Spending my Friday at Texas A&M at the PRIEC meeting. PRIEC is a consortium of race, immigration, & ethnicity scholars who meet periodically to workshop and discuss research projects, usually in their early stages.  Long story short, it’s great so far, and we haven’t even gotten to the afternoon panels when the immigration scholars are presenting.  Had a good discussion with a UT PhD Candidate about using Inquisit & M-Turk to measure folks’ implicit attitudes.

My heart bleeds for Herman Cain (see here).  Actually, my heart goes out the his accusers, working under the assumption that where there’s smoke there’s fire. A good rule of thumb for personal determinations, not advocating it as a standard of justice, mind you.  More theoretically, this seems to be an excellent example of why “experienced” candidates in the political science literature are almost always found to out-perform newbies in elections, controlling for a host of other factors.  Campaigns, particularly Presidential ones, for all their sensationalism, are very good vetting institutions.  New candidates haven’t ever been through the wringer before.  They don’t know how to respond to attacks or scandals.  They’re unlikely to have the forethought (or funds) to do appropriate opposition research on themselves.  And, surprise, when you get into politics you can’t simply preach to the choir all the time.

Additionally, I personally think it may have to do with the psychology of people who decide to run for office with no experience.  Those folks may not be the most…self-aware people in the world.  I honestly don’t think Cain thinks he did anything wrong, which is disturbing in and off itself. His stunning lack of compassion for the accusers is informative as well.  Although, after flailing with his response, he has settled for the tried and true method of attacking the media (and to a lesser extent the victims), which at least gives him a consistent message, although it’s unlikely to be a winning one.

I think what annoys me most about the general response to this kind of scandal (see Palin, Ryan, etc.) is the “blame the media” strategy.  Seriously, it’s red meat to the right and almost guaranteed to get conservatives to give you a pass on almost anything, but it’s disingenuous and insulting, not to mention a strong indicator of a political amateur.  I understand the temptation to use (and abuse) the strategy; it just gets on my nerves. Plus, the liberal media stuff is empirically B.S., so there’s that.  Obviously, the media chasing scandal stories is only ok when they’re targeting the other guys (really missing the sarcasm punctuation mark today).

Anyway, the constant coverage of the Cain fiasco finally penetrated my self-imposed media blackout and I figured I’d comment.  My advice to Cain: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Oh, and stop (allegedly) sexually harassing and groping women, then blaming the media when they report it.  Makes you look like a jackass, even more than that ridiculous 9-9-9 plan no one is covering right now because you’re an bumbling amateur without the political acumen to buy your way onto a local city council, much less run a country.  Good to get that off my chest.  Back to the dissertation.

Particularly John Sides and Joshua Tucker over at the Monkey Cage.  The permanent link to the specific article I’m referring to is here.  Basically, these guys in particular are pretty good about looking at the empirical evidence concerning whatever “trend” is being reported.   They’re both very good at catching poorly researched, knee-jerk political “news” pieces, and they address the claims by looking at the actual facts and numbers, usually demolishing the argument of the piece.  Johnathan Bernstein at “A plain blog about politics” is good on this as well, although he’s often focused on reversals of public statements by politicians (aka “flip-flopping”) which is also enjoyable but less “sciencey.” Anyway, hooray for Political Scientists!

And that’s about all I have to say.  It’s a lovely country, there are a surprising amount of American expats (at least around backpacker country), and my Spanish needs improvement.  The waters around Utila and the Cays are about as clear and warm as you could wish, and the Mayan ruins around Copan (all of them, there are dozens of sites) let you actually touch Mesoamerican history.  Seriously, you can climb on ancient Mayan temples; I have pictures.  Also, the Mayans loved them some parrots.  However, I would, just once, like to go to an ancient site like Copan (or Chichen Itza, Teotihuacan, Zaculea, etc.) and be able to trust most of what the guide said.  That said, Copan was one of the better sites for having accurate displays and reasonably believable information. At Chichen Itza the guides peddled the “Mayans were Asian” theory, and they weren’t talking about the Bering landbridge.

Anyway, I digress.  Honduras was incredible.  The landscape alone is worth a trip, and the food around Copan was stellar.  Parrots, coffee plantations, boat tours, snorkeling, hikes, ruins, canoeing.  Not a bad way to spend 2 weeks with your wife.  Back to political science and related topics soon.

