Rejecting an obscurantist, anti-science candidate is in line with supporting and defending basic science.
You are not defending the importance of evidence-based science if you do not call out the candidate with a blatant obscurantist and anti-intelectual agenda, which already negatively impacted millions of people.
And I'm not even touching on the systematic threats against basic education.
If I say candidate X is an idiot whose policies will impoverish millions then everyone understands I'm making a value judgement. I can use facts to back up that judgment but at heart it's not about facts, it's about goals. It's politics.
I think there's a plausible argument that Science shouldn't be value neutral but the opposite of that is just as dangerous. Historically it's not to think that a lot of harm has been caused by people with an agenda who either claimed or even genuinely believed they were just looking at facts.
Rejecting an obscurantist, anti-science candidate is in line with supporting and defending basic science.
You are not defending the importance of evidence-based science if you do not call out the candidate with a blatant obscurantist and anti-intelectual agenda, which already negatively impacted millions of people.
And I'm not even touching on the systematic threats against basic education.