The New Yorker: The Revenge of Rand Paul

[Matt Collins]

I really liked reading about Rand Paul's love for debate from th time he was young. The part about evolution makes me hopeful that he is not another anti-science extremist.

He is a medical doctor who does eye surgery. Do you think he is "anti science"???

 

[Natural Citizen]

In the next few months, he is planning to deliver a major speech on foreign policy; like race, it is an area in which Paul has encountered strident opposition.

More:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/revenge-rand-paul

Foreign policy is a very broad subject. Will have to wait and see if junior demonstrates competence with regard to the subject. Foreign policy isn't just about war in the middle east and the terrorism that comes with it. It just isn't. Not by a long shot. As well, isolationism isn't limited to combat or military endeavors. Economically, we're isolating ourselves from a large fraction of the world's nations at the moment. One would almost want to flirt with the notion that this is intentional. Of course, we'd want to place scrutiny on those with whom political advisory roles are held. Sadly, the former is what too many understand foreign policy to be and relegate themselves to a very shallow position on the subject. Of course, many elected and prospective electees enjoy a comfort zone such as this simply because they never have to demonstrate a broader understanding. They simply aren't asked broader questions with regard to foreign policy. Media plays a role in that but it is what it is. A kind of cultural cluster fudge.

The use of such language as "strident opposition" is rather misleading if he chooses to discuss the topic from within the mainstream, cultural narrative that is so rampant as a result of inadequate, perhaps malfeasant, models within contemporary media. I suspect that if he did then any opposition would be consistent with the elementary nature of that which they presumably would oppose.

 

[givemeliberty2010]

He is a medical doctor who does eye surgery. Do you think he is "anti science"???

I never had any reason to suspect him personally, but I am always cautious about people with Tea Party connections. Medical doctors are not immune; they can be anti-evolution, as well. Also, I believe that Rand Paul's father has expressed skepticism about evolution, so it wasn't a given (and it's still not) that he wouldn't express embarrassingly unscientific views.

 

[FriedChicken]

I never had any reason to suspect him personally, but I am always cautious about people with Tea Party connections. Medical doctors are not immune; they can be anti-evolution, as well. Also, I believe that Rand Paul's father has expressed skepticism about evolution, so it wasn't a given (and it's still not) that he wouldn't express embarrassingly unscientific views.

Ron and Rand are both evolutionists. However, if that is your litmus test for being pro or anti science you're an idiot.
Some of the greatest advocates for science in our history went against the mainstream scientific thought - so "going with the flow" being in your criteria is absurd.

If you're confident in the going ons 73mil years ago you're making quite a few non-scientific assumptions. As science is largely observation ... and there wasn't anyone around to observe it.

Whatever, I'm not going to derail the thread on this. I just can't stand people with their nose in the air with the audacity to say that anyone who questions popular scientific theories is "anti-science".

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'd prefer to show more concern for junior's position on applied sciences. Fracking. Gmos. That kind of thing. Some other stuff that is equally relative to geo-politics. Too often we see representatives both elected as well as prospective discuss the market/industry narrative with regard to these sciences/technologies/industries. Very seldom, if ever, do we hear them provide a position on the applicable science itself. If ever.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Technically/stylistically, the illustration is A+

It's the scowling/frowning that ruins it.

Here's a quickie cheap graphics fix, with smiles on Rand and Ron:

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ron and Rand are both evolutionists. However, if that is your litmus test for being pro or anti science you're an idiot.
Some of the greatest advocates for science in our history went against the mainstream scientific thought - so "going with the flow" being in your criteria is absurd.

If you're confident in the going ons 73mil years ago you're making quite a few non-scientific assumptions. As science is largely observation ... and there wasn't anyone around to observe it.

Whatever, I'm not going to derail the thread on this. I just can't stand people with their nose in the air with the audacity to say that anyone who questions popular scientific theories is "anti-science".