This just boggles the mind and probably doesn’t thrill those leaders of the Tea Party that don’t want to look like crazy people.  Long story short, a city in Florida (see here) voted to remove fluoride from their drinking water, which is, you know, a bad idea under pressure from local Tea Party activists. Apparently it has something to do with government mind control. Not much you can say about this one.  I certainly don’t agree with any (all) of the Tea Party’s ideological positions, but this is just ridiculous.

Anyway, that’s a nice note to leave on.  I’m heading to Honduras tomorrow for my honeymoon for two weeks, and it’s highly unlikely I’ll be motivated to post.  Unfortunately, Honduras isn’t holding its Presidential election while Rachel and I are there like the last time I was in Guatemala.  I guess I’ll just have to console myself with beautiful beaches and ancient Mayan ruins.

Because apparently it’s what one does on a blog, I feel the need to comment on the political story of the day.  Plus, this particular story deals with two of my favorite things after political science: football and country music.  So, for those who haven’t heard the story, Hank Williams, Jr. was dropped from Monday Night Football because he compared Obama to Hitler.  For a more interesting take on this than “here’s what he said,” check out Slate’s Explainer column for today here.

Couple of things.  Not to defend Hank Williams, Jr. (his political opinions or his music), but what he was seemed to be trying to say was that Obama and Boehner are such ideological opposites that any meeting between them is a fruitless photo-op.  Unfortunately, Williams seems to place Obama in the role of Hilter which is, well, stupid.  Points for knowing Netanyahu though.  Hank is actually dancing around an interesting political point – how do leaders govern when their parties/coalitions are so far apart ideologically? – but seems to be doing that despite himself rather than on purpose. Godwin’s law is irrefutable apparently off the Internet as well.

Secondly, and this is a particular beef of mine, why does any self-respecting news program (and I realize it’s a stretch to call anything on Fox News that) care what Hank Williams, Jr. thinks? This is the same man who wrote a song called “The Coalition to Ban Coalitions,” which was as politically tone-deaf as it was literally tone-deaf.  Case in point, has anyone ever actually advocated using the apparatus of the state to “get rid of electric guitars”?  Plus, even a brief thought would cause one to wonder how you could reconcile representative government with violating the right to peaceably assemble.  Anyway, celebrities, and I suppose Hank qualifies, are obviously entitled to whatever political opinions they see fit to hold, but why is the news station giving this guy’s (seriously, this guy) opinion a platform? If he’s got an opinion, let’em get a Twitter feed.

Last but not least, the quick reaction by ESPN makes me wonder if his departure had not been previously contemplated by the network, who jumped on the opportunity to make it his fault through a boneheaded comment about politics.  Personally, I’m sort of obsessed with the history of country music, and Hank Williams, Jr. is an unfortunate musical footnote. It’s as if he took the worst parts of David Allen Coe (self-entitlement, rascism, faux nostalgia), filtered it through Waylon Jennings, and then borrowed Ray Wylie Hubbard’s stage act.  That said, if you’re trying to connect with a modern audience, Hank Williams, Jr. probably isn’t getting you anyone who wasn’t already watching the game to begin with.

All in all, it’s exactly the sort of ridiculous news story that you need to fill a 24 hr news cycle.  Take aways: the comment was silly, Hank Williams Jr. isn’t a very good country singer, and ESPN might have been thinking of dropping him anyway.

Obviously, just kidding.  However, I found this chat with Justice Stevens really interesting.  The article is a little too thin to call it an “interview.”  What? Someone who was on the high court for 30+ years doesn’t rate a full feature on cnn.com?  Anyway, his quotes on his evolving attitudes towards the death penalty reveal exactly the kind of coherent, critical thought you need in a policymaking (sorry neocons, that’s what the high court is supposed to do) justice.  It helps that I tend to agree with his assessment of the state of that particular policy (and many others) of course.  Additionally, his arguments about the movement of the country/Republican Party are interesting, but hardly surprising.  The Midwest in particular has a long history of progressive politics, from the Teddy Roosevelt-style, trust-busting Republicanism of the early 20th Century, to the agricultural progressive movements that were (still are in the case of Minnesota’s Farm Labor party) active in the region as well.  All to say that Justice Stevens may not be that exceptional a Republican of a given time and place, although he is certainly hard to square with the more prominent Republicans of today.  Anyway, quick interesting read about a longtime member of SCOTUS.

