A clarification request for Marc Ambinder
Marc Ambinder is one of my must-click sites when I’m looking for good political insider gossip. So I was surprised, yesterday, to see this post: [T]he gulf between academia and practitioners of politics is very wide. Too wide. So why the heck would the American Political Science Association hold their annual convention during the Democratic ...
Marc Ambinder is one of my must-click sites when I'm looking for good political insider gossip. So I was surprised, yesterday, to see this post: [T]he gulf between academia and practitioners of politics is very wide. Too wide. So why the heck would the American Political Science Association hold their annual convention during the Democratic National Convention... ... in Boston? Want to bridge the gap? Try holding the conference in the same city as a convention...the week before the convention. There are some pretty good reasons for why this is the case, including: Logistics Not all political scientists study American politics Logistics Not all American politics people study the presidency and/or party politics Logistics Which convention -- Democrat or Republican? Both? Logistics After attending a meeting in Honolulu, I've concluded that it's tough to hold a conference when all the conference-goers would be somewhere else After the logistics problems were pointed out to Ambinder, he responded: That explains, but doesn't really excuse, from an institutional point of view, the idea that, in politics, theory and practice could not be more alienated from each other. Here's my question to Ambinder -- what, exactly, does that mean? Political scientists aren't providing better tactical or strategic advice to politicians? Political scientists aren't studying real-world phenomena? We're not making impassioned pleas for reform? What? I mean this seriously, because, from where I sit, a certain amount of alienation is a good thing. It's not good for political scientists to disdain politics -- but it is a good thing for political scientists to be outside observers, beholden to no powerful interest, providing dispassionate (and occasionally passionate) commentary. Seriously, Marc -- what do you want political scientists to do? I'll throw that last question open to readers as well.
Marc Ambinder is one of my must-click sites when I’m looking for good political insider gossip. So I was surprised, yesterday, to see this post:
[T]he gulf between academia and practitioners of politics is very wide. Too wide. So why the heck would the American Political Science Association hold their annual convention during the Democratic National Convention… … in Boston? Want to bridge the gap? Try holding the conference in the same city as a convention…the week before the convention.
There are some pretty good reasons for why this is the case, including:
- Logistics
- Not all political scientists study American politics
- Logistics
- Not all American politics people study the presidency and/or party politics
- Logistics
- Which convention — Democrat or Republican? Both?
- Logistics
- After attending a meeting in Honolulu, I’ve concluded that it’s tough to hold a conference when all the conference-goers would be somewhere else
After the logistics problems were pointed out to Ambinder, he responded:
That explains, but doesn’t really excuse, from an institutional point of view, the idea that, in politics, theory and practice could not be more alienated from each other.
Here’s my question to Ambinder — what, exactly, does that mean? Political scientists aren’t providing better tactical or strategic advice to politicians? Political scientists aren’t studying real-world phenomena? We’re not making impassioned pleas for reform? What? I mean this seriously, because, from where I sit, a certain amount of alienation is a good thing. It’s not good for political scientists to disdain politics — but it is a good thing for political scientists to be outside observers, beholden to no powerful interest, providing dispassionate (and occasionally passionate) commentary. Seriously, Marc — what do you want political scientists to do? I’ll throw that last question open to readers as well.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
