I'm always rather skeptical of people who call themselves political scientists. Like all branches of social science, actual scientific standards are low and man

I'm always rather skeptical of people who call themselves political scientists. Like all branches of social science, actual scientific standards are low and many academics in these fields cling to bizarre and archaic worldviews. For instance a surprisingly large number of American social scientists claim to be Marxists: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/03/the_prevalence_1... The analysis in this article is a mishmash of old findings and regurgitation of currently fashionable paranoias. The past was rosy and wonderful and apparently the modern era is full of authoritarian fascists. The fact that the apparent golden era of American democracy witnessed things like McCarthy-ism and a full blown Communist party with tens of thousands of members. The article breathlessly says things like: So it’s not merely that we disagree about issues; it’s that we believe the other side is a grievous threat to the republic. According to Pew, the numbers above have more than doubled since 1994. Gosh. People strongly disagree with each others politics? Say it ain't so! Here's some political science theory for you: maybe 2017 is not unusually politically divided year but rather, maybe 1994 was an unusually united year. 1994 was after all just a few years after the fall of communism, thus conclusively resolving the 20th centuries biggest political fight in favour of capitalism. The new ideological causes that would replace socialism in universities and amongst the metropolitan elites (identity politics, globalism, etc) had not yet taken over in any major way. The article is also riddled with its own biases that the authors cannot see. Hillary Clinton believed she should be president because she is a woman, wanted to start a war with Russia and is a devotee of moving power away towards opaque bureaucracies, as she's made clear with her many comments disparaging Brexit as "not the future" and so on, but it's Trump - who actually listened to voters who'd been ignored for years - who is supposed to be the autocrat? And of course they take it as an article of faith that the Trump election wasn't legit because Russia "meddled" in it. Vox is the sort of publication that's always claiming democracy is about to be wiped out by people they disagree with. Several years ago it was railing against Citizens United because it would put democracy at threat from "dark money", whatever that meant: https://www.vox.com/cards/super-pacs-and-dark-money/what-is-the-citizens-united-decision-citizens-united-v-fec https://www.vox.com/cards/super-pacs-and-dark-money/what-is-... https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/3/7150105/dark-money-2014 https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/3/7150105/dark-money-2014 But ever since Clinton massively outspent Trump (an actually super rich dude) and yet still got her ass kicked, it's no longer campaign financing that threatens democracy. Now it's something else.