The article explores the dual motivations of political consultants, who navigate the balance between self-interest and the public good. It argues that these consultants, as applied social scientists, do not merely present unbiased truths; rather, they pursue their own ambitions for influence and career advancement, particularly in a landscape increasingly shaped by social media. While consultants play a significant role in informing political decisions, their personal stakes can cloud the objectivity expected from them.

The analysis further delves into the challenges faced by scientific political advisors in reaching consensus on social and economic issues, such as economic growth, debt, and unemployment. These topics are complex and often lack agreed-upon definitions and measurements, feeding into the difficulty for advisors in providing clear and unbiased counsel. The article suggests that any theoretical model can be supported by empirical data, emphasizing the subjectivity inherent in the interpretation of such data.

Finally, the piece highlights the implications of these dynamics on policy decisions and the broader political landscape. By recognizing that political advisors may offer biased views shaped by their interests and the pressures from social media, policymakers and the public alike are urged to remain vigilant about the sources of political advice and the motivations behind them. This understanding is crucial for ensuring that political decisions are made in the interest of the public good rather than simply in the favor of influential consultants.