It’s either science or it’s political science
Some of you may not know this about your ol’ hillbilly pal, but I actually have a degree in science. Maybe that’s why I’ve been a little better than Fauci the last few weeks at predicting the reactions to COVID-19; I can’t be sure.
However, the last couple of weeks my scientific degree has helped me develop some high-level scientific evaluations that are more in my specific area of scientific study. See I have a degree in political science from SEMO.
All of my long hours of study enabled me to differentiate science from political science.
Science is something done completely unbiased, unemotionally, with the goal of eliminating all bias and building a conclusion based solely on logic and reason.
Political science is the opposite. It’s about what moves people to act — or not to act. Most of it is based on emotion, passion, and preferences.
Now as a scientist I can state that COVID-19 has been a real worldwide tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died and even more have gotten sick. It’s been awful, just awful.
However, the plain truth is that it hasn’t been the tragedy that some scientists have predicted. Most all of these scientific models have been consistently reducing their projections of doom weekly and sometimes daily.
Maybe that is because for a few weeks this spring Missourians listened to the experts and wore masks and practiced social distancing. Job well done, scientists.
However, the sanctimonious lectures from the amateur scientists have been free-flowing.
So you know the lake was great last weekend, by the way. If you haven’t been down yet this summer you’re missing out. I got the sense that a lot of the lectures were really liberal political scientists masquerading as scientists tossing out condescending lectures from their ivory towers about people ignoring the dictates of the clearly unbiased scientists.
Then the protests over the murder of George Floyd began. Personally, I think protests are a very reasonable response to the government murdering that man. The truth is, the larger the number of protestors, the more attention and impact they have, and I for one hope that the protests have an impact.
I personally watched the protest in Jefferson City, and a lot of the masks didn’t last for even half the march and there was no social distancing. I’m not judging anyone’s decisions, but in point of fact very little to none of the scientists’ advice was followed.
In my view as a political scientist, protesting the government murdering a man is far more important than going to the lake.
However, if you’re a legitimate unbiased scientist then the purpose of large groups of people gathering together wouldn’t change your unbiased scientific conclusions.
Then a letter signed by hundreds of public health scientists came out supporting the protests and explaining that protesting the murder of George Floyd was more important than social distancing or masks.
Well if scientists are claiming that there are things more important than flattening the curve of COVID-19, then it becomes a political science question as to what those things are.
Some believe the risks of reopening the economy is worth the risk of spreading COVID-19 — just as passionately as some believe protesting the murder of George Floyd is worth the risk of spreading COVID-19.
I think at this point the government and the scientists just have to let free people live as free people and make their own decisions as none of them have the credibility to chastise anyone anymore.
There are many who feel like the scientists sold them a pig in a poke with COVID to start with, and once you start playing political scientist, then it’s hard to go back to playing traditional unbiased scientist again.
What happens if that second wave hits, who will listen?
I saw some scientist from Harvard on CNN last week. Now I ain’t never cared much for Harvard people, but he was predicting another 100,000 deaths next month or something.
It struck me that he might not have been on CNN all day if he had predicted that as the country opens up more people will get sick and some will die, but we will be alright.
Actually he would have been totally ignored.
I think a large part of the country is going to be ignoring people like him for a while now.
Speaking of public health, the socialist urban newspapers have clamored for a decade for Missouri to expand Medicaid.
Now it looks like Missouri is a shoe in to expand the program in August, and the coalition of groups working toward that end hired a group top-flight political professionals on both sides fo the aisle to win the referendum.
The story the Star wrote was hilarious in that they made it look like some secret conspiratorial idea. They even tried to make an issue that while Barklage is in favor of expansion, he also runs Governor Parson’s PAC. Of course, Governor Parson is against expansion.
That is as absurd as expecting that every auto dealer that advertises in the Star is pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-higher taxes, well you get the point.
In this very Republican state, they made the smart move to hire not just a Republican, but top Republican strategist David Barklage to help them. If you really cared about poor people getting access to health care, you should be thrilled someone with Barklage’s track record of winning is working on the campaign.
Scott Faughn is the publisher of The Missouri Times, owner of the Clayton Times in Clayton, Mo; SEMO Times in Poplar Bluff, Mo.; and host of the only statewide political television show, This Week in Missouri Politics.