Engineering and Leadership in American Politics
Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 9, Issue 4
Abstract
As the world hurtles forward toward a globalized economy, there is concern regarding the competitiveness of America and Americans especially when compared to up-and-coming technical and economic powerhouses like China and India. In the words of a 2005 Fortune magazine article, “As other nations multiply their science and engineering graduates—building the foundation for economic progress—ours are declining, in part because those fields are seen as nerdish and simply uncool.” Responding to the need to reverse the image of engineers as the “pocket-protector set,” the following essay suggests that one of the determinants of “cool” is relevance, influence, and ultimately leadership in American politics. While engineers are currently present in governmental organizations and agencies, and are often encouraged to support the political process, what is advocated here is that we should also enter the arena, get elected, and “become” the political process. In order to accomplish this, an educational shift in the training of engineers has to happen that goes beyond the concepts of ASCE’s Body of Knowledge. It is hypothesized that in the end, the profession’s involvement in the political arena would come full circle, and the relevance of civil engineers may once more render “coolness” to the profession. And that would also be a shot in the arm for “building the foundation for economic progress” for America’s future.
Once upon a time in America, engineers—especially civil engineers—were considered to be the heroes of the technological age. Even though there were all sorts of technical advances coming into being in the late nineteenth century, the accomplishments that were at the forefront of the public’s mind were the great structures and bridges being built, and the railroads that were beginning to span the continent. Like the technology of the Internet and Web sites in our time, these projects were valued because they led to the facilitation of business and commerce, and to a greater connectivity of people and communities within the fabric of America and the civilized world.
In the epic historical narrative of The Great Bridge by David McCullough (1972), the opening in 1883 of the Brooklyn Bridge—conceived by John Roebling, and designed and guided through construction by Washington Roebling and his wife Emily—is described as one of the greatest celebrations of the nineteenth century. The mayors of the cities of New York (Franklin Edson) and Brooklyn (Seth Low), the governor of the state (Grover Cleveland), and president of the United States (Chester A. Arthur) all came to be part of the ceremonies and parties. The festivities lasted all night long, with bands and fireworks, and hordes of pedestrians all eager to cross over this great bridge.
Fast forward now to 2001, with the release of the movie, Kate and Leopold, a fantasy time-travel love story (Mangold 2001). Leopold, a distinguished “duke” from the New York City of the aforementioned late nineteenth century, falls through a time-warp portal that somehow transports him to the early twenty-first century. In addition to bringing with him his old-fashioned ideals of etiquette (e.g., he is accustomed to standing whenever a lady sits at or rises from the dinner table), he has a wonderment of technology rooted in a previous century.
Shortly after his arrival in his new space-time continuum, Leopold wanders and loses himself amidst the streets of New York, and exclaims upon finding and catching sight of the great bridge: “Good Lord, it still stands! The world has changed all around it, but Roebling’s erection still stands! That…is a miracle!” But the next line of movie dialogue spoken by a random passerby, a jaded denizen of the twenty-first century, is in the bored, exasperated monotone of indifference: “It’s [just] a bridge.”
The Devaluation of Engineering
Although we as engineers understand our profession’s contributions to society, it is clear that the media and the general public does not get excited much about it these days. While TV shows about the medical profession (like ER and Grey’s Anatomy) or shows about lawyers (like LA Law and Boston Legal) proliferate with every new television season, it may be of interest to note that there are no television shows featuring engineers, much less civil engineers as heroes or protagonists.
Can you imagine a TV show titled Chicago Engineer? Highly unlikely! Of course, with respect to depictions in the media, one problem is that the stories of lawyers lend themselves easily to the portrayal of adversarial relationships, with good guys and bad guys. And stories about doctors are able to tap into situations that evoke the emotional chords of life and death.
But in many ways, it is a good thing that engineers do not often get portrayed in adversarial situations. Better yet, it’s good that we are not usually perceived as being involved in immediate issues of life and death, although much of what we do revolves around insuring the safety of the public. It is good because this reflects the fact that in America today, the creation of infrastructure has become a “mature” technology. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the engineering and construction of infrastructure was much less mature, and failures of bridges and structures were accepted as more common possibilities and as part of the daily risks of life than they are today.
Consider also that after the initial flush of amazement or delight at the cutting-edge gadgets of today, the general perceptions by technology consumers, regarding the good or bad of technology, usually occur when the technology malfunctions—such as when one needs to reboot a computer or when wireless calls are “dropped.” Thus it is a good thing that the infrastructure projects we now design are perceived as a part of mature technologies and unexciting. And thus to some extent, it is a good thing that the public does not usually have to “care.” There are exceptions of course, when regularly scheduled inspetions and maintenance are neglected.
