I’ve never been a fan of political litmus tests. I suspect that being President is a challenging enough without having your hands tied behind your back by a bunch of idiotic pledges to avoid this or that specific thing that is the sole purpose for being for some special interest group. It’s kind of like asking a pilot to promise that he or she will never turn in this direction or go above this altitude before they take off. Sometimes having the freedom to act as is appropriate to the situation is the best way to avoid that mountain up ahead when the weather changes suddenly. I tend to see the world as a pretty complex assortment of gray areas and I always hope for someone who’s smart, can be calm and deliberate when it’s warranted, and decisive when it’s not. The exact character we need in the White House often ends up being a retrospective assessment based upon the events the President ends up facing.
It’s that last part that’s gotten me to reconsider the idea of a political litmus test. A candidate’s stand on Evolutionary theory is being bandied about as such a test by a number of blogs I frequent. I think it’s a good one and here’s why: A President may be required to make critical decisions that affect us all. Many of those decisions will be based on less than ideal information. I need to be confident that my President is committed to making those decisions on the best evidence at his or her disposal. Rejecting evolution is a clear case of just the opposite. The facts of evolution are some of the most solid knowledge in science and it’s hard to find anything else at once so elegant and simple and yet so powerful and broad in its explanations of life on earth. At this time in history there are only 4 reasons one can reject the fact of evolution: religious preference over the facts, ignorance of the basic science, political pandering, being an out and out liar, or some combination of the four.
None of those four reasons are characteristics I’m seeking in a President. If you can't see the overwhelming evidence of evolution then I can't trust you to see the truth in anything less clear cut when the time comes. If you think the jury’s still out on evolution then this judge says the verdict on your qualifications as President is clear. You’ll never get my vote.
It’s that last part that’s gotten me to reconsider the idea of a political litmus test. A candidate’s stand on Evolutionary theory is being bandied about as such a test by a number of blogs I frequent. I think it’s a good one and here’s why: A President may be required to make critical decisions that affect us all. Many of those decisions will be based on less than ideal information. I need to be confident that my President is committed to making those decisions on the best evidence at his or her disposal. Rejecting evolution is a clear case of just the opposite. The facts of evolution are some of the most solid knowledge in science and it’s hard to find anything else at once so elegant and simple and yet so powerful and broad in its explanations of life on earth. At this time in history there are only 4 reasons one can reject the fact of evolution: religious preference over the facts, ignorance of the basic science, political pandering, being an out and out liar, or some combination of the four.
None of those four reasons are characteristics I’m seeking in a President. If you can't see the overwhelming evidence of evolution then I can't trust you to see the truth in anything less clear cut when the time comes. If you think the jury’s still out on evolution then this judge says the verdict on your qualifications as President is clear. You’ll never get my vote.
