Just watched Barack Obama respond to the controversy over his remarks. I was mostly off the news grid this weekend, but they certainly make me cringe--more on this later. For the nonce, I wanted to note that I am terrifically impressed by the way the Obama campaign tackles its missteps head-on. Barack Obama admitted that he chose his words badly, and said it probably wouldn't be the last time. Compare this to the Clinton campaign's reaction to the Bosnia fiasco. Admitting your errors quickly and apologizing makes a story yesterday's news. I still think his remarks will be damaging--good issue management doesn't always make issues go away. But I think he mitigated the damage as much as was possible.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
WTF are you talking about? Obama used the word 'bitter' three times when he later discussed his remarks. When did he apologize?
"Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.
Research please!
Rickm is right. Obama just tried to minimize damage without coming right out and admitting that his remarks were insulting and bigoted.
No matter what Obama does, says, or who he associates with, Megan tried her best to find a positive spin. Looks like we don't have to look very far to find the next Obama Girl.
James
I was also off the news grid for the weekend. When I got caught up last night I was surprised by the whole affair. For the life of me I don't see what's so offensive. Or why the press has devoted to much attention (or less charitably, created) the dustup.
That's unfair. It's not surprising how bitterness leads some people to cling to the one true faith that is Obamamania as a way to explain their frustrations.
Obama's remarks really bugged me, and while they still do, even after hearing his explanation, his response effectively made me irritated with Hillary as well.
He's absolutely right that she's jumping on him without any sincerity whatsoever, and I thought his line about Annie Oakley was fantastic. It's just a fantastic job of calling bullshit on her.
So I'm irritated about what I take to be his true position on guns--a deal-breaking issue for me, though maybe less of one depending on how the DC hand-gun case is decided by the SCOTUS--but he effectively kept Hillary from gaining any of my sympathy.
For the life of me I don't see what's so offensive.
Returning to a theme from last week, the media (well, what little TV I saw this weekend) has been AWFUL on this subject. All you hear is bitter bitter bitter. That's not the offensive part.
Here's the quote:
There's nothing wrong with noting that people may be bitter in tough economic times. There's something wrong with saying that a belief in RKBA or sincere religion are caused by "frustration" at losing your job. And there something wrong with essentialy calling people bigots ("people who aren't like them") and then saying hey, it's OK that their bigots, because they lost their jobs.
When Obama suggested hitting working-class whites with a 2x4, he lost all credibility.
Words have consequences.
You have to be fairly blinkered to not understand why the description of a very large, ill defined, group of people as "clinging to the their religion" due to economic frustration, is seen by many people as an astoundingly condescending remark. Here's a clue to those who can't get it; not everything that has an element of truth to it needs to be said, or should be said, if political coalition-building is the goal, because the lack of precision in the statement has the potential to offend people in the large ill defined group who think they hold to their religous beliefs out of a profound sense of faith, and not due to outside economic stimuli. Obama would have been very unlikely to say such a thing if he knew the remarks were being broadcast on cable t.v., which is indicative of the lack of wisdom in making the comments.
His response has been competent, which is unsurprising, since Obama certainly has political skill. As to the lasting effect of the original comments, who knows? Predicting these things is a mug's game.
Except that he made his remarks originally on April 6 and it took him an entire week’s news cycle for him to finally say “I spoke poorly” which IMO is likely to prove to be too little, too late.
Also you sort of left out how before he admitted his misspoke, he tried to defend his remarks in another speech (click on my name) which dug him in even deeper - perhaps you missed it before finally watching the one that “impressed” you so?
I think what the ultimate fallout from this latest Obama misstep (he’s going to lose PA, that’s pretty much a given) is that it confirms what a lot of people thought about Obama after his “I am not a racist (but my grandmother was)” speech is that he’s a phony who knows how to manipulate people by playing on their emotions but has no real understanding of people beyond that.
Moreover it reveals something about Obama’s own ignorance on religion. For 20 years he and his family sat in a pew where his “spiritual advisor” gave angry, often hateful sermons damning America, White People, Israel, etc. for plight of blacks and it’s very likely that Obama thinks that this is what church is like for everyone else.
As explanations for why they cling to guns go, it's not nearly the most nutty. "Protecting the U.S. from tyranny" comes to mind. I'd say "bitterness" accurately describes large swathes of the American political landscape, and has been the bread and butter of the Republican coalition (and to some extent the Democrat one as well) for decades. Nevertheless, best not to talk about it, as Obama learned.
