Composite 4.63 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 510, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No military service record on file. Career prior to Congress: technology/business background and Missouri state legislator (Missouri House 2009-2017, Missouri Senate 2019-2023). Service context is not scored; conduct is scored where it belongs in the measures.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 5 | why?Took federal office January 3, 2023, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, so he is NOT a
signatory and could not have been; that capping criterion does not attach. He was in the Missouri Senate, not
Congress, during the January 6, 2021 certification, so no federal certification objection exists to weigh. A
FiveThirtyEight database lists him in the "raised questions" tier on 2020 via Facebook posts as a state
legislator, a weighed appearance-concern about deference to the constitutional order, never a federal finding
and never scored as a vote. No documented effort to subvert a certified federal result. Held at the middle:
no affirmative oath-defense at cost, no documented subversion either.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 4 | why?GovTrack's 2024 metrics place him as joining bipartisan bills the least often of any member of the Missouri
delegation. This scores the documented cross-aisle CONDUCT pattern, a demonstrated unwillingness to work
across the aisle on shared legislation, not party or ideology, which the standard never penalizes. Below the
middle for sustained low institutional cooperation; not lower because refusing to co-sponsor is ordinary
legislative behavior, not a breach.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 4 | why?In a February 2023 House floor speech he invoked the Niemöller "first they came" Holocaust passage to compare
DirecTV dropping Newsmax (a carriage-rate dispute) to the Nazis' rise, days after International Holocaust
Remembrance Day. Trivializing the Holocaust as a partisan rhetorical cudgel is a documented drag on the
persons-of-equal-worth standard: it instrumentalizes a genocide for grievance framing. One documented
instance, not a sustained pattern of casting citizens as enemies, so it sits below the middle rather than at
the floor.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 5 | why?No documented weaponization of state power against rivals or critics. No criterion-class process-subversion
conduct attaches (no Dec-2020 amicus, no federal certification objection). Middle, on absence of findings
either way.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 4 | why?The February 2023 Holocaust-comparison floor speech is the central documented rhetoric drag, careless, historically inaccurate, and condemned by Holocaust-memory historians as the kind of analogy that shuts down
discourse. Weighed as a real instance of inflammatory rhetoric, not erased, but it is a single documented
episode rather than a continuous incitement pattern. Below the middle.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 5 | why?Financial disclosures filed; LegiStorm notes privately funded travel paid by outside groups, which is common, legal, and disclosed, a routine appearance-watch item, not a violation. No ethics finding, sanction, or
sustained self-dealing concern located. Middle, on a clean-but-unremarkable fiduciary record.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 4 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's OWN side at cost. No documented instance of Burlison breaking
with his party or leadership at personal cost on a matter of principle was located; the public record is
strong party alignment (the DirecTV speech defends co-partisan media, it does not challenge his own side).
Below the middle for absence of demonstrated independent courage, not for the alignment itself.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 5 | why?No documented discretion-test event, no instance of refusing a personal advantage for the public good, and
no documented abuse of discretion either. Imported low score (3) is not supported by any located finding;
raised to the middle on absence of evidence in either direction.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 5 | why?No documented private-versus-public contempt gap, no leaked or reported instance of the off-camera posture
diverging from the public one. Middle, on absence of findings.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Routine constituent-service activity is documented (district Constituent Services Week, telephone town halls).
No documented donor-over-constituent betrayal located; ordinary representational conduct. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 6 | why?M11 scores ONLY office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, foreign-government revenue). No such finding located, no documented self-dealing, family payroll, or
office-information trading. Raw wealth and disclosed privately funded travel are NOT penalized. Imported score
(4) reflected contamination; corrected upward on absence of any office-driven-enrichment finding. Held just
above middle, not higher, because the record is short and disclosures are not deeply audited.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 4 | why?Institutional-decorum drag: using the House floor to deliver a grievance speech that trivialized the Holocaust
over a cable-carriage dispute treats the chamber as a spectacle stage rather than a deliberative institution.
One documented episode; below the middle. Not floor-level, as there is no sustained pattern of decorum
breaches located.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?The "raised questions about 2020" Facebook-post listing (as a state legislator) is a documented honesty/
candor appearance-concern about amplifying meritless 2020 claims, weighed as an appearance item rather than a
sustained federal falsehood pattern. No broad documented pattern of repeated material falsehoods located.
Middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 5 | why?Chairs the Oversight subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs and serves on
DOGE and Transit subcommittees, institutional substance consistent with his policy lane. No standout
demonstration of deep cross-domain command, but no pure-talking-points record either. Middle.
