Posted on 02/13/2015 8:35:02 AM PST by Kaslin
At an event in London on trade policy, Scott Walker was asked about evolution. "It's almost a tradition now," the moderator said, to ask "senior Republicans" if they are "comfortable with the idea of evolution."
"I'm going to punt on that one as well," the Wisconsin governor replied. "That's a question a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or another."
It wasn't a great answer, though there have been worse ones.
But it was also a bad question, even though it's a favorite among liberal journalists in the U.S., and apparently across the pond, too.
That's not to say Walker is wrong. It's a pretty stupid issue to get worked up about when considering a presidential candidate. The number of public policies that hinge on whether you believe in evolution -- or which theory of evolution you subscribe to -- are few to none. A creationist can be brilliant on economics and foreign affairs, while a secular humanist atheist can be an addlepated nimrod on the same subjects.
That's because the evolution question really isn't about evolution at all. On the surface, it's about the culture war. To borrow a phrase from the campus left, Darwinism is used to "otherize" certain people of traditional faith -- and the politicians who want their vote. Many of the same people who bleat with fear over the dangers of genetically modified food, fracking, vaccines or nuclear power and coo with childlike awe over the benefits of non-traditional medicines will nonetheless tell you they are for "science" when in fact they are simply against a certain kind of Christian having any say about anything.
As my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson notes, "Everybody wants to know what Scott Walker and Sarah Palin think about evolution, but almost nobody is asking what Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama think about homeopathy, acupuncture, aromatherapy and the like." Even though such remedies have been given elevated legitimacy under the Affordable Care Act.
Presidents have become avatars in the culture war being fought across the Internet and the airwaves, and nothing gives secular liberal journalists more of a buzz than exposing the alleged backwardness of those they consider backward. It's a cultural wedge issue used by the very people who claim they hate cultural wedge issues.
Beneath the surface, the salience of evolution as a political football is ultimately about the status of man. Are humans moral creatures whose actions are judged by some external or divine standard, or are we simply accidental winners of an utterly random contest of genes? If it's the latter, does that mean we are only answerable to whatever ethical standards we invent for ourselves? Few people argue about astrophysics in the same way, even though it's as problematic a subject for biblical literalists as evolutionary biology, because astrophysics really doesn't touch on the question, Who (or What or Why) Are We?
When Barack Obama was asked when life begins, he responded that such questions are above his pay grade, even though a president is in fact paid to make myriad decisions which hinge on precisely that question. But liberal politicians are allowed such dodges precisely because liberal journalists know what the politician really believes. Indeed, as a state legislator, Obama fought against a law that would have offered protections to babies accidentally born alive after an attempted abortion. That may not tell you where Obama thinks life begins, but it does tell you where Obama thinks it doesn't.
Heck, we now know that Obama lied about opposing gay marriage on religious grounds, or at least that's what David Axelrod, his most trusted aide, says in his new book. Obama is forgiven by his admirers in the press and elsewhere on the left because they never believed that he opposed gay marriage in the first place and understood that he had to say he did to get elected. Noble lies for me, cynicism for thee.
Politicians have to deal with the press and the electorate as it is, and that means they have to answer bad-faith questions about their faith. Whether they lie is ultimately up to them. Whether they get away with it is up to the rest of us.
Still, I'd rather get the full truth. If you think evolution is wrong or flawed, I'm keen on hearing your arguments. "Punting" simply sounds like you're afraid to answer, which amounts to the answer the questioner was looking for. My own answer would be something like: "Not that it much matters for the job I'm seeking, but I think the evidence shows that all life evolves. Why is there life, and what are we supposed to do with it? Only God knows."
Libs don’t get these questions because of the ease with which they lie:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/politics/07clinton-text.html?pagewanted=print
[Hillary:]...I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life.
Q: I read an interview that you gave in ’92 to the United Methodist News Service. You mentioned in there that you carried a little Bible with you — new testament, psalms, proverbs — on the trail in ’92. I wondered, do you still have that? Are you carrying that with you, do you really carry that with you on the trail today?
Senator Clinton: I do. It’s not the same version. But I still carry it...
I laid out why I thought Walker’s answer was good.
You sidestepped answering the question I asked, which was will Cruz be able to give as good answer.
Here’ why I wanted your ideas; Cruz is a great orator, but my impression is that he won’t be able to constrain himself to give an answer to such a baited question that his answer will make it go away.
Instead, I think he is going to answer it with an answer that will stir up a hornets nest, one he no longer has control of, and which will dog him (unfairly) for weeks or months.
We’ll see I guess, he is almost certainly going to be asked it, or something similar.
The article dealt with that, accusing Obama of cynicism and an expedient lie that the symp-press let him get away with because they knew the real answer.
Are there any examples of Cruz slipping up on questions because he doesn’t handle the language very well?
If there are any, I’m not aware of them.
I’m not sure what your point is.
It was a response to your statement:
“my impression is that he won’t be able to constrain himself to give an answer”
I think he will give a very impassioned, well worded answer.
He will confirm the questionairs darkest fears, Cruz does not believe in evolution (I think).
From there the story will explode onto the front pages, and Cruz will have to deal with the ‘fallout’ for weeks if not months.
Unlike Walker.
I'm okay with Cruz fighting to the death over a question because he's so good at it. He beats the media and the frightened “conservatives”.I think we have room for confident conservatives to speak out. Young people like rebellion.
Conservatives can have more than one style. Cruz is good at what he does. Let him do it.
When the media and elite Republicans accuse him of failure, laugh in their face and tell them to shut up.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to ping you to that post, I already had your answer.
Which I agree with BTW.
I was interested in hearing from those who have stated they won’t vote for walker.
I think Cruz is smart enough to see bigger than the initial appearance of “check yes or no” on this question. There are multiple ways to answer the question without being trapped.
That was my question.
I don’t think there are any ways to answer and avoid the trap, but we will see, because he will be asked that question, or similar questions.
How about this one:
“The underlying, implied question is bigger than evolution. The underlying question is whether or not God exists. Some academics have misled the public with the suggestion that evolution disproves God. But this is not a logical conclusion. Because if God exists, then any mechanism of life—including how animal species come to exist—is possible within the realm of God’s power. In other words, the polarized, politicized evolution question is a sort of straw man established by those with little faith in the durability of their own ideology. Ultimately, they’ll be the ones hiding in political fear from the question of divine existence.
Personally I have a very strong faith in the Creator God. And I know that God is the source of all liberty. As President of the United States, I intend to do my best to ensure that all American citizens have the same access to our Constitutional system of liberty.”
Ill agree with you, that would be a good answer.
I’m going to think of what the attempted belittlement from the Leftists might be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.