Should Political Science Be Relevant?

It's a question as old as the discipline, discussed at Inside Higher Ed. And it won't go away anytime soon. Political science for the most part is about theory-building and knife-sharpening. Even international relations can be an irrelevant pain sometimes, although I think my subfield has a better edge than American politics, surprisingly. (IR sees lots of cross-pollination from the super-scholarly literature to the popular magazines like Foreign Policy.)

In any case, the American Political Science Association held its annunal meeting over the Labor Day weekend, so there's some follow-up buzz going around. At the image below is Ezra Klein, and also Matthew Yglesias, c/o The Monkey Cage. And my sense is that's another reason for the dismal prospects for political science, the discipline's disastrous left-wing bias. Sure, there are lots of professors who are rigorous and avoid hack partisanship, but as a whole I'm underwhelmed by the attempts. (Henry Farrell was at APSA as well, and earlier this year, after repeated comments at Crooked Timber, he never did respond to my queries on the lies of the WikiLeaks Apache video — such otherwise smart people, so bogged down with deathly ideology.)

Anyway, an interesting passage from Inside Higher Ed.

One of the most biting critiques came from Bo Rothstein, the August Röhss Professor of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden. Rothstein, who noted that this was his 20th APSA meeting and who has held visiting professorships at several leading universities in the United States, said that maybe the problem to discuss isn't whether political science is relevant, but whether American political science is relevant.

"If you want to be relevant as a discipline," he said, "you have to recruit people who want to be relevant." And in this respect, he said, American political science departments are not doing well. He described his experiences teaching at Harvard University, where he was tremendously impressed with the 20 seniors in his seminar on comparative politics. One day he asked how many were planning to go to graduate school in political science and was "stunned" to find out that the students -- many of them idealistic about changing the world -- had to a person ruled that out in favor of law school. Their view was that "to be relevant, you have to have a law degree."

In Sweden, Rothstein said, this would be viewed as a terrible thing. "No such persons" like those Harvard seniors he taught "would dream of going to law school," which they would see as "boring and technical." But while American universities tell those who want to change the world to go to law school, they attract other kinds of students to grad school. "I was not at all impressed by the graduate students" at Harvard, he said. "They wanted to stay away from anything relevant."

America at Risk

This is a Newt Gingrich production (via Gateway Pundit). And since he's got Melanie Phillips featured at the interviews, I'm giving the Scozzafava-backing RINO the benefit of the doubt:

Check the America at Risk homepage as well.

'I Am Tired of Being Told That We Need to Sensitive to the Muslim Culture'

That's Just-a-Grunt, at JammieWearingFool, on the controversy surrounding the planned Koran burnings. And I agree, although there's something about burning the Islamic holy book that doesn't feel quite right. Burning books doesn't feel quite right, come to think of it. That said, I doubt General David Petraeus made a wise decision to wade into the debate on the alleged "anti-Muslim backlash." And I seriously doubt that burning the Koran is going to make that much difference in the level of insurgent recruitment, etc. Americans are being targeted, and jihadis are joining, just for Americans being Americans. Perhaps Koran-burnings do inflame Muslim passions and fuel anti-American violence. What's more likely is that Koran-burnings fuel the leftist Media-Industrial-Complex in its journalistic jihad against the American right. See ABC News, for example, "Anti-Islam Rhetoric Heats Up Ahead of 9/11: Muslim Groups Prepare for Wave of Anti-Islamic Sentiment as Ninth Anniversary of 9/11 Terrorist Attacks Approach."

After reading this stuff, I'm more likely to side with Just-a-Grunt when push comes to shove. The media proves the point. We are caving to PC sensibilities, and THAT's what's going get everyone killed in the end. Not a few ignorant pastors in Florida. More at Bare Naked Islam, "Muslims show absolutely no concern for non-Muslim sensitivities. Why should we respect theirs?"

