Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Trump's Secret Plan

I have figured out Trump's secret plan--to deny political scientists the ability to understand why he lost (he is going to lose, might as well put it in the past tense already).  What is the problem?  He is doing EVERYTHING wrong, so it will be hard to discern what mattered the most--his failure is going to be over-determined.

Trump could lose because:
  • careless statements alienated key constituencies (veterans, women, disabled people, etc).
  • his campaign staff were third string at best and some (Bannon) seemed more focused on destroying the GOP.
  • he alienated the GOP establishment, attacking Kasich and thus losing the chance to turn out the vote in Ohio and other places.
  • he spent more money on hats than on ads.  Seriously, do campaign ads matter?  This would be a perfect time to draw the contrast since HRC has many more and much better ads, but the effect of this will be hard to discern due to the other stuff
  • he has no real Get out the Vote effort--I have been joking that Trump can't spell GOTV.
  • he is a misogynist and women happen to be more than 50% of the electorate.
  • Pence is just an awful sidekick.  Would be Palin-esque if not for Palin and Trump lowering expectations.
  • he didn't spend much money compared to HRC.
 I could go on and on, but you get the idea--Trump is a thoroughly craptastic candidate so political scientists will have a harder time explaining his loss than his rise.   Oh wait, there is Trump's Razor....

Monday, October 24, 2016

Down with Dynasties

I have been seeing this lately:
Image result for obama 2024 chelsea 2032

No.  No thanks.  As much as I would like to see an endless string of Democrats and women in the White House, I'd like for US politics to be more than about name recognition.  After all, where would Trump be without name recognition? 

One reason why I supported Obama in 2008 is that the idea of cycling between Bush Clinton Bush Clinton seemed terribly un-democratic to me.  Obama broke the cycle, and I'd like to see HRC serve two terms and then have another Democrat take over (unless the GOP can produce a reasonable moderate [sorry, I had to stop typing for a second because I couldn't breathe from laughing too hard].  I don't want Michelle Obama to run nor do I want the kids of either HRC or MO. 

And, in case everyone forgets, Michelle Obama is popular not just because she is a super, dynamic, sharp, charismatic person, but also because she has not taken too many political stances that would offend one group or another, besides her pro-eating healthy stuff.  So, if she were to run, her popularity would decline as she would take stances on issues.

I certainly don't want Michelle or Barack Obama to disappear from the public stage--they represent so much, they articulate so well key policy stances and all that.  But next President after HRC?  No thanks.

Call me a dynasty party pooper.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Trends in IR: Domestic Politics?

I have a broken computer so I can't do much right now to address a silly assertion about the state of IR--that we have long ignored domestic politics.  A simple approach, given that I can't make any cool graphs right now, is to simply display one key variable over time--whether a work is "second level" or not.  That is, are the key independent variables focused on domestic political properties:

year    No    Ye    Total
1980    52    81    133
1981    64    85    149
1982    49    93    142
1983    61    77    138
1984    51    75    126
1985    64    67    131
1986    40    101    141
1987    63    80    143
1988    65    64    129
1989    56    78    134
1990    58    74    132
1991    54    81    135
1992    54    95    149
1993    55    95    150
1994    52    91    143
1995    67    102    169
1996    54    101    155
1997    66    108    174
1998    51    123    174
1999    43    109    152
2000    46    101    147
2001    52    102    154
2002    46    119    165
2003    51    108    159
2004    41    128    169
2005    39    135    174
2006    46    144    190
2007    64    137    201
2008    61    127    188
2009    66    134    200
2010    71    147    218
2011    75    129    204
2012    83    155    238
Total    1,860    3,446    5,306

Note that the yes column is generally twice as much as every other kind of IR published in the major journals between 1980-2012.  Oops.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

When Critics are Lazy, Military-Academic Complex Addition

I go away for a little while and my school gets hit by the laziest of hit-pieces: that NPSIA is too close to government (see the Hill Times if you want, I refuse to give the outlet the hits/clicks).  "Too close for comfort" is the title.  I am surprised it didn't refer to military-industrial-academic complex since that is the usual go-to for folks making this argument.  But that is probably too long to type.

Yes, NPSIA has many sessional instructors (visitors) that have ties to government--folks who used to work at Foreign Affairs or elsewhere in the government.  Shocking?  No, we are a policy school, so it makes sense to expose our students to people who have experience doing policy.  Some of our tenure-track and tenured profs used to work for the government! Gasp!  My colleague Stephanie Carvin was mentioned by name.  If one were to read her tweets and her op-eds, or perhaps watch what she says on TV, one would not consider her a stooge of the government (I guess puppet is the more fashionable label, right?).

That gets to the heart of the problem: the author didn't read the stuff we write, watch our appearances on TV, or do any, um, work, other than do some modest research about the history of the place.  Many of us are critical of the government... perhaps not always, it kind of depends on what the government is doing and whether it is doing it well or not.  I cannot speak for all of my colleagues, but I get the sense we are not an ideological bunch nor do we see our job as always opposing for the sake of opposing (I blast that attitude in my, dare I say it, highly critical take of the Canadian government's performance during the Afghanistan mission).

The piece then goes after the usual targets--that the government has funded research (security studies is in scare quotes) via programs at Foreign Affairs and National Defence.  Those programs did give money, but did not buy support.  Again, LOOK AT THE RESEARCH.  Plenty of government funded research has been critical of the government.

The real conflict of interest might be at the Hill Times as they publish a guy who is flogging his ideological attack on the government and academia with a hit piece that actually has no real content.  Great job, editors.

PS  Yes, this might seem defensive, but when one is attacked, one has two responses--ignore or defend oneself.  Given that this accusations were made in a minor media outlet, a minor response is appropriate.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

I Love My Job Squared!

Today was a double or quadratic "I Love My Job" kind of day.  I spent the morning talking with a few officers of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.  I learned a great deal both for the Steve/Dave/Phil project and for potential spinoffs.

In the afternoon, I went to see Tokyo's oldest garden: Koishikawa Korakuen Garden. Much damage from both 1923 Great Firequake and 1945 Firebombings, but it was still a beautiful island of tranquility, sort of.

Why sort of?  Because it is next to the Tokyo Dome.  This is not only the big baseball stadium where the Tokyo Giants play but also a site:
  • off track betting--the crumpled betting sheets made it the dirtiest place in Tokyo
  • an amusement park with roller coaster (so much noise of shrieking reached the garden)
  • oh, and the Baseball Hall of Fame.  
Computer problems (windows 10 update has made it impossible to work except in safe mode--which disables most of my software and requires me to use web-based programs like google docs) are making blogging and particularly posting of pics harder--it may be easier once Mrs Spew arrives with her laptop.

Anyhow, I love my job and I love my job.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Trump is Unnerving

My first interview of the morning was spent reassuring Japanese military officer that Trump is not going to win.  But Brexit!  No, not Brexit, as US polling is more/better, as US is more diverse, as Trump can't spell GOTV, and on and on.  

Tis strange to be applying my sabbatical mission abroad--but easier to make the case now than a few months ago, even if this was pretty predicatable.  Still, it is striking that outsiders are still very nervous. 

Saturday, October 15, 2016