Politics Through a Scientific Lens

There are many parallels between the world of politics and that of the physical sciences, but some major differences, of course, too.  The upcoming election in my province of residence within Canada (Quebec), as well as the unstable and too often brutal reality in many other jurisdictions across the globe, has brought politics to the forefront of this engineer's brain.

To be honest, when I turned eighteen, and obtained the right to vote, I had little interest in politics (I probably could not have named my province's Premier at the time).  My feeling is that today, this age group is more worldly than I was.  However, until we truly grow roots where we live, be it through having kids or buying real estate, politics are usually quite far from one's mind.

As an adolescent with an interest in science, I had a kind of skewed view of what people should focus on.  My father explained to me that not everyone needed to know science, but everyone needed to be involved in democracy, be politically literate, and cast a vote.  I thought that if the choice was one or the other, people should be scientifically literate.

Now that I am older and hopefully wiser, I see that we were both wrong.  People should have a minimum literacy with both science and politics.  If we do not understand the basic science behind an energy crisis or global warming, how can we establish who has the best energy or environmental policies?  We certainly cannot trust most journalists to inform us - for two reasons: (1) they often work for a media company with a political agenda and (2) they rarely possess a basic background in science themselves.

The most interesting contrast between science and politics that I see is as follows...

Extremes in Engineering and Politics

As I watch the election season unfold in America, I am constantly stunned at how far to one side each party and their supporters are and seemingly must be.  It is, by and large, Republicans to the right, Democrats to the left, and no middle ground in sight.  When we categorize ourselves as one of these two extremes, we may enjoy the apparent sense of community that comes from it.  After some time, we begin to identify with one extreme.  However, as a whole, such categorization has the net effect of polarizing a nation.

In the twenty-first century, it seems that so many of us are unimpressed by an optimized solution.  There is nothing sexy about a calculated compromise.  On YouTube, it is the biggest this and the fastest that which tend to garner millions of views.  We simply are not interested in anything average.

I think that politicians ought to replace their segragating rhetoric with a middle of the road approach.  But the fault lies not only with them.  The voting population must recognize the value of a moderate approach.  Why do we tend not to award those who are steady and balanced?  Is it related to our fascination with outlandish personalities like those of the Kardashians?

Obama Backlash Defies Science

In recent weeks, I have heard far too many unfounded, outrageous complaints about the work of President Obama.  There has been a backlash against the democrats in the United States, which has resulted in a right-sided victory in the 2010 midterm elections.  As the republicans march on with smirks on their faces, I feel that Americans have been unfair in their analysis of Obama.  Worse, I believe they are, on average, ignorant and/or misinformed, and easily swayed by the media, whose representatives appear to also be ignorant and/or misinformed.  You know there is something wrong with the mainstream news in America, when the voice of reason, the only rational pundit on television, is Jon Stewart, whose Daily Show airs on Comedy Central.