Political Sci Research Articles

Notes on the Old Political Science for the Present Age

In the effort to understand present day democracy, contempo rary political science pays little attention to the old political sci ence, that is, to the tradition of political science that originated with Plato and Aristotle. The arguments that these two thinkers initiated were taken up by the moderns, theorists such as Rousseau and Burke, and by their successors among whom may be counted Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss. If any attention is paid by contemporary political science, it usually takes the form of saying that there is something to learn from these theorists a few footnotes scattered through the text is meant to indicate that this is so and then the discussion moves on happily, as if what the footnotes point to isn't really all that important. The little serious attention that is paid takes its bearings from people writing as philosophers working in philosophy departments, John Rawls being the obvious example. By and large, these philosophers take their bearings from Kant and Bentham, and it is striking how little attention is paid in their work to theorists like Machiavelli, Locke, and Montesquieu (although some pay attention to Aristotle, but that is another story), theorists that are central to the tradition of political theory. Thus, whether because of a lack of real interest in the old political science or because it has to some degree been displaced by academic philosophers' conception of how to think about political life, this older body of systematic reflection plays little role in contemporary political science's understanding of modern democracy. Much of funda mental importance is lost through this neglect and my purpose here is to suggest the extent of the damage to our understanding of a regime built around popular self-government. A standard comment about the central concerns of the old political science is that in its ancient guise it talks of fostering virtue, while in the form it takes among moderns focuses on liberty and commodious living. The focus on virtue is part of a deeper concern among the Greeks for human excellence, and for the life of the highest excellence, or the best life, that is, a life dedicated to philosophy. There is a strong aristocratic element in the ancient political science that has its apotheosis perhaps in the idea that the best regime creates a secure place for philosophy. In short, the modern version of the old political science is said to have a more modest and mundane horizon than classical

From a two-party-plus to a one-party-plus? Ideology, vote choice, and prospects for a competitive party system in Canada

Conventional wisdom, buttressed by numerous empirical studies, has questioned the importance of both class and ideological factors on voting behavior in Canada. However, two recent studies of the 1997 Canadian national election [Gidengil et al., Canadian J. Political Sci. 32 (1999) 247; Nevitte et al., Unsteady State: The 1997 Canadian Federal Election, Oxford University Press, Ontario, 2000] indicate that ideological factors played an important role in determining the outcome of the election, since they affected the direction of the vote for the several parties in both Quebec and the rest of Canada. In this paper, we clarify and extend these analyses with data from the 2000 election, as well as the 1997 election. We find that a number of ideological dimensions underlie the issue positions of voters in Quebec and the rest of Canada in both the elections and that these have important implications for the maintenance of the multiparty system that seemed to emerge in the last decade. More specifically, we find that ideological factors affect partisan volatility in Canada, and that the inclusion of these factors improves the explanatory power of a standard vote choice model in both election years. We infer from our findings that ideological differences among Canadian voters can help sustain a multiparty system in the foreseeable future but that it is a system that currently favors the Liberal Party—so much so, in fact, that the ability of any other party to successfully displace the Liberals as the government in the future is problematic. However, there is a curious periodicity to the electoral fortunes of Canadian parties at both the federal and provincial levels. Political parties can govern for years and then experience an electoral disaster of a magnitude sufficient to make them a distinctly minority party.

On Visibility and Power: An Arendtian Corrective of Foucault

Freedom, conceived ontologically, is power's condition of possibility. Yet, con- sidering that the subject's interests and identity are constantly shaped, one still has to explain how - theoretically speaking - individuals can resist control. This is precisely the issue I address in the following pages. Following a brief overview of Foucault's contribution to our understanding of power, I turn to discuss the role of visibility vis-a-vis control, and show how the development of disciplinary techniques reversed the visibility of power. While Foucault illustrates that during different historical periods, distinct modes of visibility are produced by power in order to control society, I argue that the very same power that produces visibility is concomitantly dependent upon it. In addition, I maintain that visibility is a necessary com- ponent of resistance. But Foucault - perhaps due to his premature death - never adequately explains how individuals can resist the mechanisms of control in a world in which power is ubiquitous. To help clarify this enigma, I turn to Hannah Arendt's insights into power, free- dom, plurality, and natality. These concepts, I claim, can serve as a corrective to Foucault because they make room for resistance without assuming that humans can exit power's web. Michel Foucault's modification and expansion of mainstream political sci- ence's conceptions of power and control are linked to his rejection of liberal- ism's most basic underlying assumptions. In contrast to the liberal imaginary, he does not consider the subject to be a pre-existing entity who (freely) makes decisions following some kind of calculus informed by self-interests. 1 To be sure, the subject's actions may follow a "rational" decisionmaking process, yet her or his consent to act in a certain way is not simply or necessarily a manifestation of free choice. Consent, Foucault says, can be manufactured through intricate controlling mechanisms that produce norms, constitute in- terests, and shape behavior. The deconstruction of "consent" and of pre-given autonomous interests suggests that even rationality is saturated with power. For instance, the "natural inferiority" Aristotle attributes to slaves and women enables him to rationally justify their subordinate social position and to ex- cuse the different forms of oppression to which they were subjected. 2 As Foucault reveals, the naturalization and normalization of social hierarchies both depoliticize and "rationalize" iniquitous social relations. Social control, accordingly, is no longer conceived merely in negative terms as a set of pro- hibitions upheld by the sword, but rather considered to be an array of mecha-

