
Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President... - rameadows
http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/2011/08/21/if-i-were-president
======
liber8
I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote
as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is
arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's
letter. The last half of that sentence is key:

 _As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and
lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might
choose the right leaders in the first place._

NDT falls into the same trap as nearly everyone since the framers of the
constitution. You're never going to elect the _right leaders_. They don't
exist. The reason our government was set up the way it was, and not the way it
exists now, was precisely because the greatest group of political scientists
to ever congregate in one place and time realized that people are inherently
flawed, weak, and susceptible to the intoxicating effects of power. _Because_
you'll never have the "right leaders", you must structure the system to
prevent abuse by the inevitable "wrong leaders" that will be elected.

NDT, like so many others, misses this point completely, even though nearly the
entire letter pays lip service to the idea that the leaders are not the
problem to focus on. While he's right, the solution won't appear even if he
"enlightened the electorate" to Tysonian heights.

~~~
cynicalkane
I think you're reading a false dichotomy in NDT's comment that wasn't actually
intended.

~~~
bennyg
Exactly.

He's saying a smarter public trends towards a better government system in
place - by the majority of people using logic, reason and rationality to vote
in someone worth their salt for each position.

~~~
nsxwolf
There have been many intellectual tyrants. I disagree that we'll get better
leaders simply by educating the people about science.

~~~
bennyg
I still think it's a bit more abstract than that. Would you agree that overall
knowledge is good? Or at least holds more objective, intrinsic good than not?

I'm positing that a society that knows more is better than a society that
knows less. A society that knows more is better able to wield that knowledge
to make decisions than a society that doesn't have that knowledge. I fail to
see how there is any negative to educating more of the general public. Sure,
it's gonna' be damn near impossible to measure anything on a political leader
vs. general knowledge scale, but intuitively I think education is good.

~~~
nsxwolf
I agree that a society that knows more is better than a society that knows
less. Knowledge is good in its own right. But knowledge doesn't change human
nature. The rising tide of knowledge will lift all moral boats. Smarter good
people, smarter bad people.

------
mixonic
"One objective reality is that our government doesn’t work, not because we
have dysfunctional politicians, but because we have dysfunctional voters."

We have a dysfunctional political system that provides voters with leaders who
are compromised. Who then pander, rabble-rouse, and pick narrow issues to
speak loudly about to raise money. Who then lose our trust and respect,
corrupting the institution. Voters are not too "dysfunctional" or ill-informed
to make reasonable decisions. Approval of the US Congress was at %10 in
August, the lowest in 38 years. The electorate isn't smiling through the
failures of government.

The People are not the problem. I think Tyson would have answered different
after a few hours with Lessig. Blaming governement's failures on a ill-
informed electorate is second-rate at best.

~~~
rndmize
> Voters are not too "dysfunctional" or ill-informed to make reasonable
> decisions. Approval of the US Congress was at %10 in August, the lowest in
> 38 years. The electorate isn't smiling through the failures of government.

The 10% approval with Congress is only half the story. Those same people will
tell you that they're 80-90% satisfied with their own congressional
representatives. The reason the electorate is so dissatisfied with Congress as
a whole is because they think either things aren't getting done, or they
aren't going their way. Both are true.

And yes, voters are ill-informed and unlikely to make reasonable decisions.
One needs look no further than Glenn Beck and the conspiracy material he
peddled for several years to see how far the news has gotten from reporting
actual news. I remember the "cash 4 gold" advertisements being prominent
during his show; do you think that informed people were the ones making that
business viable enough to advertise like they did?

A media that relies more on data, that provides context and scope; this is
what we need to have to get informed voters, but a lot of people aren't smart
enough to place value on that when they can get a daily dose of things to rage
about and blame for their issues with the world. (I would further argue that
people of lower socioeconomic status simply don't have the time or energy to
deal with complex information when they're mostly focused on making ends meet,
but that's a separate argument).

~~~
ImprovedSilence
>>"The 10% approval with Congress is only half the story. Those same people
will tell you that they're 80-90% satisfied with their own congressional
representatives. The reason the electorate is so dissatisfied with Congress as
a whole is because they think either things aren't getting done, or they
aren't going their way. Both are true."

Very good point, reminds me of the Demotivational poster, "Meetings - none of
us are as dumb as all of us."

<http://www.despair.com/meetings.html>

------
maratd
> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and
> lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they
> might choose the right leaders in the first place.

This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The
presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are
simply brilliant.

No.

If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that
they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.

Our problems don't stem from the majority wallowing in ignorance. They are not
ignorant. Our problems stem from divergent interests. What is in the interest
of one, is not in the interest of his neighbor. The path to a healthier nation
is in finding creative ways in resolving those conflicts of interest.

~~~
hooande
At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority
of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science,
about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and
relationships. That's how it's supposed to be.