But people DO fall back on religion and family pastimes during hard times. Anti-immigrant sentiment IS fomented and exploited during hard times. Is this news to anyone? Are these tendencies not on the first page of political playbooks? How naive (or cynical) can you be?
I guess it doesn't even matter that BO was expressing empathy towards said people. Or that he said it on the Charlie Rose show nearly 4 years ago with nary a peep of protest.
To read this statement as somehow calling everyone (or even most people) in small-town depressed America as ignorant, gun-crazy bigots is a gross distortion of both the words and the intent behind them.
Rove FTW!
Nevertheless, best not to talk about it, as Obama learned.
Well, best not to insult people's beliefs by seeking psychological explanations for them as though one's opinions on certain topics were inevitably a product of mental dysfunction. If he'd said "People are bitter, and they have good reason to be, give how Washington has sold them out!" this would not be happening.
You have to be more than fairly disingenuous or flat-out naive to not understand that this was yet another example of Republicans clutching their pearls in pretend horror (a la when John Kerry actually said the word "lesbian" in a debate). That the usual media whores ate it up is no surprise either. No matter what Obama says and how he says it, he'll get a similar response from the same bunch (for Yoda's sake, Bill Kristol trotted out the already worn "Obama's a Commie" schtick in today's allegedly hyper-liberal NY Times). Here's a clue to those who don't get this: It's a pathetic attempt at spin control which still has the power to succeed--somehow. Don't let Republicans, pseudo-libertarian Republicans, or The Mark Penn Experience inform you otherwise.
You have to be fairly blinkered to not understand why the description of a very large, ill defined, group of people as "clinging to the their religion" due to economic frustration, is seen by many people as an astoundingly condescending remark. Here's a clue to those who can't get it; not everything that has an element of truth to it needs to be said, or should be said, if political coalition-building is the goal, because the lack of precision in the statement has the potential to offend people in the large ill defined group who think they hold to their religous beliefs out of a profound sense of faith, and not due to outside economic stimuli. Obama would have been very unlikely to say such a thing if he knew the remarks were being broadcast on cable t.v., which is indicative of the lack of wisdom in making the comments.
The full impact of these kinds of remarks won't be felt by the Obama campaign until this fall- Hillary Clinton is in no real position to exploit them, in my opinion. This mistake will probably increase her margin in states like Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Indiana, but that won't save her campaign.
The problem with the remarks is that they reveal Obama to be an urban, elitist snob. He makes the same mistakes a lot of prominent Democratic pundits make- they just assume that cultural issues are all derivative of economic class. They think that if Democrats will just address the economic class issues, that voters will vote Democratic despite the differences on cultural issues. It reveals a deep misunderstanding of small town and rural voters. This will hurt Obama a lot in the general election in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Missouri.
Matt B, people tend to insulted when you say the group they belong to do not cling to their religion out of profound faith, but rather out of economic stimuli. It is a little astounding that you cannot understand this.
I guess it doesn't even matter that BO was expressing empathy towards said people.
"I can truly understand why you're such an economically ignorant, gun-crazy, nativist Jesus-freak, and I don't have a problem with it, because hey, you lost your job, and that does weird things to the best of us. I totally feel your pain."
r that he said it on the Charlie Rose show nearly 4 years ago with nary a peep of protest.
These presidential campaigns are starting earlier all the time.
No matter how you spin it, he explains views he disagrees with by psychologizing. Whether or not he's right about the psychology (and maybe he is), he's being exceedingly rude by not assuming the fundamental good faith and intelligence of the people he's talking about.
ed, the naivete exists in those who can't grasp that if a politician who is running for President wouldn't say it if he knew the speech was being broadcast live, he shouldn't be saying it at all.
For those who still can't get it, here are two statements:
A. Middle class, small town midwesterners hold to their religous beliefs out of Faith.
B. Middle class, small town midwesterners hold to their religous belief due to an outside economic stimuli thich makes them bitter.
Now, you political Svengalis, which statement do you think would better serve a Presidential candidate?
The problem with this excuse for Obama’s statement is that any of the candidates who might work from that particular political playbook (e.g. Tancredo, Hunter) went down in flames in the Republican primary and the likely nominee is an avid free trader, has mainstream religious values, doesn’t play the race card, and is pro-immigration to the point of bucking his own party to try to create a guest worker program.
