A Biblical Perspective to Political Science
Traditional and Behavioral Schools of application define the purpose of Political Science as asking questions and producing an enumerated comparative analysis of the correlation with the originalist standard expected. “Traditionalism relies largely on normative evaluations;” asserts Dooley, in response to the comparison behind Constitutionally ordained federal institutions, and their compliance with the imposed legislative limitations; thereby comprising the first of three methodological schools of thought, behavioralism and postbehavioralism representing the latter, (Dooley, K., Ch. 1-3a). Behavioralism is based on quantitative data, whereas postbehavioralism represents a deep dissatisfaction with the [subjective] results of behavioralism, (Easton, D., pp. 137, 141).
Conversely, Philip L. Beardsley of Syracuse University wrote in 1977, a dissent against “Easton's doctrine of post-behavioralism is based on the assumption that we must choose between ‘science’ and ‘relevance.’ In this crucial respect his stance is no different from the conventional behavioralist position,” (Beardsley, P., p. 97). Beardsley expounds, that “political scientists do not need a theory which focuses their attention on these questions. What they need is a theory that answers the questions;” calling Easton’s system “infinitely flexible” and “utterly empty,” bringing inconclusive results (Beardsley, P., p. 105). Beardsley boasts that Easton’s theory fails to stand up to reality; “a theory cannot be true in science without also being relevant in society,” asserting that political science may not always be “socially relevant” but must always be “scientifically relevant;” claiming that Easton bears no effort to explicitly discern between behavioralism and postbehavioralism; whereby the latter omits enumeration, (Beardsley, P., p. 101). Decades earlier in 1936, political scientist Harold D. Lasswell remarked, “political science concentrates upon the influential,” (Lasswell, H., p. 22). Nearly a century later, the Eleventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines the contemporary term political science as “the branch of learning concerned with the study and principles and conduct of government,” (Garner, B., p. 1403). Michael E. Kirn cited, that as of 1977, American political science had fallen critical to its relevance, inheriting accusations of conservative biases, (Kirn, M., p. 82).
Political theorist Jack C. Plano’s American Political Dictionary defines political science as “[a]n academic and research discipline that deals with the theory and practice of politics …of political systems and political behavior,” (Plano, J., p. 19). Plano’s Dictionary of Political Analysis defines political science as “[t]he systemic study of government…implementing public policy by means that is of decisions regarded as authoritative or binding for a society,” (Plano, J., p. 105). Political scientist Kevin L. Dooley states, “[p]olitical science is part of an academic tradition known as social sciences, whereby striving to provide an explanation of human behavior,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 1-3). Concisely, political science is a scientific practice of political comparison, often without social relevance; the political scientist must act above reproach, striving with consideration to avoid “pursuing phantoms,” as Beardsley elegantly describes, (Beardsley, P., p. 110). Kirn states that behavioral approaches to political science have drawn from the works of “philosophers of natural science for an account of scientific inquiry,” (Kirn, M., p. 85). Michael Kirn claims political scientists have fallen dependent on the authority of natural sciences, resolving that “clarification resulting from philosophical and empirical studies of what one is actually doing, of what presuppositions lie behind one's work, is of considerable value, (Kirn, M., pp. 86, 89).
The flaws incurred under the many erroneous approaches to this discipline include inversions of truth contingent on sentiment or temporal culture to appeal to the majority, under influence of the institutional narrative of the Establishment. The narrative strives to place ontology, the study of what is known; before epistemology, the study of how truth can be discerned; whereby invalidating any proposition of objective truth that could be considered in its presupposition. Moreover, the incurrence of divine offense; comprehensive revocation of God, (LibertyUniversity).
Political scientists of contemporary times must demolish the Establishment’s culturally curated obstacles instituted to divide and conquer the citizens of the state. This includes inversions of truth, malevolently designed to dissuade civilians from bearing allegiance to their divine Creator; without the authority of Jesus there exists a profoundly egregious substitution for mass top-down regulation in accordance with nefarious interests mutating the interpretation of democracy to yield profit for the global cabal, maintaining a member in the dichotomy of global affairs; in esse new world order.
Political Science and the Great Commission
Christians must consider the specific purpose of political science; particular components from each school of application can be applied to postbehavioral implementation of political science thereby dissenting against falling reliant on natural sciences as a basis of objective analysis. The Christian political scientist can implement historic references using behavioral application, yet must remain consistent with their original theory, thereby invoking traditional means of comparative analysis. Francis J. Beckwith asserts that while “nongovernment institutions do most of the work in civilizing a nation's people by shaping its character…[yet, it is decreed;] government and the church, though having separate jurisdictions, share a common obligation to advance the good of those who are made in God's image,” (Beckwith, F., Loc. 566-567, 608-609). Per Beckwith’s example, Christians are tasked with providing assurance of representation on behalf of the Kingdom; those opposed yield mutual benefit from a virtuous society. Disciples must carry the light of the Lord through contemporary polity; objective foundational truth is rooted in Scripture; our flaws and shortcomings are covered and redeemed by the blood of Christ. The Christian political scientist must base their comparisons on the image of God; irrelevant of their own subjective opinions and biases to ensure impartiality, professionalism, and factualism.
