“Political Science” vs Politics (And Castles In The Air)

'He's a political science major. He looks up to everything loaded with hot air.'

‘He’s a political science major. He looks up to everything loaded with hot air.’

In college Poli Sci, we learned that a principle called “subsidiarity” required political authority to be placed as closely as possible to the affected folk. You wanted local police policy for instance, to be formed locally where the policymakers knew and understood the people and circumstances. Sensible enough, seems to us.

Today, we see the “Common Core” education policy aimed at imposing a centrally made education upon everyone, everywhere. We see the federal Department of Justice using events in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD to impose Federal ‘standards’ upon local police departments. As though bureaucrats in Washington were somehow better able to deal with local behavior than the local police. Sure …

The enduring problem is that while “subsidiarity” is good political science and sensible besides, it’s poor politics. And while those actually in charge remain politicians rather than political science professors, that’s how it will remain.

Citizens and Poli-Sci profs want cops who reflect the local zeitgeist; keeping the citizens happy. Politicians on the other hand, want cops who do as they politicians desire; rather another set of goals entirely. As it is politicians who are in charge, guess which set of principles wins out?

So it is not honest and ethical cops we get; it is cops who ultimately do what they are told. Six Baltimore cops charged with everything that an apparently ambitious DA could scrape out of the Book are the latest example.

Running local police departments from Washington may not do much for peace and tranquility in local areas but it comforts the Feds that there is no independent police agency out there to disagree with them in the clinch.

Just as it comforts them to know that all the local schools are brainwashing the kids as desired; none are teaching subversive Founding Father Constitutionalism, for instance.

Up to 1913, the House of Representatives was owned by the two primary political parties. The Senate was, as designed by the Founders, owned by the several States, who chose senators via vote of the state legislators or some such. People owned the House; States owned the Senate. But in our wisdom, we took the Senate from the States and handed it to the people, i.e. the political parties. So now, both House and Senate belong to the most generous donors. (Reality does suck.) Be careful what you wish for … And study politics, which is reality and not political science, which is castles in the air. And best skip ethics entirely.

Advertisements

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much)
This entry was posted in Government, Politics, Reality and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “Political Science” vs Politics (And Castles In The Air)

  1. james teague says:

    Speaking of Ferguson did you hear that the paid protestors are now suing George Soros and his MORE(former Acorn) organization for the $5000 each they were promised?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s