[source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M05 | February 2023 House floor speech invoking the Niemöller Holocaust passage to compare DirecTV dropping Newsmax to the Nazis' rise, days after International Holocaust Remembrance Day ↳ inflammatory/careless rhetoric, instrumentalizing genocide for grievance | Single documented episode, not a sustained incitement pattern |
| M03 | Same Feb 2023 Holocaust comparison, trivializing a genocide as a partisan cudgel ↳ Persons of Equal Worth, dignity/respect drag | One instance; no documented pattern of casting citizens as enemies |
| M02 | GovTrack 2024: joined bipartisan bills least often of the Missouri delegation ↳ documented low cross-aisle cooperation conduct (NOT party/ideology) | Declining to co-sponsor is ordinary legislative behavior, not a breach |
| M07 | No documented instance of breaking with his own side at personal cost on principle ↳ absence of demonstrated independent courage | Absence of evidence, not a finding of misconduct |
| M12 | Using the House floor for the Holocaust-comparison grievance speech ↳ institutional-decorum drag | One episode; no sustained decorum-breach pattern |
| M13 | FiveThirtyEight 'raised questions about 2020' listing via Facebook posts as a state legislator ↳ candor appearance-concern, amplifying meritless claims | Appearance item, not a sustained federal falsehood pattern; pre-federal-office conduct |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 5 | why?Attributes: Courage, Selfless Service, Steadiness, Loyalty. No documented act of personal-cost courage on
the record, but no documented betrayal of trust either. The short federal tenure and absence of a defining
stand keep this at the middle, neither the apex evidence nor a documented collapse toward self-interest.
|
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. The February 2023 Holocaust-comparison
speech and the absence of any documented self-correction or walk-back are a real drag toward Temperance's and
Self-Reflection's opposites. Below the middle.
|
| III | Protection & Influence
| 5 | why?Attributes: Protection, Courage in Conflict, Stewardship, Accountability. No documented exploitation of
office or abuse of power; routine constituent service is present. No standout protective use of power either.
Middle.
|
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice, Love of Truth. The Holocaust trivialization and the amplified
2020 "questions" are documented drags toward grievance-politics over Love of Truth, against a thin record of
affirmative virtue. Below the middle; an early-career record with real blemishes and little yet to offset.
|
| TOTAL: Weak | 18/40 |
Total 18/40, a thin, early-tenure record with documented rhetoric and cooperation drags and no offsetting apex evidence. Honest middle-to-low, not a condemnation.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“There's a famous quote about what happened during the Holocaust... when the Nazis first came for some and people said nothing, and then eventually they'll come for you.”
House floor speech criticizing DirecTV for dropping Newsmax over a carriage-rate dispute, days after International Holocaust Remembrance Day · Mediaite / Daily Beast / Newsweek · CONTESTED · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Eric Wayne Burlison (born October 2, 1976). U.S. Representative for Missouri's 7th congressional district since January 3, 2023. Previously served in the Missouri House of Representatives (2009-2017) and the Missouri Senate (2019-2023). Republican. Serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; chairs the Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, and sits on the DOGE and Highways & Transit subcommittees. Running for re-election in 2026.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Freshman/sophomore-era House member; GovTrack 2024 metrics place him as joining bipartisan bills the least often of the Missouri delegation, indicating low cross-aisle co-sponsorship conduct (scored as conduct, not ideology). Committee work centers on Oversight/regulatory-affairs and government-efficiency lanes consistent with his stated agenda. Policy positions themselves are NOT graded in either direction per the framework.
3. Constitutional Moments
Took federal office in January 2023, after the December 2020 Texas v. Pennsylvania amicus, he is not a signatory and the capping process-subversion criterion does not attach. He was a Missouri state senator, not a member of Congress, during the January 6, 2021 certification, so there is no federal certification objection on his record. A FiveThirtyEight database lists him in the "raised questions about 2020" tier based on Facebook posts as a state legislator, weighed as a pre-federal appearance-concern, not a federal finding.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
The defining documented rhetoric event is the February 2023 House floor speech invoking the Niemöller Holocaust passage to compare DirecTV dropping Newsmax to the Nazis' rise, historically inaccurate and condemned by Holocaust-memory scholars as exactly the kind of analogy that corrodes discourse. Weighed honestly as a real drag, but a single documented episode rather than a sustained pattern of casting opponents or citizens as enemies.
5. Fiduciary Profile
Financial disclosures filed; LegiStorm notes disclosed privately funded travel paid by outside groups, a routine, legal, disclosed appearance-watch item, not a violation. No ethics finding, sanction, or documented office-attributable enrichment (self-dealing, family payments, office-information trades, foreign revenue) located. M11 reflects absence of an enrichment finding; raw wealth is not penalized.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
No documented Severity-class (criterion 8 or 10) conduct located. He is not a Texas v. PA amicus signatory (took office after Dec 2020) and has no federal certification-objection record. The Feb 2023 Holocaust comparison is a serious rhetoric drag but a single documented episode, not the sustained enemy-making/incitement pattern criterion 10 requires. Flag count: zero.
7. What The Framework Says
An early-tenure House record that lands in the honest lower-middle. There is no capping conduct, he took office after the December 2020 amicus and cast no federal certification objection, and no documented corruption or abuse of power. What pulls the record down is documented: trivializing the Holocaust on the House floor over a cable-carriage dispute, the lowest cross-aisle cooperation in his delegation, amplified pre-office "questions" about 2020, and the absence of any demonstrated independent-courage moment to offset them. The standard records the blemishes and the thinness alike, without inventing virtue that the record does not yet show.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Congress.gov member record · House financial disclosures (Clerk)
Tier 2: GovTrack report card 2024 · Ballotpedia · Mediaite, Feb 2023 floor speech
Research links: Congress.gov member profile · Ballotpedia · GovTrack profile + report card · OpenSecrets summary · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.