Earlier today, I published an op-ed in the Washington Post entitled "Scholar on the Sidelines." In it I noted that aside from economists and scientists, very few academics have been appointed to policy positions in the Obama administration. The 2008 TRIP poll of 2,700 international relations scholars shows that of the twenty five most influential scholars, only three have ever held policy positions. This is quite different from a few decades ago. I said the fault for this gap lies with the academy rather than the administration, as scholars pay less attention to how their work relations to the policy world, and advancement comes faster for those who develop mathematical models, new methodologies and theories that are unintelligible to policy makers. The resulting vacuum is filled by the more than 1,200 think tanks in the US which house experts ready to comment with a bias that reflects their founders and funders. I said that the withdrawal of of the academy is a loss for our democratic processes.
I received more positive responses to this op-ed than almost any I have written. But some said that I was wrong to blame only the academy. They argued that the political process has become too centralized in Washington and that think tanks house experts who not only tailor their writings to the political winds of the day, but consist of people who are simply ladies and gentlemen in waiting for political favor in the Washington court of the day. I would be curious to know whether others think the problem is more with the academy or with the political process.
I doubt there's anyone in academia who would be able to offer what these nominees do, insofar as being the point person/people. Certainly academia can provide a wealth of advisors, but the people who actually call the shots need more bona fides than most academics can provide, in my opinion, so I guess if they're to be faulted for anything, it would be not being more politically involved (as Lawrence Summers is, for example). I guess I agree with you.
As long as academics are unwilling to call out the power game, who really cares what they think?
Did you hear what he just wrote there, Joe?
When it comes down to it, noone cares what academics think. Except insofar as it will advance their agenda.
Think long and hard, Joe, about whether that is what you want to call progress.
More here:
http://talentedearthquake.blogspot.com/2009/04/academics-and-policy-joseph-nye-notes.html
http://talentedearthquake.blogspot.com/2009/04/academics-and-policy-joseph-nye-notes.html
You say:
"I would be curious to know whether others think the problem is more with the academy or with the political process."
And the answer is:
"...the more than 1,200 think tanks in the US which house experts ready to comment with a bias that reflects their founders and funders."
The WHITE HOUSE is staffed by sycophants, lapdogs, predators.
The hiring criteria are based on anticipated loyalty,track record, and ability to deceive the public.
The underlying mantra is: we know the truth won't set them (MAIN STREET) free, but it's easier to tell them (MAIN STREET) that they
are going to a shower than going to a gas chamber.
We had a group of people chosen by the Presidency as advisers. All of them of strong academic background. As Romanians have a problem with scholars (ivory tower, had to have connections with the Communist Party and the oppressive secret services before 1989, dreaming away from reality) most of them stepped back and some got involved directly in policy as party members losing in this way their unbiased opinion. We had them and we scared them away. You do not have them but they do not come. Funny! And we both need them desperately.
Why we need them? For the technicalities. For they are more susceptible to stick to the truth of their field than to the winds of popular or political opinions. For most of the decisions both USA and Romania made lately are based more on "popular truths" than on scientifically proven theories. For it is better to act based on reason than on symbols and emotions.
If it's really about the power rather than more thoughtful consideration of its wiser use, more broadly, and not to defend or promote more narrow ideological considerations of the use of power, who really cares what thinkers think. When power politics is rationalized as worthy in-and-of-itself to further favored causes, don't the opinions of professional thinkers become somewhat irrelevant?
Perhaps that is something the academy should think about the next time it rallies and cheerleads the very kinds of power games that would otherwise make it a relevant institution.
The only way the academy is relevant is if more open-ended engagement and debate trump power. But, sad to say, that is not how far too many in the academy are behaving today, as long as it looks to advance their favored caused.
It's a bargain that the academy should think long and hard about, I would say.
Ben Sutherland
http://benfrankln.blogspot.com/