The Political Science Interpretivist

D avid Easton’s theory of the political system has long been  misrepresented  as requiring a mechanistic theory of causation, thus dehumanizing political behavior. The widespread claim that his vision was of the political system as striving for equilibrium is totally false.   Easton was a humanist. He envisioned human political behavior as a consequence of the meanings people create volitionally in their own minds and social context. He rejected the automaton theory of political behavior.     He also understood the relationship between system performance and public opinion and sentience. A well operating system will likely result in public satisfaction and support. Poor operation, the opposite.   That, in turn, implies a  standard,  or norm, by which to assess how well a political system is performing. Indeed, Easton's theory of the empirical political system can also be used as a way to assess how well a political system is operating. Efficiency and effectiveness are elements to b

The New York Times published a story on Saturday (8-5-23) that is couched in critical and disparaging undertones about Progressive philanthropist, Neville Roy Singham. This post will factor out the negative, and inject a more positive tone to the story's facts.  Mr. Singham, whose father was a school teacher, built up his own tech company optimistically called “Thoughtworks” (get it?). In 2017, he married Jodie Evens. He was 69, she, 68. Six months later he sold his company for $785M. The couple wanted to devote their lives and resources to benefit humanity. Jodie was already an activist. She, along with another woman, Media Benjamin, founded a peace and justice group they called “Code Pink,” in 2002. The two ladies, and their supporters, foresaw that George Bush’s lies about Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), was leading the nation into a completely unnecessary war. Of course, that’s what happened in February 2003, when the US invaded Iraq. They also protested against