If asked about their latest views on quantitative easing in the Federal Reserve, most people wouldn’t have an opinion. The same thing can be said about the latest breakthroughs in particle physics, medical technology or any area of science for that matter. On the other hand, if politics comes up, people will adamantly share their opinion — informed or not — on what they believe to be right.
It seems people are participating in the political discussion for 2016 more than they have in any election for the past decade. Although the U.S. political system is significantly improved with more opinions than general apathy, the question is whether many political views are backed by evidence. Anyone who has seen two people scream at one another with deep rage knows the source of such contention is often not what is true, but what people believe to be true. The U.S. needs to reach the point where the two finally intersect.
The solution is simple: All people need to have educated and enlightened political conversations is look to political scientists for the common trends occurring in politics today. Americans don’t have to look for political scientists to give them their opinions; people are smart enough to form their own views. The problem is political scientists currently aren’t the ones setting the guidelines on political opinions. Many TV hosts on news networks like Fox News and MSNBC may read the news, but they have no education for their musings to be deemed legitimate, as they would have us believe. While Fox News hosts like Bill O’Reilly may have more than one degree listed under their education background, Sean Hannity, the man who hosted the 2016 Conservative Political Action Conference, dropped out of both New York University and Adelphi University.
Glenn Beck, whose books flood the political section at Barnes & Noble, has a higher education that goes as far as attending one class at Yale University. While MSNBC may have former Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow, analysts like Al Sharpton and Chuck Todd never graduated college.
The lack of legitimacy in the sources of information in social studies does not stop at political science. Does anyone else remember learning U.S. history through Oprah Winfrey and Michael Douglas? Television channels like MSNBC, Fox News and The History Channel are all meant to improve the education of the general public, not supplant it. While it is intriguing to listen to Liam Neeson explain ancient Greece’s “very particular set of skills,” it does nothing to further the discussion on the hearts of civilization.
College students are persuaded against pursuing a degree in political science at a time when political scientists are needed more than ever. Graduates of political science are pressed with harsh stigmas. One example is by John Oliver, who argued, “The only question a poli-sci major is really qualified to answer is: ‘Was it weird having to move back in with your parents after college?’” The common perception may be that the only degree worth pursuing today is one requiring students to pass Physics 2. However, people with an educational background centered in chemistry and physics aren’t the ones who engineered this country.
We don’t need leaders with a science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics major who memorized equations in their back pockets to answer our nation’s toughest questions. This country needs educated people with backgrounds in the political trends of the past and present to help answer questions about the future. This country needs legitimate political scientists.
People are finally finding a reason to participate in political discussions — that’s the first step. The next step is for personal opinions to, at the very least, occasionally begin with “according to” or “I read somewhere.” Then again, what’s most important is all this talk on politics translates into Americans finding their ways to the polls come November.
Joshua Udvardy is a UF mechanical engineering freshman. His column appears on Wednesdays.