The Business of America
If there are any technology heroes today, one can arguably find them in the field of information technology. But the technology by itself is not what creates heroes. Indeed, heroes are created because of the intersection of technology and business. The names of Steven Jobs of Apple Computer, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and company names like Google, eBay, and Amazon are generally well known by the public, not necessarily because they invented the technology, but because they enabled the technology to be the economic drivers of business.
It was President Calvin Coolidge in a speech in 1925 who said, “After all, the chief business of the American people is business.” It’s always an iffy proposition to quote Coolidge because the Great Depression soon followed after he left office in 1929. And being also known as “Silent Cal,” it is surprising how quotable Coolidge actually is. But what he said should not be diminished by and mistaken for his failure to head off the Great Depression. And part of the rest of what he said was this:
[Americans] are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing, and prospering in the world…. Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well-nigh every desirable achievement…. We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization (“Calvin Coolidge” 2006).
This statement is arguably as true today as it was then, because it in many ways underlies a fundamental cultural view of America. What is at issue now, however, is whether American business can continue in the long term to be a leader in the global economy. In the July 25, 2005, issue of Fortune magazine, Geoffrey Colvin wrote an also very quote-worthy article regarding the competitiveness of Americans, especially when compared to up-and-coming technical and economic powerhouses like China and India:
You might wonder why we’re constantly reading about Chinese [and other Asian countries’] graduates in engineering and not in law, medicine, literature, or philosophy. Why this veneration of the pocket-protector set? Engineering is fine, but there’s more to life than technology, isn’t there? Obviously there is. The question—and for America and the West it’s a huge question—is whether there can be economic dominance without technology leadership.
For the United States, the loss of technology leadership could be historic. Without that advantage, there would be little to prevent living standards in the world’s interconnected economies from equilibrating. The rest of the world’s living standards would rise, and at least in the near-term—America’s would decline.
As other nations multiply their science and engineering graduates—building the foundation for economic progress—ours are declining, in part because those fields are seen as nerdish and simply uncool. And our culture prizes cool (Colvin 2005).
The Determinants of Cool
If the public does not think of engineers as being “cool,” it is in part certainly because of the work that we do. Our work is “knowledge work,” performed while we sit at desks, or in front of computers and CADD stations, and includes analyses and calculations, making drawings of designs, and writing specifications. These are certainly not action-packed situations that can be portrayed dramatically in the media.
But while our culture and the media might or might not be accurate in depicting who we are, it is posited that the media is more of a mirror than a determinant of “cool.” It is further posited that we engineers in general and civil engineers in particular have abrogated our rights to “cool” by not creating a profession that is at the head of the class in societal leadership. Instead, we tend to insert ourselves into roles where we are thought of as technocrats, designing and building the physical infrastructure to serve the purpose of others who make the decisions in business and politics.
If one looks across the American landscape to those agencies and business organizations that enable and fund the design and construction of large private and public infrastructure projects, one would see that few leaders of those organizations have educational backgrounds in engineering. It is also especially the case in the political arena, from local town boards to state government and up through the level of the United States Congress and beyond.
Since the rule of law is a fundamental basis of government, it is natural for lawyers to dominate the political arena. However, physicians like former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Chair of the Democratic National Committee (and former U.S. presidential candidate) Howard Dean are present in terms of representing the medical profession. Also represented are various leaders from business and finance, like former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey.
But engineers in general—and civil engineers in particular—are not present and accounted for. What is “cool” is influence and leadership, and we engineers are clearly missing in action.
Engineers in the Political Arena
It is to some extent a puzzle as to why civil engineers do not have a larger part in both local and national politics in America when one of the basic missions of government is the building of roads and transmission systems for water, wastewater, electrical power, and communications, as well as the preservation of the environment. In the days following the September 2005 landfall of Hurricane Katrina, societal and governmental order broke down with the deterioration of the physical infrastructure of New Orleans. This was but one graphic example of how infrastructure is important in the establishment and preservation of law and civil order, probably more so than most of the public realize.
Engineers are often encouraged to support the political process to advance more effective government—for example in the building of physical infrastructure projects. What is advocated here, however, is that we should not just “support” the political process. We should (or at least some of us should) enter the arena, get elected, and “become” the political process.
