The Political Attack on Political Science

The Political Attack on Political Science

Last week the House voted 218-208 to block the National Science Foundation from funding political science research. No other type of research would be blocked by the NSF budget amendment. The NSF could still continue funding research in sociology, anthropology, and economics. The amendment would free up money for research in other fields. But since the amendment wouldn’t affect the total size of the NSF budget, it wouldn’t actually save the government any money.


Why single out political science? Political science may not be a science in the same sense that nuclear physics is, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t rigorous or socially valuable. The NSF's social science budget was less about 1.2% of its $7.8 billion total budget for 2012. But the NSF estimates that money provides as much as 63% of federal support for basic academic research in the social sciences. Political science grants are just a fraction of that social sciences budget, but they constitute an enormous part of the total funding for political science.

Political science is relatively inexpensive after all; you don’t need to build large particle accelerators to study politics. But because political science has relatively few commercial applications, there’s not much money outside of the NSF to fund major research in political science. Nevertheless political science research helps us understand all our major policy issues. As the blogger PM puts it, “the alternative to good social science is not no social science, but bad social science.”

The amendment’s sponsor, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), said he didn’t want the NSF to “waste taxpayer dollars on a meritless program.” The vote to cut funding to political science fell largely along party lines, with only 5 Democrats voting for the amendment and 28 Republicans voting against it. It’s not the first time that Republicans in Congress have tried to cut funding for political science research. In 2006 Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) threatened to cut social sciences out the NSF budget. And in 2009 Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed prohibiting the NSF from “wasting any federal research money on political science projects.”

Flake, who has an M.A. in political science, objected in particular to a $700,000 grant to a study—which is actually being done through the engineering department at Dartmouth—of the effectiveness of international climate change negotiations. He also singled out for ridicule a $625,000 study of whether democracies change entitlement spending in response to popular demand or to narrow special interests. Whether either of these particular projects is really worth the money is up for debate. Neither sounds particularly frivolous to me, but certainly not every grant that’s given out is worthwhile. In any case, you could also point out that NSF grants produced invaluable data through American National Election Studies and General Social Survey projects, or list the numerous projects the NSF has funded that have helped us understand how to prevent war and fight terrorism. In general, a project has to be very compelling to win a major NSF grant. 80% of all proposals are turned down.

Flake denies that he's politicizing the funding of political science research, but by questioning the judgment of the scholarly panels who evaluate NSF grant proposals, that's exactly what he is doing. It's probably not a coincidence that the Republican Flake objected to a study of climate change policy. In 2009 Coburn singled out funding to the Human Rights Data Project, which had found that the U.S. interrogation policies had led to increased human rights violations around the world. Coburn also complained that the NSF had given a grant to Nobel-Prize-winning economist and liberal blogger Paul Krugman. In other words, the attacks on political science funding seem to be more about what political view it seems to support than about the actual quality of the research.

As Penn State political science professor Christopher Zorn writes, Flake is essentially saying we should substitute his judgment for the judgment of the top political scientists who evaluate projects for the NSF. As Zorn says, “It is hard to believe that anyone would take seriously such a call to substitute political for scientific judgment if the program in question was physics, or computer science, or even economics.”

Median voter model chart from Wikimedia Commons

The utopian 1920s scheme for five global superstates

Austro-Japanese aristocrat Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi later concentrated on plans for Pan-Europe.

One person's utopia is another's dystopia: A world map of five superstates.

Image: public domain
Strange Maps
  • Unity is strength: This 1920s map divides the world among just five superstates.
  • The map was produced by count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, who devoted his life to European unity.
  • This utopian map may have inspired George Orwell's dystopian world in 1984.
Keep reading Show less

Modern society is as unequal as 14th century Europe

As bad as this sounds, a new essay suggests that we live in a surprisingly egalitarian age.

"Philosophy Presenting the Seven Liberal Arts to Boethius"

Getty Open Content
Politics & Current Affairs
  • A new essay depicts 700 years of economic inequality in Europe.
  • The only stretch of time more egalitarian than today was the period between 1350 to approximately the year 1700.
  • Data suggest that, without intervention, inequality does not decrease on its own.
Keep reading Show less

You are suffering from “tab overload”

Our love-hate relationship with browser tabs drives all of us crazy. There is a solution.

Photo by Anna Shvets from Pexels
Technology & Innovation
  • A new study suggests that tabs can cause people to be flustered as they try to keep track of every website.
  • The reason is that tabs are unable to properly organize information.
  • The researchers are plugging a browser extension that aims to fix the problem.
Keep reading Show less
Personal Growth

Epicurus and the atheist's guide to happiness

Seek pleasure and avoid pain. Why make it more complicated?

Quantcast