In other words, Republicans have nominated a candidate who utterly refutes every stereotype Obama invoked about small town America.
So why does Obama cling to his religion? I guess it's out of bitterness over his economic hardship (all those school loans to pay off).
His anti-gun views are pretty strong, so he no doubt believes that anyone who feels strongly about being allowed to own guns is a nut.
He also probably can't understand why anyone would object to immigration except because of racism.
His remarks were more revealing than anything else.
I like how some of the Lefties assume that anyone who is offended by Obama's comments has an ulterior motive.
Well, best not to insult people's beliefs by seeking psychological explanations for them as though one's opinions on certain topics were inevitably a product of mental dysfunction.
Rob, you're the one calling it dysfunction. I call it typical human behavior. That or the intended result of series of wedge-issue campaigns by the GOP dating back to Nixon. Tomayto-tomahto.
But, yeah, your alternate phrasing ("Washington sold them out") is superior. Still, isn't this a meta-issue?
Meanwhile, McCain reiterated his support for teaching "intelligent design" in public schools, and the media said nary a word. I would much rather have either Democratic candidate than a doddering old fool who is either playing to the cheap seats or is mentally incompetent enough to believe that intelligent design has any scientific basis whatsoever.
Indeed, there are three types of people who tout intelligent design--hucksters, morons, and the mentally ill. Which camp(s) do Bush and McCain fall into?
Also in the "meanwhile" department, I paid 3.45 for a gallon of gasoline on Sunday morning, and last week was the worst death toll for US troops in Iraq since December.
Heck of a job, wingnuts! No wonder you all act like a bunch of barking dogs when Obama says anything "controversial." Far better to do that than look at the realities of your heroes and their policies.
A. Middle class, small town midwesterners hold to their religious beliefs out of Faith.
B. Middle class, small town midwesterners hold to their religious belief due to an outside economic stimuli which makes them bitter.
False, meet dichotomy.
Well then, rewrite that from "mental dysfuction" to "subconscious mental processes other than reason."
It's rude to tell some someone he holds his beliefs as a result of some scientifically describable mental tic rather than because he has considered them carefully and arrived at them through reason. It might be true, but it's still rude.
It's also quite arrogant to assume that you hold the "correct" view, (naturally arrived at through reason and not as a result of your own chemical imbalances) while those who disagree must have some sort of mental impediment (caused, perhaps, by loss of a job) that prevents them from agreeing with you.
That or the intended result of series of wedge-issue campaigns by the GOP dating back to Nixon.
Can you define "wedge issue"? I've never understood what a wedge issue was or why it was supposed to be a bad thing. We disagree on many things, why shouldn't the candidates highlight the disagreement in an effort to attract votes?
The point is that guns, religion and immigration end up being exploited by politicians and used to fire up the working class base. The issues aren't presented in a rational way, but use fear of the bad outsider liberal (Canadians are going to take away your guns, immigrants will take away you jobs and give drugs to your kids etc)--and I'm only barely exaggerating, if at all, about the rhetoric used around these issues. That's not to say there aren't coherent and definsible positions to be held here, but that's not what Obama was talking about. Obama may have made a stupid political move, but the remarks in-and-of-themselves do not seem particularly controversial.
And yes, middle and upper middle class liberals have a whole huge set of anti-rational emotional issues themselves, but those beliefs usually don't end up being diversions to their real problems.
No, Matt B. there is no false dichotomy. If a Presidential candidate chooses to offer an explanation as to why a large ill defined constitutency "clings" to their religious beliefs (a somewhat pointlessly risky thing to do), then there is a safe way to do it, and a stupid way to do it, politically speaking. Obama, probably because he wasn't fully aware that the remarks were being recorded, chose the stupid path.
Yeah, Charles, who wins the election will have a lot to do with the price of gasoline. Wingnuts, indeed.
Will, I meant that faith and outside influences are not mutually exclusive. People can believe what they believe for any number of things, plus combinations thereof. External stimuli can indeed stiffen faith.
External stimuli can indeed stiffen faith.
Sure they can. And if Obama had talked about people "turning to faith to survive tough times," that wouldn't have been a problem. But he appears to be saying that faith (in addition to belief in gun rights and border enforcement, both arguable positions) is something pointless to which desperate people "cling." (Word choice matters here). Lumping all three in with bigotry was also less than adroit.