White Voters, Black Schools: Structuring Racial Choices with a Checklist Ballot

cation of resources. This study shows how an electoral device can help overcome racial hostility generated by competition over resources, even in the Deep South. Heresthetic, according to William Riker, is the art of strategically structuring electoral processes in order to manipulate outcomes. As he writes, [W]inners induce by more than rhetorical attractions. Typically they because they have set up the situation in such a way that other people will want to join them?or will feel forced by circumstances to join them?even without any persuasion at all. And this is what heresthetic is about: structuring the world so you can win (1986, ix). Riker offers a dozen real-world examples of how heresthetical manipula? tion works, most involving legislative politics and how rules devised by sawy legislators influence their peers. But it is striking that none of his ex? amples come from elections at the mass-level, which are not so easily manipulated, in part because the rules are so much less fluid. The basic logic of heresthetic should apply to mass voting, and other political scientists have shown, in different contexts, that the form that a ballot takes can influence how votes are cast. Such things as the order in which candidates appear on a ballot (Taebel 1975; Miller and Krosnick 1998), the ability to vote party line with a single mark (Hamilton and Ladd 1996), and whether a ballot is organized by party column or office blocks (Walker 1966) can affect how people vote. Even something as simple as whether candidates are lined up in one column or two, as some Florida officials learned after the 2000 election, can affect outcomes, if only by accident. Notable about the literature on ballot forms is that the findings are so qualified. Ballot form appears to have its biggest impact among those least politically anchored and most easily manipulated. Moreover, political sci? entists have shown that the effect of ballot form is most pronounced in low-information situations where the usual cues, like party identification and incumbency, are unavailable: nonpartisan elections, party primaries, open seat elections, multi-member legislative elections, and races at the bottom of the ballot. As Miller and Krosnick summarize their findings

The Art of Comparative Politics. By Ruth Lane. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 147p. $32.46.

In both these short volumes, Ruth Lane assumes an optimis- tic stance, generally within the mainstream of political sci- ence, and attempts to synthesize past and present trends in an effort to show progress. She argues in The Art of Comparative Politics that, despite the disparate approaches, real advances have occurred within the field. Her interpretative essay focuses on the recent history of the field, with an assessment of the behavioral movement during the 1960s and subsequent emphases on development, state, grassroots and peasant politics, and the new institutionalism. In Political Science in Theory and Practice she affirms that a core consensus has appeared in the independent investigations of prominent political scientists. Thus, a coherent working model of polit- ical behavior guides political scientists to understand political realities. She argues that this concrete model coincides with scientific realism and the current understanding of a philos- ophy of science.

Making Connections in Introductory Political Science

Historically, political science has been plagued by disagreements over the purposes it serves, the basic questions it should be addressing, and the methods of analysis by which we gain knowledge of politics.1 These quarrels have affected the political sci ence curriculum, especially Introduc tion to Political Science. One result is that the course is not even offered at some American colleges and universi ties. Based on nationwide surveys, John Wahlke (1992,1) reports that only 60 percent of four-year institutions of fer it. In contrast, Introduction to American Government is a required course at 80 percent of these schools. Furthermore, one finds very little uniformity among the introductory po litical science courses that are taught. In this course, students should learn about the basic nature of political sci ence and the connections between the sub-divisions of the field. Instead, we find a wide array of different ap proaches, including the great issues of politics, classics of political sci ence, comparative political systems (generally confined to Europe), and in troduction to empirical analysis. Al though courses of this nature are valu

