By cutting off research funding for ideological reasons, Republicans in Congress have turned themselves into thought police.

In a vote last Wednesday, the U.S. Senate took the unprecedented step of prohibiting the National Science Foundation (NSF) from funding political science research, except on topics “promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.” The amendment’s sponsor, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, frames the defunding of political science research as part of a broader deficit-reduction agenda, but in fact his approach to shrinking government only perpetuates the worst sort of big government: the kind that polices the ideas it doesn’t like.

Although the amendment’s passage came as somewhat of a surprise to observers — Republicans in Congress are long-time foes of political science, but previous efforts to limit NSF funding have been unsuccessful — scientists from a host of disciplines have been quick to condemn the dangerous implications of the vote.

The arguments against this assault on basic science research are many. The funding is a tiny portion of the federal budget but supports a huge portion of political science work. NSF-funded research in political science supports robust public debate by collecting comprehensive, high-quality data that is then accessible to the public and journalists. And, although some political scientists have expressed optimism that almost any piece of research could be framed to fall under the new mandate, Gregory Koger noted in a piece on The Monkey Cage the particular irony that “in order to receive support for careful scientific testing of causal claims one might have to make unsubstantiated claims about how one’s research is linked to U.S. economic or security interests.”

But the greatest harm done by the Senate’s approval of this amendment comes in the type of government that it promotes. The National Science Foundation represents exactly the type of “big government” worth embracing: a government that champions robust public investment in the advancement of knowledge while demanding that these knowledge claims be rigorously tested and peer-reviewed in order to deserve public dollars. NSF grants in political science clearly meet these standards, even funding the work of Nobel Prize laureates such as Elinor Ostrom. In an ironic testament to their democracy enhancing effects, NSF political science grants even helped produce some excellent research on congressional oversight cited by none other than Tom Coburn, who is apparently a fan of federally funded political science research when it serves his interests.

In fact, Coburn’s anti-science agenda represents the sort of big government actually worth fighting against. While cloaking their effort to starve political science research funding as a struggle against wasteful spending, Coburn and other Republicans who share his agenda promote a government that polices knowledge production and attacks ideas it finds threatening. (Coburn is particularly opposed to research on American’s attitudes toward the Senate, which he seems to think require no additional study, stating in his own press release on the amendment’s passage, “There is no reason to spend $251,000 studying Americans’ attitudes toward the U.S. Senate when citizens can figure that out for free.”)

Of course, Republicans attacking political science are quick to claim they support government investment in other types of science — the kind that can cure cancer and doesn’t criticize Congress in the process. This selectivity about which ideas should be supported and which are simply wasteful is short-sighted given the practical benefits of such research. But singling out specific types of research for divestment is more troubling for its ideological implications than for its practical flaws.

As a Nature editorial from last summer argued, when moves to cut off political science funding sponsored by Representative Jeff Flake were making their way through the House, “The fact that he [Flake] and his political allies seem to feel threatened by evidence-based studies of politics and society does not speak highly of their confidence in the objective case for their policies. Flake's amendment is no different in principle to the ideological infringements of academic freedom in Turkey or Iran. It has nothing to do with democracy.”

There are debates worth having about the value of academic research in society, and even about the merits of publicly funding particular research agendas. Clearly policymakers have a responsibility to argue over how to invest public funds most effectively. But let’s be clear: politicians are not interested in engaging in such a debate. The amendment cutting off NSF political science funding was included in a continuing resolution passed to avoid a government shutdown and passed by a voice vote. The whole story would be comical — Congress using arcane procedure studied only by political scientists to defund political science research — if it weren’t so troubling.

Such a move isn’t part of Congress’s legitimate role overseeing federal spending. Rather, it speaks to a willingness on the part of politicians to let ideological opponents of important research strengthen the kind of government we should all be worried about: one that decides in advance what kinds of ideas are worth public investment.

Elizabeth Pearson is a Roosevelt Institute | Pipeline Fellow and a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley.

Capitol dome image via Shutterstock.com.

From staying connected to family and friends to accessing vital resources like job openings, access to high-speed Internet is as vital to today’s Americans as access to electricity was in FDR’s day. No one makes the case stronger than Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford, and you can catch her making this argument live today as she does a national radio tour from cities from Seattle to Dayton. Tune in live: 11:30 a.m. on KJR in Seattle, WA; 12 p.m. on KXYL in Brownwood, TX; 1:20 on America’s Radio News Network in Alexandria, VA; and 3:30 on BlogTalkRadio in Charlotte, NC. Even more interviews will be aired later on in cities from St. Louis to Tampa – the full schedule can be found here. And if you can’t make any of these appearances, don’t forget to get your copy of her book Captive Audience. 

Is it already time to weaken Dodd-Frank? (WaPo)

If you think that Wall Street doesn't do anything risky anymore and learned its lesson from the crisis, you might answer yes. But Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal has some evidence to convince you otherwise.

Cyprus: It’s not over yet (Reuters)

Meanwhile, banks are still in need of bailouts across the pond. Felix Salmon argues that Cyprus's deal avoids some really bad problems like hitting uninsured depositors and exiting the euro, but the impact on the tiny country's GDP could still sink the whole thing.

Hot Money Blues (NYTimes)

Paul Krugman foresees not just a sea change in Cyprus's economy away from a safe haven for the wealthy avoiding taxes, but a global realization that letting rich people dump their money in certain countries and then pull it out at whim might make things a little unstable.

How Fed Policy Could Leave The Country At The Mercy Of Another Recession (ThinkProgress)

If you're only concerned with inflation, the Fed has been doing a great job, but if you think we have a slight problem with unemployment, the Fed could only get a B-. Worse, Jeff Spross writes that the obsession with inflation could depress job growth for years to come.

Good news for people who like bad news about inequality (WaPo)

The words "inequality" and "permanent" shouldn't be in the same sentence, but Ezra Klein highlights a new study that shows Americans have little ability to move up the economic ladder. I hear the cost of bootstraps has really skyrocketed.

Strike Debt Abolishes $1.1 Million of Medical Debt (The Nation)

Remember Occupy Wall Street, that group that wanted to do something about inequality? An offshoot has taken matters into its own hands by buying up cheap debt and... just forgiving it.

Tackling Concerns of Independent Workers (NYTimes)

In an era of declining unionism and increasing numbers of freelancers, Sara Horowitz has a new model for labor organizing that brings those workers together to support each other. If they can ever change out of their pajamas.

President Obama has talked about the need to "win the future" by investing in higher education, but based on the deep budget cuts states have made in recent years, it looks more like we're trying to forfeit. A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that states are now spending 28 percent less per student on higher education than they were before the recession. Many states have experienced a budget crunch due to decreased tax revenues, but instead of raising tax rates to close the gap, they've often resorted to counterproductive cuts in public resources and services. In the case of higher education, those cuts have been passed on to students and their families in the form of soaring tuition rates. CBPP finds that per-student revenue fell by $2,600 while per-student tuition rose by $2,600 in the last 25 years. But even tuition hikes aren't covering the full cost of state budget cuts, so public colleges and universities have been forced to lay off staff and elminate programs while students wind up paying more for less.

The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and the United States Students Association released a report this week on Millennial solutions to the student debt crisis, and this is part of the problem. If we're not willing to invest more in our public university systems, we won't just be driving students further into debt. We'll be denying them the quality education they need to become productive and competitive members of the work force.