“Consistency is the last resort of the unimaginative.”
-- Oscar Wilde

“Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead.”
-- Aldous Huxley

My recent column entitled “It’s Over: Palin Hands Election to Obama” attempted to show not only that Ms. Palin lacked basic knowledge of foreign affairs, but that she had an incurious and dogmatic temperament ill-suited to success in foreign affairs. We have just spent eight years riding out the presidency of a singularly incurious and dogmatic man. In her revealing interview with ABC’s Charles Gibson this past Thursday and Friday, Ms. Palin exhibited the same cocksure reactions to complex policy questions that got us into trouble under Mr. Bush.

As my writing for Monk, Frommers and Playboy shows, I am open to a wide and eccentric range of opinions. But when it comes to selecting the person who will be the caretaker or caretaker-in-training of this noble experiment called America, I look for the ability to “contain multitudes,” as Walt Whitman aptly wrote in “Song of Myself.” And when I encounter a candidate’s blithe, cheery, adamantine belief in things that are not born out by facts, I feel a patriotic duty to point them out.

I admire Sarah Palin. Any woman who courageously and consciously births a special needs child, while remaining governor of a state larger than most European countries, is worthy of respect. She is driven, confident, attractive, and seems genuinely committed to some degree of governmental reform. Nevertheless, she did accept earmarks for Alaska, just less of them. She supported “The Bridge to Nowhere” before she opposed it. And she’s not above a little payback (as “Troopergate” will perhaps reveal). She would not have been my first pick for McCain’s VP. But as I’ve noted previously on CFR, she’s been strategically effective, rallying the formerly diffident GOP base to maverick John’s side.

But, you know what, I don’t pick candidates on the basis of their drive, beauty, and character. Politics is a dirty business. I expect politicians to compromise in the interest of getting policy sausage made. And I am not nearly as troubled, as some purists, by large campaign donations (two million small donors can be just as tyrannical as a few large ones), and lobbyists (those “special interest” bogeymen skewered by both camps, but without whom they could not effectively govern). The bottom line is this: if the resulting policy is 85% beneficial to the public good, I don’t mind a little sales commissioning along the way.

In a representative democracy, sales agents are critical. Legislative bills don’t sell themselves any more than Monk Media’s design, content and marketing services sell themselves. In the free marketplace of ideas, there must be agents who help clients articulate their questions and thereby determine if there is a good fit between their needs and the agent’s services. At Monk Media (www.monk.com), that person is me. For clients seeking access to Nebraska state legislators, that person is my lobbyist friend John Lindsay. For clients seeking access to international markets, that person is my former high school debate partner Jim O’Brien.

What bothers me, and should bother you, is a candidate without critical thinking skills. That is a dangerous politician because he or she IS susceptible to unscrupulous influence. If you are not a genuine seeker of truth, you do not belong in a profession that so directly affects the commonweal. Tragically, in our day, we often give airtime to politicians who are singularly incurious. We praise candidates who are fixed, who “stick by their guns” in the face of countervailing evidence, who are always and everywhere “consistent.” Ronald Reagan was such a politician. The right canonized him for his consistency, even though it’s now clear that the Soviet Union did not fall solely, or even primarily, because Reagan literally stuck to his guns, but because the price of oil dropped precipitously due to American domestic energy efforts, among other factors. Simply put, when the price of oil dropped to historic lows, the Soviet Union could not afford its overextended empire. And when Reagan subsequently gave the push, the USSR fell.

The false belief that a huge buildup in defense directly “caused” the collapse of the Soviet Union is one reason for the huge deficit this country now faces. We don’t need this bulky, inefficient military to remain safe from asymmetrical terror. But because old ideas die hard, we hang onto our beefy defense apparatus, even when our dollar is plummeting and economy wobbly in no small part BECAUSE of such grotesque overspending.

