Following Cobos
I am really curious to see how the Argentine President-VP spat works out. Julio Cobos returned to Buenos Aires, where he met with fellow "Radicales K," or members (or former members--I'm not sure how many have been expelled) of the Radical Party (UCR) that support the Kirchners. Part of the president's dilemma is that if she pressures Cobos to resign or otherwise freezes him out, she will alienate his fellow Radicales K and perhaps lose cruciail political support.
Matthew Shugart started a discussion on VP independence. He suggests that the rarity of a VP voting against his/her president is due only to a shortage of cases. I disagree, but neither of us has any data. I think we should expect the VP to vote with the president, and that failing to do so would normally incur political costs. The only exceptions would be countries where the president does not get to choose the VP, and so a rival may be elected alongside the president. Obviously in that case the dynamic is quite different.
What we need, then, is a list of all instances in which a Latin American VP cast a tiebreaking vote, and what the outcome was. There is little (perhaps none?) academic work done on vice presidents because, like everyone else, academics don't see the VP as important. Anyone out there want to fill the niche? The title of "Vice President Expert" awaits.
36 comments:
What we need, then, is a list of all instances in which a Latin American VP cast a tiebreaking vote, and what the outcome was. There is little (perhaps none?) academic work done on vice presidents because, like everyone else, academics don't see the VP as important. Anyone out there want to fill the niche? The title of "Vice President Expert" awaits.
Sounds like a very boring job.
My argument is simple and based on neo-Madisonian theory: It is hard enough for presidents and their parties to control one another. Their incentives are institutionally misaligned. Therefore, because VPs are probably not usually chosen for their loyalty to the presidential candidate (but rather for ticket balance, etc.), and because there are few ex-post sanctions once elected, the chances that the president and VP will remain aligned (if indeed they ever were) are scant.
The basic neo-Mad point is the theme of my next book. There is nothing in there on veeps. But I sense at least a paper some day!
Justin: Which is the more boring job? The VP, or the academic who studies them? :-)
The part I disagree with is the lack of ex-post sanctions--I believe there are, even if not institutional. Unless a president is incredibly unpopular and has lost even the support of his/her party, the VP will face political sanctions for intentionally derailing the president.
Justin: Which is the boring job? The VP, or the academic who studies them? :-)
Studying the VP looks extremely boring to me because it is mostly inconsequential. Seldom does the Vice President cast tie-breaking votes, much less tie-breaking votes against the president.
What's the broader relevance of this anomalous phenomenon? Nobody seems to want to broach that question.
I'd say the broader relevance is determining whether it is indeed anomalous--maybe not a tie breaker per se, but how different political incentives can affect presidential initiatives. But as I've been arguing, I think they aren't affected much. I'm not sure how many successful research programs are based on "I didn't think this is important, and now I know it's not."
I'm not sure how many successful research programs are based on "I didn't think this is important, and now I know it's not."
Yeah, I don't think that's worth most political scientists' time.
Ah! The crucial difference between political SCIENCE and political activism.
I find the question of VP power intriguing. And despite the issue of tie-breaking votes, there's more to be had. Some VPs are very influential (Dick Cheney, anyone?). And the power differential can be important in other cases, too. In Bolivia, there are ideological differences between Evo (more pragmatist) and his VP, Alvaro Garcia Linear (a dogmatic Maoist). This has, at times, led to political confusion and cross-purposes.
But a focused look at VP tiebreaking votes is intriguing. One can also look at the other end. I helped a Polish grad student (he was a research fellow at Dickinson) work on some case selection and comparative methodology on the US vice presidency. He was interested to see if once could predict VP "success" along two dimensions: "insider" and "outsider".
He predicted that a VP would be more "successful" if he was an "insider" (a Washington hack) working w/ an "outsider" (a non-DC person, like a governor) president (like, say, Dick Cheney and George Bush). One of his measures of "success" was eventual pres nomination. But I also convinced him to look at some content analysis stuff: How often did the VP publicly give a policy preference different from the president? An influential VP may not only be one who can break ties against the president, but one who can whip votes (for or against), or refuse to do so.
I've avoided mentioning Cheney because he is a really odd case--a very powerful insider with no presidential ambitions.
Re the Bolivian case, perhaps there is political confusion of some sort, but the question I've been raising is whether this screws up the president's agenda.
Ah! The crucial difference between political SCIENCE and political activism.
