Political Questions

First hour of first class in virtually every political science class I ever taught, I would have the students introduce themselves. Not the usual, “I was born at a very early age,” sort of bio data, but a four question survey to get everyone loosened up and set the stage for discussion of political science things. Give us:

1.) your name,
2.) your reason for taking the course,
3.) your previous political experience if any, and,
4.) your political hot-button issue.

Results were predictable. Reasons for taking the course were the trite, “to learn more about blah-blah-blah”, or the obvious, “to get an A” or “because it’s a requirement.” Previous experience ranged from “voted”, to “protested/picketed”, to "campaigned" for Joe Bagadonutz when he ran for school board, to worked in the local office of U.S. Senator Phineas J. Phogbound.

The hot-button issue was the real meat I wanted to butcher. A few simpering sycophants had nothing that really blew their skirt up; nothing about which they were upset; nothing for which they would take to the streets, write a campaign check, or knock on doors to correct. Most, however, would raise the familiar litany of America’s gripes. Some opposed war, some wanted environmental safeguards, some were against globalization (whatever that means this week), some wanted lower taxes, some wanted higher wages, some wanted universal health care, and inevitably, some were pro-life and pro-choice.

Abortion is the quintessential issue of American ideology. It, not Social Security, can be called the true “third rail” of politics. It’s the place where a candidate misstep can provide the irrefutable evidence of unsuitability for office for half of the electorate. And, it is going to be revisited in the coming months by those non-partisan (sarcasm intended) seers of the Supreme Court who will be providing some additional convolutions of language and logic to tell us whether or not a state can legislate to require parental notification prior to allowing a pregnant teen-ager to have an abortion. (If you need proof of the strong mind-set of nearly everyone regarding abortion, think about how you already knew what the proper outcome of the court should be while reading the previous sentence.)

The lesson to be learned from the discussion of all of the hot-button issues was that the role of the political scientist was NOT to be an advocate for our particular position on issues. Having now had the opportunity to express their major political concern, for the remainder of the semester they would be asked to strive for objectivity rather than emotional advocacy. The fact they were to learn was that political questions inevitably have two opposing sides. Each side believes strongly in their position. Each brings rational (in their own mind) justification for their preferred action. Each denies the logic of the opposition. And, unfortunately, each demands a “perfect” policy which will never achieve sufficient commitment from a large enough majority to be enacted.

If we all agree on a course of action, there is no political question. We simply pass the required policy and press on. There’s no significant political debate on whether or not we should outlaw murder. Only when there is conflict do we get political activity, and then we must try to find what possible solution might be palatable to enough of the players to make some progress. My students’ job would be to try to dissect the rhetoric of the advocates and determine what the real question was. Then, if they really felt ambitious, they might seek to define what an achievable governmental action might be.

Abortion? Pro-life vs Pro-choice? What’s the question here? More coming soon.