[Peace-discuss] Political science as propaganda

[Laurie Solomon]

And how does this differ from what most academics do and have done since WWII and before?  What makes political science, political scientists, or social scientists differ from any other academic including physical scientists and engineers, business administration types, educators, or even fine arts types who have generally bought into the established positions and viewpoints and used their positions, credentials, authority, and work to legitimate and support  established policies, ideologies, and practices?  Why not point out that this particular  interview is but merely of an example of what is generally the case for what most academics do, think, support, and reinforce without any serious question or analysis.   You might also note that this is the sort of interview that journalist tend to also accept without any critical analysis or questioning as either unproblematic truths or non-extreme borderline opinions.

From: David Green 
Sent: February 02, 2013 4:38 PM
To: peace-discuss ; sf-core at yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Political science as propaganda

The following letter in reference to the link below was submitted to the DI; a related letter will be submitted at a later date to the NG:

http://illinois.edu/lb/article/72/70237

This letter responds to an interview with political science professor Damarys Canache about her native Venezuela, conducted by the University’s News Bureau and available on its website. It appeared in the News-Gazette on January 20th.
When asked why President Hugo Chavez has won honest elections, Canache refers to his “use of institutions and resources of the Venezuelan government to build and maintain a large base of electoral support.” She doesn’t mention significant decreases in poverty and increased access to education and medical care. Chavez has used oil wealth to benefit the majority. It’s not clear why this is not a legitimate, desirable process, nor how this makes Chavez’s programs different from our own history. Canache’s view of political science strongly implies that elected leaders should not respond to the basic survival needs of the majority that elects them.
Canache states: “Although Chávez has won three presidential elections, many scholars contend that Venezuela today is best characterized as a competitive authoritarian regime.” Again, it’s not clear why an elected leader using his constitutional authority to improve the lives of those who elected him is authoritarian rather than democratic; nor why Americans shouldn’t desire such outcomes in our own country.
The reality is that Chavez is demonized by American politicians and media because he opposes U.S. imperialism. We have historically supported ruthless Latin dictators as long as they complied with “U.S. national (read corporate) interests.” Canache invokes her academic authority to legitimize the propaganda that has for two centuries been used to justify violent American control of the hemisphere. I would suggest that her views reflect the petulance of privileged Venezuelans whose aristocratic authority has been undermined by a charismatic leader and a successful popular movement. This obviously is to the detriment of what is called “political science” on our campus.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130202/cbc4b7a2/attachment.html>