Oh really, Miguel? Last I checked, it was pretty standard for social scientists to critically assess whether any prospective research program is likely to bear findings that are of broader relevance to the field. You certainly haven't made a cogent case as to how a study of anomalous tie-breaking votes by Vice Presidents is going to render a theoretical breakthrough.
My hunch is that, if the classical social scientists (Weber, Mannheim, Marx, Polanyi, etc. etc.) were to see how many modern "scholars" attempt to make names for themselves by pioneering the study of inconsequential minutiae, the classical social scientists would be rolling over in their graves about the sheer myopia of such diversions from questions of actual consequence.
Well, for every Weber there's at least a 100 workhorses doing the grunt work in the discipline. I'm not going to be a genius grand theorist, so I'm happy to be a workhorse.
Although sometimes things that seem myopic or trivial can amount to new findings that launch new theories. That's why we need workhorses.
If I recall, Weber did very little fieldwork in comparative cultures; he relied instead on hundreds unknown of ethnographic workhorses. In a "Marxist" way of thinking about knowledge construction, who should be rewarded? The CEO who announced the finding? Or the anonymous scholars toiling away in the workshop?
Re the Bolivian case. There is some reason to suggest that AGL (Alvaro Garcia Linera) has at times "screwed up" Evo's agenda. There have been occasions where Evo has had to walk back something AGL said (like AGL's very vocal support of the Ponchos Rojos a few months ago). Of course, that could be a coordinate good cop, bad cop routine. But if it's not, it makes it hard for Evo to find ways to compromise w/ the opposition (since AGL has been more successful at alienating middle class moderates than Evo has). Just a hunch, of course.
how many modern "scholars" attempt to make names for themselves by pioneering the study of inconsequential minutiae
It's good to note that Charles Darwin wrote some of the great works on earthworms and climbing vines that remain relevant scientific texts over 100 years later.
It's quite possible that what you see as "inconsequential minutiae," a better scholar might make into a relevant piece of his or her portfolio.
It could definitely have implications if VPs have more influence over their presidents than I give them credit for. I would just need to see data to be convinced.
It's good to note that Charles Darwin wrote some of the great works on earthworms and climbing vines that remain relevant scientific texts over 100 years later.
It's a good thing you don't even pretend to practice social science, Boz, because there's no analogy to be drawn between the study of evolution and the study of anomalous tie-breaking vice-presidential votes.
One line of research leads to a monumental theoretical breakthrough of grand proportions. The other proposed line of research represents the meanderings of those with meager intellects whose notion of "social science" is to pioneer the study of whatever minutiae that lead their discipline nowhere but haven't been extensively studied before.
Notice that Miguel can't even begin to explain what kind of theoretical endeavor he would hope to be contributing to with his blind empiricism. Not a particularly good sign.
In studying the trees, social scientists should at least have some inkling of the forest they seek to explain. Darwin, of all people, understood this.
It could definitely have implications if VPs have more influence over their presidents than I give them credit for. I would just need to see data to be convinced.
Even if one could show that some Vice-Presidents strongly influence their administrations under certain circumstances, my guess is that the circumstances –not the Vice-Presidency itself— is the more relevant independent variable.
Take, for example, the Argentine case. Cobos swings the vote on the export tax under conditions in which the proposed tax had elicited mass protest and the ensuing popular disillusionment with the government. Under these conditions, the President may have to take into account the possibility of Vice-Presidential defection.
Strangely, however, nobody has yet to raise the point that Menem’s first Vice-President –Eduardo Duhalde— also opposed many of Menem’s reforms. Menem, however, remained popular throughout his first term. Under those circumstances, Duhalde’s objections seem to have had no effect whatsoever, leading to his resignation in 1991.
Thus, my guess is that a narrow focus upon the Vice-Presidency alone would likely render some relatively myopic conclusions.
It's a good thing you don't even pretend to practice social science, Boz
Unlike Justin, who does pretend to practice social science.
Darwin didn't set out to discover the overarching theory of evolution. He was collecting various rocks and species samples while publishing research you would have considered "minutiae." I think the analogy is very fitting.
I think the analogy is very fitting.
What is analogous is the myopia with which a Washington hack approaches politics and a blind empiricist approaches "social science." Soulmates of meager intellect.
Actually I think people taking apart centuries of Latin American VP voting (and legislative voting patterns in general)is a pretty worthy thing to do. Considering the fact that not many people were doing that kind of research up to fairly recently.
