And now, there are three, and all happen (?) to be MDs. First, there was obstetrician Ron Paul from Texas. Then, as I noted in a recent posting, Dr. Paul Broun of Georgia, also in the House of Representatives with (Ron) Paul.
Now, I learn (politics buffs will have known of him for a long time) of Dr. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, vying explicitly (a sign saying “NO” is said to hang in his office) for the title, and very handsomely at that, as this NY Times article details.
What is it about doctors and negative (that is, desirable) politics? The doctors I know, who aren’t politicans, don’t strike me as particularly negative, at least relative to me, a very negative patient as they gently tell me. If the only way to get a judiciously negative politician onto Capitol Hill is to elect a doctor, then I guess we need 462 more physicians in Congress.
I’d do it in a heartbeat – even if I had to send my very own cardiologist!
{ 10 comments }
Ahhh, sometimes I too wish that correlation implied causation.
Just read his bio, and I have to say, he reads a lot more like “Dr. Republican” than “Dr. No.”
Here’s a shot at some causation:
I think doctors are accustomed to making tough decisions based on facts. They’re used to being accountable for their actions and having to tell people the bad news. Being a doctor is not about comprising but making the correct decision at the correct time regardless of the opinions in the peanut gallery.
Politics on the other hand is all about compromise. A doctor has told countless people face to face that they have cancer, an incurable disease, or family death. Telling the truth about the budget is nothing compared to those experiences. So when a doctor becomes a politician, you get a more candid person concerned about facts rather than politics.
Just some thoughts
Reading between the lines a bit reveals the most sad fact about our politicians, the media covering them, and the “masses” electing them; its sad (but a bit funny) that the article has to point out that Dr. Coburn actually reads legislation before he votes on it.
When discussing politics most people I run into actually believe that more cooperation is necessary in congress. Lets not forget that the vast majority of actions taken by congress are not authorized by the Constitution. So I say, “Gridlock in congress?…..We should be so lucky!”
If anyone asked me how our political system works in America I would direct them to the quote in the full article in which his fellow Senator accused him of, “… stopping good bills that help good people…” Forget about teaching kids the “Three branches of Government,” forget about all other values that the State claims to value. This whopping guilt-trip of a quote is all anyone need understand about politics in an the Welfare/Warfare State. To combat someone who wishes to keep spending in line with the true assets of the nation all you need do is guilt trip him with a sound byte. For the same man to defend himself, he needs a page of print. If you are unwilling to bribe your constituents with spending (that we can not afford and will eventually be financed by monetized debt and a declining Dollar) then you will be an outcast in the Senate, or worse, not elected at all.
I pray for a day when voters might finally make the connection;
Social Spending ===> Public Debt ===> FED Financing ===> Inflation ===> Lower REAL WAGES ===> Poverty
Budget responsibility is difficult to explain, but its easy to say; “..good bills that help good people…” So, more of this crap is passed into law.
Maybe doctors are good at spotting cancer. And what, if not a cancer destroying the republic, do we have growing in our midst.
Not having been a politician, I can only offer hearsay. Established politician put tremendous pressure on new ones to get them to go along with the leadership. If they go along, they get appointed to the best committees and invited to the best parties. If they don’t, they get ostracized and ridiculed. It takes someone with a high self-esteem to stand up to the isolation and criticism from your comrades. I think medical doctors have what it takes to stand alone for what’s right.
What about Howard Dean (never in Congress, I know) and Bill Frist? They were doctors, and pretty lousy politicians.
Coburn is the only senator I’d give a passing grade to, albeit a C- or a D.
Bernie Sanders is one of my favorite members of Congress. Unlike his 532 fellow socialists in Congress, at least he has the honesty to actually call himself one.
These congressmen may be consistent, but they’re not libertarian. Paul Broun is a strong advocate for the Iraq war and the “War on Terror”, and a strong opponent to easy immigration.
And although Tom Coburn is against the Iraq war, he may be even worse than Broun in that he’s an advocate for legislating morality. It seems he’s for strengthening the FCC and legislating against homosexuality.
I believe they both want federal bans on abortion. In the case of Coburn, even for incidents of rape.
I was excited when you implied there were two more Dr. Pauls in congress, but their actual positions are extremely disappointing.
Obviously, medical doctors are too stupid to understand what the job entails. They’re supposed to pass whatever compromise the lobbyists have patched together for the special interests they represent as their party caucus demands, blowing hot air in the process so the network news hacks have something to bolivate about.
Just voting ‘no’ throws a wrench in the whole process, reducing political efficiency!
I’m tired of professional politicians who miraculously become multi-millionaires in office. I know a doctor isn’t as likely to be in it for the money. I’m sure even the most liberal of liberals would vote no most of the time after seeing all the waste and under table deals that go into law, if they were not a professional politician who owes favors to everyone.
Comments on this entry are closed.