In one of my previous blogs I mentioned the flaws of Economics and how the whole discipline started with a false premise, an unproven assumption. Under the rules of basic logic, if one of the premises are false then the whole argument is false.... even if the argument as a whole is valid. Which means as you build logical and rational arguments that make sense and has a consistency to its argument, it becomes a fragile building if the foundation is flawed. Build a house with a cement cellar and compare it to a house built with packed sand for its cellar. Economics as a whole started on a false foundation. Some of the architecture that followed is rational and works, but its building should not be open for living in but instead it should be seen as art to be admired from afar. (Which was never the intention of the builder as he wanted us to live in its building)
Now Political Science has a more complex beginning than Economics. You could make the argument that some schools of thought within Political Science have the same flaws as Economics (Economics itself is a school of thought that came out of Political Science). Other schools of thought are less constrained in their "architecture", some have never gone beyond their foundations and are still discussing which kind of cement should be used for the foundation while those around them are already putting in the finishing touches on the attic. Nonetheless, one can make two major distinctions in Political Science. The example used in first year classes at university are to look at "Justice".... the first major grouping in Political Science will look at what is happening: how many judges are there, what laws have been enacted, how many police officers arrest offenders, how many crimes are reported.... compare to year and area. This grouping is the more popular and is the most consulted and they use statistical methods similar to Economics. I don't want to get into the flaws of statistics again because I already wrote a blog about it before (consult my archives if you are interested). The second major grouping will look at what should be happening, what is "Justice", can it be achieved, how do we organize ourselves to achieve this concept.....
As you can see, the first school of thought is functioning upon a silent assumption: we already know what justice is and we are progressing to a better place as history moves along. We were bad, then we got less bad, now we are ok and tommorrow we will be better and next week we will achieve the ideal. The first school of thought is not focussed in the direction of our travel but rather if we are efficient in the way we travel. The second school of thought is philosophical and is not willing to jump in so quickly towards any direction. They don't care how efficient the current system is operating if the current system is going in a "wrong" direction, in fact the higher the efficiency is often proof of the wrong direction of travel. A possible argument that could come out of the second school's mouth: "While Hitler was in charge, the trains did run on time. Does that mean efficiency should keep Hitler in power?" The first school would just answer that this is just a hiccup in history and that in general things progress towards the better.
The first school of thought is the more popular and when people want to ask questions from a Political Scientist, they usually go see this school. Now as much as it is interesting that they catalogue everything they can, I find it presumptuous that they assume that they can answer questions with as much authority as they claim. The Political Scientist does not have access to current confidential meeting minutes, so how can they know what is discussed or how a decision will be made within the government? The Historian eventually gets access to this information 50 to 100 years later but the Political Scientist never looks at History: "that was then, this is now". Lets see what history teaches us:
400 years ago we have stories that the government made its decisions upon corrupt principles and the experts of that time period claimed that the decisions made were rational and everyone believed them.... check.
300 years ago we read about another government making its decisions upon lustful ambition and the experts of that time period explain that the decisions are of the religious betterment of society and everyone believed them.... check.
200 years ago we are told about yet another government making its decisions upon conspiracies amongst the governments and the experts of that time period explain that the decisions are based upon human progress and that the opponents are uncivilized and everyone believed them.... check.
100 years ago we know about one more government making its decisions upon national pride and that no one else will belittle that wondrous nation and the experts of that time period explain that the deicisions are based upon strategic considerations and everyone believed them.... check.
Today, decisions are being made but we do not have all the facts so we listen to the current experts who tell us that the decisions are being made through this process and that process and we believe them.... point out history and we all believe that this was the past and that today we have progressed.... we aren't as uncivilized today as we were yesterday. The first school of thought in Political Science perpetuates this myth.
In a previous blog I used the imagery of a theater to portray our political system. The actors were what we call the politicians. The Political Scientists would be the critics in the audience pointing out the current actors on stage and commenting upon their performance, the problem is that they won't look at the other components and stick with the actors that everyone can see on stage and ignore all other things. This does the audience a great disservice because the audience assumes that the critic is knowledgeable. If you ask who the director of the play is, they tell you that this is not relevant to the stage, if you ask why the lighting is controlled that way when the actor is on stage and they tell you that it is not relevant to the actor's action etc... This particular Political Scientist will not consider that some decisions are made during supper while the rational is buried and the emotional is teased, that some decisions are blackmailed or bullied, that some actually deliberately record lies within meetings to protect the integrity of those involved.
If you cheat on your spouse (try to imagine it if you can), do you not think that you will make decisions to hide this indiscretion? Anytime someone asks you why you made your decision the way you did, do you not think that you will lie and find a plausible sounding explanation to convince others that you made your decision based upon moral principles.... when in reality you were cowardly trying to conceal your indiscretion or continuing it secretly? Well imagine government decisions being made on the same level with underhanded motives. How can the Political Scientist of the first school find statistics on these motives? He can only focus upon the obvious public action and then invent rational sounding theories to explain the motives.
So in short, Political Science can not determine the theater for what it is while they stay focused upon the stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment