The Future of Political Science

100 Perspectives

Gary King, Kay L. Schlozman, Norman Nie, Gary King, Kay L. Schlozman, Norman Nie

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• Print ISBN:
  9780415997010
• eBook ISBN:
  9781135841836
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Process
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book contains some of the newest, most exciting ideas now percolating among political scientists, from hallway conversations to conference room discussions. To spur future research, enrich classroom teaching, and direct non-specialist attention to cutting-edge ideas, a distinguished group of authors from various parts of this sprawling and pluralistic discipline has each contributed a brief essay about a single novel or insufficiently appreciated idea on some aspect of political science. The one hundred essays are concise, no more than a few pages apiece, and informal. While the contributions are highly diverse, readers can find unexpected connections across the volume, tracing echoes as well as diametrically opposed points of view. This book offers compelling points of departure for everyone who is concerned about political science -- whether as a scholar, teacher, student, or interested reader.

1
THE UNITED STATES:
A DIFFERENT DEMOCRACY

Arend Lijphart

University of California, San Diego

One of the significant advances that American political science has made in the last few decades is that the fields of American politics and comparative politics are no longer as isolated from each other as they once were. Comparativists often include the U.S. in their analyses, and Americanists are much more aware of comparable institutions and practices in other countries. Several prominent political scientists, like Robert Dahl and Sidney Verba, have done outstanding work in both fields.

Generally, whenever the U.S. is compared with other countries, the emphasis is on contrasts rather than similarities. Nevertheless, I would argue that even among political scientists there is insufficient recognition of how radically different American democracy is: it is different not just in many respects, but in most respects! And politicians, journalists, and the attentive public are almost completely unaware of these differences, with the exception of a few policy questions. For instance, the fact that the U.S. is the only industrialized democracy without national health insurance and with highly permissive gun laws is occasionally mentioned in the media. But other salient differences, like our big income inequalities, relatively low tax burden, and extremely large prison populations usually escape attention. And there is little recognition of, and interest in, the many contrasts between the operation of democracy in the U.S. and that in other countries. Even as well informed a politician as President Bill Clinton apparently did not know that proportional representation (PR) is widely used in democracies around the world—and that the U.S. is the deviant case—when he commented in 1993 that Lani Guinier’s advocacy of PR was “very difficult to defend” and even “antidemocratic.”

In collaboration with Bernard Grofman and Matthew Shugart, I have been working on a book-length study tentatively entitled A Different Democracy: American Government and Politics in Comparative Perspective. It entails a systematic comparison of all of the major political institutions, rules, and practices in the U.S. with those in 28 other democracies: all of the countries that have been continuously democratic since the early 1990s and that have a minimum population of 5 million. (We exclude the many very small democracies in today’s world because it does not make sense to compare a large democracy like the U.S. with countries that are so much smaller.) Of the 28 other democracies, five are in the Americas: Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Six are in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific: South Africa, India, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Australia. The others are in Europe: the five large West European countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain), three Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, and Finland), six other small West and South European countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal, and Greece), and three countries in Central Europe (Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic).

Across the board, when there are differences in democratic institutions and practices, the U.S. is almost always in the minority, usually a small minority, and frequently a minority of one. Our constitution is among the two or three that are the most difficult to amend. We have a presidential system, whereas most other democracies are parliamentary. Our House of Representatives is elected for the uniquely short term of two years; other lower (or only) houses are elected for at least three, and usually four or five years. We use juries in criminal trials more often than any other country, and only in Canada is the unanimity rule as prevalent as it is here. Our two-party system is unique in that it is an almost exclusive two-party system in which third parties are virtually absent; other so-called two-party systems tend to have significant numbers of small parties participating in elections and represented in legislatures. Our interest group system is rated by the experts to be either the least or among the least corporatist.

The contrasts are especially striking with regard to elections and election rules. Our Electoral College is unique; among the other countries with powerful presidents, only Argentina and Finland had electoral colleges in the recent past, but these were abolished in the 1990s. Our election method for the House of Representatives—plurality in single-member districts (SMDs)—is used by only three other democracies for lower-house elections (Britain, Canada, and India); France and Australia use SMDs but not plurality, and the other 23 use PR or partly proportional methods. In no other country is partisan and pro-incumbent gerrymandering as prevalent a problem as it is here. Press reports often refer to “primary elections” in other countries, but those are quite unlike American primaries which have three distinctive characteristics: they are imposed on the parties by the state; they are conducted by public officials; and they allow any voter who declares himself or herself to be a member of a party to vote in that party’s primary. So-called primaries in other democracies fail to conform to one or more of these criteria; in this respect, too, the U.S. is unique.

