I had this article emailed to me and thought I would share it.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.c...ct-scientists/

It makes sense on many points.

 

Because they would make us eat Soylent Green.

 

To overgeneralize, scientists don't want to run for office in the USA, and the people would not elect them anyways.

With some exceptions, we vote for charisma over competence.

Our system has evolved in such a way that the skill set required to get and stay elected is completely different than what most scientists possess.

Also, perhaps most scientists are too proud and smart to put themselves through the degradation that is campaigning and fundraising. And perhaps they see how futile their involvement in politics would be.

Basically, they know where their strengths lie and where they can best serve the common good, and it is not in elected office. Leave the politics to the lawyers and the snake oil salesman, lol.

 

Scientists in general are very intelligent, about whatever they work in. However, in many cases they do not have the common sense of a flea. Have seen this in more than one scientists I have met.

 

Case in point. My first cousin. A genuine rocket scientist. I'm not kidding. He didn't get a drivers license till he was 23 and only then when his sister got tired
of driving him around. Smart as a whip, just not the brightest bulb on the
Christmas tree.

 

I can picture Henson at the end;
"It's people, Soylent Green is made from people"
- or something close to that, been a few decades since I have seen it.

 

Why we don't elect scientists is a very easy question. In my experience dealing with scientists (both rocket and nuclear) they are generally very introverted. Politics is a very extroverted field. To get one to stand on a podium and give a speech to millions of people would be a tough sell.

 

Physicists are just weird though. I've met plenty and they are always a brick shy if you know what I mean.

I did some further reading and the countries listed also have a more educated voting base.

 

Despite the leftist slant the article made a few good points but missed the obvious. Today's politicians are more like rock stars than leaders. The public wants someone good looking that will kiss their baby and *** while promising them everything for nothing. Most scientific people do not fit this mold. Think of the stereotypes that people have for these people.

Physicist = Einstein type with frazzled hair
Engineer = Poindexter the nerd
Chemist = The Mad Scientist

None of these will look good in front of the camera and most are too pragmatic to lie about what they will do. They would try to balance the countries checkbook and the gravy train would be over for a ton of free loaders. If they ran on the platform welfare is over, illegals will no longer be subsidized and if a corporation fails so be it. They would lose in a landslide.

 

most are honest and have actual proof of what they can do.

 

I think Wookie nailed it.

Much of the electorate want politicians who will hand out other people's money. Even if those other people who will be paying the tab are yet to be born. The good politician makes the electorate happy.

Scientists might try to cut back spending in an effort to avoid an upcoming debt crisis. That's not how we roll.

 

Note: I'm an engineer and know I could never be elected to a public office. Most people that do not know me well think I am an arsehole because I'm blunt, hold no punches and tend to be right anytime I open my mouth. If I'm not sure I keep quiet about something. If you're wrong I'll call you on it, if you argue I'll show you how wrong you are. Funny thing is when I'm at work I fit right in, most engineers are this way.

If anyone could make it I would say a charismatic Mechanical or Civil engineer would have the best chance. They are the most practical and down to earth of the scientific community and a personable one could explain things in a way people could understand. The debates would be spectacular! Can you imagine the average worthless politician trying to out argue an engineer on budgets and math?

 

And this is why I like this section. There are people that actually have a clue. I also posted it on a political forum and only got replies complaining about "scientists" forcing global warming.

Here are the results from my a side by side comparison; people who do nothing but obsess over politics don't know a thing about it.

IMO, it would be worth a shot at getting something besides a law degree in the white house.

 

Vote for me in 2016 if the Mayans don't kill us all first. I'll be old enough then, right now I'm two years too young. Don't be surprised if I use the phrase, "You gotta be ****ing me!" in a debate though.

My first order will be to ax ethanol subsidies, welfare and make opting out of Social Security an option. Then for the real budget cuts. I would know going in I would only get one term so I'll hit 'em hard and fast.

 

We got bigger problems than the Mayan's "time for a new calendar" ultimatum.

That ought to be your campaign phrase. Whenever a politician says something really dumb, gesture to the crowd. Kinda like the presidential drinking game where you take a shot when a specific word is said. The crowd will actually listen for moments to use it and think critically as a consequence.