Democrat Wipe Out

Dan Collins posts The Ventures, "Wipe Out," as the metaphor for the coming epic Democrat Party blowout in November. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a violent train wreck, like in the conclusion to "The Legend of Zorro" (at about 45 seconds). I can hear Obama-Pelosi-Reid screaming in horror from my house:

Indeed, how about a little roundup to that effect:

* ABC News, "Poll: Revolt Against Status Quo Gives Republicans Record Lead in 2010 Midterms."

* CNN, "Political handicapper ups prediction on GOP gains," and "Another top political handicapper forecasts larger GOP gains."

* Politico, "Latest polls predict a blow-out loss for Democrats in November."

* Wall Street Journal, "Get Ready for an Anti-Incumbent Wave."

* Washington Post, "Republicans making gains against Democrats ahead of midterm elections."

We Will Never Surrender

At Blazing Cat Fur, "Geert Wilders: We will NEVER give in, we will NEVER give up, we will NEVER surrender...Official Trailer Islam Rising."

From Phyllis Chesler: TIME Magazine’s Latest Blood Libel About Israel

I'm going to have to stop off at Barnes and Noble to read the whole thing, since Time posts only an excerpt, but I trust Phyllis Chesler's analysis:

The Jewish insistence on life may be the key to our survival as a people despite ceaseless persecution. It might be the lesson, the model, for all humanity in an era of genocides, civil wars, torture chambers, tyrannies, and totalitarian regimes. Why is TIME turning things on their head and refusing to recognize the courage and the heroism of Jewish Israelis who choose to live in the moment when the moment is all they have? Against all odds, the Jews simply refuse to give up.

Added: I see Time's essay is garnering some attention around the 'sphere. See Victor Davis Hanson, "For the Jews in Israel, Money Trumps All?":

I know it’s commonplace to read in the latest issue of Time or Newsweek that Obama is a god, that Islamophobic Americans are collectively prejudiced against Muslims, that the response after 9/11 was overblown and unnecessary (over 30 subsequent terrorist plots have been foiled, and, for some reason, renditions, tribunals, Guantanamo, Predators, intercepts, etc., have all been embraced by the Obama administration), but the recent Time piece on Israel by a Karl Vick is probably the most anti-Semitic essay I have ever read in a mainstream publication.

Hanson's on to something. See also Bret Stephens, "Time magazine adds its voice to the chorus of those attempting to delegitimize the Jewish state."

Here's more, from Daniel Gordis, "Acceptable in Polite Society."

Obama's 'Like a Dog' Speech at the Milwaukee Laborfest

I spent yesterday afternoon writing a book review of Markos Moultisas' American Taliban, and also watching "The Watchmen" on cable. I therefore didn't pay much attention to President Obama's Labor Day politicking. But lots of folks are talking about his speech at the Milwaukee Laborfest. The key passage is at the video, but be sure to check William Jacobson's longer analysis of the speech itself:

Hearts Are Broken, Everyday...

Linkmaster Smith posted a DOUBLE-BONANZA RULE 5 EXTRAVAGANZA over the holiday weekend. See, "Rule 5 Sunday Part 1," and "Rule 5 Sunday Part 2: Holiday Extra!" The latter is enhanced with some Jewel loveliness. My first baby boy used to play this song over and over on our cheap Sony CD player back in the day. The strumming guitar is kinda like a lullaby, so it makes sense that a 1 year-old would get hooked. I just think Jewel's a down-home kinda woman. Enjoy:

Misunderstanding Markos Moulitsas and American Taliban

Well, folks might have noticed the photo of Markos Moulitsas' new book at one of my throwaway posts this afternoon. I'm almost done with the book. And I was going to hold off on a review, but folks are speaking out on it now, so what the heck?

As far as I've seen among leftists, only Jamelle Bouie's actually read the book, and can thus comment on it with at least minimal knowledge. Significantly, we also have Kevin Drum's comments on American Taliban. He endorses the book while announcing no plans to read it at the same time. And note the ideological affirmation and reassurance as well:

I haven't read American Taliban and don't plan to. I figure I already dislike the American right wing enough, so there's little need to dump another load of fuel onto my own personal mental bonfire.

