If you were watching the informative and decidedly left-wing hilarity of Real Time with Bill Maher (aired Friday, 8/5/2011), you undoubtedly noticed the presence of Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson and a rather astute observation he made.
The observation regarded the fact that from 540 current members of Congress, 236 hold law degrees (58 Senators and 178 Representatives). That means 44%
of people in congress are, essentially, lawyers by trade. He went further to ask "Where is the rest of life?" or why more scientists, economists, entrepreneurs and basically people from other areas of expertise don't take on postings in public office; people that can give a more rounded representation of the American public's goals and necessities? To paraphrase Dr. Tyson's remark, given the nature of law and the courts it is an arguer's forum. He whose arguing skills are superior will win the favorable ruling and not the one with the superior argument. Therefore, the facts are null and void unless in hands of the appropriate, purple-faced loudmouth with a law degree.
Long story short, he made me think.
Precisely why is it that more of the aforementioned scientists, entrepreneurs and economists don't apply their expertise in a leadership role? A role so significant, a "second pair of eyes", that can provide insight on how the government can better serve the public? Are the able, decidedly, unwilling to participate? Is it acceptable to stay in their positions as academic leaders, but not political? Ain't that a damn shame?
With the recent drop in the U.S. credit rating, despite all the valid and pertinent facts that the Democratic party argued, 98% of the debt deal sided with the Republican Party's wishes. Now, suppose actual businessmen who know that to make money you must spend money, made up the greater majority on both sides? Even if there was a compromise, would it not have been a 50/50 split? No one can say for sure, but given the actual result, would it be so wrong to have a different type of professional in congress? A more diverse base of knowledge from which the decisions that shape the future of the nation could function?
Well? What's so bad about that?