Not to mention that evolution vs creation has exactly zero to do with policy. That's like saying "I like everything he stands for but I can't vote for him because he buys the wrong brand of socks."

 

[LawnWake]

Having a small-government, tea party conservative who supports free markets and isn't anti-evolution is great. It opens up the party and the various free market ideologies to more (younger) people. The way Republicans have generally promoted the party as being anti-intellectual (viewing intellectualism as high brow, East coast liberal elitism -- many Republicans liked Bush cuz he came across as someone they could have a beer with and didn't project intellectual prowess) is almost suicidal to the right wing. Especially with an increasingly more educated populace. If you want libertarianism or classical liberalism to stand any chance and gaining more traction in the future, you would need to embrace intelletcualism. The right used to have a fairly strong intellectual tradition (come on, Hayek? Von Mises?), we would be wise to revive it and embrace it.

I'm all for questioning the scientific consensus when it's founded. But the thing with anti-evolutionism is that none of the arguments that were ever used to support it have ever been good, informed or scientific. Is there a chance that someone can ever come up with a good critique of evolution? Sure, but the odds are so abysmally small that if Rand were to be anti-evolution, then the odds would be so abysmally high that he's spouting nonsense, that's fairly safe to assume he would be full of crap.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Having a small-government, tea party conservative who supports free markets and isn't anti-evolution is great. It opens up the party and the various free market ideologies to more (younger) people. The way Republicans have generally promoted the party as being anti-intellectual (viewing intellectualism as high brow, East coast liberal elitism -- many Republicans liked Bush cuz he came across as someone they could have a beer with and didn't project intellectual prowess) is almost suicidal to the right wing. Especially with an increasingly more educated populace. If you want libertarianism or classical liberalism to stand any chance and gaining more traction in the future, you would need to embrace intelletcualism. The right used to have a fairly strong intellectual tradition (come on, Hayek? Von Mises?), we would be wise to revive it and embrace it.

I'm all for questioning the scientific consensus when it's founded. But the thing with anti-evolutionism is that none of the arguments that were ever used to support it have ever been good, informed or scientific. Is there a chance that someone can ever come up with a good critique of evolution? Sure, but the odds are so abysmally small that if Rand were to be anti-evolution, then the odds would be so abysmally high that he's spouting nonsense, that's fairly safe to assume he would be full of crap.

If young people seriously decide whether or not to vote for someone based on whether they believe in evolution over creation, then those young people should sit out elections until they grow a little wisdom. Evolution vs creation means literally nothing to government policy. Are they also going to vote based on whether a candidate prefers Adidas over Nike?

 

[LawnWake]

If young people seriously decide whether or not to vote for someone based on whether they believe in evolution over creation, then those young people should sit out elections until they grow a little wisdom. Evolution vs creation means literally nothing to government policy. Are they also going to vote based on whether a candidate prefers Adidas over Nike?

Many of those people want someone they consider an educated, capable and rational person in charge and are thus rather skeptical of someone who finds a literal interpretation of Genesis a rational explanation for why we're here. So they'll wonder "if they're irrational about evolution, what else are they irrational about?" which could translate to irrational policy. I don't entirely agree with that, I would only vote according to the candidate's adherence to the non-aggression principle, but I can empathize with the position.

You could say that they should sit out out elections, but they don't. So it doesn't really matter what you or I think. Having Rand Paul make pro-evolution statements is a good thing and opens up the party as a whole to a wider audience. Besides, it's still a step-up from the modern Republican tradition of voting based on "how much is the candidate like my average-in-every-way neighbor?"

 

[givemeliberty2010]

My position is similar to what LawnWake said. People should always question the scientific consensus, but they should have good arguments when they do so. The anti-evolution arguments I have seen are stark raving mad, so people would look silly if they cite any general controversy about evolution instead of citing specific arguments that are good (which don't exist).