And that's just the thing. "Dislike" for the American right is SOP with these people. So it's interesting that Jamelle Bouie attempts to distance the progressive left from the extremist ravings of Markos Moulitsas. Only problem is that Markos Moulitsas is the progressive left, that is, he's perfectly representative of the extreme neo-socialism that's become mainstream in Democratic Party politics. Moreover, Moulitsas' endorsement of take-no-prisoners secular demonology is simply the going game of the Democrat Party netroots base. So note two things: (1) Why should anyone be surprised at the content of American Taliban; and (2) why should anyone begrudge Markos Moulitsas for putting pen to paper (or to pixels) to lay out the neo-communist critique of the (perceived) contemporary right wing of American politics? This is what these folks do. The book is an outrage to read, sure, but it's an outrage to read any top blog of the current leftosphere? Indeed, Moulitsas' book reads like one long epic blog post at Daily Kos. Fact is, American Taliban started as a blog post in 2006, and then was crafted into a book. It's not scholarly. In fact, there are no footnotes to document the majority of the outrageous claims offered. What's important to note is Moulitsas' tactic of finding the most out-of-the-mainstream personalities and foisting these off as mainstream conservatives. It's a smear-by-numbers approach that at times pulls in top Republicans like Sarah Palin, etc., adds a couple of the more colorful quotes from said personalities, and voilà! You're got the modern conservative movement 100 percent equivalent to the medieval barbarian Taliban, REAL TERRORISTS who cut off noses of Afghan women and behead apostates from the Islamist creed, and not to mention Americans such as Daniel Pearl. It's absurd, of course. But it's not exceptional. And not only that, the MFM has elevated Moulitsas and Daily Kos to the elite media/Democrat Party establishment. THIS IS the inside game on today's left. So again, this should be no surprise.

Let me just give one example from the book, so folks'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Here's the representative quote from American Taliban, from pp. 50-51:

In the presidential election of 2008, John McCain thought it hilarious to sing, to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann," "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran ..." And the American Taliban's latest enemy de jour, Iran, remains an obsessive target for those who don't believe America has suffered enough war in the past decade. Sarah Palin, for example, thought it would be fantastic as a way for Obama to cynically secure his re-election campaign. "Say [Obama] played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but --- that changes the dynamic in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years."

These political fundamentalists, whether Islamic or American, have zero problem playing the war card for domestic gain, sending our bravest to die in distant wars as thoughtlessly as they would move pieces around a game of Risk. Such reckless warmongering behavior results in death and destruction, all in the service to their god and their political ambitions.

Yet, as bad as it is when the American Taliban direct such violent sentiment to our external enemies, it is a direct threat to our democracy when aimed at domestic targets.

I've highlighted that last clause, because that really does sum up Markos Moulitsas' thesis and political agenda. To wit: It is not fanatical global jihad that is the greatest threat to the American democracy --- an existential ideological movement that would be sweeping up in triumphant conquest throughout the Third World, and a bit of the First, if it wasn't for American military power standing guard. It is folks like John McCain, a decorated Vietnam war veteran who gave almost six years of his life to North Vietnamese communist torture and imprisonment, and Sarah Palin, a citizen-politician with five kids who was plucked from relative obscurity to be the 2008 GOP running-mate, who now threaten to destroy the American way of life as representative of some kind of domestic warmongering conservative jihad against the heartland. Yeah, you can see perhaps why some folks like Jamelle Bouie might cringe at such non-reality-based diatribes. But Moulitsas isn't an outlier: American Taliban tells us exactly how the left's hardline partisans see the GOP. And American Taliban wonderfully clarifies the scope of political battle for those on the right who actually live a reality-based life, people who know that it's in fact the alliance between Islam and socialism --- at home and abroad --- that is the genuine threat to our prosperity and perseverance. It's chilling but it's fact. The truth is that Markos Moulitsas is not an "embarrassment to the left," as Doc Zero argues over at Hot Air. Markos Moulitsas is the left. And the sooner folks get that lesson down cold, the faster upstanding folks of moral clarity and values will be able to defeat them.

