It looks like a few Democrats are growing their Jedis.
If you think Congress should consider impeaching Vice President Dick “Darth” Cheney, go here and sign up.
Posted on December 15th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Congress, Dick Cheney, Impeachment | No Comments »
My dialogue with Grim Beorn over at BlackFive seems to have run its course, though I do have one more exchange to post here. My final thoughts below the fold. Read more…
Posted on December 11th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Framing and Norms, Nature of Man, Norms, Philosophy, Political Theory | No Comments »
Mr. Beorn of BlackFive and Grim’s Hall has responded once more to my arguments there about the nature of man. I responded with the comment below (after the fold). Read more…
Posted on November 27th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Cooperation, Critical Theory, Discourse, Framing and Norms, Nature of Man, Norms, Political Theory, Social Change | No Comments »
Grim Beorn of BlackFive has responded to my continued challenge to his assertion about man’s natural instinct for violence, both in the comment section of his post at BlackFive and here at FBL.
His response seems to center on the views he expresses in this essay at Winds of Change. If I am reading this correctly, he is arguing that natural selection–evolution–determined the nature of man.
I replied:
Mr. Beorn,
Posted on November 24th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Discourse, Framing and Norms, Nature of Man, Norms, Political Theory | 1 Comment »
Someone named Grim at BlackFive wrote a post last week making a case that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is not an illness at all, but a reflection of the violent nature of man and the fact that participation in war requires soldiers to stop suppressing this instinct. Some of them, he argues, have difficulty returning to their previous condition of reliance on rules and customs to mask their inherent tendency to violence. (Hat tip: I first read about this post at Balloon Juice).
I agree that PTSD is a “disorder†only in the sense that the soldiers experiencing this problem do not conform to the extant norms of American culture. They behave quite appropriately for life in a conflict zone, responding to a different set of fears, motivations, and incentives than they will face back on Main Street in Peoria. War socialized them differently for a relatively extended period, and some soldiers have difficulty reverting to the dominant norms of civilian life, but this does not mean they are “sick.â€
I do not, however, accept Grim’s argument that soldiers experience PTS because they have spent a year allowing their violent nature to surface, and have difficulty suppressing it again upon returning home. I think it is just as likely that PTS results from a year spent behaving in ways that go against human nature, which is naturally cooperative and peaceful. Read more…
Posted on November 22nd, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Cooperation, Framing and Norms, Nature of Man, Norms, PTSD, Political Theory, War | 3 Comments »
A friend of mine sent an email this morning voicing new concern for our democratic process brought on by the new Mike Huckabee/Chuck Norris campaign spot. While the ad on the surface does appear to make the democratic process a bit less high-minded, I think she misplaces her worry. The problem is not the ad itself—which is about what we should expect from a relatively unknown candidate who needs to make himself more familiar to voters so they will listen to him when he begins to discuss policy. My own worry is that the media, during the course of both the primary and general election campaigns, will emphasize the positive and negative personal traits of candidates in a way that constructs a campaign narrative that serves their own narrow interests. Read more…
Posted on November 21st, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Campaign, Discourse, Media Elites | No Comments »
Daniel Mazmanian and Paul Sabatier developed a solid theoretical framework for thinking about implementation of public policy. They see policy implementation as a series of stages, with new policies leading to impact and perceived impact, and then to subsequent revision. Two different kinds of variables operate on these dependent variables (implementation and revision): statutory ones such as the structure of the implementation rules, and non-statutory variables such as the theoretical foundation of the policy, political and public support, and possible exogenous changes that could change the theoretical, political, or public support.  Political and public support, exogenous shocks, and statutory structure cause variation in the stages of implementation.
Â
Since political support, public support, and perceived impact are such important variables on the independent side, this theory suggests that management of public opinion matters a great deal to policy development and implementation. Schattschneider certainly thought so—his solution for forcing elites to address public policy issues important to the masses was to expand the group of people and organizations interested in the policy. By changing people’s ideas about whether particular policies should matter to them, stakeholders could influence policy choices and implementation strategies. Read more…
Posted on October 18th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Discourse, Framing and Norms, Persuasion, Public Policy | 1 Comment »
Henry Farrell has some interesting comments about John Edward’s proposal for a Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization. Dr. Farrell likes the idea, but he is skeptical about the possibility of forming much of a useful coalition. After all, though states have found ways to cooperate on trade, finance, and even human rights, security cooperation lags that in other areas.
A look at just what sort of intelligence states would be called upon to share under such a treaty suggests that it might be easier than Henry thinks. Edwards lays it out pretty clearly: states would track “financial, police, customs, and immigration intelligence,†and “track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations.â€Â They will act on this intelligence collectively, “through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions†against terrorist cells.
Since this would not include military intelligence—operational plans, equipment configurations or dispositions, and evaluations of others’ capabilities—I would be a little more optimistic about making this happen. I say this for three reasons. Read more…
Posted on September 14th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Balance of Power, Cooperation, Counter-terror, Global Governance, Globalization, International Relations, Terrorism | 1 Comment »
One of my professors at Louisville, Rodger Payne, just published a short article in Perspectives on Politics pointing out that neorealist IR scholars “participate actively in foreign policy debates†even as they “argue that communication and debate are virtually meaningless factors in shaping outcomes in international relations.â€Â Dr. Payne calls this hypocrisy, and argues that if even neorealists act like critical theorists (by engaging in discourse meant to influence the behavior of a state) then international relations theory should account for communication and discourse.
I agree with this, of course, though I’m not sure what good it does to point it out to neorealists—unless the goal is to prod them to develop a theory of foreign policy. Neorealists argue that states respond to power distribution changes the way they do because the system has no rule enforcer, but they do not explain just how states calculate their place in the distribution of power and choose between alternative actions. Such a process must exist—or it would be possible to predict state reaction to changes in capability given a known power distribution and level of anarchy. Neorealist participation in domestic politics shows that they know this, but so far this has not kept them from seeking parsimony by black-boxing domestic actors and communication. Read more…
Posted on September 13th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Colleague's Work, Critical Theory, International Relations, Neorealism, War | 1 Comment »
When it comes to sports, it looks like blogging political scientists prefer baseball. One of these guys even taught a class on globalization using baseball to focus on migration, remittances, security, and immigrant working conditions (wish I could have taken that one, Dr. Payne).
I prefer football—the “amateur†kind—mostly because I grew up in Arkansas, where no professional franchises existed. We delivered our fandom to the Razorbacks. It helped that my old man was a bookie in Little Rock, so I often spent time watching him drink beer and work his football book—few Arkansans bet baseball in those days. He knew everything about the game, and taught me what to look for—like most real fans I can often predict, for example, the nature of a penalty from when and where the flag is thrown.Â
My old man never cared for particular teams—his concern was for balancing his book and making a living. He hated heavy betting on one side of a game that he could not lay off, and this happened every time Arkansas played. Whatever the point spread, few locals wanted to bet on Rice to beat the Hogs.
This made my old man (and presumably bookmakers everywhere) a huge fan of the underdog. He loved it when some second-tier Southwest Conference team sent the Hogs back to the pig sty because his suckers clients all bet on Big Red.
He would have loved this first week of college football, including last night’s Louisville game. Besides Appy State beating Michigan outright, three other payday game teams beat the spread against ranked teams: Troy (Arkansas), Arkansas State (Texas), and Middle Tennessee State (Louisville). I have no empirical data to back any of this up, but I can think of several reasons why this might be a trend: Read more…
Posted on September 7th, 2007 by rstanton
Filed under: Economics, Football, Sports | No Comments »