by Kevin R. Kosar
James J. Kimble, Mobilizing the Home Front: War Bonds And Domestic Propaganda (College Station, TX: TAMU Press, 2006).
For one review of the book, see J. Michael Sproule, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 11, no. 1, 2008, pp. 167-169.
Susan A. Brewer, Why America Fights: Patriotism and Propagnda from the Philippines to Iraq (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)
The publisher describes it thus:
On the evening of September 11, 2002, with the Statue of Liberty shimmering in the background, television cameras captured President George W. Bush as he advocated war against Iraq. This carefully stage-managed performance, writes Susan A. Brewer, was the culmination of a long tradition of sophisticated wartime propaganda in America. In Why America Fights, Brewer offers a fascinating history of how successive presidents have conducted what Donald Rumsfeld calls “perception management,” from McKinley’s war in the Philippines to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
As a trained political scientist, I confess to have many criticisms of the field as undertaken in the U.S. What this New York Times‘ article touches upon is fundamental: what good is political science?
Truth be told, much of what is done by academics in political science departments is useless nonsense. It’s scholars asking questions about articles written by other scholars who asked questions about other scholars. The regnant tenure award system encourages this behavior, as does the self-selecting hiring process.
Beyond being boring, such research is very ivory tower, very uninformed by the complexities of reality. This is why one can read rigorous political science studies that offer nearly no insight on the phenomena they are purporting to address—scholars miss basic variables at work because they are too far from the phenomenon.
I kid you not—one can find folks with doctorates in American politics who have never read congressional committee prints, do not know what either the Government Accountability Office or Congressional Budget Office do, and are ignorant of the federal budget process. Regrettably, these folks also tend to know very little political history, and so cannot place things within any context.
Add to this the fetish for complex models and you have a recipe for disaster—an academic field that seems incomprehensible and intellectually masturbatory. Lots of talk about methods, but little knowledge of what has happened. (Sadly, being able to accurately explain what exists and what has occurred is often derided by political scientists as “journalism” or merely “descriptive.”) Really, now, if I wanted to know, say, how the the U.S. and Russia’ relationship was changing, I wouldn’t call a political scientist, not one based at a university. I probably would reach out to a reporter who covers the area or a think tank expert who has worked in international diplomacy. Same goes with figuring out how Congress currently operating (Is it Speaker-led? Committee-driven? Etc.)
A seldom discussed problem with political science today is that it has jettisoned some of its key parts—the study of law, public administration, public policy all now are done in different departments and schools. Which is ludicrous, as each of these fields focus on aspects of the political and governmental process. Additionally, the field little covers subnational governance units. Want to know about the politics and governance of cities? Want to know how states handle budgeting? Good luck finding someone in a department of political science who can help you.
Res ipsa loquitor.
Source: Patricia Cohen, “Field Study: Just How Relevant is Political Science?” New York Times, October 19, 2009.
The Public Interest was founded in 1965 by Daniel Bell and Irving Kristol and ceased publication in 2005.
It was a very influential journal of policy and political thought, and at its best featured top writers from across the political spectrum. The Public Interest often was critical of the status quo, and regularly argued for changes in major public policies, such as welfare and housing programs.
Now, courtesy of its successor journal, National Affairs, all of its issues may be accessed freely at The Public Interest archive.
Back in June, I wrote of the American Foundation for Continuing Education (AFCE). I noted that Edward C. Banfield had written at least two short stories for this organization, which include:
Edward C. Banfield, “Growing Problem,” (Chicago, IL: American Foundation for Continuing Education, 1959); and
Edward C. Banfield, “The Case of the Blighted City,” (Chicago, IL: American Foundation for Continuing Education, 1959).
Well, Chris DeMuth, former head of the American Enterprise Institute, recently sent me a third Banfield AFCE fiction piece:
Edward C. Banfield, “The Case of the Handcuffed Sheriff,” (Chicago, IL: American Foundation for Continuing Education, 1957).
Thank you, Chris. Like the other stories, this one has been put in PDF format and may be downloaded freely.