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

The Honorable Mike Gallagher, WI Chair   Dear Mr. Chairman: You and the Select Committee are misinformed about the Nature and Intentions of the Chinese Communist Party. They are not our Enemy. They are not an Evil Force. Indeed, according to The World Bank, in the last 30-40 years under the governance of the CCP “more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty.” ( https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#1 ) That is the greatest Humanitarian Achievement since the invention of vaccines. The number of people helped exceeds that of the Berlin Airlift and the Marshall Plan combined. (Re-Interpreting the Meaning of China for the USA https://interpretat.blogspot.com/2022/02/re-interpreting-meaning-of-china-for-usa.html ) Something that you, the Committee, and the American people don’t hear from the US media is that the Chinese people appreciate what the CCP has done for them. Several different pre-COVID social science studies show this appreciation.  

Using David Easton’s theory of the political system as my interpretive framework, in this post I will offer a non-mechanistic theory of how human political behavior can be “caused.” I will argue that, for Interpretive Political Science, reasons can be causes of political behavior. Indeed, respect for the subject matter – human political behavior – requires this causal theory. After all, people are not machines. “Reasons” will be understood as units of meaning in the minds of people. I will offer examples of such causal relations in the operations of two political systems, China and Peru. Hypothesis: The operation of a political system will tend to provide reasons which explain the political sentience of the public. A well-functioning political system will probably be the reason for high approval ratings among its membership. Likewise, a poorly functioning system will probably be the reason for low approval ratings. China In the past 40 years the Chinese political system hel

According to a 2022 Pew Research study, 82% of Americans have a negative view of the Chinese political system. 42% of Americans are very critical of what they see as China’s human rights offenses. 43% are very concerned about China’s growing military power. And 47% resent what they believe to be China’s involvement, or meddling, with US domestic politics. [1] A 2021 Pew study found that 89% of US adults consider China a competitor or enemy , rather than a partner. [2] In August of 2022, Foreign Affairs magazine published an editorial by Elbridge Colby urging the United States to do more to prepare for war with China due to the increasing likelihood of a People’s Liberation Army (mainland China’s military) invasion of Taiwan. [3] These attitudes are reminiscent of the Cold War era, when Ronald Reagan denigrated the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” Such a characterization, of course, factors out everything good that the political leadership may have done for the people in that country

Introduction: The Approach Helen Yaffe has written an informed and insightful study of Cuba’s current political and economic situation. That is, from the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s to the time of publication in 2020. Her approach includes drawing from scores of interviews she conducted, mostly between 2010 and 2019. (279) She interviewed Cuban officials, intellectuals, and ordinary citizens living in Cuba so that she could understand and explain how these Cubans understood their own political and economic conditions. She also marshals a great deal of quantitative data which re-enforces and further illuminates how these Cubans saw themselves and their conditions. Political scientists will note that Yaffe doesn’t organize her study around the concept of the political system. In part, this is because her emphasis is more on the economic development of Cuba, its challenges, successes, and persistent needs, rather than the policy making pro

Introduction: the Primary Factions The official explanation for Mr. Hu Jintao’s removal from the last meeting of the 20 th National Party Congress is that he wasn’t feeling well, so an usher assisted him in getting out of his chair and walking out of the Great Hall of the People.* But that explanation seems contrary to the appearances that anyone can see on the numerous You Tube videos of the event. So I offer a different interpretation. Hu Jintao was once the most powerful man in China. He was the Communist Party General Secretary from 2002 to 2012. At the same time he was the President of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and he was the civilian Commander in Chief of the Chinese military. Then between 2012 and 2013 all these offices were given to Xi Jinping in a peaceful transfer of power. Xi Jinping was made the Party leader because he was acceptable to the two major factions in Chinese politics. These are the “Radicals” and the “Liberals.” The Radicals are the pro-Maoist hardl