Added: Digby hasn't read the book either, but still feels confident in claiming:

Markos has written a polemic called "American Taliban" in which he draws an ironic comparison between the far right in American politics and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He isn't saying they are interchangeable. That's ridiculous. Obviously, one exists within a secular Western democracy with a rule of law and the other well ... doesn't.

No, Digby, American Taliban's whole point is that the American religious right is perfectly indistinguishable from the Taliban of South Asia --- and the "American Taliban" is the bigger threat to the U.S. than global jihad. Folks really need to read this book and quit lying about what is or isn't said there. Digby is right up there with Markos Moulitsas as a crazed leftist demonologist who wants a revolution to topple the traditional bases of American politics, if not the constitutional regime itself. Don't be fooled by these people. THEY ARE ALLIED with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and global jihad to destroy American freedom. It's plain as day. I write about it all the time. But naturally very few are willing to call it for what it is, and forget about the MFM. They're in the tank. And unsurprisingly, Digby, in a previous post, isn't shy about endorsing the "American Taliban" theory of politics (even though she's not even read the book):

The inconvenient truth here is that these people are dangerous because their worldview is dangerous. Lethal even. And somebody has to have the guts and to call them on it in their own terms. This "tired genre" of "our opponents are monsters" has been decidedly dominated by one side and the consequences have been grave. We have a fight on our hands and the only real question left is whether anyone on our side is willing to wage it.

Game on, as far as I'm concerned. Knowing one's enemies is half the battle, and these folks are putting the intel right in our laps.

Watching 'The Watchmen'

Right now, on Cinemax:

'Resident Evil: Afterlife' — In Theaters This Friday

Well, since I'm checking out Milla Jovovich, thought I'd post the trailer of her new flick, out Friday:

Holiday Hangin' — Beers, Blogs, Books, Babes: What More Could a Guy Want?

Well, Milla Jovovich couldn't make it in person. Otherwise, I'm stylin'.

'Recovery Summer is a Democratic Bummer'

That has one hella ring to it.

At Yid With Lid, "CNN, Rasmussen and Gallup Agree, Recovery Summer is a Democratic Party BUMMER."

Why Won't Barbara Boxer Debate Carly Fiorina?

Because she'll get her butt kicked.

Readers will recall that I covered the GOP primary debate in the spring. Carly Fiorina is hot on the issues and totally polished. She doesn't get flustered at all. Barbara Boxer agreed to one debate previously, and according to George Skelton, she came up short and she's balking at another round. See, "Fiorina Comes Out Ahead on TV":

Boxer, bidding for a fourth term, has never been confronted by an opponent quite like Fiorina. The only one who could match Fiorina's communication skills was conservative TV commentator Bruce Herschensohn in Boxer's first Senate election in 1992.

But that was "the year of the woman," an aggressive organizing effort by Democrats and a ticket led by Bill Clinton. This year, two women are running, Democrats seem unorganized, and Jerry Brown is no Clinton. Voters are cranky and it's the year of the non-incumbent.

This probably will be Boxer's toughest race ever. Currently it's considered a tossup despite the state's Democratic tilt.

Sexiest Bikini Moments Caught On Screen

Celebrating the last holiday weekend of summer. More viddies at the link (c/o Linkiest):

