As America prepares for the Presidential Election of 2020 a less visible groups is experiencing more anxiety than others. While all American are under extreme duress, there is one group that is being hammered because of our unique knowledge and expertise. I am speaking of course about Political Scientists. Political Scientists are the experts that both know and understand the nature of our current political crisis to a degree shared by few. This is most evident when it comes to how we are asked to comport ourselves in our classrooms. We are often asked to do some things that are asked of no one else and act in ways that are impossible. I attempt to address this throughout my courses and am lucky because I can rely upon my superpower of being born without the "Give a Frak" gene. I have problems with "social niceties" that make it possible to function in "polite society." While this is a hindrance in most contexts, it does enable me to be the master of the uncomfortable conversations that can occur in Political Science courses.
I emphasize that I am a Political Scientist with emphasis on the Scientist. I see in my media consumption that fellow political scientists are also experiencing stress in navigating a political world of "alternative facts" and "post-truth politics." By emphasizing the Science part of our discipline I am able to note that, as a Scientist, I am bound to the truth. That truth holds no matter if those in my courses will be offended or not because the truth is bad for their own personal politics. As a Political Scientist I must be a Truthteller even when that causes some problems both inside and outside of the classroom or virtual environment. I have now started my Fall Semester online at Folsom Lake College and my first lecture focused on being honest and open with my students. I am going to take this opportunity on my blog to offer additional conversations on what was discussed and respond to some of the responses of my students.
One important thing to get out of the way is bias in a Political Science course. I hear this all the time at conferences and student evaluations and rating sites. The expectation is that somehow we are supposed to teach our material in an unbiased manner. This is nonsense of course but deserves some exploration. The expectation of non-biased instruction is designed to cower us to give validity to all possible human politics, even the most distasteful. It is akin to the constant claim of "liberal bias in the media' and I address it the same. The bias is really to the truth, or at least it is supposed to be. As is a common parable in journalism, a journalist's job, when told by one person it is raining and by another it is not raining, is not to present both individuals perception of reality but to walk outside and see if it is indeed raining or not. A very common definition we have of politics is "the authoritative allocation of values." That means values are front and center in our curriculum. We in political science can no more avoid a values discussion in our courses than economist can avoid talking about value, or sociologists avoid discussions of organization. Yes the goal is to be able to discuss all values, but it is not to place all values as equal. When discussing racism in the class, I am not going to place value on pro-racist arguments even if there are racists in my class who expect it. I am not bound to give credence to misogynist arguments because there are misogynists in the classroom. There are sometimes clear superior value positions in politics and we must take them and teach them. Political scientists are sometimes loathe to remember the praxis of our discipline. We are the experts. We can take sides even in the face of the plague of both-sidesism.
I experience this all the time and am not alone. Wanting a non-bias instruction is used as a cudgel against us to make those who have objectively distasteful politics avoid the consequences and truths about those politics. That is no good teaching. I have a hashtag on Twitter, #CowedMedia, to highlight what has become of the media that has been cowed into submission. The media now succumbs to both-sidesism because of their constant fear of being called a biased actor. To avoid this name-calling the media has been complicit in validating alternative facts and post-truth politics. In my own small way I try to encourage the future Political Scientists in my courses to steer clear of this fear and embrace the praxis of our discipline. If we become cowed, then truth will not matter and our politics will continue to be toxic and grow even more toxic. In addition, just the whole notion of a non-biased person is a non-starter for me. I understand that bias is the result of perceived interest, whether self-interest or common-interest. Every human is trying to navigate their time on Earth and live a life that is meaningful to them. As long as a human is drawing breath they will have interests. Receiving a graduate degree in Political Science does not mean I become a walking robot, devoid of my humanity, with no interests other than conveying instruction. This holds true no matter the context or career. The goal of becoming a judge, a journalist, or a political scientist is not to eliminate bias but to minimize it through understanding and exploration. If in our exploration we find truth, then truth is exposed and remains.
This is important in today's political climate. There is a need for we experts in Political Science to be open and honest with our students. We understand that the current Trump Administration and current Republican party is wrong. It is a threat to both the republic and a threat to which it stands. There is no both-sidesism on this. We understand both what the Framers were trying to accomplish in this Great American Experiment. We have knowledge and understanding of authoritarianism. We understand not just the rule of law but the political theory behind the concept of the rule of law. These are the truths that we should all hold as self-evident but no longer do. Partly this is by choice. Americans have not risen to the Utopian spirit of the early political theorist and chosen to inform themselves about the common interest and how it can be balanced with all of our many self-interests. We are avoiding our responsibilities of being informed. Instead we adopt what I term K.I.S.S. strategies (Keep It Simple Stupid). We look to the easiest way to inform and participate. The most common in America now is the tribe. We no longer need or want to know things other than what side to root or vote for. Americans have opted to extend their tendency to become fans of sports franchises into politics. "I don't need to know much, just what team to root for in the NFL, or NBA, or whatever. So we end up reversing what we Political Scientists understand is the role of parties. Now our parties are our tribes, our teams. Political parties are supposed to represent the people who comprise them. Instead now we represent our team. This is how I understand how people continue to vote against their own interests in America. they take their cues from whichever of the Two Parties they cheer for and vote according to the party's interest.
A good example if climate change. Listen I understand why the Republican Party wants to maintain their ridiculous argument that climate change is a hoax. Some of their biggest donors, that help them win expensive campaigns, are fossil fuel companies. I do not understand what the general Republican voter gets by having ridiculous arguments about climate change. I only understand through the lens of tribalism. They are simply rooting for the Patriots so need to make the argument that Tom Brady is the greatest quarterback of all time as opposed to a San Francisco Forty-Niners fan who will argue for Joe Montana. Again, they must represent their tribe rather than having the party represent them.
This lead to another stressor; debating facts. We in the social sciences are well suited to make the difference between natural facts and social facts. Natural facts are true regardless of the opinions and positions of human beings. Take gravity. Gravity does not care whether a person believes it or not. IF one could fly just by stating "I don't believe in gravity", then we would have a much different world. However you will remain on the Earth whether you believe it or not. Climate change is a natural fact. I emphasize in my classes that I do not debate natural facts. I tell climate change denialists they have are not going to get that side from me, because I am a scientist and accept natural facts. Social facts are different as the only truth we can attach to them is what we have socially constructed around them. Most political issues swirl around social facts. We can argue until we are blue-in-the-face, from now until doomsday, about when life begins. Does it begin at conception or does it begin at birth? No resolution. So social facts will always have some politics swirling around them. Social facts are at the heart of current event discussions in my class.
However here I must return to praxis. Within social facts there are some truths. We Political Scientists must be comfortable with those truths. We are the experts. Recently a student challenged me and said "You are a political scientist and have no right to classify anybody as “wrong” or “bad” for not affiliating with any party, because it is not just one party that is “broken,” No. It is precisely because I am a Political Scientist that have the right to do these things. This is part of the larger death of expertise (#DeathOfExpertise) that is part of our toxic politics. We Political Scientists cannot be cowed away from our expertise.
