Damn it, think about this for a moment. Is there no other plausible reason why he might not want to run for president? The immense effort and expense of running a campaign, for example? Or the blow to his reputation from being seen as a joke candidate with no chance of winning? Or simply the fact that he has other stuff to do?
Cynicism may feel good, but if it's causing you to jump to uncharitable conclusions while ignoring other likely explanations, then it's a problem.
"On the day we reserve to tell ourselves America is great - July 4 - Europe reminds us that we suck at science #HiggsBoson" -- tweeted by Neil deGrasse Tyson [0]
Please do not simply project your assumptions of cynicism onto me as it is unwarranted and unwelcome. I have read and studied extensively in the history of science and in was particularly fascinated at one time with the rise of "Big Science" in the US following the Great War. My healthy skepticism of technocratic pretension to political authority is born of the recognition that almost universally (albeit with a few notable exceptions) scientists and in particular physicists when given freedom and political power (and most importantly budgetary discretion), generally within a short timeframe become technocratic monsters. They are myopic in single-minded purpose, dismissive of "outside" uncredentialed critique, and politically naive and insensitive. Usually the only saving grace is that they are extremely jealous of their rivals success and engage in petty bickering of each other's qualifications and actual work so that progress towards their ultimate aims break down before becoming institutionalized. They generally pay lip service to popular science education but in general the greatest fear of science administrators that you find in their private writings is having to justify budgets to an actually informed and educated populace and polity. They much prefer the "hero" model of the history of science for this reason.
If you want to read more about this topic you might be interested in reading about the life and career of Robert Oppenheimer [1], the roots of the interaction between science and the federal government in the 19th century and the 20th century and in particular the NRC and NAS in the work of A Hunter Dupree [2]. There is a very excellent article by Peter Galison in the larger volume "Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research" [3] that is exceedingly well-written. Finally, if you want to understand what actually happens inside a particle physics laboratory from an anthropological perspective in which some of these trends are made visible you should investigate the work of Sharon Traweek [4]. All are very good and readable introductions and I can recommend each wholeheartedly to you.
As for Neil deGrasse Tyson in particular... In order to celebrate those who made the ultimate sacrifice to achieve independence from what they viewed as tyranny and to also celebrate a crowning experimental achievement that took many years of international effort, this is what a potential political leader would choose to remark to an audience of hundreds of thousands of Americans and even more globally? And you call me cynical? In my view, upset by the lack of funding of the Texas SSC (a prototypical case of "Big Science" gone awry) and after getting a taste of how science politics really works from the inside and failing to have much impact during the Bush administration, he has turned to railing at nearly any occasion about the failure of science in America, without regard to significant American achievements in fields other than his own with much greater utility and contributions to progress in human understanding. When questioned about this tendency, he resorts to bringing up things like the Scopes trial or obscure Boards of Education fights in minor jurisdictions with regards to the teaching of evolution without proper context or brings out what he feels are the big guns and talks about the stupidity of a tiny minority of Americans wrt to extreme climate change deniers and makes huge generalizations to the public at large with no real basis in fact and refuses to engage when confronted with genuine, authentic skepticism wrt to anthropomorphic causation and the complexity involved in forming policy.
And to be clear, adopting the role of popularizer and chief simplifier and contributing generally nothing to the advancement of actual human understanding other than generating hate mail to the Hayden for striking Pluto as a planet (lol) has been quite good to Mr. Tyson. Don't get me wrong, the role of science popularizer/educator is a very necessary and not an easy job but it has also one that has been rewarding financially and in the entrepreneurial spirit I say kudos.
However, when I say "his Ego" would prevent him from being a legitimate candidate for the office of POTUS, I am stating a conclusion based on actual observation and my understanding of how his persona fits into the larger context of the dynamics of research science and contemporary American politics in the federal government. It is also true, that a candidacy would also entail giving up a fairly lucrative speaking fee in order to divert funds from his pocket to a campaign chest for several years and involve interacting in a genuine fashion with people he thinks are obtuse, stupid and unworthy of his time. Something he simply cannot seem to do if you have ever witnessed him speaking in person with someone who is not simply gushing in praise but genuinely conversant.
You may choose to interpret this as deriving from some motivation on my part for character assassination, but I can only assure you it is not. I could see some sort of "real science" super PAC or some absurd thing generating alot of attention in line with his persona, but a legitimate candidacy? It would be almost as likely as a Jesse Ventura ticket. Stranger things have happened, I guess :)
[0] http://i.imgur.com/i1nhk.jpg
[1] J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life by Abraham by Pais/Robert Crease
[2]
Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities by A. Hunter Dupree
[3] Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, Peter Galison/Bruce Hevly (eds)
[4] Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, Sharon Traweek
Why would an inflated ego be an obstacle to becoming president? Isn't it actually necessary? After all, you have to believe you're more qualified than a hundred million other people.
I think you actually have to only believe you're more qualified than one other person whom you generally demonify and caricature and maybe 2 or 3 other candidates you can safely ignore and refuse to engage. You can rely on your party to "convince" you about the other millions.
It is my understanding from reading presidential biographies that ambition has not usually been a key factor in making The Big Decision(tm) to run in recent elections at least since Nixon. But who knows, not like you can really trust the sources either. Saying it's better to be King is not much of a way to create an historical legacy :)
