Why to Avoid Intro Classes, and Bullshit

Recently Foreign Policy Magazine ranked the world’s worst textbooks, defining “worst” as being the most propagandist.  For example, China made the list, supported by the following quote from a “widely used history textbook:”

"The fundamental reason for the victory [in World War II] is that the Chinese Communist Party became the core power that united the nation."

Foreign Policy Magazine doesn’t explain, but I assume that the “worst textbooks” they cite were written for children or young adults, not for college students who presumably are trying to hone some skill of critical thinking.  My textbook for POS 110: American Government and Politics does not share this excuse.

The textbook for POS 110 is quite inspiringly called The New American Democracy.  From the title one could guess the authors cast a rather rosy hue on our empire, but like any good political scientist and unlike most ASU students, I decided to actually read the textbook before making any judgments.

On page 8 the authors contrast government by the many with government by the few, writing: “In the twentieth century alone, millions of people have died at the hands of rulers who gained near-absolute power—tyrants such as Germany’s Hitler, the Soviet Union’s Stalin, China’s Mao, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.”

Woh now!  As a political scientist, I’m afraid I have to question some shit.  If our purpose is to assess the efficacy of different regimes, we should also mention successful governments headed by one person, like Turkey under Mustafa Kemal or Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.

After laying out the US system, the authors use page 21 to address some common criticisms of the US government:

“If American politics and government are so blameworthy, why are the governments of so many new democracies adopting institutions similar to those found in the United States?”

Now, as a political scientist I might have some reservations about this rhetorical question, like why are the authors asking a rhetorical question?  Their intended audience is college freshmen who are ill-prepared to argue with academics in the field.  Being a little more experienced, I would point out that the authors don't specify which governments have adopted similar institutions.  Nor do they explain which institutions are adopted and why.  They also don’t try to analyze whether foreign governments are really adopting American institutions or just democratic institutions that might be more similar to Britain’s or France’s.

Next the authors defend America by saying, Hey, at least we’re not as messed up as these countries:

“Americans have watched in horror as civil war or genocide has erupted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Chechnya, Albania, Zaire, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone.”

The first thought of a college freshman reading this is probably: Where the fuck are all these countries?  As a political scientist, however, I might have to ask these authors what exactly our country's role was in these conflicts.  How many were started, supported, or ignored by the United States while we “watched in horror?”  I’ll give you a few seconds to count.

Now that our blowjob to American government textbook has generously opened its pages to the world, ASU political science freshmen are given their first summation of US foreign policy.  It goes like this:

“Citizens of the United States have enjoyed a government that has a better record than most at protecting them against foreign aggression while usually avoiding unwise involvement in foreign conflicts.”

Ok, good record . . . (thinking) . . . 7 + a tie in Korea – 1 for Vietnam + 2 for the Gulf War cause you know, it was awesome + Trail of Tears = ok yeah they keep us safe, the first part is legit.  Now for the sec—OH DEAR LORD!  I mean I'd like to know just which unwise foreign entanglements got past us?  There’s invading Canada, Vietnam and Cambodia, junta in Greece, coup in Chile, terrorist war in Nicaragua, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanist—we’re running out of countries!  Oh, there is one place where we didn’t intervene.  Rwanda.  Well thank God we stayed out of that mess.

Of course these authors aren’t idiots.  They’ve been saving their trump card to refute the non-believers.  And right there on page 21 I found it:

“Critics selectively cite statistics showing that the United States is worse than Germany in one respect, worse than Japan in another respect, worse than Sweden in some other respect, and so on.  But can one conclude with confidence that any other government of a large country works better? Probably not.”

Indeed, I for one am so pleased that these authors have taken on critics who would stoop so low as to select their data—or even have data.  Notice that the authors do not explain what these statistics say, or why they might be wrong.  As a political scientist and a native speaker of English I have to question countering statistics with “Probably not.”  And again with the rhetorical questions.  You, college freshman, in your first college class reading your very first chapter, will you argue—with full confidence—that any other country is better than America?

To conclude my fellow students’ indoctrination, the authors, on page 23, write:

“The United States, for all its problems, has as good a government as exists anywhere, and a better one than most.”

“Better than most”—well that means good.  “As good as exists anywhere”—ok so we’re definitely at least tied for first place.  That means we won, right?

Now imagine being a Chinese citizen and reading this American college textbook about our government.  I think a lot of this would sound about as jingoistic as the Chinese history book that attributes Japanese defeat in world War II to the Chinese Communist Party.

