The Political Science Interpretivist

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

                                           The media and fund raising emailers are having a ball screaming “the sky is falling! The Trump Supreme Court has given Trump ‘absolute immunity’ for whatever he wants to do as President. He’ll kill us all!” But that’s far from true. The United States v Trump The case is known as US v Trump . In its opinion, the Supreme Court didn’t give Trump anything. In fact, the Court remanded the case to the District Court, and told the lawyers for both sides to start all over again. This time, they have to consider three important points. Before explaining these, lets see how the case got to the High Court. As you probably know, Trump was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for several criminal charges alleging a conspiracy to change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. (SCt's Opinion, page 2. All references to the Opinion.) In the District Court, Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity. (3) The

  Bill Maher thought he was being funny when he vilified student protestors in a recent show . But he was actually doing the whole of humanity a great disservice. I gave a much more accurate and empathic account of the main motivation of these protesters in a prior post on this blog entitled The Psychology of the Student Protests . As an Interpretive political scientist, I observe that the cause of, or reason for, those protests is the strong sense of  compassion  in the students for their fellow human beings in Gaza who are suffering deeply from the merciless slaughter of their family members, friends, and neighbors. There are many issues involved in making this observation, which I addressed in my other post on the subject. I noted that the students have erected those “encampments” as an expression of their shared feeling of urgency that the killing and suffering in Gaza be stopped now. With over a million viewers, Maher could have helped to reduce the widespread misunderstan

Its unfortunate that Democracy Now, a leading news source for Progressives in the US, continually misinforms the World about Nayib Bukele and the politics of El Salvador.* . For instance, in the broadcast of June 5, 2024, Amy Goodman  announced AS NEWS that Bukele’s February 4 th  re-election is “illegitimate.” She took it upon herself to proclaim that the former constitutional one-term limit had not been legally revised.  But if she really understood “democracy,” then she would know that “Legitimacy” depends on the Consent of the Governed. Over 80% of the voters have ratified the constitutional changes Bukele has made in El Salvador by re-electing him to a second term. Let’s not forget, FDR was re-elected to a FOURTH term. Would liberal Amy call him a “dictator”? Not likely. She, and co-host Juan Gonzalez, seem to think that Bukele violated the “Human Rights” of some Salvadorians by rounding up everyone with tattoos on their neck and face. But the government   has procedures f

University students have been in the news lately because of their protests on campuses and in the streets. Unfortunately, the mainstream media often convey false impressions about the intentions of the protesters. As a result of such misreporting, the meanings to the students of the encampments is widely misperceived. For instance, I recently heard one misinformed person talk about the encampments as if they were a colony of bonobos doing it all day in those tents. As a political scientist who studies all sorts of political behavior, I would like to add a little clarity to our understanding of the mental state, or intentions, of the protesters. Of utmost importance to keep in mind is that the feeling that is moving the majority of the student protesters is a strong compassion for their fellow human beings who are suffering so much in Gaza. The compassion felt by these protesters includes the feeling of such abhorrence for the slaughter they see going on in Gaza that they must

Many Americans have seen the two recent films,  Oppenheimer  and  Elvis . Well, I’ve been wondering lately if there is any cultural connection between them. If so, it would likely have become visible in the 1950s. While the A-bomb and the H-bomb were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, the 50s is the first full decade under their shadow. Elvis is the first Superstar of Rock-n-Roll. Is there anything about living in the wake of The Bomb that set the stage for his massive appeal? What about the phenomena of Rock-n-Roll itself? Once those bombs had demonstrated their awesome power to the World, they became a part of “Civilization” – especially in Western countries, and most especially in the USA. As Oppenheimer showed, The Bomb was our baby. What effects, if any, did living with the very real threat of The Bomb being used again have on the minds of the folks, like us, who lived through the 50s, or were born into that time frame? How, if at all, did this life-threaten

                                                                                                      Originally, back in 1975, the PBS News Hour, under McNeil/Lehrer, was a source of reliable and intelligent programing. Judy Woodruff did her best to uphold those standards. But since Judy left, in 2023, the News Hour has become an embarrassing source of patent disinformation. The latest example: somebody named Manisha Sinh, from some foreign country (Pakistan?), was given uncriticized time to totally MISINFORM the audience about the US Constitution’s THREE requirements for any president. Art 1, s. 1 states, the person must be 1) “a natural born citizen,” that is, born to an American parent (not necessarily in the country). A baby born to an American astronaut on the moon can become President of the USA. 2) 35 years old. 3) 14 years a resident within the US. But that guest didn’t say that. She only got one out of three correct! She said 35 years old, but then “born in the US” – f