learnedax | (no subject)

So I've seen quite a number of impassioned mentions of Bush 'endorsing' intelligent design, both on my friends list and in articles like this, this, and even this. Now, I am no fan of Bush or his administration, but I almost side with them here - in as much as he didn't actually endorse it. If you look at the transcript, you will see that the pointed question-and-answer goes like this:

Q: So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

A: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

So a reporter backs him into a corner, and not only does he try to say as little about the issue as possible, pulling the old change-the-question gambit, he almost slips up and comes out against ID. So, yeah, he is a typical politician, so he's trying not to raise the right's hackles, but he tried his best to avoid supporting it either. And yet, the reporter who put him on the spot gets to run the headline that he supports ID, and every liberal in the world repeats with morbid glee that he's an insane, despicable enemy of science. The system contrives to invent repugnance even when its worst offender backs off, and the ultimate result is the same. It's no surprise that our political machines will churn on regardless, but it's sad that we are so throughly drawn into repeating what our opponents want to be true.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

goldsquare points out, you're leaving out a very important point.

In that interview, Bush admitted that as governor of Texas he felt that "both sides should be properly taught". So in the past, he admits to being for teaching it in public schools.

He was also an advocate for it being decided on a State level. When he goes and changes the question on the interviewer, he seems to be serving two purposes:

1)Not stomping on State's rights - It isn't that he's coming close to be aginst ID. He's avoiding stating a desire for a federal mandate of curriculum specifics. Education is legally and traditionally a State power, and the feds have limited rights to influence it.

2)Avoiding giving a straight-up answer. Politicians have become used to dodging questions. He now may have some claim on plausible deniability, "I didn't say that".

The first I can accept, and even respect. The second, I have gotten far too tired of accepting. His past position is known and admitted. When asked his current position, he refuses to refute the prior one. He tries to dodge by changing the question, but with "people ought to be exposed to different ideas" the strong implication is that he's still for it.

If he'd simply said, "Curriculum is a State issue, and as a Federal administrator, it isn't my concern," I'd have been happy with Bush for once. But no, he wasn't satisfied with having no comment. If he goes out of his way to put the implication there, I will hold it against him, just as supporters of ID will hold it for him.

Let me be clear - I have absolutely nothing against teaching ID in school, in the proper context of a philosophy or social sciences class, along with any number of other beliefs. But, ID is not science, and the only place it has in a science curriculum is as an example of how not to do science. Mine is not the reaction of a liberal, it is the reaction of someone trained in science education.

1) He already stated above that he said (as governor) that it should be decided on a local level. The cut-off clause "I'm not suggesting -" is not the beginning of something overriding states' rights.

2) Politicians dodge questions they don't want to answer. They will try to avoid a statement more sweeping than their topic (or rather, most politicians who aren't Bush will, since he has shown little regard for this in the past), but if you hand them a topic they actually want to speak on, they will be more than happy to answer your actual question, rather than invent their own. It's not a brain stem reflex, as you paint it to be.

In short, yes, he's trying to say No Comment. He can't say No Comment, or even as you propose 'it isn't my concern', because flatly refusing to discuss an issue has its own implications, and they probably would have pursued an answer anyway. It's not your job, but you must have an opinion, right? Oh, you don't want to reveal your opinion? Well, we have quotes of you being for it from when you were governor; have you changed your mind?

And then he's stuck again. So, basically, the news here is that he is an insufficiently eloquent speaker to avoid coming down on one side or the other.

Anyway, the damage is done now...