Next, I'm not sure how this suggestion came up that I think anyone should place a special importance on evolution or science generally in making a voting decision. I am mostly just recognizing the reality that people don't want to vote for crazies. Whether the candidate continually burps and picks his or her nose during debates, or whether the candidate questions the Moon Landing or the earth's spherical shape, that candidate is going to be seriously hurting in the polls, and I don't want to waste my time on him or her.

But, for me personally, I think I would also have trouble campaigning for any such candidate )regardless of how I vote), so let's not even risk going there.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Next, I'm not sure how this suggestion came up that I think anyone should place a special importance on evolution or science generally in making a voting decision.

It is absolutely critical that people demand that prospective and sitting representatives provide a position on applicable sciences as well as science as a whole. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination or evolution. Although this political theme is too often brought up in a manner that dissuades any discussion on the idea of asking these people what their positions are on science itself. It's what we call running interference. Or hijacking the terms of controversy. I find it to be truly underhanded and just plain ignorant that every time anyone brings up science it automatically has to be discussed in terms of evolution and that whole meme just because someone comes along and interjects with it.

And then what happens is we get science and technology as a whole lumped in with dogma and squabbles between those things and then comes the old....yeah, let's not worry about science gag...oh, no..we don't need to ask about that.

These people who will and are leading us will lead in the technological and scientific age. And so it's rather important for them to provide a position on these applicable sciences and technologies given that reality. To continue to just hand them the luxury of not having to do that by choosing to not ask these kinds of questions is insane.

Science and technolgy does and will continue to impact legislation. It is the age in which we live. And so, I, for one, want to know how these prospects will lead given this. The only way to know is to ask for their position on these. Why on Earth should we not do that?

Of course, Im not directing this to you personally. It's just that your line of thought reminded me of the phenomenon.

So if anyone has a legitimate reason why we shouldn't be demanding a position on science from these people I'll be in the neighborhood. Hit me up...

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't mind the image. Its a pretty good resemblance for a stylized cartoon portrait. Way better than National Review's caricature of Ron.

They gave Ron Paul fangs.

 

[givemeliberty2010]

It is absolutely critical that people demand that prospective and sitting representatives provide a position on applicable sciences as well as science as a whole. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination or evolution. Although this political theme is too often brought up in a manner that dissuades any discussion on the idea of asking these people what their positions are on science itself. It's what we call running interference. Or hijacking the terms of controversy. I find it to be truly underhanded and just plain ignorant that every time anyone brings up science it automatically has to be discussed in terms of evolution and that whole meme just because someone comes along and interjects with it.

And then what happens is we get science and technology as a whole lumped in with dogma and squabbles between those things and then comes the old....yeah, let's not worry about science gag...oh, no..we don't need to ask about that.

These people who will and are leading us will lead in the technological and scientific age. And so it's rather important for them to provide a position on these applicable sciences and technologies given that reality. To continue to just hand them the luxury of not having to do that by choosing to not ask these kinds of questions is insane.

Science and technolgy does and will continue to impact legislation. It is the age in which we live. And so, I, for one, want to know how these prospects will lead given this. The only way to know is to ask for their position on these. Why on Earth should we not do that?

Of course, Im not directing this to you personally. It's just that your line of thought reminded me of the phenomenon.

So if anyone has a legitimate reason why we shouldn't be demanding a position on science from these people I'll be in the neighborhood. Hit me up...

I agree with you about the importance of applied science to policy, although I do not know if evolution in particular impacts policy much. I don't mean to suggest science in general is unimportant. That's all the more reason that candidates should at least show some credibility in the area of science.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I agree with you about the importance of applied science to policy, although I do not know if evolution in particular impacts policy much. I don't mean to suggest science in general is unimportant. That's all the more reason that candidates should at least show some credibility in the area of science.

Yes, I know that you weren't suggesting that. It's why I said that I wasn't directing the spew to you specifically. It was just a general thing that I thought was important to say.