Political science, like all the social sciences — not always to discredit them — is a pseudo-science. It doesn’t occur in a completely controlled environment. Iraq was a kind of experiment for the bipartisan policy wonks.
Thomas Frank sure touched a nerve to make such a pig-pile happen!
Yes, Mr E, your critique of political science echoes your critique of economics, and I think you’re right on both counts. My sense of the early 60’s was that liberals thought they were living in the Great Moderation politically, and that it would continue indefinitely, and then everything quickly went to hell. Economists got the same sort of shock 6 years ago and for much the same reason.
I know a few upper class liberals and my impression is that they’re charmed by the snake. They’re living well and they’ll tut-tut about inequality because that’s fashionable but honestly I think they like it. (Most of them take it as obvious that Social Security must be cut by 15% or so.) I get the feeling that their ideal world is feudalism — if only they could ditch the church.
[…] Anti-populism one more time (very good) Dirty schools the norm since privatizing custodians: principals Let’s make good choices on charter schools ‘A school that could start out clean on Monday by Friday, if things haven’t been done, is really almost a pig sty.’… Piss on the floors and poo on the walls dramatize the lies of Tim Cawley’s Aaramark Power Point What could go wrong Why the NFL conversation about Ray Rice is so important to me D.C.-Area Economy Takes a Hit as Government Spending Drops The racial parenting divide: What Adrian Peterson reveals about black vs. white child-rearing Cash and Respect Adrian Peterson and what our fathers did to us: we have not turned out fine Why We Pay Federal Income Taxes Nate Silver versus Sam Wang (could have put this in the Science section; interesting general point about models) Obama’s biggest economic policy mistake Blame neoliberalism, not Salmond, if the UK breaks up A message from Tim Cook about Apple’s commitment to your privacy. (positioning itself to be the ‘anti-Google/Amazon’?) […]
Even if what you say in your last sentence is true (debatable), what makes you think that that’s not subject to change? It seems like you’re falling into the trap that JE is talking about, i.e. describing what is rather than what could be. You’re throwing in the towel before you even get in the ring.