3 ms·

Thanks for the info. On the one hand I feel (emphasis on feel) like the conclusion is correct. But on the other hand, as a Political Scientist I have to treat t

Thanks for the info. On the one hand I feel (emphasis on feel) like the conclusion is correct. But on the other hand, as a Political Scientist I have to treat this as a scientific endeavour and criticize its method regardless of its conclusion. And as a scientific work, this piece ranks lowly I think. There is very little theory, i.e. okay, even if the rich gets more influence, exactly why is that true? If it's because of campaign contribution law, we can test that thanks to change in campaign law. Plus, the people can always vote their representatives out of Congress -- why don't they? Is it because of a lack of transparency on their representatives' stand? Is it because campaign ads are so effective? Or even because that people don't really care enough? Anyhow, this paper may (or may not) report an intriguing empirical regularity. But what to make of it is not at all very clear.

Zigurd 12y ago
> But what to make of it is not at all very clear. One possibility is that the fairy tale of representative government is wrong, and that, because of both structural problems and money politics, we don't live in a representative system that deserves deference from the people. We're living on the rentiers' plantation. If that's true, inevitably the field servants will wonder "Why not burn it down?"
calibraxis 12y ago
[Disclaimer: I read the (original) telegraph.co.uk link, but only started on the mod-altered link to the PDF.] The notion that "political science" is science is propaganda. (Which is how we'd see "political science" in the former USSR, because we're encouraged to see its ideological filters. Though of course not our own.) To act politically, the necessary principles of world affairs are close to the surface; it's not quantum physics. Anyway, a science of human affairs is currently (and perhaps in principle) intractable, just like a scientific analysis of any vaguely complex animal's actions. Unsurprising when capitalists dominate a capitalist society. That's the point. (Even if we did swallow the fake distinction between politics and economics.)
shudmeyer 12y ago
consider the time period studied as well. that 20 year period was incredibly business-friendly, so it should be no surprise that policy outcomes matched business values at large. i wrote a longer response here (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2379ny/study_reveals_how_often_americas_politicians_do/cguw8qs http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2379ny/study_revea...) but i know it won't get any views... would you mind giving me your feedback on that?

Zigurd 12y ago

> But what to make of it is not at all very clear. One possibility is that the fairy tale of representative government is wrong, and that, because of both structural problems and money politics, we don't live in a representative system that deserves deference from the people. We're living on the rentiers' plantation. If that's true, inevitably the field servants will wonder "Why not burn it down?"

calibraxis 12y ago

[Disclaimer: I read the (original) telegraph.co.uk link, but only started on the mod-altered link to the PDF.] The notion that "political science" is science is propaganda. (Which is how we'd see "political science" in the former USSR, because we're encouraged to see its ideological filters. Though of course not our own.) To act politically, the necessary principles of world affairs are close to the surface; it's not quantum physics. Anyway, a science of human affairs is currently (and perhaps in principle) intractable, just like a scientific analysis of any vaguely complex animal's actions. Unsurprising when capitalists dominate a capitalist society. That's the point. (Even if we did swallow the fake distinction between politics and economics.)

shudmeyer 12y ago

consider the time period studied as well. that 20 year period was incredibly business-friendly, so it should be no surprise that policy outcomes matched business values at large. i wrote a longer response here (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2379ny/study_reveals_how_often_americas_politicians_do/cguw8qs http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2379ny/study_revea...) but i know it won't get any views... would you mind giving me your feedback on that?