People have--or more accurately, people believe they have--sound reasons for holding all of the beliefs that Obama mentions. He should address those reasons directly rather than making up a new one.
The point is that guns, religion and immigration end up being exploited by politicians and used to fire up the working class base
OK. If Obama or Democrats have a problem with this, they can 1) co-opt the issue by adopting the apparently successful GOP approach or 2) tell people they're fools for falling for such a transparent effort to exploit their ignorance.
One of these approaches will be more politically fruitful than the other.
those beliefs usually don't end up being diversions to their real problems
This is the arrogance I was talking about. Why would you know better than they what his "real" problem is? And, even supposing that you do know, and that the people we're talking about really are stupid sheep, is it really hard to understand why they might react badly to being called that?
Sure, Matt B, and if a smart Presidential candidate thought that, and for someone reason felt compelled to commment on it, he then would be well served by saying ,"People can believe what they believe for any number of things, plus combinations thereof", instead of solely indentifying one external economic reason why they they "cling" to their reigious beliefs. To do the latter would be really dumb.
Someone claiming to be "Will Allen" cherrypicks one detail from my post and sniffs, "Wingnuts, indeed." Unfortunately, he picks the wrong detail. If he is so tone deaf to believe a fundamental economic issue like rising gasoline prices are unimportant, then he has no business commenting on a political blog.
Far more likely, "Will Allen" is an intelligent design true believer who was offended that I correctly called him and his ilk out to be hucksters, morons, and the mentally ill.
Either that or he is just a petty little man who thinks the other issues I raised--McCain's bizarre support for intelligent design and the rising number of war dead--are also trivial and deserve to be sniffed at.
Small men, these wingnuts.
Charles, I cherrypicked an ironically stupid thing you posted, while you were castigating others for their irrational thinking. Voting the price of gasoline is every bit as irrational as teaching intelligent design, but since it is a type of irrationality that would favor your poltical candidate in this cycle, it is an irrational train of thought you wished was being embraced to the exclusion of other irrational trains of thought. You don't object to irrationality, as long as it produces the political advantage you seek.
Now, you political Svengalis, which statement do you think would better serve a Presidential candidate?
And who thinks that if Obama had instead said, "Kill the bastards, Kill Kill Kill the bastards, Motherhood, [American] Football, Heartland, Will Allen Totally Gets It!" or words to that effect that we'd still be having this conversation about how Elitist or Commie or America-Hating or IslamicTerrorist or Scary Negro or whatever the pathetic Slime du Jour is anyway? I mean, come on, the guy ordered orange juice of all things. But then that's part of the narrative--he's a limp-wristed nancy-boy Democrat, right?
I reckon the Republicans, pseudo-libertarian Republicans, and The Mark Penn Experience will keep on keepin' on clutching their pearls if Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Fox News, certain blog commenters et al. keep on keepin' on buying into it. How unfortunate.
Actually anyone who is so economically illiterate as to think that who is elected the President of the United States has much to do with the price of gasoline has no business voting in a presidential (or any other) election.
It beats the hell out of remarks or actions or decisions that are damaging.... and then the perp. goes on denying there is anything wrong or that it was the right decision all along....
Sorry Willy-boy, but your partisan thinking is overwhelming your 87 IQ. I am not voting on gasoline prices alone, but if you know the first thing about American politics, you know that people vote their pocketbook (a chicken in every pot, it's the economy stupid, blah blah blah). Come on, are you truly this dense?
Indeed, even the smallest bit of googling (you do know about the Google?) will lead you to a recent Gallup poll about how the economy in general and high basic prices in particular, will factor heavily in the election this fall.
Now admit it, Willy-Boy. You tout intelligent design, don't you? And for which of my three reasons? Answer honestly now....
Ditto back to you Thorley. Look up "a chicken in every pot" and get back to me.
And you people are on The Atlantic Monthly's website? Lordy, McArdle really has lowered the bar here.
you know that people vote their pocketbook
Nobody disagrees. It's just that, given the president's role in the economy, voting your pocketbook is usually as irrational as voting for ID. So a politician who hypes ID isn't any more wrong to do so that one who claims he will put a chicken in every pot.
