Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the "A number of America's leading scientists" have started a 527 called Scientists & Engineers for America which was covered by a couple of other Sbers and by the Times today.
Their raison d'entrée is, "...electing public officials who respect evidence and understand the importance of using scientific and engineering advice in making public policy."
Good: a group of concerned citizens banding together to advocate their issue.
Bad: Despite a stated aim to be nonpartisan, the group's very birth is a response to partisan politics, which makes it political by default.
The bad doesn't necessarily outweigh the good for SEforA, but it does illustrate what will be its biggest challenge. The challenge won't be affecting races or having an impact on the process, but on becoming staunchly nonpartisan and burnishing time and again its nonpartisan credentials. If it can successfully manage that, then SEforA can become relevant and salient, partnering with politicians from both parties. If not, then SEforA will become a de facto Democrat advocacy group, ignored by the Republicans whenever they are in power. Unfortunately the origins of SEforA speak to its partisan upbringing by using two Clinton Administration science advisors as headliners and using language that sounds like it came straight from Chris Mooney's book and the UCS report: "...when the nation's leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research." (All that may be true, but it's a clear shot at a group of Republicans.)
Here's hoping that SEforA works immediately toward nonpartisanship, realizing that they will have some work to do in convincing Republicans that their early, seemingly inherent links to the Democratic Party are nonbinding.
[cross-posted on Prometheus]
Comments
# 1 | Matt | September 28, 2006 5:26 PM
I agree with the emphasis on nonpartisanship. It's unfortunate that one House Republican moderate who would probably be allied with this group is retiring - Sherwood Boehlert of New York (from the district just north of mine), outgoing chairman of the science and technology committee.
# 2 | revere | September 28, 2006 5:52 PM
Kevin: The assault on science is partisan so its defense will naturally have an induced partisanship. I think that should be obvious. Don't blame the victim.
# 3 | kevin v | September 28, 2006 6:20 PM
Thanks, but I think that response isn't a nuanced enough take on the situation. Recent assults on science (and they do exist) have been construed as partisan when they should have been been labeled sectarian. There is no broad war on science pushed and promulgated by the Republicans as a party, only by the part of the party that currently has control. It should be obvious that different R leadership of the party could have meant little abuse of science (i.e., had McCain not been beaten down in South Carolina during the 2000 primary, we wouldn't be having this conversation, and McCain is very much a Republican and much more partisan than the popular perception).
Further, you are implying that Democrats are generally so high-minded that they would never go against the science even when science didn't give the answer they wanted. To quote Roger Pielke Jr, "the factors which lead to the misuse of science in politics have less to do with political or ideological affiliation than with the basic dynamics of science in decision making."
Realizing this, the SEforA can take the high road here and recognize that this isn't a Republican problem but a Bush Administration problem (along with the help from some of the House leadership, themselves only enabled in this regard by Bush's position) and make it very clear that they feel that way.
Building bridges with R's now, especially while Bush is in a vulnerable political position, can only help SEforA.
My advice to all of us is to quit framing this as a strictly partisan problem because it just makes it more partisan, not less. Single out the specific violators without alienating an entire political class.
# 4 | revere | September 28, 2006 8:05 PM
Kevin: You were the one who framed it as a partisan problem. It appears partisan to you and everyone else because those guilty of the assault on science are Republicans. As for McCain, he folded like a pawnshop squeeze box, as he always does. I don't know what kind of torture they submitted him to in Vietnam, but they should have said they won't vote for him and he would have done anything they asked.
No one said there aren't some Republicans that appreciate or understand science. But a party has a leadership and a theme and a group that pulls the levers of power and in the Republican party it's those who are hostile to science. That's not true in the Democratic party, which has its share of jerks, some of whom just voted for torture and the removal of habeas corpus protection. Some of them. Almost all the Republicans did. It's fair to say that the Republican party is the party of torture and destruction of civil liberties. I hope that's nuanced enough for you.
# 5 | David Bruggeman | September 28, 2006 8:54 PM
By making the 527 partisan, you remove yourself from effectively discussing the bipartisan legislation (such as the recently introduced National Competitiveness Investment Act - S3936) and related issues that aren't delineated by what side of the aisle people sit on. It might be a means to increase the relative priority of science and technology issues on the Congressional agenda; a way to assess and improve the science and technology advice Congress receives; and a way to have people besides House Science Committee staffers care what scientists and engineers think.
While ASTRA and Research!America haven't been the most even-handed in their advocacy, I believe (but would welcome examples to the contrary) that they've been effective in engaging people on both sides of the aisle. How they've prepared their constituencies for the consequences of their legislative successes is a discussion for a different topic.
# 6 | kevin v | September 28, 2006 9:44 PM
revere: whew! for a second there I thought we were disagreeing! 8-) On one point we're talking about the same thing but with a different outlook on the outcome. There is a difference between individuals in a party and those who have control over the party's levers, as you and I both said. Right now those who have control (the god sect) for the R's have been hostile to science. It's a temporary situation. The next group to hold control might be as hostile or not at all. That group might be the "high tech industry sect" and realize that their entire existence is due to basic research and tech transfer, who the H knows? As well, who knows what a D admin might look like? It's easy to fire off as an opposition party and say what you *would* do if you were in power.
The partisan framing you're referring to and that I'm referring to in the original post are two different things. Originally I was simply saying that the organizers/headliners of this group are stacked to the left and that because the group is specifically responding to actions taken by an R admin, they need to realize that the R's are going to be defensive. I wasn't defending the R's or getting on SEforA for being partisan, because they haven't been yet. I was simply reminding them that if they truly want to be nonpartisan (as they've said publicly) then they need to watch where they walk.
As for McCain ... it's a tomato/tomahtoe thing. Some call it caving, some call it political pragmatism.
[Also, the Republicans would come back at you and say, "Some Repubs just voted to let the terrorists come over here and walk all over us. Not all, just some. All the Dems did." ] I strongly take your side on that question, but it still a matter of perspective, not cut-and-dried right-or-wrong.
# 7 | Eli Rabett | October 4, 2006 7:36 PM
Wrong question. Will it be EFFECTIVE?!