Re: Negative Campaigning During the Olympics

Gagan — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:36:48 -0000

Though I haven't gotten to watch the games live, I'm equally frustrated with the negative ads by the McCain campaign. But where I disagree is the claim that his strategy is profoundly stupid. While his strategy may be profoundly inappropriate, attack ads have been demonstrated time and time again to be remarkably effective. And I doubt that this will prove any different during the Olympic games. Not to mention, the electorate in swing states is ripe for being influenced by negative advertising aimed at Obama. If anything, the Olympics might serve as a particularly effective platform for such a strategy, as the pool of viewers will likely select towards the patriotic types.

Re: The Science of Political Science

Gagan — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:09:03 -0000

Jarred and Bean --

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion on the question of whether or not political science is, indeed, a "science." I have to agree with Jarred on this front: political science, can, at minimum, "be considered a science." As Chapter 1 of every single natural science textbook ever written summarizes, science is simply the application of the scientific method (an "approach). And indeed, political science can and often does apply such a method. But I also concede that one elephant in the room is whether or not political science can successfully operationalize variables that provide the same level of utility found in the natural sciences, or even in other social sciences such as economics. But again, as Jarred points out, why should the matter rest at, "We can't, so we shouldn't." Logicians would point to this classical fallacy and say, "Hmph! Why not? Logically speaking, this doesn't make sense." The dreamers among us might point to this reasoning and say, "Tell it to Galileo." I point to this reasoning and say, "We can't, but it doesn't matter."

In other words, while we cannot perfectly apply the scientific method to political considerations, I would argue that imperfection does not equate lack of utility (and note that I'm completely disregarding the other argument to be made, namely that the natural sciences may no more perfectly apply such methods to their own work). As an example, I'd like to point out York Zimmerman's work at the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC). As a graduate student years ago, Zimmerman operationalized roughly 50 variables that he considered necessary for "revolution," namely through political means (whether in the form of toppling an authoritarian regime, or simply by overthrowing one long-standing ruling party in favor of the other: see Orange Revolution, as a prime example). To date, he has narrowed those variables to less than 10 that he considers absolutely necessary for such revolution. But what is more is that his organization is now examining whether or not, from the ground-up, they can help foment a handful of those variables on the path towards institutional change. For example, they have made documentaries and written books and have even developed a video game (A Force More Powerful: The Game of Nonviolent Strategy), all with the aim of spreading an understanding among the masses of how revolutions have occurred in the past, why a given people's specific circumstances are ripe for such revolution and how they might bring about that revolution in the near future.

Now while some may point to such efforts and scoff, it seems that Zimmerman's efforts shed some light on this discussion. Essentially, he's long worked on a theory of social revolution and what circumstances set the stage for a successful social revolution, largely based on a qualitative and historical approach. He then operationalized a set a variables and essentially developed the political science equivalent of a "prescription drug" in the form of tools that very well may tip the scales in favor of revolution. And as far as I can tell, this process is surprisingly, albeit awkwardly, akin to the very efforts taking place in "real" science labs all around the world. And from what I understand, Zimmerman's work is being met with remarkable success.

Interestingly, the question that I am more concerned with is whether or not the "science" part of political science should even be taught as part of political science and government majors in our nation's colleges and universities. As a stalwart supporter of the liberal arts, I am absolutely convinced that the "science" part is integral to a budding political science major's education. At minimum, it provides an overview of the principles under girding much of our political analysis, whether we realize it or not. And it challenges students to consider their own course of study through a different lens; often, political science majors are indeed "math averse," but understanding for example that operationalizing variables isn't mathematical at all, but instead a necessary M.O. in any kind of research, can help students become better thinkers, writers and critics, even if what they are critiquing is the science of politics itself.

In sum, I never want to become a political scientist. But I think the empirical thrust that they can provide to our understanding of human behavior is not only important, but critical. Any approach that stands alone is bound to topple, whether historical, narrative, empirical or otherwise. But taken together I think each approach can complement the other, and that at minimum, any budding political science student should be exposed to them all.

I would include links, but I'm not certain how. Jarred?

Gagan

Disqus - Latest Comments for Gagan

Re: Negative Campaigning During the Olympics

Re: The Science of Political Science