As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this
is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is
"brilliant in their own way" is a cop out, a platitude that's no better than
saying nothing at all. Intellectual curiousity, love of learning and
scientific rigor are real things, and a large number of the humans on this
planet don't possess them. If you object to the idea that Neil DeGrasse Tyson
is more brilliant than most, then you're in danger of losing touch with
reality.

If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to
raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not
smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of
human nature. You can teach people how to think, but you can't make them like
it.

A laughably small number of americans vote in presidential, much less local
elections. And many of those voters have only the shallowest understanding of
the issues being decided upon. deGrasse Tyson has a point...education may be
democracy's only hope.

ASIDE: I'm noticing rampant selection bias on hn. It's important to remember
that most of the people on this planet are nothing like us. Working at tech
companies and hanging out at tech events it's easy to believe that everyone is
as intelligent, reasonable and hard working as our family and coworkers. Most
people just don't have the same love of learning and/or hacking that we do.
While we value knowledge and intelligence above all, most humans don't and
there's nothing wrong with that.

~~~
vacri
_If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to
raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not
smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of
human nature._

If this were true, then Jews as a demographic wouldn't have a reputation for
being well-educated and literate. What you're talking about is as much
cultural as it is inherent, if not moreso. And if it's cultural, then
education can change it.

~~~
jlgreco
I think you're right. You are probably always going to have a normal
distribution, or close to it, but how tight that distribution is and where it
is centred is I think something that can be changed with some effort.

Certainly it is possible to make the population as a whole dumber (just stop
public education for instance), so it makes sense that, unless we happen to be
doing everything brilliantly right now, we can do better as well.

------
byoung2
* As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.*

I think it is easy to do this at the local and state level. These populations
are small enough that variations in general political leaning are small (e.g.
Californians are a more unified electorate than the US as a whole). It is also
easier because some polarizing issues are out of states' hands (e.g. defense
spending, immigration, abortion). It is harder to get a whole country to agree
on one leader

~~~
cpeterso
The Long Now Foundation hosted a talk by Benjamin Barber called “If Mayors
Ruled the World”. Barber discusses the major influence that mayors and city
governments have to make positive change to global problems, sidestepping
political gridlock at the national or international level.

Notes and audio (and non-free video) are available here:

[http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jun/05/if-mayors-ruled-
wor...](http://longnow.org/seminars/02012/jun/05/if-mayors-ruled-world/)

~~~
shawn-butler
It's been my experience that activist mayors that do so (flaunt regulations &
selectively adhere to the law) really are more interested in seeking higher
office. Best mayors are ones that realize their job is to keep the streets
safe, the garbage hauled, and the sewer working.

I do agree that county and state legislatures are much more effective places
for real change if only our federal judiciary would quit hamstring their
efforts.

------
keiferski
I've had a strange idea cooking in my mind for a few years now, although I've
never really fleshed it out.

What if we had an AI-like system instead of representatives? Imagine this:
"Pennsylvania-One" is an AI. Every day, from their smartphones or another
device, PA citizens vote on issues, ranging from small to big. Using this
data, "Pennsylvania-One" creates a model of what its constituents want, and
then, using its vast knowledge of political theory, history, economics, etc.,
makes a decision. This decision can be double-checked by constituents or by
some other "watchmen"-like individuals.

Of course, this would never happen (people trust people much more than
machines), and it's more of a sci-fi idea, but it's an interesting thought
nonetheless.

~~~
SapphireSun
There's at least one story by Issac Asimov about that. There was at least one
computer coordinating the world. I think it was "All the Troubles of the
World".

~~~
MartinCron
Similarly, in Neon Genesis Evangelion, there were three supercomputers who
independently processed all policy issues and would vote on them. "It's a form
of democracy, I suppose"

------
willholloway
Our bicameral legislature is dysfunctional in the US. The Senate and it's 60
votes to pass a bill filibuster rule make change too difficult.

The Senate does not represent the country well. California has two senators,
so does Wyoming.

The next two years will be gridlock. It's unlikely Democrats retake the House
and get sixty seats in the Senate, so divided government is what we have to
look forward to.

The Senate is a strong architectural advantage for Conservative politics in
the US.

This situation is unlikely to change. It would take a constitutional amendment
to abolish the Senate and that is nigh impossible in the US.

