The Political Science Interpretivist

How does it feel to live in a time when no one is stopping a genocide? That’s the question Omar El Akkad addresses in his new book,  One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This. This book can be called a "personal memoir," as some reviewers have done, but not in a dismissive way. The author is sharing his consciousness, like in an intimate diary. He speaks to the reader as a recently naturalized citizen of the US, and as an immigrant from the Middle East (born in Egypt). He tells us about his personal experience of being baffled over how people in the West, especially in the US, can fancy themselves as exemplars of righteousness, and even supporters of the underdog, while letting their government supply a genocide. He shares his befuddlement without preaching at us. This is not a noisy protest. He doesn't rail against Israel's astonishing cruelty, nor chide the US for its complicity, but rather describes his personal experience as a person living in a world w...

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...

Who’d a Thunk it?                                                                A Revolution is being proposed on our California Ballot. Under the unassuming, even boring, label “Measure G,” over 100 years of LA County government structure may be overthrown. A “yes” vote will add a new Chief Executive, to be elected by the People of LA County. This official will have a lot of power to make the operations more effective and efficient. For example, the “County Executive” will have a line item veto over the budget. It’ll have hiring and firing power over some top jobs with the County. (But the Sheriff, District Attorney, and Tax Assessor will remain elected County-wide.) A “yes” vote will also add 4 New Members to the current 5 person Board of Supervisors. BTW, they are all women now. The Board was first created in 1852, t...

For social science, as for law, the concept of “causation” can  take on different forms. These forms of causation are “outside   the box” of the old Newtonian concept of causation. That is, a   one-on-one collision. For example, the “8 ball” in a pool game moved to the corner pocket because the cue ball struck it at the intended angle. The cue ball did that because Minnesota Fats hit the cue ball just right with his pool stick. This is a mechanistic model of causation. In that model, the list of causes prior to Minnesota Fats could go back endlessly; or at least to the Big Bang of 13.8 billion years ago, which, mechanistically, is thought to be the First Cause of everything. However, for the most part, social science, like law, envisions human behavior as conduct for which the actors are responsible. This need not be a “moral” responsibility, for which moral blame is attached. Instead, “causal responsibility” is simply a matter-of-fact, or practical, concept...

The folks at Good Authority aren’t too good at posting contrary views in the Comments section. Guess they feel it would undermine their “authority”! Andrew Rudalevige’s essay at Good Authority has some serious flaws; that is if US v Trump is to be clearly understood by political scientists, so they can explain it to their classes.   First, the very title is a blunder. He writes, “The Supreme Court’s immunity decision sidesteps history.” In fact, the Opinion follows, and draws “good authority” from, the 1803 case of Marbury v Madison. One of the things Chief Justice John Marshal wrote in Marbury is that there are two kinds of official government acts: discretionary and ministerial. He said the courts cannot question discretionary acts made by an official, because these are a matter of professional judgment. The Robert’s Opinion follows this principle of immunity, but re-states it in the more modern language of “official,” with a “core” and periphery, and “unofficial.” (More on this ...