Understanding Attitudes Toward Progressive Taxation

This article examines attitudes toward and under- standing of progressive taxation by comparing subjects' choices of fair tax rate structures in response to questions framed in both abstract and concrete terms. Consistent with surveys of the gen- eral public, a majority of the subjects indicated a preference for progressive taxation in response to abstract questions. However, consistent with results from social psychology and political sci- ence research, the subjects' preferences for progressive taxation were significantly different (lower) in response to concrete ques- tions. The observed preference reversal between progressive taxes in the abstract and flat taxes (i.e., proportional to income) in concrete situations is hypothesized to be associated with sub- jects' ignorance (their lack of understanding of the abstract con- cept of progressive taxation). Thus, between-subjects tests are conducted to examine (1) differences in order effects of the ab- stract and concrete frames that might cue the subjects to a greater understanding of the abstract terms, (2) the effects of definitions and illustrations on subjects' choices, and (3) the use of different scales and reference points to measure responses. Consistent re- sults (preference reversals from preferences for progressivity in the abstract to nonprogressive preferences in concrete frames) were obtained across all of the between-subjects experimental manipulations. A within-subjects design also includes a posttest knowledge test that demonstrates the tendency of a majority of

To Readers ofThe Justice System Journal

After three years at the helm, Tom Church has decided to step down as editor of The Justice System Journal. Tom has performed most ably as edi tor and we will surely miss his dedication, hard work, and leadership. The job of editor is very demanding of time and energy. Tom was able to direct the Journal most effectively while carrying out his teaching and other re sponsibilities at the State University of New York at Albany. His contribu tion to the success of the Journal has been very substantial and we look forward to his continued involvement as a member of the Journal's edito rial board. I am pleased to announce that Keith Boyum, a professor of political sci ence at California State University at Fullerton, has agreed to become the new editor of the Journal, commencing with the first issue of volume 14, due to be published early in 1990. The field of judicial administration has been a primary area of interest for Keith since his graduate student days in the early 1970s. Among his many publications in the judicial administration field are two articles in earlier volumes of the Journal. I am sure that Keith will prove to be a worthy successor to Tom Church. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 to provide a forum for both practitioners and those studying the justice system to disseminate new ideas and knowledge about the administration of justice. Tom Church and the editors who served before him have all contributed a great deal to the achievement of this objective. Today, the Journal is a unique resource in the judicial administration field, and I fully expect that it will continue to grow in stature under the able direction of Keith Boyum.

Guest Editorial: Issues That Divide: The Triumph of Secular Humanism

LEO PFEFFER (B.S.S., City College of New York; J.D., New York University) is Professor of Constitutional Law and Chairman of the Department of Political Sci ence, Long Island University, Brooklyn, New York, and Special Counsel, American Jewish Congress. He is the author of Church, State and (1953; rev. ed., 1967) ; Liberties of an American (1956; rev. ed., 1963) ; Creeds in Competition: Creative Force in American Culture (1958) ; (with Anson Phelps Stokes) Church and State in the United States (1964) ; This Honorable Court: History of the United States Supreme Court (1965) ; God, Caesar and the Constitution: Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation (1975), and Religious Liberty (1977). Pro fessor Pfeffer has contributed portions to Religion in the State University, ed. Henry E. Allen (1950) ; Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea, ed. Horace M. Kallen (1956); Religion in America, ed. John Cogley (1958); Church-State Relations in Ecumenical Perspective, ed. Elwyn A. Smith (1966) ; Religious Situation (1968) ; Politics of Confrontation, ed. Samuel Hendel (1971) ; Rights of Americans, ed. Norman Dorsen (1971) ; and Responsibility, ed. Mereld D. Keys (1974) ; and Religious Movements in Contemporary America, ed. Irving I. Zaretsky and Mark P. Leone (1974). His articles have appeared in the law reviews of Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Georgetown, Michigan, Notre Dame, Stanford, and Western Reserve universities and in such periodicals as Catholic World, Chiristian Century, Churchman, Commonweal, Current History, Journal of Intergroup Relations, Journal of Social Issues, Nation, Princeton Seminary Bulletin, Saturday Review, and Today's Education. JCS has published Pfeffer's Freedom and Separation : America's Contribution to Civilization (November 1960), An Analysis of Federal Aid to Parochial Schools (November 1961), The New York Regents' Prayer Case (November 1962), The Schempp-Murray Decision on School Prayers and Bible Reading (November 1963), A Momentous Year in Church and State: 1963 (Winter 1964), The Becker Amend ment (Autumn 1964), and What Hath God Wrought to Caesar: Church as a Self-interest Interest Group (Winter 1971). Mr. Pfeffer has argued the following cases before the United States Supreme Court: Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) ; Lanza v. New York (1962) ; Flast v. Cohen (1968) ; Earley v. DiCenso (1971) ; Tilton v. Richardson (1971) ; Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami (1972) ; Levitt v. Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty (1973) ; Nyquist v. Com mittee for Public Education and Religious Liberty (1973) ; Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist (1973) ; Wheeler v. Barrera (1974) ; and Meek v. Pittenger (1975). He has filed twenty-seven amicus curiae briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Pfeffer has been the recipient of awards from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Minnesota Jewish Community Council, the New York Unitarian-Universalist Church, the Brooklyn Civil Liberties Union, the Horace Mann League, and the Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty. This guest editorial was in its original form presented as a paper to the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion in Philadelphia 29 October 1976. 1. Leo Pfeffer, That Divide, Journal of Social Issues 7 (19S6) : 21.