I often criticize the American government’s past and current policies, and many people disagree with me.  That’s ok.  As political scientists, we need to understand multiple points of view, see the big picture, and evaluate arguments with evidence, rather than unsubstantiated propaganda.  Perhaps many people will agree with the statements in my textbook that I have ridiculed.  Regardless, where is the academic merit in criticizing others’ statistics without citing them, explaining them, and refuting them?  Is there anything remotely scientific  in saying that our government is “as good as exists anywhere” and “better than most?”  

This is not a high school giving us just enough background to simply function as citizens.  This is a university that students are paying to guide them in analyzing, criticizing, and reshaping politics.  And—to be frank—they’re being handed propagandist bullshit.   Thank God I can smell it, probably because I never took POS 110.

He's Just Not That Into You, EU

Today, Roger Cohen of The New York Times wrote a column arguing that there may be negative consequences in the future for the Obama Administration's "benign neglect" toward the EU.  I would argue that there's a more complex strategy behind this benign neglect, that the Obama Administration is attempting to constrain the EU's role in global affairs.  This is a trimmed-down excerpt from an essay I wrote on this topic last May for my class on European Union Security and Defense Policy at Boğaziçi University:

After the breakdown and forced reconstruction of Atlantic relations in George W. Bush’s presidency, many hoped that Barack Obama’s administration would re-emphasize alliances and multilateralism.  Over the last fifteen months, however, the Obama Administration’s signals to the European Union have been contradictory.  Diplomatic officials speak of the EU as a global security actor, but the president and the Secretary of Defense reflect frustration and perhaps disinterest.  

Key members of President Obama’s foreign policy team have publicly welcomed a strong Europe as a global security actor.  Philip H. Gordon, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, was a long-time critic of President Bush's relations with Europe.  He proposed a division of labor between NATO and the EU in which the EU would handle homeland security, democracy promotion, and humanitarian assistance, while NATO would remain the key instrument for military action.  

One could also look at the March 1, 2010 report of the Atlantic Council, which in Bush’s first term heavily criticized Europe.  In this report, the Atlantic Council, like Philip H. Gordon, recommends a division of labor in European defense between NATO and the EU: “If military action is called for and a U.S. role is required, NATO will have primary responsibility; if not, then the operational framework can be the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) or the United Nations.”  

Similarly, in a speech to the Atlantic Council, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We do not see the EU as a competitor of NATO, but we see a strong Europe as an essential partner with NATO and with the United States.”  Clinton’s and Gordon’s shift in rhetoric toward a division of labor between NATO and the EU’s own defense forces was also perceived by EU officials. In March of 2009,  EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner proclaimed that “we see with this administration a very different attitude . . . We have the United States with us and the United States has Europe with her. This is a different approach and we are quite hopeful!”

However, the president and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have delivered opposite signals.  In a February 23, 2010 speech to the National Defense University, Gates criticized the “demilitarization of Europe,” claiming that “large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — [this is] an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21^st [century].”  

Perhaps most importantly, President Obama has been reportedly cold to the European Union, preferring to meet bilaterally with individual countries and repeatedly “snubbing” various European leaders.  After his first U.S.-EU Summit Obama is reported to have wryly quipped that “political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate.”  Months later, President Obama famously snubbed dinner with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris.  Most telling, Obama seems to have repeatedly excluded EU participation from central negotiations.  At the December 2009 Copenhagen Summit for Climate Change, Obama tried to negotiate with the Chinese Prime Minister directly, without Europeans in the room.  In February 2010, Obama declined to attend the 2010 EU-US Summit in Madrid.  Finally, President Obama failed to invite even one EU representative to the signing of the new START Agreement in Prague and his nuclear summit in April, which brought more than forty heads of state.  In a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations, which claims to have input from Obama Adminsitraton officials, the writers say: “the Obama administration has seen European governments . . . weak and divided—ready to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is something almost infantile about how European governments behave toward them—a combination of attention-seeking and responsibility-shirking.”

It is not clear whether the European Union will be treated as a global security actor by the United States under the administration of Barack Obama.  I would argue that the Obama Administration is trying to constrain the EU’s role in global affairs by simply denying it a seat at the table, as President Obama literally did in Copenhagen and Prague.  If the European Union wants to be an effective global security actor, it will need to break free from the current dynamic with the United States and reshape it to match the EU’s own identity and interests.  

No Love for New Orleans

I’ll admit I’ve been waiting for this.  I knew it would happen, and it has.  I’m responding to the NFL Network staff’s picks for various awards and games in the upcoming NFL season, in which my beloved New Orleans Saints have been dissed.

Some things to remember.  Drew Brees has been exactly as good as Peyton Manning and Tom Brady over the last four years.  Brees has thrown for more yards than either of them, more touchdowns than Manning, with the same QB rating as both of them, with a higher completion percentage than either of them.  He’s admittedly thrown a few more interceptions than they have in that time span, but he’s also won a Super Bowl in the last four years, against Manning no less.