The U.S. is not the only democracy with voluntary voter registration, but unique in making it a burdensome task. Turnout in our most important national elections, presidential elections, is lower than voter participation in the key national elections in all other democracies except Switzerland. The American “long ballot,” on which the voter has to decide on as many as 30 or 40 different elections and referendums, is unique; in all other democracies, most ballots contain just one, or at most two or three, choices to be made in a single day. Our usual election day is Tuesday, a weekday; seven other democracies also use weekdays, but the other 21 conduct their elections on Sundays or a weekday that is declared a national holiday. Our entire system of election rules and administration is extremely decentralized, in contrast with the uniform rules in all other democracies with the partial exception of Switzerland. There are some 10 months between the first presidential primary in January and the election in November—in contrast with all other democracies that use two-stage elections, like majority-runoff elections, in which the two stages are usually only two, and at most five, weeks apart. We are the only democracy where many ex-felons are permanently disenfranchised—an especially serious limitation of voting rights because we put more people in prison than any other democracy. The above is obviously not an exhaustive list; for instance, no fewer than 43 unique or unusual characteristics of American parties and elections are addressed in our draft chapters for A Different Democracy.

More work needs to be done on the interactions among these variables and on the origins of the many American exceptionalisms. But the basic facts are clear and deserve to be much more widely recognized. Different does not necessarily mean worse, of course, but the knowledge that we are a very different democracy should make us more self-critical, more willing to consider political and constitutional reforms, and less eager to advocate American-style democracy for other countries.

Of possible related interest: Chapters 2, 8, 68, 74.*

Suggested additional reading

Dahl, Robert A. How Democratic is the American Constitution? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001.

Hill, Steven. 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy. Sausalito, CA: PoliPointPress, 2006.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.

*In this essay, and all others, numbers in ordinary font are chapters of possible interest suggested by a human coder, in italics are suggested by our automated algorithm, and emboldened are suggested by both.

2
TAKING PORTRAITS OR
GROUP PHOTOS?

Russell Dalton

University of California, Irvine

If one enters a photography studio, the differences between people in the portraits are striking. Each person is unique. However, when one looks at the group photos, the commonalities between people dominate.

It is much the same in many features of mass political behavior. If we look at one nation, we are struck by its uniqueness—the institutions of democracy are different, and political groups and citizens have their distinct traits. For instance, Americanists stress the unique aspects of U.S. political institutions. However, the German political system is also unique among Western parliamentary democracies—with a federal system, a strong bicameral national legislature, the konstruktives Misstrauensvotum, and other institutional particulars. Similarly, Britain, Japan, and each established democracy also have their unique elements. The fundamental democratic structure of these nations and the basic principles of mass political behavior display many commonalities, and often these are lost in the search for detail and uniqueness.

The editors of this festschrift asked us to identify one finding from political science that we wish were more widely known outside the academy. I would not cite a specific finding, but a general dictum for American political science: we are not alone. For instance, as U.S. researchers struggle to address many of the political and social challenges facing our nation, the response of American academic and political experts is often to emphasize the uniqueness of the American political system. Voting turnout is declining; this must reflect problems such as registration or the organization of campaigns that should be reformed. Partisanship is weakening; this must arise from the poor performance of parties or the unique structure of American elections. Trust in government is decreasing; this must reflect a need to reform Congress, or the presidency, or the media. America seems highly polarized; this must reflect the structure of campaigns and party financing. This list could go on ad infinitum. I would argue that all these trends now occurring within the American public are also occurring in other advanced industrial democracies. These other democracies do not share our unique political history or institutional structures—so we share something in common that can be missed in nation-centric analyses.

Similarly, one might stress the different patterns in citizen participation, voting choice, or the actions of political elites across nations—but this occurs mostly when we take close-up portraits, rather than ask about general processes, such as the influence of social structure on participation, the common elements of voting choice, or the commonalities of elite behavior. Political science includes both portraiture and group photos—but only the latter is likely to generate a real understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

Such introspection is a normal part of political research, and is not limited to the study of American politics. However, it is more difficult to be introspective when one studies a small nation, linked to others through institutions such as the European Union. Thus, to think in a comparative framework is a greater challenge for American political science.

Certainly there are important institutional differences in the structures of democracies that are worthy of comparison, and significant in their political outcomes. Yet, my suggested lesson is that human beings are the key element of all these systems, and people are perhaps more similar to one another than the institutions in which they function. People do act differently in different institutional contexts, but their goals, motivations and skills may be more comparable than we realize. This leads to functionally equivalent patterns, if we stand back and view the group picture and not the individual photograph. And contemporary democracies may share the effects of modernization, technological change, and social changes that transform mass politics across nations—which are not unique to single nations.

