I’m not one for labels, and I don’t affiliate myself with a party, but I’m quite liberal by American standards on most political issues. With the daily back and forth in the presidential election increasing I wanted to talk about politics more openly but I just wasn’t up to the task of playing unbiased observer in what I don’t see as an equal field. While logical fallacies and abuses of cognitive bias know no political affiliation, the denial of climate change and, at best, timid support for teaching only science in science classrooms are party platforms for conservatives in the U.S. While liberals are far more likely to be anti-vaxxers and generally support new-age woo, these are hardly positions that get publicly endorsed by party leaders. And that’s just the major science issues.
Moreover despite initially trying to avoid talking much about politics I realized that over time I’d even answered many value issues. I’ve unambiguously supported LGBTQ rights (as every person should!), my stance on freedom of religion is obvious and at various times I’ve answered questions or posted information about everything from abortion to what I think is the classic bad argument against public safety measures.
Not to mention any long time followers of other skeptic or nontheist blogs probably already know my political positions because I’ve openly discussed them there.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that not all political positions are compatible with my beliefs about science, rationality and religion. This isn’t to say there isn’t plenty of straightforward analysis to be done about avoiding biases and prioritizing your values when voting, there surely is and I will discuss some of it, but there will also be discussion of broader political philosophy. I just thought in transparency, something Obama and Romney both know little about, I’d confess I can’t play the role of debate mediator on this topic but that I can and will take sides. Know when I do so, as always, I welcome dissent.