It seems likely that the National Rifle Association will successfully destroy the nomination of Dr. Vivek Murthy, President Barack Obama’s nominee for surgeon general. Yet there is no opposition to Murthy on grounds of credentials: He is merely being punished for expressing common sense.

In a series of tweets, Murthy conveyed the mainstream view that stricter gun restrictions should be sought. Additionally, he asserted the already-known consensus among the medical community that gun violence is indeed a public health issue. Still, when asked about these beliefs in detail during a confirmation hearing, Murthy insisted that he would focus on heart disease and other illnesses most pertinent to the health of Americans, so one set of tweets does not necessarily define his priorities.

The Senate, which is in charge of approving presidential nominations, is not so sure. The senators who support the NRA’s stance on his nomination not only demonstrate a deep preference for re-election over the national good, but also a reckless disregard for the ability of professionals such as Murthy to publicly state the consensus in their field. And even though the Democratic party has a majority control over the Senate, the NRA’s level of influence is made apparent because of this.

For the NRA, the tweets make him an “anti-gun radical.” This sort of labeling is not only inaccurate, but it also takes away from the integrity of the national dialogue. Senators, and more importantly voters, need to see through these ruses and refuse to vote with these factions of over-simplifiers.

An easy approach is that of “The Daily Show”: simply state that the NRA will stop at nothing to promote gun rights. Yet this should be totally obvious. After all, the NRA as an organization exists if and only if it continues to have a reason to exist, like in a Darwinian landscape. Furthermore, it will only receive donations or have influence if people with money and power listen to it.

These people will only listen if the NRA’s political ads are effective, but these ads are only effective if they are not met with public opposition. Citizens should, therefore, become informed before exerting influence on policy.

This requires that information be presented to them matter-of-factly, as I mentioned earlier. If people knew the facts, rather than the talking points of gun advocates, they might withhold support for the rejection of a candidate for surgeon general because he believes in an academic consensus supported by the Pennsylvania Medical Society and by the president himself. Supporting the NRA in this situation would then be like firing your doctor for him believing in evolution.

Along with this, questions have arisen about whether Murthy is too political to be surgeon general. This sword, however, cuts both ways. If a position is meant to be apolitical, then rejecting a candidate for being too political merely shifts the politicization from the candidate to the selection process. For instance, the government shouldn’t discriminate against Hobby Lobby when awarding contracts because they believe the use of certain contraceptives is equivalent to abortion. They have the right to have an identity outside of functioning as a private business.

Similarly, candidates for more non-political offices should not have their politics questioned. The potential surgeon general should be judged solely on his medical abilities and knowledge. Therefore, punishing him for asserting a consensus among the medical community is unwarranted and unnecessary. 

Moreover, this silly sideshow substantially takes away from the real debate to be had here — whether Murthy, at 36 years old, is ready to be surgeon general. Richard Carmona, a former Democratic Senate candidate and surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, certainly doesn’t think so. Carmona says Murthy is too young — he completed his residency in 2006, leaving him only eight years into his career-proper as a physician.

In a profession that normally requires more than 11 years of training, this seems like an incredibly short amount of time to rise to one of the most important positions in the medical community.

That isn’t to say, however, that Murthy isn’t an exceptional individual. He has started two health care tech companies and a charity, Visions Worldwide, in addition to serving on the U.S. Presidential Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion and Integrative and Public Health since 2011. That’s in addition to being a practicing physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. 

Murthy could conceivably excel as surgeon general as he has in so many other roles. Or maybe, as Carmona believes, he isn’t ready. None of this, however, hinges on, involves, nor should involve his beliefs on gun control. Muzzling professionals from stating the truth distracts from real problems with their credentials. The public, and especially its representatives, need to be wary of individuals and organizations that are against inquiry.

Write to Rohith at [email protected].