Center for American Progress Advisor Sally Steenland (whom I have spoken with personally and regard highly) is arguing that Barack and Hillary should talk about science at the upcoming “Compassion Forum” at Messiah College in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In her mind, they ought to address scientific and moral problems as one. She refers to these ruminative chimeras as “scientific–moral problems”.

I am not sure how to react. On one hand, uncomfortable moves like this may become increasingly necessary in a country where people cannot walk to the voting booth without tripping over their faith. On the other hand, there is a part of me which finds Steenland’s proposal repugnant: Conflating the protocols of science, morals, and politics is the very same act that leads people to take political action for the brotherly and sisterly love of usually unseen, microscopic, diploid eukaryotes called “stem cells”.

But what single good, ultimately, does Steenland argue for in this essay on science and morals? Get ready for it: competition in a global marketplace!

Indeed, after eight disastrous years of the Bush administration’s neglecting science and distorting it into sectarian ideology, it is time for our national leaders to acknowledge the crucial importance of science in our lives. In order to compete in global markets and prosper as a nation, we need scientifically literate citizens.

Never mind coöperation; never mind the commons; never mind diversity; never mind human capabilities. This is how strongly the discourse of “competition” and “the market” have strangled the U.S. political conversation. Even a premiere progressive Washington think tank can’t avoid the trap. So next time you’re wondering why to converse about science and morals, just think about your illustrious role as an actor in the price system of a fabulously Anglo-Diseased marketplace. You might even have a good conversation about the Singularity over Baco noir with the yacht owner nearest you.