A Political Scientist Looks at Military Government in the European Theater of Operations

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (6) ◽  
pp. 1097-1112
Author(s):  
Harold Zink
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Pacific Islands ◽  
State Level ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Military Government ◽  
European Theater Of Operations ◽  
General Record ◽  
Civilian Defense

The political scientist found various aspects of World War II of professional interest. Perhaps there were no fields as intimately related to political science as radar and atomic energy in the case of the physical sciences, though such agencies as the War Production Board, the Office of Price Administration, and the Office of Civilian Defense presented many problems of vital concern. Of the strictly military programs, it is probable that none involved so many aspects of political science as military government. Military government programs of some elaborateness were drafted for North Africa, Sicily and Italy, the Pacific Islands, Japan, Korea, and Germany and the countries which had been occupied by Germany. The military government activities in the European Theater of Operations surpassed all others in scope in that they involved both combat and post-hostility operations of great magnitude, necessitated dealings with both conquered and liberated peoples, required the establishment of a system of government from the bottom up through the state level in Germany, and were participated in by all four of the major Allied Powers. The European Theater of Operations also saw the widest use of officers who had been assigned on the basis of their specialist knowledge of various aspects of military-government activities. It may therefore be of some interest to the political science profession to comment on the general record of military government in the ETO.

A Reply to A.G. Hopkins

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAROLYN M. WARNER
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist

The political scientist who relies upon historiographic sources to propose and test hypotheses runs the risk of riling up not only her peers in the discipline, but also the historians upon whose work she must rely to provide the materials for these hypotheses. It was intellectually satisfying and stimulating to learn that my work has been read not only by scholars in ‘my’ discipline, but also by those in the discipline which made my own analysis possible, and I am grateful for Professor Hopkins' extensive comments. As Hopkins notes, there are differences in the orientation of the two disciplines: political science has as one of its central concerns ‘the state’, while historians are more interested ‘in charting changing relativities in international relations’. As a political scientist, I am indeed interested in identifying the factors which lead to such changes.

scholarly journals Complicating the Political Scientist as Blogger

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (02) ◽  
pp. 383-386
Author(s):  
Robert Farley
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
The Political ◽  
Multiple Models ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Public Sphere

AbstractIn our efforts to make blogging an acceptable component of an academic career in political science, we ought not tame the practice of blogging beyond recognition. Multiple models exist under which blogging can contribute to the discipline of political science and through which political scientists can contribute to the public sphere.

Politics and Power

Philosophy ◽  
1963 ◽  
Vol 38 (144) ◽  
pp. 117-135
Author(s):  
P. H. Partridge
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Proper Definition ◽  
Definition Of

In recent years, political scientists have talked a great deal about the proper definition of their subject, and of how the ‘field’ of the political scientist is best distinguished from that of other social scientists. One proposal that is frequently made is that political science might quite properly be defined as the study of power, its forms, its sources, its distribution, its modes of exercise, its effects. The general justification for this proposal is, of course, that political activity itself appears to be connected very intimately with power: it is often said that political activity is a struggle for power; that constitutions and other political institutions are methods of defining and regularising the distribution and the exercise of power, and so on. Since there seems to be some sense in which one can say that, within the wider area of social life, the political field is that which has some special connection with power, it may seem plausible then to suggest that the study of politics focusses upon the study of power.

scholarly journals The Study and Teaching of Arkansas Politics: Political Science as Pioneering

1981 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 75-92
Author(s):  
Diane Kincaid Blair
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
General Reference ◽  
Historical Societies ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Narrow Focus ◽  
Study And Teaching

Acknowledging that the political scientist wanting to explore Arkansas government and politics is often frustrated by the lack of sources and data, the author presents a wideranging guide to little known materials. There are a few general reference works, such as the Historical Report of the Secretary of State, and a half-dozen bibliographies and document listings. Numerous documents of more narrow focus are noted, available from various executive, legislative, and judicial offices as well as from university groups and historical societies. The author also offers a syllabus for a course in Arkansas politics, drawing upon a number of the sources cited and focusing on the dramatic change believed to have characterized Arkansas politics in recent years.

12. Politics and Markets

2020 ◽  
pp. 249-270
Author(s):  
Neil Robinson ◽  
Owen Worth
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Financial Crises ◽  
State Level ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
The Political ◽  
World War ◽  
Economic Management ◽  
Capitalist Development ◽  
International Financial Crisis

The political economy of Europe has changed significantly in the last four decades because of globalization, the collapse of communism, and financial crises. This chapter first discusses the different varieties of capitalism that emerged in Europe after World War II. It looks at how they have been put under pressure by economic internationalization and the dominance of neoliberal ideas, which together have weakened economic management at nation-state level. The chapter also looks at the development of capitalism in Eastern Europe and explanations for variance in post-communist capitalist development. Finally, the chapter considers the challenges to the management of Europe’s political economy posed by the international financial crisis that dominated much of Europe’s politics after 2007, along with the initial response to the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic in 2020.