Considering the fact that not many people were doing that kind of research up to fairly recently.
Well, gee, Boli Boy, if that were the logic, we might as well start studying, say, presidential eating habits as well. After all, nobody's ever studied it before, right?
I think you and Miguel "Darwin" Centellas will have to try a little harder than that to make a case that the prospective research program is likely to bear findings that are of broader theoretical relevance to political science.
...will have to try a little harder than that to make a case that the prospective research program is likely to bear findings that are of broader theoretical relevance to political science
Funny stuff coming from someone writing an entire dissertation whining about media bias rather than contributing to any broader theoretical relevance.
Funny stuff coming from someone writing an entire dissertation whining about media bias rather than contributing to any broader theoretical relevance.
Actually, you haven't a clue as to what my dissertation is about, Boz. If you did, you would understand that my media analysis is theoretically rooted in a much broader literature about political culture and "soft power" (i.e. that term that you couldn't even properly define when given the opportunity to do so). I assure you that my work is a hell of a lot more interesting than some myopic, snooze-inducing journal piece about the anomaly of tie-breaking vice-presidential votes.
I'll leave the snoozers to "Darwin" Centellas.
I think you and Miguel "Darwin" Centellas will have to try a little harder than that to make a case that the prospective research program is likely to bear findings that are of broader theoretical relevance to political science.
I used to do peon work, researching obscure border conflicts in Latin America , a topic that fascinated me but would probably bore you. People doing much more than peon work with this kind of data have come up with some pretty interesting things in the last couple of years.
Seems to me that analyzing historical voting patterns of legislatures in different countries in Latin America while boring to the likes of you, could provide some very useful data for people trying to do all sorts of research.
Seems to me that analyzing historical voting patterns of legislatures in different countries in Latin America while boring to the likes of you
Well, legislatures are generally much more consequential than Vice Presidents.
my media analysis is theoretically rooted in...
blah, blah, blah. You're whining about media bias, not producing anything that has substantial academic value.
Back to an earlier point, Miguel, instead of (or along with) the "insider" vs. "outsider" effect, was any thought given to whether the VPs were more ideological extreme or moderate than presidents (which seems to be your point in the AGL case)? I would think that variable would have implications for a VPs "success."
You're whining about media bias, not producing anything that has substantial academic value.
Oh really, Boz? Well, I'm glad that a Washington hack like yourself knows so much about what kinds of studies are of "substantial academic value." Perhaps you'd like to offer your infinite wisdom to the scores of scholars within the American Politics sub-field who somehow can't fathom that what we read and watch on television is irrelevant to our politics. I'm sure they'll be astonished by your genius.
And while you're at it, be sure to tell those dolts at The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics and Political Communication that their scholarly journals aren't truly scholarly after all. They too will be fascinated by your eloquence.
There's plenty of good academic work done on media and communications. I would know having worked in the field for over five years. I was simply saying that your dissertation has no substantial academic value.
There's plenty of good academic work done on media and communications. I would know having worked in the field for over five years.
Your "field" is public relations and propaganda, not the study of poliitical communication. Let's make that very clear.
To be honest, I doubt you've ever even read a scholarly article on media and politics.
I was simply saying that your dissertation has no substantial academic value.
How exactly would you know that, genius? I haven't even begun publishing parts of the dissertation yet. You don't even know the specifics of what I'm working on or the methods employed.
Generally speaking, a dissertation committee is not going to approve of a dissertation proposal that has "no substantial academic value." I wouldn't expect you to understand that, though.
To be honest, I doubt you've ever even read a scholarly article on media and politics.
What kind of "scholarly"???? You mean the paranoid ramblings of an MIT linguist who once "proved" the NYT was making up stuff about Pol Pot committing genocide.
So you got the Chomsky, throw in some Foucalt , Edward Said, the obligatory Gramisci and Habermas and Voila...you are READ.AND SCHOLARLY re: Media and politics...! YEAH BOY! ...
when it comes down to it....nothing more than a retread of the old "false consciousness" arguments and other addenda from the YAWN....Marxistant handbook.
Obviously Boli Boy hasn't read any scholarly work on media and politics either because, if he had, he would know that 99.99% of such literature isn't written by Chomsky, Foucault or Said (the latter two of whom are deceased).
Earth to Boli Boy. There are whole academic journals dedicated to the study of media and politics, and the authors of the articles in these journals vary considerably in their theoretical and ideological predispositions.