In the traditional concept of political science; there exists a system of reference that can be utilized to remain objective during analysis. Political Scientist David Easton states that; “[t]he traditional period was one in which more attention was paid to mere description and the collection of information about political processes than to overarching theories about how they operate. In fact, however, a latent theory unobtrusively guided research. Even though most of the scholars of that period were not conscious of it, they really saw the political process as a giant mechanism for making decisions,” (Easton, D., p. 135).
Behavioral schools are empirically oriented, focusing on quantitative data; thereby searching for a systemic understanding that seeks to “predict the way in which people behave politically and the way political institutions operate… [producing] generalizations about behavior that are grounded in observations,” (Easton, D., pp. 138, 146). Michael E. Kirn submits that behavioral theories originate from Carl G. Hempel and others associated with the philosophical school of logical empiricism, and those of Karl Popper and his followers, (Kirn, M., p. 85). Easton submits that behavioral schools are empirically oriented, they are based on observation; Easton denotes a shift that has occurred since the “behavioral revolution”, (Easton, D., p. 137).
On redefining purpose in the contemporary century of positivism; Christians represent the objective morality of their generation; bearing the light of the Lord, believers possess obedience to a personal divine supernatural authority that omits the contamination of guidance systems of value, ensuring sovereignty and liberty for posterity, no matter the external factors incurred. As Paul and Silas sang from the confinement of prison, (Acts 16:25-26); Christians today must strive beyond the self-limitation of the curated environmental factors, forging a pathway though division for His exceeding abundance to prevail over the encroachment of tyranny; as the persisting political rot decay the focus of America’s presiding generation. His Holy Spirit scribes through Luke in Acts; “[a]nd God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith,” (Acts 15:8-9; ESV). It is bearing faith in objectivity that contemporary political scientists can invoke impartial figures representing quantitative comparisons and accurate factual analysis.
The interior cover of the first edition of Jack Plano’s Dictionary of Political Analysis features a verse representative of the embodiment of political science; “[s]o likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air,” (1 Corinthians 14:9; KJV). In other words; “[u]nless you speak in a language that’s easily understood, how will anyone know what you’re talking about? You might as well save your breath!” (1 Corinthians 14:9; TPT). Political science and political analysis rely on empirical data, and the self-regulation of potential biases to produce impartial statistics and predictions based on political trends, whether or not they are socially relevant remains another matter of culture.
Conclusion
Political science is above all the pursuit of truth, as it relates to the operation of government within our Republic. John Adams denoted the importance of virtue in his Thoughts on Government; “[a]ll sober inquirers after truth, ancient and modern, pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as dignity, consists in virtue,” (Adams, J.; Frohnen, B., p. 196). The Truth must remain objective and cannot be contaminated with biases; in 1943, political theorist James Burnham’s asserted that all political biases resolve to despotism; writing that an “absolute triumph of any side and any doctrine whatsoever can only mean tyranny,” (Burnham, J., p. 118). The modern state of global iatrarchy strives to dilute the centralized reverence for achieving national union; these attempts are made by invoking a perpetual state of persistent crises; begetting further government intervention. Political science does not void the presupposition of civic participation, thus application; instead it demands active participants to individually exercise self-ruling sovereignty collectively across the nation; against the deepstate bureaucrats controlling the current administrative state. There exists an eternal objective truth responsible for the dimensions of our reality that must be considered through all instances of political theory; that is achieved through political science, as a result inspiring quantitative action rooted in personal faith; policy positioned on piety; and political comparisons contingent on Christ.
Bibliography
Beardsley, P. L. (1977). A Critique of Post-Behavioralism. Political Theory, 5(1), 97–111. http://www.jstor.org/stable/191149
Burnham, James. (1943). The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom. Lume Books. Kindle Edition.
Easton, D. (1985). Political Science in the United States: Past and Present. International Political Science Review / Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 6(1), 133–152. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1600975
Francis J. Beckwith. Politics for Christians: Statecraft as Soulcraft (Christian Worldview Integration Series) (Kindle Locations 608-609). Kindle Edition.
Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
Kirn, M. E. (1977). Behavioralism, Post-Behavioralism, and the Philosophy of Science: Two Houses, One Plague. The Review of Politics, 39(1), 82–102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406579
KJV. 1 Corinthians 14:9
Lasswell, H.D. (1936). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (p. 22). Papamoa Press. Kindle Edition.
Plano, J.C. et al. (1962, 1985). The American Political Dictionary, Seventh Edition. CBS College Publishing; Holt, Rinehart and Winston; The Dryden Press; Saunders College Publishing; New York, NY, 10017
Plano, J.C. et al. (1973, 1982). The Dictionary of Political Analysis, First Edition. ABC-Clio, Inc.: Santa Barbara, CA; Clio Press Ltd.: Oxford, OX1 5BE, England
TPT. 1 Corinthians 14:9