OK, we all know you’re not a scientist. You might even be a college drop-out. You might have personal beliefs that are a little wacky. But when you’re running for office, any office, even the presidency, it is understood that you’re not going to micromanage every single detail, and one of the things we’re going to expect of you is that you’ll delegate responsibilities to qualified, intelligent underlings.
So when you’re asked a question like “Do you believe in evolution,” there is a good answer and a bad answer.
The good answer is, “I accept the explanations of qualified scientists, who will be advising me on this matter.”
The bad answer is, “I’m going to punt on that one as well. That’s a question a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.“
That last sentence is wrong. Politicians are involved in setting educational policy, and may be involved in setting research priorities, or at least funding research. What I want to hear from a politician is that they’re going to get good advice on those subjects before they make decisions.
Of course, another thing I want to hear from a politician is that they’re not Scott Walker.
Punting: Ah! A Spring day, a leisurely trip down the Cam, maybe some bubbly…. What could be better…Um…what was the question?
And of course, it’s not even good pandering; he’s not going to make anyone happy with that. I don’t think he cares much that liberals will make fun of him for this, but the fundagelical base won’t be too impressed that he didn’t stand up for Real Christian Values (TM) either.
Sure, but fundagelicals won’t budge. Besides, this seems like enough for any backhanded maneuvering/posturing/apologetics that they’d like, since adhering to “values” never really had a fucking thing to do with it anyway.
To me, it’s fairly transparent that he’s pandering to the confused zero-information people who are feeble of thinking, yet believe they have a reason to vote about their non-issues. They are bizarrely labeled to be in “the middle” of some kind of a spectrum. You might have heard that politicians often fight over their votes, to everyone’s dismay.
Of course, deciding on when life begins or whether one should vaccinate their children, well, that’s totally something politicians should stick their noses into, scientists that they are.
@consciousness razor in #3:
Maybe that might appeal to some self-styled centrists, but he needs to survive the Republican primaries first, where the crazies have far more influence. And they have plenty of alternatives, with more Republican presidential hopefuls being announced every other week, it seems.
Scott Walker punts on all difficult issues, it’s the backbone of his campaign strategy:
Favor a minimum wage increase? I don’t want to talk about that, I want everyone to make more than the minimum.
Favor welfare? I want a world where no one is on welfare.
Should abortion be legal? I want a world where fewer women want abortions.
All he’s done is take Paul Ryan’s mantra of “its too complicated to explain” and jazzed it up a bit. Wisconsin: The Facile State
I remember back in 2009 Canada’s Science Minister, Gary Goodyear, was asked whether he believed in evolution. Here was his answer.
“I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.”
-Gary Goodyear
Coming from the Minister of Defense or Minister of Finance would be embarrassing enough, but the Minister of State for Science & Technology? That’s Harper for ya. Appoint the dumbest and least qualified for the job. I can’t wait for the election. If the Cons get another majority, I’m moving to Scandinavia.
In the GOP there are only religious kooks, or religious kook panderers. There are no others. I will leave it somebody else to decide which are which. IMHO, they are all the same.
Maybe Republicans should stop going to the United Kingdom.
Mitt Romney went there and forgot the names of the people he was talking to. “Mr. Leader” is not a good substitute. He criticized their preparations for the Olympics. He came off as both offensive and stupid.
Bobby Jindal tried to raise his foreign policy profile (got to get ready for his presidential run), but he flubbed that by criticizing mythical “no-go zones” like Birmingham (not even majority Muslim, let alone a no-go zone). Jindal got his talking points from U.S. rightwing media reports that had already been debunked. One debunking even include the Prime Minister throwing shade at Fox News.
Chris Christie regaled residents of the United Kingdom with stupid comments about vaccines.
Scott Walker flew into the United Kingdom prepared to be worshipped. Didn’t quite work out that way. The U.K. reporter who asked the question about evolution was so flabbergasted by Walker’s answer that he said, “Really?” and then followed up telling Walker that any U.K. politician would have answered that of course he believed in evolution.
The conclusion is that in the Who Is the Most Stupid sweepstakes, the USA rightwing wins.
eveningchaos, I hear ya, but I’m not moving anywhere. I’m staying right here to help get those sick bastards out of office and to help return Canada to some semblance of compassion, intelligence and progressive that we used to be famous for.
*progressive-ness. Bah.
Scott Walker is now trying to backtrack on his “punt,” and he is making things worse. He tweeted: “Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.”
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/02/11/walker-steps-back-from-evolution-punt/
Walker, the correct answer (to “Do you believe in Evolution”) is, “No, ‘believe in’ is the wrong phrase to use in ant question about Science. Simply ask, ‘Is evolution a verified theory, or not?’ then I’ll tell you. ‘Believe in’ refers to fairytales, and cannot be used with respect to Science. Re phrase your question into something more sensible.”
…. errrrr so on….
One does NOT “believe in” facts. Does Walker believe in Gravity? rhetorical question, yup,
There’s a better answer, that’s both more accurate and allows the politician to later waffle in private:
It doesn’t matter what I believe in. Evolution just is, and my level of belief doesn’t affect it at all. Next question?
Er, do you believe in gravity?
Electromagnetism?
Plate techtonics?
Thunder that is not caused by angry sky giants stomping around?
Germ theory? (Oops!)
The Intersecting Perpendicular Line Theorem?
Hopefully the UK media starts calling Walker a punter.
I am getting very tired of that meme. I suggest you spend less time commenting on Teh Interwebs and more time consulting a dictionary. To believe something is to hold it to be true. Damn straight I believe in evolution, and gravity, etc. The questions should be about why you believe, and whether your beliefs are justified.
I suggest you save the time you were going to sink into coming up with a caustic response to me, and instead spend it actually looking into a dictionary.
@Lynna #9:
No, please, don’t stop them coming here! It can get really dismal here in winter, especially when we know that once it warms up a bit it’s just going to rain for three months. We need the amusement value! We need someone against whom we can assert our natural superiority!
Although, on the other hand, Republican politicians are so fuckwitted they make UKIP politicians look good in comparison. OK, only send the ones who can be used to goad the kippers into making yet another monumental blunder. I’m sure you’ve got a few.
re 18:
sorry to repeat that “meme”, I just liked Neil deGrasse Tyson making that distinction between how he uses the word and the questioner’s use. I accept you assuming I need to read the dict. but let’s not play that game. I sincerely apologize for repeating that meme.
Punting. Where I grew up, punting was stupid way to kick a soccer ball that resulted in the ball flying off unpredictably, and the punter having broken toes. (Alternatively, it had something to do with gambling, presumably because it’s a relatively apt analogy, what with the direction your money goes, and the injury to your bank account?)
I can’t decide if I don’t understand the use in this context, or not.
@21 “Punting” in this context means giving up, not even attempting success. It refers to a play in football where the offensive team could attempt a play to maintain possession of the ball, but instead kicks it to the opposition.
I watched the clip in the hope he would sing Jackie :(
Is that American Football scienceavenger?
Because in that case he also did the common thing of assuming that all slang everywhere is American. While in the UK.
‘Punt’ is also British slang for making a wager, or, when used metaphorically, making a somewhat wild attempt at something, or taking an almost (but not quite) completely uninformed guess.
To believe something is not the same as to believe in something.
Another way to phrase the same (I think) distinction, which I find more attractive because I like grammatical parallelisms, is: “To believe that sth. is not the same as to believe in sth.”