False beliefs have real consequences. The strongly held gut-level belief that Saddam Hussein was developing or had the INTENT to develop weapons of mass destruction IMMINENTLY aimed at the U.S. and our allies – beliefs all found to be EMPIRICALLY false by several independent commissions – was the primary justification for the current Iraq War. Had we the critical thinking skills as a people to automatically distrust anyone who made overarching claims without a preponderance of empirically supportive evidence (instead of the bogus anecdotal falsehoods the cowardly Colin Powell disgustingly paraded before the UN and for which he should be upbraided in perpetuity), no Congressperson would have voted to authorize the Iraq War. Why? Because a critically thinking populace would not have allowed national security decisions of such magnitude to be based on “gut,” “faith,” “belief,” “inference,” “ideology,” “past intentions,” or “anecdote,” instead of on hard-won demonstrable proof. Not “the mushroom cloud” kind of proof that Condi Rice and others criminally scared vulnerable minds with, but objectively verified proof by non-partisan independent observers (in other words, the humble Swedish hero Hans Blix and his unjustly maligned team of international inspectors).

I will not, and you, as men and women who strive to the highest possible level of critical thinking, SHOULD NOT, allow anyone to be elected president or vice-president of this nation who believes in poppycock. If I allow even one strand of poppycock to go unchallenged, I am then giving a green light to exceptions, to gut-level instinct, to radical inferences, to junk science, to the kind of thinking that brought us the Iraq War. Don’t get me wrong: I was 50-50 on that war. It was not my top priority post- 9/11 (it was probably 25th on my list, long after item #2: Becoming Energy Independent), but I brought myself, kicking and screaming, to the tenuous notion (helped along by deliberately misleading and un-vetted “intelligence”) that if we just do the Iraq job quickly and cleanly, it will be worth it. Out of intellectual lassitude, I allowed myself to be convinced that the Iraq War was a necessary extension of a broader effort, begun in Afghanistan, to bring democracy to the breeding grounds of jihad. Though the war has taken many wrong turns, long-term it still may be worth the blood and treasure it has exacted (the jury will be out on that question for decades). And, yes, I still believe we must withdraw properly, gradually, with dignity and a modem of political success. Our mistakes going in do not justify mistakes in getting out.

But looking back at what transpired in the lead-up to the Iraq War – the lies, distortions, and cover-ups – I have only myself to blame for how it was sold and how it was at first conducted. I should have researched George W. Bush a lot harder. I should have shown to the world why a leader’s belief in seemingly harmless nostrums can lead to disastrous policies when the messianic assumptions behind such nostrums are extrapolated to the world stage. I should also have been wary of the gruff, no-nonsense, and unwavering certainty of men like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, instead of cowed by it. I should have trusted MY critical thinking skills, which don’t lend themselves to easy sound bites, but just might lead to better policy. I won’t make that mistake this time.

George W. Bush and Sarah Palin share a strong belief in a widely discredited pseudo-scientific theory called Creationism (a.k.a. Intelligent Design, Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Gap Creationism, Progressive Creationism, and the deceptive Theistic Evolution). This is a preposterous fairy tale that posits that the world was created precisely and literally as it was “revealed” in Genesis I and II of the Hebrew Bible; or was at least launched and orchestrated by the Hebrew God. In the minds of Bush and Palin (and perhaps in the minds of closet Creationists like Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain and other theists) and in the minds of all Young Earth Creationists, any countervailing evidence, from, oh, the last 250 years of biological, geological, archaeological, and paleontological research, is superceded by or must be squared with Judeo-Christian teaching. Such a stubborn anti-scientifc belief makes a complete mockery of groundbreaking research on the Big Bang now underway at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), which will scientifically model the origins of our universe.

With a belief in unsupported, unverified Creationism, is it any wonder G. W. Bush dramatically decreased funding for pure scientific research, blocked research findings of government scientists on climate change, sanitized reports documenting the dangers of mercury, and doctored other reports to suggest that abortion substantially increased the risk of breast cancer (when no such proof was given)?

Bush's henchmen deleted from government HIV sites evidence that condoms and safe sex education dramatically reduced AIDS, and sought to politicize science at every level (by inserting right-wing ideologues as information gatekeepers to the tow president’s anti-intellectual, anti-scientific line every step of the way). Is it much of a leap from such scientific censorship to BELIEVING that you knew in your soul the intentions of Vladimir Putin or that you had a gut instinct that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected up with 9/11? Isn’t it palpably obvious by now that a president who harbors superstitious beliefs and unfounded hunches, and who clearly lacks the investigative cajones to question such nonsense, is utterly susceptible to all sorts of bogus, unsupported groupthink from his staff of advisors? And shouldn’t it be obvious by now that a president who believes such poppycock is bound to consider science his archenemy? For what is science but a clear and methodologically sound rebuke of poppycock in all its guises.

