This might just be the biggest understatment of the campaign season:
There’s also a palatable hunger in the scientific community for a government that bases its policies on science, after years of decisions from the Bush Administration
Perhaps this is one facet of the only positive social influence to emerge from the disastrous injury that Republican leadership has inflicted on the United States over the past 20 years. George Bush’s willful disregard for consensus reality has inspired a new generation of Americans to take political action. After years of inactivity characterized by a disdain for politics, even ivory-tower scientists are now clamoring for their voices to be heard.
The Businessweek article above deserves some credit for not headlining the popular narrative that there is an inherent conflict between science and religion. After all, that’s not what this is about- everyone, including religious funamentalists, has a right to demand that government represent their interests. The folks behind Science Debate 2008 aren’t trying to suppress religion or discourage speech. But the fact is that we are witnessing a campaign where over 50% of people in a recent Wall Street Journal poll stated that they would not vote for Willard “Mittens” Romney solely because his religious beliefs suggested that he is incapable of rational thought. Maybe, just maybe, the American people are ready for a leader who is willing to acknowledge problems and then try to fix them, instead of someone who acts like the only plan he needs is a firm belief that God (or Daddy) will bail him out when he screws up.
It is long past time for us to have a more concrete basis for selecting the leader of the free world than a subjective feeling about whether or not your Jesus can beat up his Jesus.