precipitate that event. Scientific experimentation would become pointless; if “a miracle occurred” is a legitimate answer to why your experiment came out the way it did, there becomes no point in doing the experiment in the first place. Mystical thinking does not learn; it simply states that something is “so” and that is the end of the debate. It is not falsifiable; you can’t disprove it because it makes no predictions that can be tested.
May 9, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Ian,
You don’t like to do what, tell me I’m wrong? We all think differently, there is nothing wrong with telling me you don’t agree with me. I’m definitely not looking for a “friendly face” though. The friendliest face normally turns out to be the scariest of them all.
I’m always in a constant state of flux, and I think I have already changed my mind about something. I don’t think it’s a very good idea to have people rule other people. The presidency should be like a customer service job but how many people that aspire to run for president will ever treat it as such? Maybe .0001% would? It’s obvious that power corrupts. Anarchists don’t vote, because they don’t advocate the entire jacked up system. A system which consists of too many litmus tests that are often dogmatic and in the end, quite meaningless. Maybe they are the sanest of them all.
May 9, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Kent,
I agree with your assessment on mystical thinking. I was not advocating “the mystical mode of thought”. Only stating that I feel I have no right to judge others based on whatever it is that they believe so long as they do not seek to indoctrinate their beliefs upon me.
I’m willing to admit that when it comes to science and mysticism I don’t know a whole lot. I never rule out possibilities. After years of taking the hard line approach on tons of issues, I discovered that I was wrong too many times. I don’t want to be an ass again so I have become very undecided and quite open minded.
Here is a skeleton from my closet- Several years ago when I was but a silly teenager I watched Rush Limbaugh at night and referred to myself as a dittohead.
Looking back, I now know that I was SO SO HORRIBLY wrong. I repent! I’m not sure what changed me, it didn’t happen suddenly it occured over an extended course of time. It certainly wasn’t a friend or someone I knew, I think I just read several good books.
I really don’t want to talk about myself, but my point is that at one time I was silly and had a litmus test for everything. I argued all day long with peers that did not agree with my sentiments (I attended a highschool in which 95% of the pupils and faculty were Democrats). I have seen the error of my old ways, and I refuse to make the same mistakes again.
May 9, 2007 at 5:56 pm
IanC,
I agree that a question about “macroevolution” would have been preferable from an accuracy standpoint. Since it wasn’t adressed this way, and since this post is themed upon the discussion of ultimate theories of origin rather than the consensus of microevolution (which is not theory, but observable fact), I continued in the same vein.
Just as I seldom if ever correct people who talk about “States Rights” even though I’m aware that states merely have priveliges (it’s the people who have rights), I seldom split hairs on this type of issue when the crux of the debate is elsewhere.
When people today debate ‘evolution’ today, 99% of the time they are debating the question of whether or not the universe and mankind arose with or without supernatural intervention.
May 9, 2007 at 6:10 pm
I wasn’t disagreeing with anyone here; just stating the way I see things. I have dear friends who are “creationists” of all stripes (Christians, Wiccans, and “There just HAD to be someone controlling it all” types). I don’t try to force them to see things my way, but I also don’t avoid the issue if they bring it up.
May 12, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Actually, I think it’s kind of moronic to believe in evolution, especially given entropy, and how everything tends toward disorder, not the other way around.
One who believes in evolution would be saying that George W. Bush is a higher life form that Thomas Jefferson, for instance, and that’s just pure bullshit.