Look, I don’t mind what people privately believe in their quest for a “purpose-driven life.” If you think there was once a kingdom of Mu up in the canyons above Malibu, or that ET’s communicate through dolphins, so be it. If you think some hoary bearded figure in the sky magically sent his only begotten son to earth to save humanity from iniquity, go for it. If you think cows are sacred and should be allowed to roam city streets dumping cow patties wherever they please, or if you think every little microbe is so sacred that you must wear a net around your head and live only on air, have at it.

Even though I think religion, like any belief, should be forced to withstand the rigors of rational investigation (which is why deistic religions rarely stand up under scrutiny, and why non-deistic religions, such as Zen or Tibetan Buddhism, have the best hope of doing so, as recent University of Wisconsin research on the brains of Buddhist meditators shows), I don’t, as a rule, make a huge stink about un-verified or un-verifiable religious dogma. After all, even skeptic William James (in his “Varieties of Religious Experience”) discovered, in contradistinction to his predecessor Karl Marx (who arrogantly snubbed his nose at theology), that religion can serve a vital civilizing function, and can be a wonderful balm and moral guide in the samsaric lives of human beings.

But when religion and faith are pushed into the science classroom, and beyond that into public policy, I rise out of my pew in protest. I should have protested much more vehemently in 2000 that George W. Bush was a risky president PRECISELY because of his belief in theological poppycock, but I didn’t.

But because I didn’t in 2000 does not mean I will stand back in 2008. Friends, we CANNOT, we MUST not allow another person, whether man OR woman, whether white OR black, to become president or vice-president of this scientifically advanced nation if that person believes in utter bunk. I would no sooner elect a Creationist president, then I would elect some crackpot who believed that 9/11 was an “inside job” (which apparently a third of Americans believe, according to an August Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll), or that the government has covered up proof of space aliens or deliberately inflicted AIDS on the African- American community. A belief in Creationism, along with other poppycock (e.g., O.J. didn’t kill Nicole Brown Simpson or that a cruise missile, not an airplane, hit the Pentagon on 9/11) is propagated by people without critical thinking skills to an ill-trained public also lacking in critical thinking skills. Perhaps you all can now see why I devoted the last five years of my life to teaching critical thinking skills to inner city young men (see www.resolved.tv). These are the Barack Obamas of tomorrow. I will consider my life in vain if I did not do something to prevent this country’s slide towards intellectual death.

I do not even want to get into a debate on why Creationism in all its guises is complete nonsense. I think giving equal ground to utter lies and bunk insidiously validates them. As much as I support free speech, to give equal standing in policy discussions to palpable falsehoods actually reduces freedom of thought. If you can’t see that, or if you can’t perceive that dinosaurs did NOT roam the earth 10,000 years ago, or, if you are so mired in a conspiratorial paranoia that you cannot see that Islamic Jihadists were behind 9/11 (NOT the U.S. government), you are beyond my reasoned rejoinder. You are unreachable by informed reason itself.

And, to bring this argument full circle, THAT is precisely what Sarah Palin conveyed on Thursday night: a person beyond the reach of reason.

Friends, I am no fan of Barack Obama’s approach to governance. I do not believe that evidence and experience supports big government solutions to health, energy, and the environment. I think experience and evidence show that government’s proper function is to play the role of enlightened referee: setting boundaries for fair play, security, and sustainable development, so that the free market can works its magic as freely as possible. I think caring, critically aware and ambitious private citizens, acting alone or in freely chosen associations, do the most good over the long haul (and I have Alex De Tocqueville to back me up). I believe that when strong and capable individuals solve problems directly without waiting for top-down government approval or oversight, we all are better off for it. I think when individuals strive hard to put their own houses in order first, before meddling in the affairs of others, we are better off for it. I think we are better off when individuals and groups figure things out on their terms, using their language, based on their local mores, instead of ceding power to government functionaries, who’ve snaked their way into positions of power by making proud and self-willed individuals dependent on their Rasputin-like powers of influence (and ability to translate arcane and initiative-crushing bureaucratic babble).

