If not you, then who?

I could never understand how, immediately following Election Day, politicos were eager to speculate about the 2016 presidential race. All this talk of Hillary and Rubio was overwhelming—couldn’t we take some time to appreciate the conclusion of campaign season, a competitive period that had dominated our thoughts and passions for months? Then, we lost to Louisville, and I found myself counting down the days until Jabari Parker and Rodney Hood inaugurate Durham as the real “Dunk City” next season.

It’s only natural to move on to the next “thing,” but if you do have more productive things to do in your time than watch C-SPAN, you might have missed the emergence of another presidential contender: Ben Carson. Now, there are a host of characteristics that make Carson an appealing candidate to Republicans: He’s brilliant, courageous and black. But there’s one label of Carson that’s got a little extra “oomph” after the national conversations we’ve had these last four years: doctor.

Dr. Carson has a special story, rising from poverty to become a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins who oversaw the first separation of conjoined twins in history. What’s interesting, however, is that, as a conservative doctor contemplating public service, Dr. Carson is not unique—at least by today’s standards.

Doctors have historically played a role in politics. From Joseph Warren, the leader of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress who aided Paul Revere in his infamous ride back in 1775, to Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont and presidential candidate in 2004, practitioners of medicine have a tradition of foraying into policy and law. Thus, it’s no surprise that a number of physicians still pursue public service today.

What is surprising, however, is their politics. Of the 15 physicians in Congress in 2010, only three voted in favor of the Affordable Care Act—a decision split completely on party lines, with Republicans against and Democrats in favor of the law. In other words, around 80 percent of the physicians on public service’s greatest stage—those to whom we, rightly or not, attribute some level of expertise on the important issue of health care—rejected the nation’s greatest expansion of health equity in almost five decades.

This is all well and fine, except that this distribution doesn’t really seem representative. Doctors, like any demographic, have varied political ideologies and views. Using the ACA as an example, it is striking to note that over 10 major physician groups—including the American Medical Association, which represents 240,000 practitioners across the country—endorsed reform a few years ago.

So, what’s the deal? Some point to divides between types of doctors. There’s a stereotype that primary care doctors believe more in government intervention as a function of more direct exposure to patients with lack of resources, whereas some specialists are focused on making sure government doesn’t get in the way. Yet, that doesn’t explain why organizations representing surgeons and cardiologists endorsed the ACA. Personally, I think the conservative skew is a combination of two factors. First, the docs who consider public office are usually older and have accumulated enough wealth to run a political campaign. Second, those committed to progressively changing the healthcare system might not believe public office is the most impactful way for them to contribute.

That being said, there are prominent examples of liberal doctors leading the way on this front. Don Berwick, a pediatrician and policy wonk who served as Obama’s head of Medicare and Medicaid until 2011, is contemplating a run for governor of Massachusetts. Jim McDermott, a psychiatrist from Washington, has been a staunch advocate for single-payer healthcare in Congress since Clinton’s health reform efforts. And in recent elections, Raul Ruiz—a young doctor who trained at Partners in Health, the NGO co-founded by physician, human rights advocate and Duke alumnus Paul Farmer—has made waves as a progressive representing California in the House.