Skip to comments.314 Action Wants to Elect Scientists, But Only if They're Democrats
Posted on 02/28/2018 7:33:52 AM PST by Heartlander
The U.S. Congress is made up mostly of professional politicians and lawyers. This comes as a surprise to precisely no one, but the sheer numbers are rather striking.
According to the Congressional Research Service (PDF, Table 2), the 115th Congress consists of 168 Representatives (out of 435) who are lawyers, and the Senate has 50 lawyers (out of 100). Combined, lawyers make up nearly 41% of Congress.
How many lawyers are in the U.S.? One law firm (with a nifty interactive map!) estimates roughly 1.3 million. Given that the U.S. population is about 323 million, the number of lawyers as a percentage of the population is 0.4%. That means that lawyers are 100 times over-represented in Congress.
To be sure, we should expect lawyers to be slightly over-represented in politics. After all, their job involves the law, so their expertise can be used to fix old ones and create new ones. But where are the plumbers, architects, computer programmers, doctors, nurses, priests, police officers, and firefighters? Surely, our democracy would be better off if people from diverse backgrounds were responsible for crafting laws.
One group agrees with this. It's called 314 Action, and its mission is to elect scientists. But there is a catch.
Science Help Wanted (No Republicans Need Apply)
314 Action's stated mission is laudable. It includes, among other things, a desire to "elect more leaders... from STEM backgrounds" and to "strengthen communication among the STEM community, the public and our elected officials." One would be left with the impression that the mission is bipartisan, which would be outstanding.
Unfortunately, it is not.
The leadership are all Democrats. All the candidates 314 Action has endorsed are Democrats. The site's news page refers to Republicans as "anti-science denialists," and one of the endorsed candidates refers to a GOP politician as "science's public enemy number one" -- a perfectly noble term, but one that should be reserved for somebody who deserves it, like anti-vaxxer Andrew Wakefield or public health menace Joseph Mercola.
Perplexed, I contacted 314 Action's Executive Director, Joshua Morrow. I asked what criteria must be met in order for a candidate to receive an endorsement. In addition to having a background in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), he or she had to be running a serious campaign and actually trying to get elected. Mr. Morrow added that the candidate also had to be a Democrat.
When I asked if 314 Action would endorse a Republican physicist, he responded, "Find that person, and we'll have that discussion. Find that unicorn."
In other words, he doesn't believe many Republican scientists exist. He's right, if we are to believe the polls. According to Pew, merely 6% of scientists identify as Republican, while a whopping 55% claim to be Democrats. Because of this, Mr. Morrow believes that the only plausible path forward for scientists is through the Democratic Party. Eventually, he says, 314 Action would like to endorse candidates from both parties.
I believe this to be a grave strategic blunder. Science is becoming increasingly politicized, and efforts should be undertaken to depoliticize it. If Republicans believe that scientists are politically opposed to them -- a belief that 314 Action is reinforcing -- then that will undermine any efforts to win over Republicans to scientists' causes. In a country split roughly 50/50, scientists must be able to work with whoever is in power, be it a Republican or a Democrat.
Besides, it is very difficult to believe that an organization dedicated to electing Democrats will all of a sudden pivot some day in the future to electing Republicans and Democrats.
At the end of the interview, Mr. Morrow suggested that I consider running for office myself. I was flattered, but in a city that hates GMOs, vaccines, nuclear power, and modern medicine, I wouldn't be very popular.
“Science” is being used as a code-word for “global warming” by the real anti-science liberals.
Aske them about the science of a baby’s conception.
Ask them about a baby’s DNA and ‘gender’.
Ask them about periodic changes in climate not caused by man.
Ask them about Karl Marx.
I have meet quite a few engineers who are very conservative. I never ask their party affiliations but I seriously doubt it would be Democrat.
Ask them about Mao
Ask them about Stalin
That’s liberal science, where sex is subjective, life is subjective, and the scientific method doesn’t apply.
Loyalty to the global Party above all else.
So lawyers make up less than .004% of the general population but over 40% of the congress? Good work if you can get it.
Why is Mercola a “public health menace”? Sounds a bit Soviet to me, almost like “enemy of the state”. Likewise for Wakefield. Since when does a free country label independent medical professionals? If anything, these are the kinds of independent-thinking professionals conservatives should be looking to recruit. You know, the kind of doctors who don’t support the AAP’s policy of promoting gun control (nor still promote the discredited Kellerman study).
Next you’ll have to take the loyalty oath and affitm the correct political views to become an accredited and licensed scientist, subject to review and bannishment.
It’s kind of like that group that promotes women candidatesbut only democrat women, of course.
I’ve often said this
Lawyers should be banned from congress
Furthermore you should have to prove you’ve worked in the ORIVATE SECTOR for a minimum of 10 years to be eligible to run
Finally TERM LIMITS. 6 terms House. 2 senate
|· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·|
|Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar ·|
Science unrelated to physics and mathematics is not science.
After seeing how the Deep State treated President Trump I seriously doubt anyone but corrupt lying democrats would make the attempt... they get cover from a corrupt press and an even more corrupt Deep State thugs.
Technically, science must use what’s called the scientific method. Observation to develop an hypothesis, and then experimentation and gathering empirical data to support or discount the hypothesis. There is no “settled science” since this is an ongoing process. Evidence which does not support the desired conclusion is not simply thrown out, like liberals tend to do. Skeptics are not branded as “deniers”, like liberals tend to do. Science is not about groupthink, which is how liberals tend to treat AGW, gender ambiguity, or whatever else they falsely label as “science”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.