A Challenge to Political Scientists

1943 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 692-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Foote Whyte
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Political Ethics ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
American Form

When the American form of government and our democratic way of life hang in the balance of armed conflict, the political scientist feels impelled more than ever to rally to the defense of these values. He Writes volumes to defend our system and to attack the systems of our enemies. He writes political philosophy and political ethics—just plain politics is forgotten.The uninformed layman might expect from his title that the political scientist would be an expert in the analysis of political processes in his own community. He would be disappointed. The following comment made by Aristotle centuries ago applies with equal validity to the problem of political science today: “Must we not admit that the political science plainly does not stand on a similar footing to that of other sciences and faculties? I mean that while in all other cases those who impart the faculties and themselves exert them are identical (physicians and painters, for instance), matters of Statesmanship the Sophists profess to teach, but not one of them practices it, that being left to those actually engaged in it: and these might really very well be thought to do it by some singular knack and by mere practice rather than by any intellectual process; for they neither write nor speak on these matters (though it might do more to their credit than composing speeches for the courts or the assembly)….” Since the politician of today remains inarticulate when it comes to discussing his methods for publication, the responsibility of building a science of politics, if there is to be such a science, continues to rest with the political scientists.

Political Science and Prevision

1965 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand de Jouvenel
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
Present Moment ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Future ◽  
States Of Nature

The political scientist is a teacher of public men in the making, and an adviser of public men in activity; “public men,” that is, men who are taught, invited or assumed to feel some responsibility for the exercise of political power; “political power,” that is, concentrated means of affecting the future.Obviously we can not affect the past, or that present moment which is now passing away, but only what is not yet: the future alone is sensitive to our actions, voluntary if aimed at a pictured outcome, rational if apt to cause it, prudently conceived if we take into account circumstances outside our control (known to decision theorists as “states of nature”), and the conflicting moves of others (known in game theory as opponents' play). A result placed in the future, conditions intervening in the future, need we say more to stress that decisions are taken “with an eye to the future,” in other terms, with foresight?

The Teaching of Citizenship

1984 ◽  
Vol 17 (02) ◽  
pp. 211-215
Author(s):  
Harvey C. Mansfield
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Good Citizen ◽  
Universal Love ◽  
The Way

The teaching of citizenship might seem inappropriate for a political scientist. Such teaching is normative, it might be said, but political science is empirical. And, it might be added, citizenship is a parochial concern for the good of one's own country, whereas political science is based on a universal love of truth. These objections will have to be made more precise, even recast; but insofar as they suggest that good citizen and good political scientist may not be the same thing, they are perfectly reasonable.The distinction between empirical and normative, or fact and value (which cannot be explored theoretically here), means that a political scientist, as political scientist, cannot tell citizens whether citizenship is a good thing, or say that political science is a good thing and ought to be welcomed or tolerated by citizens. A political scientist might perhaps remark empirically, or half-empirically, that love of one's country animates the citizens as citizen and love of truth inspires the political scientist as political scientist. But instead of leading to conflict between citizens and political scientists and hence to a problem for political scientists, who must be both, this observation is made to yield a queer harmony between the two. It is thought that since political scientists cannot pronounce upon the worth of citizenship, they do not get in the way of citizens. Their work is neutral to that of citizens. Love of truth does not interfere with love of country because all loves, being “values,” are incommensurable. Thus, the methodology of the fact-value distinction provides a lefthanded endorsement of (at least democratic) citizenship.

The Loyalty Oath Issue in Iowa, 1951

1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 861-869
Author(s):  
Arnold A. Rogow
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Nineteen Fifties ◽  
Mccarthy Era ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
Loyalty Oath

When the political scientist attempts to assess the state of civil liberties in America following World War II, he confronts a voluminous record of episodes and events. Most of the books, articles, and other documents so far available suggest that the fear of communist subversion carried Americans very far from the spirit, if not the letter, of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is possible to conclude that the hysteria associated with the name of Joseph R. McCarthy permeated almost every state, city and hamlet in America, and that McCarthy himself, in the words of Richard H. Rovere, “held two Presidents captive, or as nearly captive as any Presidents of the United States have ever been held …” The political scientist may therefore be persuaded that the label McCarthy Era better fits the Nineteen Fifties than the alternative designation, Eisenhower Era.It may be hoped, however, that his research will not overlook those incidents, however rare, which suggest that fear and suspicion did not entirely dominate the national scene. One such incident, of more than ordinary interest, occurred in Iowa during the early months of 1951. By April, 1951, more than one year had elapsed since the late junior Senator from Wisconsin had produced his famous if elusive “list” of card-carrying communists in the State Department. The Korean War, moving toward the end of its first winter, promoted a mood which was, on the whole, favorable to the Senator's activities. Nevertheless, in April, 1951, the Iowa Senate overwhelmingly rejected a loyalty oath measure which was much less stringent than those that had previously been approved in almost half the states. The action of the Iowa Senate, moreover, was not merely unusual or exceptional in 1951; it appears to be without precedent in recent history. So far as is known, Iowa was the only state in which a loyalty oath measure was defeated by vote in the legislature.

More Than a Historian: The Political and Economic Thought of Charles A. Beard By Clyde W. Barrow. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000. 289p. $39.95.

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 795-795
Author(s):  
Ruth O'Brien
Keyword(s):  
New Brunswick ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Scientist ◽  
Economic Interpretation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ample Reason

Clyde Barrow's More Than a Historian provides a fascinating intellectual history of Charles Beard, a political scientist whom he places in the “pantheon of thinkers that most scholars no longer read” (p. xvi). With 42 books, scores of coauthored books, and hundreds of articles and book reviews, Beard can be only characterized as amazingly prolific. Yet the only book that still resonates in political science and American history is An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (1913). Barrow's history of Beard gives us ample reason finally to read it or read it again.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document