Right v. Left

I grew up a Southern Baptist conservative. My first presidential vote was for Reagan. Then I voted Libertarian for a couple of cycles. I voted for Ross Perot when he ran, though in hindsight that was probably a bad idea. Then Nader. I voted for Obama twice because his sense of idealism resonated with me. (Had the 2008 race been McCain v Hillary I probably would have voted for McCain.) I voted for Hillary this last cycle only because it was the closest thing to an Obama 3rd term. lol. And of course because I thought Trump would be an unmitigated disaster, which he is proving to be. My political views are civil libertarian, socially liberal, and fiscally moderate. I believe that the free market works, but it has no soul, so government can and must intervene to regulate where it is needed, and to provide help for our citizens who need it. I think government when it is serving the public interest is a force for good, but government can also become an unchecked cancer on the body politic. I believe it is human nature to be self-serving, but that the modern, humanistic, Age of Reason world has given rise to a sense of social justice and empathy that we must not let die because it makes us a better species. I believe in science, the scientific method, and empirical evidence, and anyone who denies these forces is standing against Nature and Reason. I believe the axiom that an eagle requires both a left wing and a right wing to fly. I also believe in the saying “Conservatives draw lines that should never be crossed. Liberals erase lines that should never have been drawn.” I believe there is value in both the left and right, and the tension between them is necessary and productive. The public interest and the private interest are equally valid concerns, and the sacrifice of one to the other can only produce instability and poor results.


Ignorance as virtue

I came upon a blog post by Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer about an unfortunate comment by aspiring presidential candidate Marco Rubio.

Rubio is a rising star in the Tea-Republican Party, a self-made son of Cuban immigrants who fled from Fidel Castro’s regime (oh wait, no they didn’t; he made that up) for a better life in America.  There is a whiff of a birther conspiracy because Rubio’s parents were not naturalized until after he was born.  I doubt it will amount to much unless he actually gets close to the brass ring of a nomination, and then it will first be used by one of his Republican rivals.

But my focus is not on his credentials, but on his character.  He is clearly unwilling to contradict TP dogma about creationism, and it is equally clear that he is smart and knows both the scientific (i.e. correct) answer and the Biblical literalist answer.  This is sad on so many levels.

There is a political party with significant influence over the GOP that denies the reality of science.  They have taken the concept of faith and turned it into a virtue of ignorance.  And they are lifting up as one of their standard bearers a man who lacks the strength of his convictions to either embrace or to reject their dogma.

And thus you have the spectacle of an educated man who understands the issue but is unwilling to face it, a man who furthermore is being embraced and uplifted by a constituency that he may (or may not!) agree with, and a man who has no problems accepting their approbations and donations and votes even as he dodges one of their pet issues.  In other words, he is using the TP and the conservative Cuban zeitgeist of Florida as a boost to political power.

One wonders if Marco Rubio actually, honestly, believes in anything except the need to dodge direct answers to direct questions.