Just out of curiosity ed, do you think if you keep repeating “Republicans, pseudo-libertarian Republicans, and The Mark Penn Experience” over and over again that you will (a) start a meme that others will pick up and repeat or (b) people will start to skip over your posts because they know it’s just you repeating talking points?
Seriously, this is why I quit watching Sunday morning talk shows and most other broadcast journalism because after a while of hearing the same talking points repeated over and over again, the value of watching dropped to about zero. I’m sure that there are many well-paid political consultants who advise professionals to keep doing this so as to ensure that they get picked up in a 30-second sound bite but in the blogosphere where things are generally read (and reread) rather than listened to, it’s not quite as effective.
Just a suggestion.
Here's Obama's way of confronting problems:
When the public is shown that he spent twenty years in the pews of a racist anti-American preacher, he gives an eloquent speech about how he feels it's OK to do so.
When the public is shown that he's slamming middle America with his elitist buddies, he gives an eloquent speech about how he's OK with that too.
What next? "These are not the droids you're looking for"?
Barack Obama is an elitist, racist, upper-class scumbag.
No, ed, he's a guy who chooses to solely identify one factor as to why a very large, ill defined, but very important constituency "clings" to their religious beliefs, and identifies that factor as bitterness over economic conditions. That's a stupid thing to say, and the fact you can't simply acknowledge it says something about you.
Hey, I'm, sitting this election out, so I have no preference regarding how this eventually plays out. I was just remarking as to how this was a remarkably stupid way for Obama to frame things, and that if he had been fully aware that the remarks were being recorded, he wouldn't have framed them this way.
Oh, and Thorley, if you don't think Bush's policies have impacted gasoline prices, take Willy-Boy's IQ of 87 and subtract 30 points minimum to get yours.
Once again, partisan thinking overwhelms the little brains of the McArdle sycophants.
Imagine this was once the magazine of Hawthorne, Emerson, and more.
do you think if you keep repeating “Republicans, pseudo-libertarian Republicans, and The Mark Penn Experience” over and over again that you will (a) start a meme that others will pick up and repeat or (b) people will start to skip over your posts because they know it’s just you repeating talking points?
Mr. Winston:
I used that phrase all of twice because I find Those People to be deeply, deeply offensive.
Sincerely yours,
ed
PS
Oh, come on. It's a little cute!
"These wingnuts" are bigger men than you, Charles. Don't feign offense at being distracted from your oh-so-important issues debate, when you started it off with your "heckuva job, wingnuts" crack above.
If you don't like that poo is thrown, then don't throw poo.
Hey, I'm, sitting this election out, so I have no preference regarding how this eventually plays out. I was just remarking as to how this was a remarkably stupid way for Obama to frame things, and that if he had been fully aware that the remarks were being recorded, he wouldn't have framed them this way.
Mr. Allen:
David Brooks called. He wants his lam-o Concern Troll Schtick back. Thanks in advance.
e
Uh, Charles, I never said you personally were voting on gasoline prices. I said doing so was as irrational as belief in intelligent design, and thus it was ironic for you to castigate some for their irrationality in regards to intelligent design, while noting the price of gasoline in the "meaniwhile" dept., and then remarking "Far better to do that than look at the realities of your heroes and their policies."
Are you truly this illiterate?
Rob, you make a decent point about the two being positions being irrational, but a politician promising a chicken is doing the same old same old. A politician who is suggesting that we turn over public school scientific education to intelligent design is doing nothing less than refuting centuries of intellectual progress and jeopardizing the intellectual development of all children. A child who is taught this crap will have much less of a scientific outlook, and will most certainly underperform as an adult in an increasingly technical and scientific workplace.
It's pure crap, which is why my opinions are so strong. Is McCain merely a huckster? That is the best case. The worse scenario is that he is really that dumb.
...and... oy. I posted the above after reading only down to 1:53 PM. Every single post has been even more offensive. Do you even know what decorum is?
Yes, Charles, if the price of gasoline has risen 1 cent above where they would be, absent Bush's policies, then Bush's policies have impacted gasoline prices.
Oh, and by the way, they all promise the chicken.
Only one major candidate seems to think the Reformation and the Renaissance never happened. Or they happened and they were a bad idea.
Paul, in other words, you believe in intelligent design?
Charles, I'm sure you'll join me in advocating the end of all Federal involevement in education, rendering a President's opinion on the issue irrelevant.
No, Charles, in other words, this thread as fairly civil, among people with differing views, until you showed up with the insipid namecalling.