The Myth of the Struggling Antiwar Movement

The old-fashioned understanding of the "antiwar" movement hardly explains the left's anti-everything protest agenda nowadays. But wouldn't you know it, the folks at Politico played right into the sweaty palms of America's domestic enemies with its whitewash of a report: "Anti-war groups battle for survival" (at Memeorandum). As longtime readers of this blog will recall, the hardline anti-American cadres are on the front lines of virtually every leftist protest rally in recent years. From the Stalinist backlash against Prop 8 supporters in 2008, to the Phoenix anti-SB 1070 march last May, the ANSWER Coalition and an assorted bunch of ragtag anarchists, reconquistas, 9/11 truthers, and gay rights ayatollahs have been at the forefront of the barricades. And of course we'll continue to have antiwar protests on every anniversary of our continued deployments, in March and October, for example, to mark the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've covered some of the recent protests in Los Angeles, and it's always the same: An antiwar industry with nothing new to say. For background, be sure to read "The Politics of Peace: What's Behind the Anti-War Movement?" And especially this:

The irony of the modern “peace” movement is that it has very little to do with peace — either as a moral concept or as a political ideal. Peace is a tactical ideal for movement organizers: it serves as political leverage against U.S. policymakers, and it is an ideological response to the perceived failures of American society. The leaders of anti-war groups are modern-day Leninists. As Lenin used Russian war-weariness in 1917 to overthrow the Czar, so American street revolutionaries use reactions to the war on Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a way to foment radical political change at home ... Their aim is a “struggle” against “oppression” and “imperialism,” code words in the lexicon of revolutionary socialism. Not In Our Name (NION), a satellite of the Revolutionary Communist Party, decries the War on Terror as a Bush Administration ploy: “We will not stop until all of us are free from your bloodthirsty domination.”

The one thing that's correct at Politico is that the end of the "Bush regime" brought a fundamental change to the left. Yes, true revolutionaries don't care if Obama's in power. But folks like Code Pink are career oppotuntists. They've been milking their ties to the Democratic Party to weaken America from within. Funneling money to al Qaeda in Iraq and serving as the Obama administration's liaison to the Taliban in Afghanistan are perfect examples. Don't buy this crap about a "stuggling" antiwar movement for a minute. There'll always be some "racist hegemonic imperialist Zionist project" somewhere to mobilize against. There's never a dull moment.

Sixteen Spitfires at Duxford Battle of Britain Airshow

The sound of victory, via Theo Spark:

The Ground Zero Mosque — What Americans Could Learn from Israel

From Daniel Gordis:

In its basic form, the Ground Zero mosque debate boils down to a conflict between two competing values – American freedom of religion versus the sensitivities of the families of the victims of 9/11.

The freedom-of-religion argument suggests that if Jews sought to build a synagogue at Ground Zero (or anywhere else, for that matter), they would be within their rights. That’s the American way. The opposing view suggests that while not every Catholic was guilty in the Holocaust, and not every Muslim perpetrated the crimes of 9/11, sensitivities still matter. Pope John Paul II had the decency to force the Carmelite nuns out of Auschwitz, and Muslim leaders, too, ought to relocate their project.

Similarly, the mutual accusations are parallel: If you are opposed to the mosque, you are an Islamophobic racist. And if you’re in favor of it, you’re simply insensitive to the pain of those who lost loved ones in the attack.

But we Israelis have learned from our experience that matters are more complicated. One need not be racist or Islamophobic to be concerned about the mosque. For life in our region has taught us that the first necessary step to defending yourself is acknowledging that someone else is out to destroy you.

In the suburban, well-educated, politically and Jewishly liberal America in which I grew up, we didn’t use the label “enemy.” “Enemy” was a dirty word, because it implied the immutability of conflict.

Yes, there were people who fought us, but only because we hadn’t yet arrived at a fair resolution of our conflict. We needed to understand them, so we could then resolve the conflicts that divided us.

I still recall being jarred, when we made aliya, by the matter-of-factness with which Israelis use the word “enemy.” But it wasn’t a judgment or an accusation. It was simply a fact: There are people out to destroy our state, who seek to kill us and our children. And as the intifada later amply demonstrated, they did not yearn for our understanding or our friendship. They wanted our demise.

I have had leftists, here at home in the U.S., tell me that they "wanted our demise." And that's to say nothing of their deeds. More at the link, in any case.

'Operation New Dawn'

From Winston, at The Spirit of Man:

President George W. Bush must be smiling today. He must be proud too.

