I disagree at multiple levels. The primary objection is that there are some issues which are connected to qualifications at a deep level. And I’m going to take the risk of delving slightly into mind-killing subjects and use actual examples, and try to balance by using examples from across the political spectrum:
Example 1) A politician who is a young earth creationist and makes arguments against evolution that are so bad that they are listed by major creationist organizations as arguments that creationists should not use has demonstrated that they are deeply unqualified. Such an individual is likely too irrational, too stupid, or too ignorant to be able to carry out a political job at a national level. (The example I am thinking of here is Christine O’Donnell who apparently thought that the continued presence of monkeys and apes was a strong argument against evolution.). Similarly, but to a lesser extent, politicians who want to teach creationism in public schools suffer from the same flaws, and a politician favoring such a policy must be regarded as deeply wrong.
Example 2) A politician who claims that that vaccines cause autism is essentially in the same category above. This is especially the case when the politician at one point claimed that the cause was mercury and continued to make the same claims after thimerosal had been removed from most vaccines for infants and children. The individual here is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In a case such as this, having such an individual in any substantive position of power could be deeply injurious to rationality. Putting such an individual in any position where they can continue to advocate their views in a more public way, or worse, be in a position where they can cause serious active harm to the general public.
One could give other examples as well, but I think both of these serve the point well enough. Sometimes, policies matter.
I disagree at multiple levels. The primary objection is that there are some issues which are connected to qualifications at a deep level. And I’m going to take the risk of delving slightly into mind-killing subjects and use actual examples, and try to balance by using examples from across the political spectrum:
Example 1) A politician who is a young earth creationist and makes arguments against evolution that are so bad that they are listed by major creationist organizations as arguments that creationists should not use has demonstrated that they are deeply unqualified. Such an individual is likely too irrational, too stupid, or too ignorant to be able to carry out a political job at a national level. (The example I am thinking of here is Christine O’Donnell who apparently thought that the continued presence of monkeys and apes was a strong argument against evolution.). Similarly, but to a lesser extent, politicians who want to teach creationism in public schools suffer from the same flaws, and a politician favoring such a policy must be regarded as deeply wrong.
Example 2) A politician who claims that that vaccines cause autism is essentially in the same category above. This is especially the case when the politician at one point claimed that the cause was mercury and continued to make the same claims after thimerosal had been removed from most vaccines for infants and children. The individual here is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In a case such as this, having such an individual in any substantive position of power could be deeply injurious to rationality. Putting such an individual in any position where they can continue to advocate their views in a more public way, or worse, be in a position where they can cause serious active harm to the general public.
One could give other examples as well, but I think both of these serve the point well enough. Sometimes, policies matter.