How Reappraising David Easton can make Political Science Research more Exciting.

David 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 be examined. Beyond that, a political system that meets the demands, expectations, and needs of a people will have their support, both in practice and in response to surveys and interviews.

As a science of the political system in operation, political science ought to be able to critically assess how well a system, and its discrete parts, are doing.

As a science of human political behavior, political science ought to focus on this relationship between system performance and the political happiness of the public.

In both cases, applied political science can suggest improvements, if needed.

If political science research can help improve system operations, and also show how to better serve the people, public respect for the profession will rise to, or exceed, that now given the NIH or the WHO.