Historically in America, engineers have not had a great reputation as successful political leaders. President Herbert Hoover, who succeeded Calvin Coolidge, was an engineer by training, and is thought of as largely responsible for exacerbating, if not actually precipitating, the Great Depression of the 1930s. His approach to economic and social problems was that they could always be subjected to engineering-like analysis and solutions (“Herbert Hoover” 2006). This was probably not such a good idea, given the complexity of society, economics, and politics, and his experience should serve as a cautionary warning for the rest of us engineers.
Former President Jimmy Carter, a great humanitarian by any standard, has continued to be involved in public life and worthy causes, even after completing his term as president. His credentials as an engineer came from his service in his younger days as a nuclear engineer on a submarine in the U.S. Navy (“Jimmy Carter” 2006). But he is also remembered as one of the recent presidents who was not able to win reelection to a second term in office. But a different set of circumstances, and probably not his engineer’s mindset, ultimately determined his loss at the polls.
On the other hand, and as a matter of perhaps some interest, it is often overlooked that our arguably most revered president, Abraham Lincoln, was, in a part of his early career, a self-educated surveyor. As described in the biography by Carl Sandburg (1954), through the dint of hard work and his uncanny intelligence, Lincoln was in very short order able to master the surveying craft of his day:
[F]or six weeks, daytime and often all of nighttime, [Lincoln] had his head deep in Gibson’s Theory and Practice of Surveying, and Flint’s Treatise on Geometry, Trigonometry, and Rectangular Surveying. From decimal fractions, one book ran on into logarithms, the use of mathematical instruments, operating the chain, circumferentor, surveying by intersections, changing the scale of maps, leveling, methods for mensuration of areas.
Starting in the fall of 1833, at the age of 24, young Abe Lincoln worked as a surveyor for Sangamon County, Illinois. And in the words of Sandburg (1954), Lincoln had entered into “the most highly responsible and technical work he had known,” until he was elected to the Illinois State Legislature in August 1834.
A Tin Ear for Politics
In general, the engineer’s reputation today for having a tin ear for politics is probably true. The exact things that tend to make us good engineers also tend to doom us when we try to seek election to political office or to operate in the political arena. We are basically schooled and trained in applied mathematics and science, which to most of the American public is quite uncool, and we understand the constraints and know that we cannot violate the basic laws of physics without consequence. These constraints often habituate us to constrain our method of thinking, and make us very “methodical” and even more uncool to a fault. And the truth is, logical, engineering-like solutions in and of themselves are not appropriate for all the issues of society, politics, and government.
We engineers also tend to have a long-term perspective because we often have to consider that the structures and systems we design have to have lives exceeding twenty or thirty years. On the other hand, it is often said that a politician’s time horizon only extends at most to a few years until the next election. Thus, what we propose and advocate for in the long term may not be beneficial for survival within the political process in the short term. But the perspectives of a longer time frame and an understanding of technology are becoming more critical in this twenty-first century. Consider for example the issues of global warming and the aforementioned long-term technical and economic competitiveness of the United States in a global economy, for which the decisions we make will have consequences beyond our lifetimes.
But to be able to have a voice and a definitive vote in those decisions and policies (as opposed to merely being able to advise others on how to vote), one first has to get elected to public office. If a medical professional or physician wants to be elected to political office, he or she needs to transcend his or her natural tendency to focus on health care issues only, and become conversant in the issues of education, economics, business, and even national defense and war. In the same way, engineers who hope to enter the political arena have to become a jack-of-all-trades in things other than our natural expertise in infrastructure, the environment, and technology. Even though the laws of physics are immutable, the laws and policies created by governments are not, and in those areas, engineers need to think outside the boxes of the engineering educational traditions that normally constrain us.
Enhancing Engineering Education
It is generally accepted that legislators and other members of government whose initial training is in the law are able, with consultation of technical experts, to arrive at considered policy decisions or vote on legislation and funding decisions that involve complex science and engineering issues. So it is posited that those of us who are schooled initially in engineering should also be similarly enabled to arrive at decisions that are outside our initial spheres of education.
For those of us who are well along in our careers in civil engineering, it is perhaps not within our grasp to enter into the political arena. But it might not be quite as much of a stretch for those who have just embarked upon their careers; certainly it is a viable possibility for future generations of civil engineers if we are able to enhance their educations to enable them to think about a path in politics, and correspondingly mitigate, if not eliminate, that “tin ear” for politics.
