Let’s look on the bright side. Whatever you may think of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (your Curmudgeon isn’t thrilled with either), there is some good news for readers of this humble blog.
What good news? Haven’t you heard? Despite some unfortunate pandering in their speeches, neither Romney nor Gingrich is a creationist. We’ve posted about this before. See Newt Gingrich: Probably Not a Creationist; and although Mitt Romney Panders to Theocrats, he has said in the past that he supports evolution, and not creationism, in science classes.
Why is creationism an important issue in a presidential election? As we said in that post on Gingrich:
We use creationism as a defining issue because, although no one cares if a President understands biology or geology or physics, we need a President with enough sense to consult scientists whenever necessary. If a President is a creationist, he thinks he knows as much as all the scientists out there; and in today’s world that’s exceedingly dangerous. The problem goes far beyond science — if a President truly is a creationist, his mental deficiencies will inevitably become manifest in other areas. Crazy people can’t be trusted.
There’s much more information in a recent article in Reason magazine: Where Do the Republican Candidates Stand on Science? It not only discusses creationism, but also the candidates’ opinions on global warming, nuclear power, space exploration, and a few other issues. We’ll give you a two excerpts, omitting Reason‘s links to their sources:
[On Romney:] In 2007, he stated, “I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe.” Romney added, “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.” While governor of Massachusetts, he opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.
[On Gingrich:] Asked in 2006 by Discover magazine if he regarded evolution as “just a theory,” Gingrich replied, “Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have.” With regard to teaching intelligent design in public schools, Gingrich added, “I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy.”
What about the other issues in the campaign? Theocracy and the rest of the social conservative issues can destroy us in the long run, but our immediate concerns are the economy and national defense; they are always the most important issues. Regarding economics (including taxation, the national debt, and business regulations), foreign policy, and at least some respect for the Constitution, either Gingrich or Romney would be infinitely superior to what we have now.
As we’ve noted, both Gingrich and Romney are willing to pander to the social conservatives, which is certainly a character flaw, but we still think the election of either of them would be an improvement — a big one.
What about Rick Santorum and Ron Paul? The former is hopelessly theocratic and probably insane (see Rick Santorum: Dumbest Man in the Room), and the latter has such off-the-wall ideas that a Ron Paul presidency is unthinkable. Besides, it doesn’t appear that either will be nominated, which is why we’re ignoring them.
So there you are. Oh, let’s not forget the other good news: the craziest candidates, Bachmann and Perry, are already out of the race. So even if you’re not delighted with how things are shaping up, keep in mind that they could have been much worse.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.