You see, Boli Boy, there's a whole world out there that doesn't quite fit the preconceptions of the hysterical, neo-McCarthyite propagandists in Miami. You might want to try exploring a little.
To be honest, I doubt you've ever even read a scholarly article on media and politics.
I've read, I've written, I've lectured and I've been paid to consult on it.
You've still done nothing to show that your dissertation has any real academic value. Based on this comment thread, I think it's clear to everyone the VP studies would be more valuable and interesting than what you're writing.
I've read, I've written, I've lectured and I've been paid to consult on it.
Lectured? On what? Public relations and propaganda? That's not media studies, jerk wad.
Tell me what you've read, smart guy. Tell me the title of one scholarly article or book that you've read about media and politics.
Based on this comment thread, I think it's clear to everyone the VP studies would be more valuable and interesting than what you're writing.
Sure, smart guy.
Only problem is that somebody would have to do the actual research on tie-breaking vice-presidential votes, which almost undoubtedly won't get done because nobody here is really serious about doing it. Greg and Miguel will troll for some sorry sucker of a grad student to waste their time on this, but nobody here is willing to do the leg work.
Bottom line is that this is all just an exercise in reflexive chitter chatter.
Perhaps it's my blind empiricism. But I think approaching the study of vice presidents w/ the possibility that they *MIGHT* be more relevant than we previously thought is better than a priori assuming that they aren't, because conventional wisdom has always said so.
If we study them, and find them inconsequential, then we support conventional wisdom. But at least then conventional wisdom is rooted in factual knowledge, not merely a hunch. But if VPs are more consequential than we previously thought ... well then that changes a number of other things w/ broader theoretical implications.
A lot of ground breaking political science (based on my training) merely tests pre-existing conventional wisdom.
I once worked as a TA for an American who studied the US Supreme Court. But rather than study it based on legal arguments, she built a database (which is where I came in) to track court decisions and public opinion polls. Boring, right? Turns out, sudden, sharp changes in public opinion are good predictors for SC decisions -- even when controlling for other variables (like the political positions of the judges themselves). Theoretical implication: the Supreme Court is actually responsive to public demands, and not insulated (as most have long assumed). Her later work tested this on US appeals courts ... and found that they too are responsive to public opinion pressures.
But rather than study it based on legal arguments, she built a database (which is where I came in) to track court decisions and public opinion polls. Boring, right?
Actually, I would have found that fun. As a research assistant I helped build databases on Mexican Supreme Court decisions and Mexican SC use of the media. There was a lot of interesting (and statistically significant) data showing how they used media coverage of a select set of cases to attempt to affect public opinion and promote their legitimacy and independence from the executive branch.
Oh, I too found it interesting (especially since I wasn't an Americanist). I was always under the understanding that science was built on a number of tiny advances in metrics that allowed for future theoretical leaps (this is of course part of Kuhn's idea of paradigm shifts). Besides, approaches a discipline w/ untested preconceptions -- and then being unwilling to test them -- is just odd & methodologically unrigorous.
I wonder how many physicists, biochemists, or other researchers would suggest that science driven entirely by the fascination w/ finite questions (even w/o immediately seen applications) is "irrelevant" to the discipline. Or what about anthropologists, whose two primary methods are ethnography & archaelogy (both built on the study & collection of obscure observations)?
I find the idea that political scientists must only study "big" questions very troubling. Not least of which because it all depends on who defines what is "important". I'm glad our discipline rewards those who pursue oddball questions (like the NSF grant I'm working on that merely looks at whether electoral system changes lead to the recruitment of different kinds of candidates).
I'm glad our discipline rewards those who pursue oddball questions (like the NSF grant I'm working on that merely looks at whether electoral system changes lead to the recruitment of different kinds of candidates).
How is that an oddball question? Those kinds of question are central to the discipline's theoretical development and have been understood to be so for as long as I can remember. How electoral system rules affect the kinds of options available to the electorate are bread-and-butter questions. Nobody that I know of sees that as "oddball" stuff.
Vice Presidents are a different beast altogether. Whatever independent influence they exert on the executive branch is generally considered to be marginal, so they haven't been studied extensively. Now, if you think studies of how Vice Presidents influence political outcomes is a worthwhile endeavor, have at it. Nobody's stopping you. I just don't share your enthusiasm and wouldn't spend my time on it because, in my estimation, the implications of any such study would be marginal at best.
Post a Comment