So what would such an enhanced education look like? It could probably not be embodied in a single program of study, but if it could, here’s a proposal consisting of five components, some of which are consistent with the various aspects contained in the ASCE’s Body of Knowledge (BOK) (ASCE 2004), but also go somewhat “Beyond BOK,” a concept and phrase from Chick Glagola (2005).
First, teach the science, craft, and art of civil engineering, just as we do now. Second, provide a basic grounding in ethics, integrity, and the law. Third, since the business of America is business, teach project and business management and provide an experience not unlike that of MBA programs in American business schools, where engendering profitable pursuits and collaboration in teams can be experienced and fostered. Fourth, provide a background in history and the science and art of politics. Fifth and finally, throw in a dash of oratory and “leadership,” and what you’ll get is the “complete” civil engineer-statesman.
Back to the Future
Now let’s return to where this essay began. Considering the present state of the maturity of the civil engineering profession, it is unlikely that we will ever be able to get back to how it was once upon a time when we were the heroes of the technological age. And we shouldn’t try to either. Instead, in order to provide a direction and purpose to the contributions of the civil engineering profession of the future, there is a need for civil engineers to strive to be more well-rounded “Renaissance” men and women, who understand the nitty-gritty of technology, combined with a more expansive view of business and politics.
The purpose of such a focus would not be so that every engineer will enter the political arena, just as not every lawyer currently becomes involved in politics; rather, it is to enable a certain proportion of the cohort of future civil engineers to step up to the plate and accept the challenge and duty of engaging in the American political process, where critical decisions are made that affect the future of our local communities, towns, cities, states, and country, as well as the world at large.
In the end, the profession’s involvement in the political arena may come full circle, and the relevance of civil engineers may once more render “coolness” to the profession. And that would itself be a shot in the arm for “building the foundation for economic progress” (Colvin 2005) for America to better compete in the global economy.
The First Step
In 1780, in the midst of the American Revolution, John Adams, the yet-to-be second president of the United States, once wrote: “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy . . . commerce, and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study paintings, poetry, music . . .” (McCullough 2001).
Of course, one of his sons, John Quincy Adams, proceeded to ignore his father’s thoughts, and instead eventually became the sixth president of the United States. But whether politics precedes the practical arts like mathematics and engineering or the practical arts precede politics, it is clear that they both precede the fine arts and media. For without infrastructure, technology, and the rule of law and government, the finer civilized pursuits of painting, poetry, and music that make life worth living would be clearly impossible.
Also of importance with regard to John Adams’s point of view is the intergenerational perspective of his endeavors. The fact is that if we civil engineers are going to change our focus so that the path to successful political leadership becomes a viable option and so as to renew the influence of our profession for the future, it may take a long time to sow the educational seeds, and several generations of engineers to achieve it.
But that is not a reason to delay. Instead it is a reason to begin, for to borrow from a Chinese proverb: The longest journey always begins with the first step. Or to put it into more of an American vernacular: Start local, think global.
References
ASCE. (2004). “Civil engineering body of knowledge for the 21st century: Preparing the civil engineer for the future.” Body of Knowledge Committee of the Committee on Academic Prerequisites for Professional Practice, ASCE, Reston, Va.
“Calvin Coolidge.” (2006). Wikipedia, ⟨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge⟩ (accessed June 2006).
Colvin, G. (2005). “America isn’t ready–Here’s what to do about it.” Fortune, July 25.
Glagola, C., (2005). “Beyond BOK.” Leadership Manage. Eng., 5(3), 57.
“Herbert Hoover.” (2006). Wikipedia, ⟨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover⟩ (accessed June 2006).
“Jimmy Carter.” (2006). Wikipedia, ⟨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter⟩ (accessed June 2006).
Mangold, J. (2001). Kate and Leopold, Miramax Films, Los Angeles.
McCullough, D. (1972). The great bridge, Simon & Schuster, New York.
McCullough, D. (2001). John Adams, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Sandburg, C. (1954). Abraham Lincoln—The prairie years and the war years, Harvest/Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego.
Biographies
Sam Liao is a senior project manager at PB Americas/Parsons Brinckerhoff in Boston. He also serves as a publicly elected and appointed official (without remuneration) within the government of the small town of Sharon, Massachusetts. In August 2008, he served as one of the 121 elected delegates representing Massachusetts at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 9 • Issue 4 • October 2009
Pages: 160 - 164
Copyright
© 2009 ASCE.
History
Published online: Sep 15, 2009
Published in print: Oct 2009
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.