It is unfortunate that there is a political appointee.
However, it's not a Soviet government - the key feature of the Soviet goverment is not the political appointee in charge of a department, otherwise the French would be Soviets. Every single ministry in France has political appointees to an extent we would find unfathomable here.
However, in France, as in America, these appointees are put in place by elected leaders with fixed terms.
The key feature of the Soviets is dictatorship.
This policy in no way subverts the will of the voters.
In fact, a good argument can be made that this actually increases the power of the voters and the accountability of government. You and I both know that scientists in the government have views greatly at variance with the views of the voters, and are these scientists are trying to influence public policy to conform to their views.
It just so happens I agree with these scientists, and I have been trained as a scientist myself.
However, my love of science is insubstatial compared to my love of democracy - and the actions of these scientists *are* a subversion of democracy. Put bluntly, these scientists are public servants, appointed and paid to serve the voter and the taxpayer. When they choose to use their office to advance their own agenda instead of those of the voter and taxpayer, no matter how noble I find the agenda I must condmen it.
There will come a time when I will disagree greatly with the government. If I do not fight to ensure that the government is firmly under the control of the voters now, someday I may lose the chance to fight at all.
Which is why it may be a good thing to have our elected leaders put political appointees over our scientists, even if I despise our elected leaders and admire our scientists. Democracy is far more important than science. The Soviets you mentioned? They often did great science, and all it did was make the gulags more efficient.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bullshit
Date: 2007-02-04 02:40 pm (UTC)However, it's not a Soviet government - the key feature of the Soviet goverment is not the political appointee in charge of a department, otherwise the French would be Soviets. Every single ministry in France has political appointees to an extent we would find unfathomable here.
However, in France, as in America, these appointees are put in place by elected leaders with fixed terms.
The key feature of the Soviets is dictatorship.
This policy in no way subverts the will of the voters.
In fact, a good argument can be made that this actually increases the power of the voters and the accountability of government. You and I both know that scientists in the government have views greatly at variance with the views of the voters, and are these scientists are trying to influence public policy to conform to their views.
It just so happens I agree with these scientists, and I have been trained as a scientist myself.
However, my love of science is insubstatial compared to my love of democracy - and the actions of these scientists *are* a subversion of democracy. Put bluntly, these scientists are public servants, appointed and paid to serve the voter and the taxpayer. When they choose to use their office to advance their own agenda instead of those of the voter and taxpayer, no matter how noble I find the agenda I must condmen it.
There will come a time when I will disagree greatly with the government. If I do not fight to ensure that the government is firmly under the control of the voters now, someday I may lose the chance to fight at all.
Which is why it may be a good thing to have our elected leaders put political appointees over our scientists, even if I despise our elected leaders and admire our scientists. Democracy is far more important than science. The Soviets you mentioned? They often did great science, and all it did was make the gulags more efficient.