There’s a common misconception reproduced by pundits and politicians alike that, come November, a vote for the Democrats will be a vote to re-establish the rule of law and institutional order that was once also mistakenly assumed to just exist. This belief, while maybe/perhaps/possibly true in the most general way, is particularly strong among scientists who wish for nothing more than a magical return to how things were in 2024.
As I’ve said before, there are multiple reasons why this assumption is unlikely to materialize, even if the Democratic Party, by some miracle of nature, manages not to screw up the elections with poorly vetted candidates, blogger approved centrists, and otherwise unremarkable politicians. Even if winds change course in 2026 and 2028, rebuilding a system created over decades will be a monumental task. It would require a clear vision and even clearer political support (financial and political) towards the institutions where science happens, from K-12 all the way to the lab.
The indicators on the viability of these two conditions suggest that we should not expect much to happen, even in the best case scenario. This is particularly clear in California, a state partly built through investments in science and higher education, and which is home to some paradigmatic instantiating of the knowledge economy, whatever that may be. Despite the clear levels of stress that its knowledge institutions experience at present (funding cuts, attacks on researcher freedom, etc), both democratic legislators and the state’s charismatic governor have altogether failed to provide both a vision and clear support for the future of Californian science. A flagship state assembly initiative to create a state equivalent of the National Science Foundation to cover some of the losses in federal research funding failed in committee–it didn’t even make it to a vote. That doesn’t bode well for support.
Even low-hanging fruit (low cost symbolic support) is left to rot on the vine. Gavin Newsom, a likely candidate for the presidency in 2028, showed his support to the University of California’s mission and values by selecting a new Regent who lacks experience in higher education management, science policy, health administration, or anything actually relevant to the running of a research intensive university like the UC: NYU marketing professor, Scott Galloway. Unless the University of California’s real problem is branding, this is quite an absurd choice.
My issue with Galloway isn’t merely that he’s a mediocre scholar (“The DNA of Amazon”? Pray tell me how you discovered some watered down version of organization studies!), or that he’s too preoccupied with becoming “a new breed of asexual, asocial male”, or that he produces the kind of airport slop that AI can reproduce so well. My issue is that, out of what must be an almost endless list of names with expertise and competencies relevant for running one of the largest public research universities in the world, our democratic governor chose an influencer who uses provocative statements to land book deals. Not precisely the kind of scholarship-minded person we could use. Not even someone with any relevant experience with science funding. An influencer. Nothing more.
It might be useful to place Newsom’s decision in contrast to other polemic choices by the current federal administration. RFK Jr (arguably someone who also profits from the attention economy) has demonstrated being entirely inadequate at managing even the most basic aspects of a science-heavy, expertise-critical agency. Rightly so, he’s been widely criticized, seen as an appointment based on cronyism rather than governance. The question is: has Newsom done much better? In a very real sense, the appointment of Galloway to the UC’s board of regents is in the ballpark of RFK Jr’s appointment—a matter of degrees of difference, not categories of belonging. Contempt is shown in these kinds of decisions and, given the extensive list of qualified candidates (particularly from out of state!) Galloway is a slap in the face of California’s science and higher education system.
Holding out for a hero doesn’t work. Particularly if you’re expecting that hero to come from any decision made by unimaginative democrats.