Actually, Will, I would abolish federal money for education in a heartbeat. The idea that, say, the 60-70% of the people in Kansas who believe the earth is 5000 years old might impact blue-state science education appalls me. If you follow this issue at all, you will know only very select states, mainly Massachusetts, rank up there with places like Singapore in terms of math and science education. I want to keep it that way, and not have it watered down by yokels.
So, yes, take that money out of the budget and return it to the states today.
Always nice to find a point of agreement, Charles, ya' old namecallin' demon, you! (irony intended)
So, Will, when "secret asian man" said "Barack Obama is an elitist, racist, upper-class scumbag," that was fairly civil?
Or when you or "Thorley" called me illiterate?
I see this again and again. The Bushies say whatever they want, but when someone pushes back a bit, they burst into tears and claim the other side is being uncivil. Sorry, not buying it. If you don't like it, ignore me.
Now I do want to know where you, Thorley, Paul, et al, fall on this issue of intelligent design. Do you agree it is hokum? And if not, why not?
BTW, here’s what McCain actually said (click on my name for the transcript) about ID:
Big. Frigging. Whoop.
Well if it makes you feel any better, Charles, I'm not crazy about teaching intelligent design, either (except in a philosophy of science curriculum). But I'll take a potential of intelligent design over an actual series of unintelligent comments. Ha ha.
Now that your ad hominems appear to have declined, I'll tell you that if this was what got you so bothered, you should have simply said so earlier. We might not share your opposition to McCain, but that doesn't mean we're unreasonable, either.
Personally, as much as ID irks me, I'd still take McCain over Obama given what I currently know, as I think a condemnation of Middle America's values is much more of a non-starter for progress than a demand for ID in schools. I think that, because I know for a fact that Middle America's values are more than just God and guns. There's a whole Jacksonian culture there that Democrats seem to be ignoring, and that Obama seems to consider a malaise brought about by poor economy.
Thanks, Thorley, for highlight what McCain said, which is actually worse than I thought. McCain actually shows how completely stupid he is when he says (or how he is working on behalf of the true believers when he parrots their talking points completely, "There's enough scientists that believe it does.... I think all points of view should be presented."
The "scientists" who support intelligent design are all from fields outside of the biological sciences. None of them have ever published a single peer-reviewed article on the subject because a single peer-reviewed article has never been published.
It is pure hokum.
Very reasonable points, Paul.
Charles, you may wish to review the content of your posts, clearly directed at me, prior to my making my crack about your literacy. You really are lacking in self-awareness, aren't you?
Chuck, if it makes you feel better:
1) ID is hokum as science, and I think it makes a fine object lesson on separating scientific thinking from unscientific thinking. The problem is, I doubt the average high-school teacher can fully understand why that's so, much less explain it to bored teenagers. Yet, I'm not comfortable with the demand for a confessional Darwinism that you're making; schools should not be churches, nor science a religion. Given those two conflicting positions, I can't square the circle.
2) I suspect that McCain is either 1) unable to understand the issue ("stupid,"), or 2) doesn't care enough to devote his limited time to it.
3) I don't want my kids learning ID, but I don't think the consequences are even half as dire as you predict. We're muddling along OK right now with what--5% of the population, tops?--able to explain why ID is hokum, as opposed to "My hip urbanite friends don't believe in it." or "Teacher says it's hokum."
4) How much Kuhn have those kids in Singapore read? How much do you need to read to program a computer or design a bridge?
"Rob, you make a decent point about the two being positions being irrational..."
Caution, Charles: You're coming dangerously close to losing your insulting, condescending edge.
Rob,
In Massachusetts, high school science teachers increasingly have degrees in science, often advanced degrees. They most certainly understand why ID is hokum, and so do their better students. I can't speak for the rest of the country.
To include intelligent design in the classroom means eliminating the scientific method. If you're designing a bridge, you damn well better understand the scientific method. Programming? Not necessarily, as lots of programming is not scientific.
Designing a bridge does not require that one understand the scientific method. Engineering is applied science. While scientific method can be used for troubleshooting, it is not at all necessary for design.
Mostly, you have to understand material properties, mechanics, basic physics, etc... Normally, you don't delve into discovering new things, you're using existing scientific knowledge.
And of all the engineering disciplines, you picked civil engineering? All those guys do is design targets...