Because of this big change only happens once a generation or so.

~~~
shawn-butler
Isn't this a good thing since it is actually representative of the divided
electorate? Most polling data seems to indicate a genuinely divided nation on
key legislative issues.

Filibuster reform is not a constitutional crisis. If Senate Democrats refuse
to tackle it when they hold the Upper chamber it's on them. Senator Jeff
Merkley's gang of nine [0] seem enthusiastic about getting it done.

My hope is that states will begin to take proactive roles to fill the vacuum
and it is one of my greatest aggravations the extent to which the federal
judiciary has expanded the power and meaning of the commerce clause to cover
basically everything in order to prevent states from taking action.

[0] <http://bitly.com/U71kL4>

------
lefthansolo
I think Neil is wrong, unfortunately. It does matter who is in power, but not
for the reasons that the media and political campaigns focus on. Other than
the ability to veto, presidents don't legislate, they don't have that much
control over the economy- although if they are ignorant enough (Bush) or
obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama) that doesn't help things but we can't
reasonably blame them _and_ even the effects from legislation are often not
felt for years, etc. The main thing that a good U.S. president does is to lead
and have respect. If that respect is gone, because of a hostage crisis, Iran-
contra hearings, Monica Lewinsky affair, because you can't pronounce "nuclear"
correctly, etc. then that is a problem. But that is also why we hire
politicians instead of great leaders- great leaders make mistakes, but the
people and the media don't like mistakes. Great leaders don't want their
career ruined by the media, so instead we get politicians that parade around
as if they are great leaders.

If you really want to change the system, the president should be chosen at
random from the people of the United States, same for the House of
Representatives and State Houses. If any of us could become president that is
over 40, we'd pay a lot more attention.

~~~
subsection1h

        obsessed with progressive agenda (Obama)
    

What elements of the progressive agenda is Obama obsessed about?

~~~
lefthansolo
I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is
obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y.

X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy

Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in
the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is
concerned, then look at: <http://www.barackobama.com/plans/> and
<http://www.mittromney.com/jobs>

Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound
uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength
during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$
sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I
believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their
problems and so does everyone else.

Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated
voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I
heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S.
government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even.
The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is
only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if
the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the
right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong
leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.

~~~
lmm
I think you're wrong; it is by no means "obvious that the primary issue is
economy". Do you mean that improving the economy would solve healthcare
problems? Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment, and no amount
of economic growth will provide healthcare for the unemployed without
healthcare reform (although conversely, the number of people waiting until
they're eligible for medicare to start businesses suggests healthcare reform
ought to improve the economy).

Or are you simply claiming that it's more important? Economies go up and down,
and on the whole the president seems to have very little influence on them.
Introducing a proper healthcare system will, we know from other countries, be
a major long-term improvement.

So I'm not seeing obsession in Obama's focus on healthcare. I'm seeing sense.

~~~
lefthansolo
"Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment"

What is the basis of this statement?

~~~
lmm
I was under the impression it was generally accepted; from a brief look e.g.
Friedman's NAIRU concept. Are you arguing that it's practical to have full
employment under capitalism?

------
carsongross
Yes, it's an arrogant post.

As The Dad says: "Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million
people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."

------
tomrod
I'd vote for him, if only to increase basic research stock and funding. I'm
not sure his social and foreign policies would be apt, however, given his
academic veneer he takes to the written-about issue.

~~~
D_Alex
I'd vote for him too. I am sure his social and foreign policies would turn out
fine. I don't think it is even hard to come up with a decent social and
foreign policy: observe that there is a wide range of such policies among
"successful countries". USA is laissez-faire, Denmark is half-socialist,
Switzerland is neutral etc. As long as you are not deliberately trying to be a
tool, you'll probably do okay.

------
stretchwithme
Tyson is correct in that it is not politicians that are the problem.

But I don't know that there is something inherently wrong with the voters
either.

I think it is the electoral process that does not represent voter's interests.
I can't select who will represent my interests. I have to pick between two
false choices.

And then ALL of the power is handed to whoever wins the popularity contest.
And then my concerns are ignored for four years.

Proportional representation would solve that problem. You can even use it in
the executive branch (Switzerland does).

THEN Tyson could say the mistakes are our fault.

------
jccc
Oh good lord --

The question was, "If I were president..." If he'd answered the question
straight instead of the way he did, I doubt we'd see his answer as arrogant.
The context matters quite a bit.

------
linuxhansl
The following quote comes to mind:

"In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve." -Joseph de Maistre

------
jacquesm
Is there some obstacle that stops him from running?

~~~
shawn-butler
His ego.

~~~
jere
Why would an inflated ego be an obstacle to becoming president? Isn't it
actually necessary? After all, you have to believe you're more qualified than
a hundred million other people.

~~~
shawn-butler
I think you actually have to only believe you're more qualified than one other
person whom you generally demonify and caricature and maybe 2 or 3 other
candidates you can safely ignore and refuse to engage. You can rely on your
party to "convince" you about the other millions.

It is my understanding from reading presidential biographies that ambition has
not usually been a key factor in making The Big Decision(tm) to run in recent
elections at least since Nixon. But who knows, not like you can really trust
the sources either. Saying it's better to be King is not much of a way to
create an historical legacy :)

------
hnwh
I know who I'm writing in tomorrow!