Easton I ad Easton II

N THE political science literature called behavioralist which has emerged in the past twenty years, two distinct and incompatible approaches have been used. Mathematics has been employed for rank-ordering, for the computation of correlations, and for whatever other purposes numbers may serve. This method is analytical and reductionist and assumes the validity of mechanical cause-andeffect explanation. The other outlook is called system or theory. Most commonly systems theory appeals to the analogy of organicist biology, which rejects the analytical and reductionist method and adopts a teleological perspective. Its origins are to be found in Aristotle, who believed that all of nature was purposive. The organicist or organismic view has been abandoned by virtually all twentieth-century biologists. An exception is Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who revived the organicist outlook in biology in the 1920s and generalized it into a cosmology in 1949.' Systems theory in social science derives from Bertalanffy's advocacy. Like its counterpart in biology, systems theory in social studies is frequently holistic rather than analytical, and ordinarily it seeks to answer the question why 2 in terms of function or purpose, in terms of goals, rather than in terms of antecedent propelling causes. The mechanical and organicist approaches are clearly incompatible, but it is very common for a single author to employ them both. A simulacrum of scientific method is presented in a discussion of cause-and-effect; but functionalist or organicist language is employed to suggest that what is at work is a teleological process. The best-known exponent of systems theory in political science is David Easton of the University of Chicago. The difficulties which result from mixing mechanism and organicism are clearly exemplified in Easton's work. Indeed, it is fair to say that unknown to Easton himself there are two David Eastons. One is a mechanist, the other a vitalist. We will call the former Easton I, the latter Easton II. As might be expected since Easton is oblivious to the mixture the organism Easton cannot be identified entirely with one or the other position at particular periods in the development of Easton's thought; these two incompatible strands compete in his work, with one predominating, then the other. As we will see, a final victory appeared to have been won by vitalism; nevertheless, Easton's presidential address to the American Political Science Association in 1969 his most recent statement concerning shows that he believes he has been faithful to the assumptions of analytical science. In this same address, he claims for behavioralism a victory over other approaches to the study of politics. He cites his own work as part of a virtually completed behavioral revolution in political sci-

The Concept of Political Development

Considerable confusion exists over the concept of political development, which is of recent origin in political sci ence. The confusion is compounded because particular trends in the social sciences inhibited explicit concern about political, as distinct from economic, development. Ten definitions of "political development" are analyzed in this article, and a final summary view of the essential dimensions of the concept is pre sented in which three broadly shared characteristics of politi cal development are outlined: concern with equality, with the capacity of the political system, and with the differentiation or specialization of governmental organizations. These three characteristics are generally related to certain aspects of politi cal development: equality to the political culture, the problems of capacity to authoritative governmental structures, and the question of differentiation to nonauthoritative structures. This suggests a final analysis that the problems of political develop ment revolve around the relationship between the political cul ture, the authoritative structure, and the general political process.

OPPENHEIMER-BLUHM, HILDE. The Stand ard of Living of German Labor Under Nazi Rule. Pp. 71. New York: Gradu ate Faculty of Political and Social Sci ence, New School for Social Research, 1943. 50¢

OPPENHEIMER-BLUHM, HILDE. The Stand ard of Living of German Labor Under Nazi Rule. Pp. 71. New York: Gradu ate Faculty of Political and Social Sci ence, New School for Social Research, 1943. 50¢

Malbone, Graham W. Jr., assisted by Robert C. Binkley. New Governments of Central Europe. (American Political Sci

Malbone, Graham W. Jr., assisted by Robert C. Binkley. New Governments of Central Europe. (American Political Sci