Monday, October 26, 2009

Post #1: Politician vs. Political Science

POLITICIAN VS. POLTICAL SCIENCE
Okay, so I have heard of United States legislators declaring opposition to war, the public option, cap and trade, etc. But POLITICAL SCIENCE?

It has recently come to my attention that social and economic conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has proposed an amendment to H.R. 2847: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 that would cut National Science Foundation funding for Political Science Research.
What Is He Saying?
His amendment states that “None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science of the National Science Foundation.” Senator Coburn believes Americans should cancel all NSF Political Science funding because of his belief that the allocation of $9.1 million per year (over ten years) to research constitutes wasteful spending.
Why Do I disagree with him?
In the interest of full disclosure I think it is important that I reveal that I am currently finishing up my undergraduate degree in Political Science. Irrespective of my formal affiliation with the field, or the fact that Senator Coburn regularly references the very programs that he seeks to cut, I do not understand how anyone could advance this amendment on such untenable grounds.
Arbitrary? – Senator Coburn seeks to cut Political Science funding to allocate more funds to fields like biology, geology and physics. In his explanation he contends that funds should be concentrated in these fields because they are “real fields of science in which new discoveries can yield real improvements in the lives of everyone.” Okay, lets pretend for a moment that there are such things as “real fields of science” (by which I suppose he means physical sciences). If this was actually the case, why is he not calling for finding cuts for all social sciences? To me it seems arbitrary that the Senator would choose to single out Political Science while ignoring other Social Science subfields. But, then again, this is how the Washington political game is played– shrewd political calculation involving the art of making cosmetic changes without taking a real stand on anything. Think about it – if he wanted to take a legitimate position, he would have called for funding cuts for all Social Sciences. But, then again, this would have been a lot more controversial. And with controversy, he would have received negative publicity…which no politician wants.
NSF Political Science programs relevant? –Corburn believes that research on campaigns and elections, electoral choice and systems, democratization, regime change, international conflict, and international political economy are particularly irrelevant to real world problems. He asserts that “this research, while interesting to some, stands in stark contrast to other NSF research that has yielded transformative results in a number of important areas” So I guess the metric by which the Senator determines the necessity of publicly funded research programs is based on the level of popular interest shown in that field. Nevertheless, the last time I checked, campaign finance reform was a major issue in the 2008 presidential election. Additionally, democratization, regime change, international conflict, and political economy continue to be critical elements of American foreign policy. These Political Science issues (interesting or not) are crucial to the safety and security of the United States, its interests (domestic and foreign), and its allies.
Is Political Science a Science? In perhaps one of the most blatantly ridiculous justifications for cutting funding for Political Science research, Senator Coburn contends that Political Science is not really a science. To substantiate his claim he references a $5.4 million award (largest grant awarded in the last ten years to political scientists) given to researchers at the University Michigan for the study of American national elections. Senator Coburn believes that this research is unnecessary because one should simply “turn to [the major cable networks] the print media, and…the internet” for definitive answers.” Where does he think they get their information?
Drumroll…So what’s the most important reason for cutting finding? Paul Krugman….yea…world renowned Princeton University Professor Paul Krugman. Senator Coburn believes that the funding for all Political Science related research should be cut because of one Nobel Prize-winning economist with whom he happens to disagree. Need I say more?
Closing Thoughts After 8 years of collective amnesia, fiscal responsibility has returned to the Republican Party’s national agenda. If this is indeed the case, I do not understand why the war on wasteful spending should begin with national security-relevant academic research (that costs 9 million dollars per year). Aren’t there bigger fish to fry? While I have addressed only a few of the many unfounded justifications for the proposed cessation of funding for Political Science research, I encourage you to read a transcript of the Senate floor debate and explore the public reaction to this amendment.

Until next time…