Speaking of that Super Bowl, yes, that would be the game in which Drew Brees proved he was an equal of Manning and Brady.  That’s the game where the Saints dismantled the favored Colts in a come-from-behind victory with an efficient, balanced offense, a defensive touchdown, perfect execution on special teams, and perhaps the largest disparity in coaching style and quality in Super Bowl history.

But now the New Orleans Saints’ season of dominance has been swept away and forgotten (I’ll resist the obvious metaphor).  Of eleven NFL Network analysts, only one listed Drew Brees as the most likely offensive player of the year.  Well, actually I would probably agree with that.  Hasn’t Brees finally progressed from the subtle insult of that award to the legitimacy of being the league’s most valuable player, should he reach the same mastery as he did last season?  No.  Not a single expert is picking Drew Brees, the best quarterback of last year statistically and one of the best three for the last four years, to be our most valuable player.

In fact, of the eleven analysts, only four think that New Orleans will even repeat as the champions of the NFC South!  The rest pick the Atlanta Falcons.

Four of the eleven also see the Saints reaching the NFC Championship game.  Only Deion Sanders predicts the Saints will return to the Super Bowl.  Sanders emphasized that Saints coach Sean Payton is “the best play-caller” in the league and called Drew Brees “the best quarterback in the game today.”

Now I’m not saying the Saints are entitled to predictions of a Super Bowl-repeat.  These people make predictions based on evidence to say what will happen, not what should happen.  But I think they have made a mistake here.  A long tradition of dismissing the “Aints” is clouding their judgment.  It’s the same reason that last season week after week sports writers talked about the Saints needing to prove they were for real.  When they were 3-0, it was said they needed to beat the Jets to be the real thing.  They did.  When they were 5-0 they weren’t legit until they beat the Giants.  They did.  Even at 10-0, people were saying the Saints needed to prove themselves by beating the Patriots on Monday night.  Bam, it was done.  And then the Drew Brees and the Saints outgunned, out-thought, and out-fought the four-time MVP Peyton Manning and his Indianapolis Colts.

I don’t blame these people for not picking the Saints.  They might not be my choice either.  But I’ve never seen a Super Bowl champion regarded with this little respect.  And, based on last season, there’s a common outcome when people doubt the New Orleans Saints.  It involves Gatorade, a halftime show with an aging rock band, and some new jewelry.

The Oyo System

With a recorded history that begins in the 1400s, but possibly began much earlier, the Oyo Empire in modern-day Nigeria developed a noteworthy political system. In this empire the Oyomesi, a council of seven wise men believed to have divine powers, selected the Alaafin, or king. Imagine British parliament if there were seven parties whose leaders together appointed the prime minister. The Alaafin was expected to consult to Oyomesi on all critical decisions, and the Oyomesi would sometimes select a weak Alaafin to prevent the office from gaining dominance.

There was also a standard procedure for removing a bad Alaafin. The Oyomesi had to present him with a basket of parrot eggs, which effectively ordered the Alaafin's abdication. Then the Alaafin, his eldest son, and one of the seven members of the Oyomesi each had to commit suicide so the government could start anew.

This system of checks and balances is obviously a little exotic, with parrot's eggs, group suicide, etc. On the other hand, as my African Politics and Society professor emphasized, the process makes some sense. Why parrot's eggs, he asked. I thought about symbolism, and it took me nowhere. Because it's hard! he exclaimed. It requires planning and searching. Parrots don't leave their eggs on the lowest branches. The same followed for the suicide of the society's three most visible leaders. It ensures the Oyomesi would not depose Alaafins recklessly.

My professor stressed that this was a remarkably stable system. If one simply looks at the history of the Oyo Empire, it's clear that this system couldn't save them from colonialism, or themselves, but I agreed with my professor that it possessed a certain elegance.

I kept thinking about this after class for two reasons. One, I remembered hearing the story and how strange it all sounded until the professor explained more. My mind was too closed at the beginning.

Second, I imagined such a system's impact in today's America. For example, would Republican leaders have impeached President Clinton if it would have required a human sacrifice, not to mention the suicide of innocent Chelsea Clinton?  Presumably not. Then again, I can easily see the Republican candidates pledging to sacrifice themselves to stop Obama's jihad against Capitalism, perhaps each one jostling to volunteer for a more gruseome suicide than his or her rivals will. If their roles were reversed I suppose Democrats would probably agree that someone should commit suicide without ever deciding who and in what manner. Maybe our politics are just too dysfunctional to adopt the Oyo system.