It is the eve of "Operation New Dawn" in Iraq. The day that the Iraqi people will finally become somewhat independent of US combat forces and will fully gain the control of their country. Just like S. Korea, Germany, Italy and Japan where US presence has secured safety and freedom, a US presence in Iraq will also be necessary for some time to come. Though the former US ambassador 'Ryan Crocker' also believes Iraq still needs the America's enduring support and engagement. Of course, the Iranian regime will always be trying to duplicate its Lebanon style plots in Iraq dividing the country. Therefore that's just one solid reason to keep the US military there for now. But the point of this entry today is not about the strategic weight of today's developments. It is just about emotions ....

Here I'd like to thank the former President George W. Bush for his stubborn and courageous stand in Iraq during all those terrible days of carnage and bloodshed. He stood his grounds and insisted on winning it. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for delivering what he'd promised earlier. This victory is his but on top of that, the victory in Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq and in particular to the innocent children of that country. The Iraqi kids can now grow up without fearing a compulsory service in the sadistic Saddam's army. They can pursue their dreams like others thanks to the effort and sacrifices of the American military. Yes, yes the post-war strategy went bad for a while but freedom has never been free. Blame the Iranian Mullahs, Syrians and Saudi terrorists for the bloodshed in Iraq. The Iraqi people, Kurds and Arabs alike can now raise their children in a country where their voices will finally be heard and where they will have a chance at electing their leaders, however imperfect that might be compared to our standards in the west. The future of Iraq is bright. That is for certain.

And let's thank U.S. forces while we're at it.

HAT TIP: GSGF.

God and Gettysburg

From Professor Robert George, at First Things:

The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Constitution of the United States of America—those were the three texts in the blue pamphlet I found on the table in front of me as I took my seat at a conference at Princeton.

On the cover was the logo of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, an influential organization whose boardmembers include former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse, controversial Obama judicial nominee Goodwin Liu, former New York governor Mario Cuomo, former solicitors general Drew Days and Walter Dellinger, and former attorney general Janet Reno. The new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was a speaker at the society’s annual conventions in 2005, 2007, and 2008. And inside the pamphlet was a page saying, “The printing of this copy of the U.S. Constitution and of the nation’s two other founding texts, the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, was made possible through the generosity of Laurence and Carolyn Tribe.”

How nice, I thought. Here is a convenient, pocket-sized version of our fundamental documents, including Lincoln’s great oration at Gettysburg on republican government. Although some might question the idea that a speech given more than eighty years after the Declaration qualifies as a founding text, its inclusion seemed to me entirely appropriate. By preserving the Union, albeit at a nearly incalculable cost in lives and suffering, Lincoln completed, in a sense, the American founding. Victory at Gettysburg really did ensure that government “by the people” and “for the people”—republican government—would not “perish from the earth.”

I recalled that in sixth grade I was required to memorize the address, and as I held the American Constitution Society’s pamphlet in my hands, I wondered whether I could still recite it from memory. So I began, silently reciting: “Four score and seven years ago . . . ,” until I reached “the world will little note nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.” Then I drew a blank. So I opened the pamphlet and read the final paragraph:

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.

Deeply moving—but, I thought, something isn’t right. Did you notice what had been omitted? What’s missing is Lincoln’s description of the United States as a nation under God. What Lincoln actually said at Gettysburg was: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” The American Constitution Society had omitted Lincoln’s reference to the United States as a nation under God from the address he gave at the dedication of the burial ground at Gettysburg.

At the time, staring at the text, I wondered whether it was an innocent, inadvertent error—a typo, perhaps. It seemed more likely, though, that here is the apex of the secularist ideology that has attained a status not unlike that of religious orthodoxy among liberal legal scholars and political activists. Nothing is sacred, as it were—not even the facts of American history, not even the words spoken by Abraham Lincoln at the most solemn ceremony of our nation’s history.

More at the link.

And more history that we don't get from the purveyors of contemporary culture and values.