Thus, thinking about America in comparative context—in a Verba sort of way—should provide insights into the source and implications of mass politics that we miss by taking introspective views of these issues.

Of possible related interest: Chapters 1, 15, 57, 71.

3
WHY POLITICAL THEORISTS
SHOULD THINK MORE
CAREFULLY ABOUT
LEADERSHIP

Nannerl O. Keohane

Princeton University

Leadership is a pervasive phenomenon in our society—and indeed in most societies we know anything about. Journalists and biographers often write about leadership. So do scholars from several disciplines—public policy, sociology, psychology, history, management theory—and those who labor in the vineyard that has come to be called “leadership studies.”

“Leadership” is of course a central issue in government and politics. But relatively few political scientists have explored it with the care they have given to other issues. James MacGregor Burns, Richard Neustadt, James David Barber, Fred Greenstein, and Jim March are among those who have done so, with impressive results. Political theorists—in the sense of “political philosophers”—have paid even less attention to this topic. When they have considered leadership, it is almost always in the context of limiting the exercise of power or channeling it in directions that are desirable for the subjects of that power. Rarely has a political philosopher pondered leadership from the perspective of the leader, and written about the activities leaders engage in, or the kinds of skills that are needed for successful leadership in different kinds of situations, the impact the exercise of power has on the power-holder, or how leaders could be encouraged and prepared.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, including most notably Machiavelli and Max Weber, as well as Plato and Aristotle in a different vein. But most political philosophers, both past and present, are more interested in other issues, such as justice, liberty, equality, the legitimacy of authority, the elements of citizenship, forms of constitutions, the definition of sovereignty, or the requirements for effective democratic selfgovernment.

I would argue that this neglect of leadership by political philosophers has left unfortunate gaps in our understanding of this crucial political activity. The “leadership” provided by men and women in any political community becomes a kind of black box in political philosophy, admired or feared, ignored or unexplored, but rarely analyzed or thoughtfully described. This is particularly true of the leadership provided by heads of governments, chief executive officers of corporations and others who have significant responsibility in the executive branches of governments and large private organizations.

What would it mean to take leadership so defined as a topic for political philosophy? Among the significant issues that would come in for more scrutiny than they have received over the years are the exercise of judgment by leaders; the relationship between leaders and the subordinates to whom responsibility has been delegated; questions about ethics and politics; and the distinctive characteristics of good decision-making on the part of those most centrally responsible for directing the activities of a political community, or for carrying out the will of others in a democratic system.

Understanding “judgment” is an especially pressing topic, and one for which political philosophers are particularly well equipped. Only a few political philosophers—including Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, and Hannah Arendt—have explored this topic in any depth. Yet surely the quality of a leader’s judgment, and how it is exercised in particular situations, is a factor that is crucial to the health or impairment of a political community.

A related topic is the way in which information is gathered and used by a leader, and how this is connected to a leader’s way of making decisions, appointing subordinates, and taking responsibility for his or her actions. What does it mean to be a good listener, as we are told many successful leaders have been? And how is this related to being persuasive and visionary, which are also among the attributes ascribed to those who have made a significant impact as leaders?

