Politics is better with the presence of academics

The following article makes me mad. The author either hasn't got a clue what he is talking about or is being dishonest.


Why academics like Stephane Dion are unsuited to the world of politics

John Martin

Special to The Province

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

With all the finger pointing regarding the recent meltdown of Stephane Dion, little attention appears to be directed toward his biggest liability -- Dion is an academic.

Good for him, and good for us, as I'll try to explain in my comments.

It is common for political leaders to be well educated, especially in law. But a lengthy career in academia, supplemented by precious little else, is among the poorest ways to prepare one's self for life in politics -- never mind aspiring to be prime minister.

Academics raise kids, try to balance that with their careers, try to make ends meet on a limited budget, own homes, do a lot of things around the house themselves because they can't afford to hire somebody else. Job experience isn't everything. Moreover, the academic world is often very political. That fact that the author doesn't know that shows that he doesn't know what academic life is like.

I reject the notion that there are good or bad ways to prepare for a life in politics, especially in a democracy. We may need a good number of lawyers in the legislature, but if parliament is to be representative of the people, I would hope that our legislature include a few people from all walks of life.

The problem is that most academics are unable to bring a great deal of life experience to a second career in politics. From the ages of six to 30, they've often done little more than attend school; studying, reading, debating and writing. As they near completion of graduate school they get assistant teaching opportunities, which soon roll over into part-time, and eventually, full-time instructor positions. All of a sudden they're nearing 40 and still eating in the student cafeteria.

They've held views and then had to change them when faced with contrary evidence. They've had to face deadlines, solve problems, and innovate. They've communicated with colleagues around the world and have been exposed to different places and different cultures. They've had to manage research budgets and personnel.

This one-dimensional frame of reference tends to provide a smug, limited world view that finds little company off campus.

Academics are always under pressure to look at the world in a fresh way in the hopes of gaining new and useful insights. Having a "smug, limited world view" wouldn't be a way of doing successful research, getting it published, or funded.

Fidel Castro may still be an inspiration at political-science faculty department meetings, but few others are toasting the dictator's health.

Mr. Martin doesn't like Fidel Castro, apparently. Perhaps he wouldn't care for the views of "smug" academics like Friedrich von Hayek or Milton Friedman either. I'm sure that any of Mr. Martin's political beliefs possessing solid foundations would have had those foundations established only because of the work of academics.

The entire culture and practice of academia is at odds with the rough and tumble arena of politics.

Much nastier things are commonly said at faculty meetings than have ever been said in parliament or in a media scrum, and I can assure you that Fidel isn't the one taking the hits. That's rough and tumble.

University professors have the option of taking 45 minutes or longer to explain and analyze a relatively basic point. They can qualify and clarify their statements to the point of exhaustion.

One part of the work of a member of parliament that is not sufficiently appreciated is committee work. Parliament isn't just or even mainly about scoring points during Question Period. Committee work is where our legislators pay attention to the details and take the time to listen to experts, debate details, and carefully craft effective legislation. It is where legislators with a workman-like attitude really contribute to the welfare of our country as opposed to those who have an aptitude for being a showman or a strongman. Academics are well suited to this kind of work.

Academics are accustomed to captive, attentive audiences who rarely challenge them out of respect, deference and intimidation. Even when they clearly misstate the facts, professors are unlikely to be confronted. If they disapprove of where a discussion is heading they have the option of cutting it off in mid-sentence.

It looks like Mr. Martin has only ever encountered academics as a student, perhaps an undergraduate student. The truth is that the academic world, while usually polite, is intellectually brutal. Academics are constantly challenging each other on small details and are eager to cut each other down - especially those who have competing ideas and who compete for jobs or research funding. Small misstatements of the facts would be like blood in the water to academic sharks. They would smell the scent of a victim who hasn't prepared properly and is ready to be slaughtered.

No such luxuries or control mechanisms exist in politics. Interviews, media scrums and question periods are no-holds-barred cage matches compared to the safe and structured settings academics conduct themselves in.

If the academic world looks safe and structured, it is not to coddle academics but to prevent bullies from obscuring the truth with their sound and fury. The world of politics could use a little more of this structure, so let's bring on a few more academics and let there be more light and less heat in our capitals.

Like so many university professors, Dion comes across as condescending and pretentious, seemingly frustrated that these little people asking him questions are obviously much too pedestrian to grasp the complexity of what he's saying.

As is the scholarly tradition, he is quick to dismiss ideas originating from outside the ivory tower as naïve, simplistic and reactionary.

So much of academic research is empirical that I find this stereotype of "scholarly tradition" laughable. The ivory tower is another false stereotype. If anything, academics look at the world more closely than people normally have time to do.

When Stephane Dion tells you he thinks your idea is wrong, he will also give you a reason why he thinks so and not some political rhetoric. He would also invite you to change his mind by giving him a better reason why you are right.

Aloofness and elitism are common traits among academics.

...but they are still eating in the student cafeteria at age 40, apparently.

Nonetheless, these fail to resonate with blue-collar workers, small-business owners and others trying to make a go of it in the real world.

Most academics aren't well-paid and so they understand very well the problems of trying to make ends meet in everyday life.

It's often noted that A-students end up working for B-students in corporations owned by C-students, who dropped out of college.

This is the first time I've heard something that is supposed to be often noted.

Watching an awkward, floundering Dion, it's not difficult to see why.

That's how his enemies would like to paint him. If you've ever had a substantive discussion with him, you'd know that picture is completely false.

Contact criminologist John Martin at the University College of the Fraser Valley