Political Science vs Pundits

I happened to find this article entertaining. Essentially it is an attempt to show what a news article would look like if it were written by academics as opposed to pundits. Instead of substituting their opinion for that of the populace it would be nice if they based that on something.

A powerful thunderstorm forced President Obama to cancel his Memorial Day speech near Chicago on Monday—an arbitrary event that had no affect on the trajectory of American politics.

Obama now faces some of the most difficult challenges of his young presidency: the ongoing oil spill, the Gaza flotilla disaster, and revelations about possibly inappropriate conversations between the White House and candidates for federal office. But while these narratives may affect fleeting public perceptions, Americans will ultimately judge Obama on the crude economic fundamentals of jobs numbers and GDP.

Chief among the criticisms of Obama was his response to the spill. Pundits argued that he needed to show more emotion. Their analysis, however, should be viewed in light of the economic pressures on the journalism industry combined with a 24-hour news environment and a lack of new information about the spill itself.

Also I found this interview extremely informative. This bit, was illuminating....

Frum: If someone believes that markets should exist, but subject to the regulation that markets should meet the test of cost-benefit, that person is not a socialist … John Maynard Keynes wasn’t a socialist, Jimmy Carter wasn’t a socialism … Richard Nixon wasn’t a socialist … What it means to be a non-socialist is to believe in markets, private property and decentralized economic decision-making … Those would be the kind of things we’re talking about … I think you are demonstrating one of the things that I’m concerned about. I don’t think you really think President Obama is a socialist. But you are constrained here because to say ‘well, y’know, he’s spending too much money, and I think he’s taking on too much debt, and I think some of his specific ideas are overburdensome on private industry’ – that’s just not exciting enough.

Goldberg: Look, I’m trying to deflate – to siphon off the poisonous and radioactive level of the word ‘socialist’.

Frum: Was Richard Nixon a socialist?

Goldberg: He certainly – uh, he was sort of a corporatist. Look, I think there were socialistic elements, certainly wages and price controls and whatnot.

Frum: Was Richard Nixon more or less socialist than Barack Obama?

Goldberg: Uh, I would have to say less.

Frum: A President who imposed two wage and price freezes?

So the basic gist of this is that, "if I disagree with you then any term I use to describe you is okay!".

Yeah, that is why our politics are so messed.

-Cheers