Than apparently most sports commentators (see here).  This might be a good example in my ongoing quixotic quest to increase general understand of the implications of Miles’ Law (“where you stand depends on where you sit” – see here for a discussion).  Basically, blaming the personal faults of the people in charge of institutions (e.g. the college presidents, conference commissioners, etc.) for the behavior of said institutions ignores the fact that leadership ability, a difficult to define quality at best, is usually swamped by the demands of the environment.  In other words, you (or anyone else really) would likely have done the same damn thing in a similar situation.  A corollary to this is that assigning personality traits to institutions (like the “greed” of Syracuse, the “disrespect” of Texas A&M, and the “spite” of Baylor), anthropomorphizing them, is a horrible way to think about the behavior of institutions and the outcomes of interactions between them.

It’s probably an inescapable fact of human psychology, but emotional reactions to institutional behavior (like the breakup of the A&M-UT rivalry, Hook’em) tends to obscure the fact that they operate according to predictable and understandable way. Texas A&M isn’t “greedy.”  It’s officers are behaving in a rational (or more likely a “satisficing”) fashion, in order to get the best deal they can for their institution.  Others (people and institutions) are upset because such behavior affects their level of utility or income derived from games, or simply because it may force them to go begging to another (lesser) conference (e.g. Baylor).  Call Baylor a sore loser all you want, the institutional ability to mass with the A&M-SEC deal was there, A&M moving to the SEC would hurt Baylor, therefore Baylor made a legal move completely in keeping with it’s institutional preferences.  The fact that people are surprised is more interesting than anything else.

Anyway, the above illustrates a few points.  First, Miles’ law as I’ve mentioned.  Secondly, the insights of political science and social science more generally are broad and useful.  These theories work whether it’s Congress or the Big XII.  And finally, that I should quit procrastinating and get back to working on my dissertation.

Planning a wedding is hard.  Also tends to make you a touch busy, so this website hasn’t had anything new posted in about 10 weeks.  Unacceptable.  The internet must hear of my political science brilliance (or something).  Anyway, between moving, marriage, APSA, and everything else, it’s been a busy couple months.

However, not without political science goodness. Alek’s and my Working Group went over well at APSA. PS has been contacted about our symposium idea; we’ll see what they say.  Slowly but surely I’m gathering, planning, organizing, and outlining my dissertation.  It’s not even as hard as I expected, since it’s kind of entertaining when it’s something your interested in.  A few more conference proposals (Southern, SPPC, and TLC) have been sent off as well, along with a grant funding request for some more implicit research.  Hopefully we’ll get about 1/2 the money we need from the grant, and the rest from faculty.  Additionally, I’ve been working hard to make my CV attractive to teaching universities (liberal arts colleges, etc.) since, in all likelihood, I’ll be following my new wife to her job sometime in the next year, and having a good teaching resume should help me expand my possible employment options, even given geographic restrictions (i.e. give me more job options wherever the hell I end up).  All in all, busy both personally and professionally, even if I haven’t been posting as much about it.  In the coming days and weeks I’ll have far more frequent updates about the state of my research and other professional/academic posts.

As a small preview, this article from PRQ is a really interesting take on pro-immigrant policies from the standpoint of businesses as interest groups (gated: http://prq.sagepub.com/content/64/3/612.abstract).  Gave me the idea for my States Politics and Policy Conference (SPPC) proposal, concerning the type of immigration policy businesses should press for, given their labor needs.  Hopefully, that’ll end up as a chapter in my dissertation as well.

My coauthor Aleks & I have successfully submitted and had approved a working group on Implicit Attitudes in Political Science for the 2011 APSA Conference.  Pretty cool, huh?  It’s going to be a great experience and an opportunity to interact with some scholars doing some really great work on the application of psychological theories and methods to political science.  Can’t wait for Seattle, but AJPS won’t send me there unless I get my work done, so this is a short post while I catch up on my submissions.  Be sure to sign up if you’re interested!