I believe that when corporations learn to police themselves because it is the right thing to do, and because it will insure their long-term viability, we are better off for it. I think conservation and efficiency, at an individual and family level, is the real solution to our energy crisis. I think creative solutions like vegetable-powered cars will naturally arise from a bottom-up conservationist mindset. I think private finance will naturally gravitate to those energy-saving initiatives that show the most merit, if the government gets out of the business of picking energy favorites (whether wind, solar, ethanol or oil, coil, and natural gas) and, instead, focuses on protecting as much wilderness as possible from human intrusion, and setting mandatory benchmarks for pollution abatement and carbon imprints. But that can only happen when enlightened citizens demand it from the bottom up. On that point, Mr. Obama and I are in total agreement. We simply disagree on how best to achieve that goal.

I believe that individual and collective initiative, when grounded in critical thinking, is the key to a revitalized America. We all need to turn off the TV, start reading difficult and enlightening literature, get our news from sound primary sources instead of Internet charlatans, and quit obsessing about Britney, Oprah, Tom, and Madonna, and similar knuckleheads, and, instead, go out into the world and make a difference. That’s when real change happens, not when the government gets involved as a nanny and a scold.

I believe in time-honored American ideals of fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, real conservation, and genuine homeland security. On several of these points John McCain would be a better pick for President than Mr. Obama or others. And because Sarah Palin shares several of these goals, I was, until recently, willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

But, friends, when I add up all that McCaiin-Palin could bring to the table in our hour of need versus Palin's and the Republican base’s nagging belief in utter poppycock, I am reminded of the mistake we made in 2000 and 2004 in choosing a Creationist born-again like G.W. Bush. I am reminded of the Who, when they sang, “We won’t get fooled again.” Is it not more than coincidence that Sarah Palin, who opposes safe sex education and stem cell research, and who believes that global warming is possibly not caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and who believes that Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution in public schools, should also utter the following on this Thursday past at a deployment ceremony for her son Track and his fellow soldiers journeying off to Iraq: “You’ll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans.” Maybe you think it’s a fair leap of logic to group the newly formed and energized Al Qaeda in Iraq with the actual Al Qaeda operatives who planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11. If so, I have a beautiful Creation story to tell you.

Friends, beliefs matter.

You may like the looks, biography, heroism, personality, and comportment of one ticket over another. But when you make your decision for who is going to be the leader of the free world, you need to put foremost in your minds these questions. Who is a genuine freethinker? Who is free of poppycock and delusion? Who genuinely believes in fact-based policy? Who puts the reality on the ground before the fantasy projections in the brain?

We cannot foresee the kinds of policy challenges that the next President will face, anymore than we could have completely foreseen the attacks on 9/11. But we can foresee the QUALITY and NATURE of a leader’s mind, and from that determine the quality and nature of his or her policies and approach. Remember the prophetic words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Please don’t be fooled by the foolish consistencies on the right OR the left. Be wary of the zealot, lest you be swept up in their zealotry. Be wary of the crusader, lest you be branded a crusader. Be wary of those gauche candidates who make noise about their God, for, when given enormous power, they often become the worst kind of scoundrel.

You have many choices for President this year. Not just the two major parties. Please do not be taken in by the overt certainty of purpose that masks a shallow mind. Before you decide, ask which of the candidates is committed to the unwieldy messiness of truth, to discovering and navigating what “is” actually is. Ask which candidate is captive to superficial platitudes, unfounded superstitions, crazy leaps of logic, and consistently disproven party dogma. Ask if a candidate is a genuine bipartisan, who actively votes against his party when truth is at stake, or if he or she is actually a party diehard masquerading as an agent of “change.” Ask if a candidate has the courage to do absolutely nothing when the media screams for action. Ask if a candidate has the wisdom to study, to reflect, to gather all the evidence before making costly decisions that categorically move this country in a direction with huge, dire, and inexorable consequences. Ask if a candidate can talk in concrete policy specifics, instead of glib poll-tested generalities.

If each of us commits to such due diligence, we may not get the perfect presidency, but we will certainly be prepared to critically challenge any leader who tries to fool us again.