LHC is a science experiment. Its job is to, first, check older results [1], and second, put nature to the test in a well-motivated and important way. In particu

LHC is a science experiment. Its job is to, first, check older results [1], and second, put nature to the test in a well-motivated and important way. In particular, LHC is the Higgs hunter, a messy [2] pathfinder before a precision Higgs-studying tool. It succeeded at that job [3]. That LHC has found no new physics beyond the standard model is not a failure. Finding nothing where you thought you might find something is as useful as finding something. If anything, it is more interesting, as it means there is still far more to be learned. Politics are about people. The science case is a driver for the political case, but it generally takes a backseat to other goals when funding is at hand. First, science keeps us sharp. It pushes harder on materials and technology than anything ever done. An investment in science is also an investment in the entire science supply chain. The recent explosion of quantum-computing hardware investment has only been possible because scientists have built and sustained the tooling and companies that manufacture the necessary subcomponents at a reasonable cost. More important, it teaches us how to learn; our most important product as scientists is our students. Students keep the field alive, yes, but most students take their new skills, knowledge, and curiosity with them to share outside of academia. Furthermore, governments support scientists to retain the skills for when they are needed by the populace in general; when the Fukushima accident occurred, our laboratory dropped everything it was doing in order to focus on atmospheric monitoring [4]. Finally, the fundamental knowledge we glean from each halting step forward moves us forward as a species. The device on which you are reading this text is the aggregate product of millennia of fundamental research and refinement. LHC, at least from my outside perspective (I would benefit personally if less money were directed to colliders), has been well-run, successful, and worth the price, both scientifically and politically. Where we go next is an interesting question -- I'd place my money on exotic accelerator technology. The detectors are wonderful, and linear accelerators are the century-scale path forward. The trick is finding a revolutionary new accelerator idea. [1] Which it did beautifully. Really beautifully, and really fast. Look at Figure 3: http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-fn/0000/fermilab-fn-0923-cms.pdf http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-fn/0000/fermilab-fn-0923-cm... [2] Protons are full of quarks and gluons, so when they collide, it's difficult to know which component hit which other component. Lepton-antilepton colliders, on the other hand, are harder to build, but extremely clean. [3] There is one Higgs. Its mass is 125.09 ± 0.24 GeV. Its width is less than 1.7 GeV. It is the first fundamental scalar particle known to man. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-sum-gauge-higgs-bosons.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/tables/rpp2016-sum-gauge-higgs-boson... [4] https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4853 https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4853 , https://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/node/1 https://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/node/1