Political philosophers are also particularly well placed to explore questions about the relationship between ethics and politics, given the kinds of issues we are trained to explore and under...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgments
• “An Introduction to the Future of Political Science”
• 1 “The United States: A Different Democracy”
• 2 “Taking Portraits or Group Photos?”
• 3 “Why Political Theorists Should Think More Carefully about Leadership”
• 4 “The Leadership Gap”
• 5 “Instrumental Value of Elite Memories on Past Violence during the Emergence of a New State: Slovenian Experience”
• 6 “Politicians Are People Too”
• 7 “Elite Tough Talk and the Tides of History”
• 8 “Representation as a Field of Study”
• 9 “Political Science: What Should We Know?”
• 10 “Dynamic Categories and the Context of Power”
• 11 “Politics as Learning”
• 12 “Rounding Up the Activists”
• 13 “The Troubling Persistence of Injustice”
• 14 “Making a Name for Oneself”
• 15 “Political Variation across Contexts”
• 16 “Homo Politicus Is Not an Island”
• 17 “The Sociological Bases of Political Preferences and Behavior”
• 18 “Community Social Capital”
• 19 “Tuned In, but Dropped Out”
• 20 “Cognition, Emotion, and Selectivity in Political Communication in a Multi-Faceted World: Rational Choice and Political Culture”
• 21 “Who Wants War?”
• 22 “The Threat to Democracy”
• 23 “Nationalist Missions and the Democratic Citizen”
• 24 “Something’s Going on Here, but We Don’t Know What it is: Measuring Citizens’ Exposure to Politically Relevant Information in the New Media Environment”
• 25 “What We Still Need to Know: Why and How People Become Committed Democrats”
• 26 “When We Could Do So Much Better: Democratic Commitment and Empirical Political Psychology”
• 27 “Political Science and the Future”
• 28 “Family Matters”
• 29 “Where Do the Premises of Political Choice Come From?”
• 30 “Immigration, Partisanship, and Electoral Change”
• 31 “Decisions People Make in Small Groups”
• 32 “Why Do (Some) People Acquire Costly Political Knowledge?”
• 33 “A Political View of Political Ideology”
• 34 “Guess What? Voters are Smart”
• 35 “Extra! Extra! Extra Info Needed with Survey Reporting”
• 36 “What Should Journalists and Politicians Know? Beyond the Margin of Error”
• 37 “The Need for Survey Reporting Standards in Political Science”
• 38 “The Changing Evidence Base of Social Science Research”
• 39 “FMRI and Public Opinion Research”
• 40 “Special Interest Politics”
• 41 “An Ever Fainter Voice”
• 42 “Exploring Political Inequality”
• 43 “Voice, and Then What?”
• 44 “The Impact of Unequal Political Participation on Policy Outcomes”
• 45 “Participation Matters”
• 46 “Participatory Distortion ($$) Takes Off!!”
• 47 “The Rashomon World of Money and Politics”
• 48 “Does Rising Economic Inequality Matter?”
• 49 “Redistribution without Representation and Representation without Redistribution”
• 50 “The Ideological Origins of Redistribution”
• 51 “Reuniting Interests and Values”
• 52 “Using Research to Foster Democracy”
• 53 “Moral Convictions, Religion, and Diversity: Our Political Atmosphere”
• 54 “Equality and Inclusiveness, Diversity and Conflict”
• 55 “The End of ‘the Protestant Nation’”
• 56 “Religion and Politics: A Solemn High Warning: The Political Force of Group Consciousness”
• 57 “Going Global: New Challenges and Opportunities in Research on Democratic Participation and the Civic Culture”
• 58 “The Effects of Immigration and Sending Countries’ Outreach on American Public Opinion and Political Behavior”
• 59 “Exorcising Huntingtonian Specters”
• 60 “Adding in Sex Discrimination to Legacies of Wrongdoing”
• 61 “Gender Inequality”
• 62 “Gender Differences as the Basis for a Refoundation of the Social Sciences: The Political Integration of Women: Explaining Women’s Slow Advancement into Political Office”
• 63 “Is America Becoming a More Class-Based Society?”
• 64 “The NAACP Nobody Knows”
• 65 “At the Intersection of Inequalities”
• 66 “The Professional Campaign”
• 67 “What Politicians Actually Can Do: A Modest Proposal for Reporting on Campaigns”
• 68 “Elections: Five Rules for Commentators”
• 69 “Negative Ads—Cynical Public?”
• 70 “Independent Electoral Commissions”
• 71 “Watch Out! The Units You Are Comparing May Not Be What They Used To Be”
• 72 “Don’t Stay Home: The Utility of Area Studies for Political Science Scholarship”
• 73 “Can We Really be Happy with the Study of Comparative Government?”
• 74 “The Contingent Flaw of Majoritarian Systems”
• 75 “Religion and Politics”
• 76 “Study China!”
• 77 “Soft Power and the Future of Asia”
• 78 “The Study of International Law”
• 79 “The ‘Second Image Reversed’ Revisited”
• 80 “The Globalization Gap”
• 81 “Congress and the Scope of Democracy”
• 82 “‘Free Association’: Traveling Ideas and the Study of Political Equality”
• 83 “To Participate or Deliberate—Is that the Question?”
• 84 “Understanding Democracy as a Complex Adaptive System”
• 85 “The Public Roots of Private Action: A New Look at Voting Costs”
• 86 “On the Free Rider Problem”
• 87 “Time and Action in the Twenty-First Century”
• 88 “The Organization ‘Gap’ in Political Science”
• 89 “The Sudden Birth of Sticky Institutions, 1890–1915”
• 90 “The Emerging Field of Education Policy”
• 91 “American Politics and the Not-So-Benign Neglect of Criminal Justice”
• 92 “Law or Politics?”
• 93 “What is Public Policy?”
• 94 “Note to Politicians: Forget the Silver Bullet!”
• 95 “Rediscovering Complexity and Synthesis”
• 96 “Why?”
• 97 “Path Dependence”
• 98 “Searching for a Politics of Space”
• 99 “The Question of Relevance”
• 100 “Can (Should) Political Science be a Policy Science?”
• Appendix: Contributors
• Selected Books by Sidney Verba and Co-Authors
• Selected Material about Sidney Verba