The day after my last post about ideology trumping actual facts, Ars Technica posted an op-ed titled "Political science: why rejecting expertise has become a campaign strategy (and why it scares me)".
What's their take-away?
With the exception of Huntsman, the candidates don't know science, haven't bothered to ask someone who does, and, in several cases, don't even know anything about the settled policy issues... Why would we want these traits in a president?
I agree completely. Except for one thing — I did not know that Huntsman actually had a reasonable position on science.
Apparently, Jon Huntsman recently tweeted "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."
In an ABC News interview, [Huntsman] argued that the leading candidates' stance would make them unelectable. "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party—the anti-science party—we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science—Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position."
Unfortunately, that kind of thinking is unlikely to win Huntsman the nomination, but it's good to see there is some element within the Republican party that can think beyond ideology.