 |
|
« RFID: EZPass and SpeedPass Poised to Bypass All that Is Right and Good with the World? | Main | Would You Ever Sit in an Airport Lounge, Engineering Drawings Sprawled Out on a Table? »
March 18, 2005
Engineering a Nation
Generally, are engineers liberal or conservative? Why have so few been a part of public service?
As the ubiquitous red/blue state map of the 2004 Presidential Election flashed through my mind the other day (I still have nightmares about it), I wondered if there might be a connection between those states and the engineering community.
According to data compiled by the National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, the top ten states for doctoral engineers include:
1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Massachusetts
5. Ohio
6. New Jersey
7. Pennsylvania
8. Michigan
9. Illinois
10. Maryland
Interestingly, with the exceptions of Texas and Ohio, John Kerry won the above states. Is this a definitive correlation? Absolutely not. It would take a team of statisticians and a Boeing 757 full of data to attempt to make such a connection.
It strikes me as more than coincidence, however, that eight Kerry states are among the top ten 'engineering states.' If there is even a loose connection, what does this say about engineers? (With questions like these running through my head, is it any wonder that I don't get much sleep?)
Regardless of political leanings, engineers create, design, build, and most often craft—whether working with something old or something new. Above all, engineers solve problems. It follows, then—admittedly in a basic, Point A-to-Point B way—that the engineer would also make an ideal government leader. Has this happened? Not often enough, at least in the U.S.
According to a recent article in MIT's Technology Review, "In the United States, engineers don't rule. According to a Congressional Quarterly survey of the 109th Congress, there are just four engineers in the House and one in the Senate. When the engineering specialties in the 2004–2005 Statistical Abstract of the United States are combined, there are 2.12 million engineers in the U.S. versus 952,000 lawyers and 819,000 doctors; yet 10 physicians now sit in the House and two in the Senate, and CQ lists 160 representatives and 58 senators with legal backgrounds."
The article cites two theories for such a discrepancy. Firstly, that an engineer entering public service faces lesser income as well as a day job that's not conducive to staying current with the latest research. Secondly, that the old American stereotype paints engineers as, well, geeks who poorly handle both business and emotion, relating instead to 'things.' Hey, I didn't say it. The piece also describes how this is not the case in other cultures, such as those in Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East—both currently and historically. For instance, "In 2004, almost all two dozen members of China's ruling Politburo had engineering degrees, including all nine members of the Politburo's Standing Committee."
The U.S. has not been without engineers in public service, such as:
George Washington
Herbert Hoover
Dale Risinger
Frank Padavan
John H. Sununu
Jimmy Carter
In an excellent Design Engineering article, Sununu said "Engineers by their nature, or maybe through their training, are not necessarily skilled orators," he says. "We are not communications experts or rhetoricians. But once we get into a position, we absolutely have the skill to serve effectively."
Red states and blue states, engineers and politics, U.S. and them. For once, not a rant from me. Not even a small one. Just questions, searching for answers, finding more questions. Any ideas?
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
26 CommentsBy their very nature, engineers are, and need to be, conservative, playing the trade-off game in nearly every design problem they encounter because of physical/scientific/monetary/code/etc. constraints. It is because of this that one would think most engineers affiliate themselves with the red states rather than the blue, contrary to the article's compilation. Does it really matter, though, in the context of solving a problem? Even though there are many ways to solve a single problem, the ultimate goal is to make things better. This type of thinking carries no political bias and, I believe, is the way most engineers think.
March 22, 2005 2:31 PMFurther examination of the red/blue states would reveal the blue states have mostly red counties. An analysis of the U.S. map by county would reveal the majority of the blue resides in high population densities more indicative of lower income and education and absolutely no correlation to engineering. The fact that "Kerry won the top ten engineering states" is a remote coincidence. Most engineers could see through the incosistencies and lack of substance of Mr. Kerry's message.
March 22, 2005 3:28 PMI think that engineers are problem solvers, whether social or with mechanical things. There is so much corruption in politics, that the truth is seldom fought for. Engineers seek truth about the world around them. I think current politicians are intimidated by engineers, and do everything to prevent them into politics.
March 22, 2005 3:38 PMGentlemen,
It's no wonder that the "kerry" states have a lot of Engineers. Engineers design things, Union people build them. It takes many union people to build what an Engineer can design....DUH!
Also, most Engineers work for a living which means liberals don't like them very much. I know because my daughter is a "tree-hugger".
Political science is quite different from Physical science. Physical science incorporates logic and nature while Political science incorporates beliefs and ideologies. The two separate studies are reluctant to humanly coexist.
March 22, 2005 4:37 PMI believe you are right and Sununu is right about engineers usually lacking the polished communications skills of lawyers. These skills may be necessary to get elected. I think that engineers also probably have less interest and tolerance than lawyers do for bureaucracy and "politics" and fighting other people. Engineers, unlike lawyers, become engineers because they like technology, being creative and designing things. If they prefered political things, they probably would have become lawyers instead.
March 22, 2005 5:10 PMWhy do you care if engineers have one political leaning over another? Do you seek to change it if you don't like the outcome? Why are you so interested in "engineering a nation"? Why are you still stuck in November 2004? Why is it that conservatives are the only ones with fresh ideas and vigor and the liberals keep spewing the same tired drivel? Why are the propositions presented by conservatives logical whereas the liberals must resort to media blitzes, trumped-up surveys and ballyhooing by activists and foolish legislators? How long will we be snookered by liberals who feign to have our best interests in mind but revel in the power they accumulate to control those they claim to be liberating?
