So It Goes

How Will the Current Political Climate Affect U.S. Innovation Policy? An Interview

IN 2005, a blue-ribbon panel convened by the National Academies, called for dramatic efforts to improve science and math education in elementary and secondary schools and increased public investment into basic scientific research. The title of their report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm,” summed up the panel’s sense that America is headed for trouble, but the challenges were surmountable.

Two months ago, the panel reconvened to issue a follow-up report assessing the progress since 2005. Its conclusion was grim; the nation “has shown little sign of improvement,” the follow-up report declared, adding that “The Gathering Storm increasingly appears to be a Category 5.”

Bad news, especially at a moment when the U.S. is struggling to energize a faltering economy, when the political climate favors cutting back public spending and when many of our global competitors are investing heavily into innovation.

The day after the midterm elections, President Obama suggested where he stands on the issue when he said, “I don’t think we should be cutting back on research and development, because if we can develop new technologies in areas like clean energy, that could make all the difference in terms of job creation here at home.”

But partial Republican control of the legislative process could frustrate his ambitions. As the American Association for the Advancement of Science noted in a policy brief, “The 2010 Republican Agenda, A Pledge to America… [calls for], cutting government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels for the FY 2011 budget, [which] would cut the federal R&D investment by $8.1 billion (5.5%) from FY 2010.” And it would place “a hard cap on future growth of the discretionary budget, [which] would make it more difficult for Congress to implement R&D growth initiatives.”

Also, just a few weeks ago, after the midterm elections, Representative Eric Cantor, in line to become majority leader of the House in the next Congress, called for cutting the National Institutes of Health budget by 4.3 percent, or about $1.3 billion. And it’s still not clear whether the America COMPETES Act – a centerpiece authorization measure that would double the budgets over the next decade of the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy science research programs, and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology along with programs to foster science education and innovation – will clear the Senate during the forthcoming the lame-duck session. If not, advocates will have to start from scratch in January when the new Congress convenes.

Robert Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank that studies innovation policy, is closely watching these and host of other factors that will affect how the U.S. promotes innovation and strengthens our economic competitive posture in the global market. As he explains, positions on both sides of the partisan divide in Washington could inhibit or help innovation promotion. Here are excerpts of my discussion with him a few weeks ago:

Do you agree, first of all, that the U.S. is not keeping its edge as an innovative power throughout the world?

Absolutely. We issued a report last year called “The Atlantic Century: Benchmarking EU and US Innovation and Competitiveness,” where we showed the U.S. ranks 40th out of 40 countries in terms of improvement in international competitiveness and innovation capacity over the last decade. This was based on a set of innovation-based competitiveness metrics within several broad categories: human capital; innovation capacity; entrepreneurship; infrastructure; economic policy; and economic performance. The U.S. is simply falling behind. Other countries have made innovation promotion a high priority, so they’ve restructured their tax code, their regulatory systems, their innovation policy systems.

 

Midterm Voter Turnout: Rising But Still Not Befitting a Great Democracy

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY is getting there, but — forgive the cynicism — I don’t feel it gathering steam, at least not when I read the dismal voter turnout numbers.

According to statistics compiled by Dr. Michael P. McDonald, Associate Professor of Government and Politics in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University, at least 41.5 percent of America’s voting-eligible population* voted in the November 2 midterm elections across the U.S. just a few days ago. (“At least” because he may update the figures as recounts come in, which will probably only drive up the turnout rate, but only a tiny bit.)

That’s a slight improvement over the 40.4 percent turnout during the 2006 midterm elections, which was itself better than 2002 midterms, when 39.5 percent cast votes. So we’re headed in the right direction.

What’s more, 36 out of the 51 states or jurisdictions (that’s D.C.) saw increases in the percentage of voting eligible who voted this year. I’m not sure that’s better than previous years, but it bodes well that we’re seeing some measure of improved voting participation in most places.

By the way, if you’re from Oregon, you can be proud that your state led all others with a whopping 56.9 turnout. Minnesota was a tick behind with 56.8 percent (which was down from Minnesota’s rate of 60.1 percent in 2006). The District of Columbia, at 29.7 percent, brought up the rear, as it did in 2006, but actual states like New York (34.1 percent) and Utah (34.3 percent) can’t claim to have done much better.

Sure, it’s encouraging to see the numbers edging up, if only in such small increments. And a much more in-depth review of the numbers  and the circumstances in each jurisdiction will help us understand why they went up. (Was it the momentum the Tea Party? Jon Stewart? Fox News? A nation restive during an economic downturn? Better voter education? More money for campaigns?  “Walking around money,” as campaign strategist Ed Rollins once called it? We can argue this forever.)

Still, for me it’s hard to get excited when fewer than half of those eligible to vote actually exercise the precious privilege of the franchise – or even 61.6 percent, which is how many voted in the 2008 Presidential election, a high, but not record, year. I've written about this belore (see this and this). Once again, my feeling is that the U.S. fancies itself as the world’s leading democracy, but way too many of us can’t seem to muster the enthusiasm to live out the true meaning of that status.

Jeff

*McDonald defines voting eligible as “the population that is eligible to vote,” as opposed to the “voting-age population” which includes “persons who are ineligible to vote, such as non-citizens, felons (depending on state law), and mentally incapacitated persons.”