Via Think Progress, an unusually candid Tim Pawlenty notes the inherent difficulty of holding science-based views in a resolutely anti-science political party:
PAWLENTY: Well, anybody who's going to run for this office who's been in an executive position, or may run, has got some clunkers in their record. Laura, mine I think are fewer and less severe than most. As to climate change, or more specifically cap-and-trade, I've just come out and admitted it — look, it was a mistake, it was stupid. [...]
Everybody in the race, well at least the big names in the race, embraced climate change or cap-and-trade at one point or another. Every one of us.
Obviously, Pawlenty was substantively correct in both acknowledging the reality of climate change, and endorsing "cap and trade" as a means to reduce the human-generated production of greenhouse gases. The same goes for Mitt Romney -- who once praised cap and trade as "good for business" -- and Mike Huckabee, who on a visit to New Hampshire in 2007 said that "We have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, to conserve energy, to find alternative forms of energy that are renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly."
The problem, of course, is that the Republican Party has turned decisively against the scientific consensus on climate change, and endorses a ruinous, pro-pollution status quo. As such, to maintain their electoral viability, these candidates have to "flip-flop" on the issue, in hopes of buying credibility with Republican voters and anti-climate change elites.
All of this is to say that I appreciate Pawlenty's honesty, as it's a fantastic illustration of a point I frequently make: in a primary contest, the actual views of a presidential candidate -- while not unimportant -- are ultimately less significant than intra-party conflicts, elite pressures, and grassroots organizing.