March 23, 2005 9:37 AMThe fact that engineers tend to look at the best available information and make an independent judgement is more important than a willingness to accept the doctrine of the political right or of the left. One would expect a sizeable percentage of engineers to recognize when "the emperor has no clothes".
March 23, 2005 12:20 PMEngineers are well-educated, critical thinkers, but I don't think that has much to do with current political divisions.
There has been a major political shift in our country. In recent history (1940's through early 90's), the right and left were dilineated by the presumption of "haves" and "have nots" in a calculated class war to win votes. Engineers generally fell into the hard-working, well-educated class of the "haves." Currently, the right and left are being manipulated into a dilineation based upon "conservative morals/ethics/religion" versus "liberal morals/ethics/religion." Considering that trickle down economics has caused the greatest shrinkage of the middle class in the history of our nation, class warfare is clearly no longer a means of winning a majority vote from the "haves." It is very strategic to remove the issue of class warfare, and establish a moral divide instead.
The moral division isn't as dependent upon education as the wealth division was. Moral standards span the gamut across all education levels and social classes and are frequently more tied to family religious history than to anything else. I therefore don't think that a profession like engineering will show a political leaning based upon the current political divisions. Beyond basic ethics, engineering is essentially perceived as an amoral profession. Other professions like law (which seems to require conditional ethics to defend your clients' positions) and medicine (which tends to attract those who at least initially seek to have a career which directly, personally benefits others) may show a greater tendency to lean towards the current definition of left or right.
[Wow! Talk about dangerous generalizations!]
Myself, I am forced to straddle between parties.
My economic philosophy is certainly not inline with the conservatives. It is a mathematical certainty (a core fact that philosophy can't dispute) that wealth will accumulate in the hands of a few dozen families if it is not strategically redistributed. The wealthy have more investable versus consumed income which results in faster, greater wealth accumulation. A Harvard professor even derived a mathematical proof that fits the wealth distribution of every economy in the world based upon their taxation and other wealth redistribution methods.
A healthy middle-class is essential to long-term political stability. Thus, in order to hang on to a comfortable level of wealth permanently, even the wealthy should favor strategic wealth redistribution. America historically had successful wealth redistribution with land grants that continuously provided financial opportunity for all until the 1960's and 1970's. As such governmental resources to redistribute wealth ran out, wealth redistribution has had to occur through other mechanisms. If wealth redistribution doesn't occur, society becomes unstable as the middle class shrinks and the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" widens. Trickle down economics presupposed that leaving wealth with the wealthy would stimulate the economy for all. Instead, it accelerated the wealth accumulation of the wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class to shrink. We must restore successful wealth redistribution to maintain the political stability we have enjoyed for over 200 years. Nations without such practices eventually fall to revolution.
While I have conflicts with conservative economic policies, I have even greater conflicts with liberal ethics and morals and the attempts to eliminate the influence of religion from our society. In my opinion, good is being called bad, and political correctness is resulting in bad being mandated to be called good by legislation. Such policies are weakening the historical strength of our nation. If it irritates the minority of Americans that the majority still believe in right & wrong, good and bad, then so be it. Conditional ethics frankly is illogical to most Americans. The "right" is seizing upon this polarizing issue to the detriment of the "left." Meanwhile, the economic and foreign policies of the "right" are weakening the historical strengths of our great nation.
As I said, I am without a political party. I wish someone would create a viable party with better foreign and economic policies, but still rooted in conservative moral values. Then I would find a political home. Currently, I am forced to choose "the lesser of two evils." If we want to "engineer a nation," let's engineer a political platform that the true majority of Americans can believe in whole-heartedly. America has never been more ripe for a viable third-party. Give me the economic foundation of the democratic party (minus the detrimental give away welfare programs) with the conservative values of the Republican party and I will finally find a political home.
March 23, 2005 2:58 PMMany forget how engineers think. By their nature, they are logical thinkers. They like to get from point A to point B the best way possible. That is probably why they stay out of politics. Politics makes no logical sense.
"Politics is the art of presenting a dish of ham and eggs from a pig and a chicken."
"Politicians talk a lot about nothing, and say little about anything."
March 24, 2005 10:36 AMFrom the looks of the comments, the majority of those engineers responding lean toward the conservative side. Our profession tends and should be conservative based on the society we serve. As a structural engineer, we should error on the side of convervatisim and "when in doubt, make it stout". With the general exception of those engineers in academia who tend to be more politically liberal, the working class engineers in the traditional engineering professions (mechanical, electrical, and civil) will generally be more conservative.
What this has to do with political conservatism, I have no idea.
March 24, 2005 1:21 PMI have found that many engineers are politically conservative because they have "arisen" as professionals into a class higher than their parent's class. They have shrunk (mostly) from the thought of organizing or joining union type of organizations because they believe that unions for them are infra dig. To an extent they have been conservative in design, in the structural engineer's "when in doubt, make it stout" mode, but in more recent years, the need for optimal designs has moved them to work closer to the margins.
March 28, 2005 4:22 PMI am a structural engineer who is forced to work with fuzzy, non-linear-thinking male architects who behave like little kids and scorned women.
These architects are so left-leaning that some have actually spent their weekend protesting the "Cleveland Indians" when they were in Detroit. They thought the Indians logo was too demeaning. My architect buddies had a fit about the Florida recount, and criticized Bush for declaring 911 a "terrorist act." They are "PC Group Thinkers."
Engineers tend to resent liars and cheats and want proof.
Engineers and Architects mix like oil and water – that is unless the engineer just plain keeps his mouth shut and lets the architects have their say. They are truly a challenge that no one warned me about while I was in engineering school! Engineering schools need the teach classes in how to relate to liberal co-workers!
