Last June I mentioned how the State Department's Office of the Historian was publishing Foreign Relations of the United States as e-books. They just updated the collection and have a lot more on Latin America (in addition to many other countries) so you should go check it out. It's very cool to simply download them onto an iPad or other device.
If you're into this sort of thing, you should also follow @HistoryatState on Twitter for updates.
Kathleen Parker says the GOP needs to learn Spanish. I really like this.
Metaphorically, learning Spanish means learning people. Knowing them as human beings, not as statistics on a game board. Recognizing their humanity and finding new ways to talk about immigration that don’t alienate entire swaths of the population.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said it best shortly after the November election: “If we want people to like us, we have to like them first.”
Very interesting working paper (there is a link to the PDF there):
Walt, Stephen, and John J. Mearsheimer. "Leaving Theory Behind: Why Hypothesis Testing Has Become Bad for IR." HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP13-001, January 2013.
Abstract
Theory creating and hypothesis testing are both important elements of social science. Unfortunately, in recent years the balance between theory creation/refinement and the testing of empirical hypotheses has shifted sharply toward the latter. This trend is unfortunate, because insufficient attention to theory can lead to misspecified models and overreliance on misleading measures of key concepts. In addition, the poor quality of much of the data in IR makes it less likely that these efforts will produce useful cumulative knowledge. The shift away from theory and towards hypothesis testing is due mostly to the professionalization of academia, and this trend is likely to continue unless there is a collective decision to alter prevailing academic incentives.
Good question, but non-answer about Bolivia at a State Department press briefing:
QUESTION: Bolivia. New reports suggest that Bolivia’s efforts to fight drug trafficking without the assistance of the DEA or other U.S. authorities may be having some bit of an impact, although it is considered controversial. Has the U.S. seen these reports? And what does the U.S. think about the efforts to deal with illegal drug trafficking, coca growing in distribution, outside of a Merida-type relationship?
MS. NULAND: I didn’t get the vector you were coming at from the beginning, Roz, that they are making improvements or that they’re not making --
QUESTION: Apparently they have made some progress --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- in stopping the trafficking, particularly of coca and its byproducts.
MS. NULAND: Let me get you a fuller report on this. You know that we’ve had longstanding concerns about the narcotics situation in Bolivia. That said, I think we do agree that they have made some progress in 2010, 2011, but there is a whole lot more to do. But let me get you a more subtle sense of that directly later today.
QUESTION: Is it a sense of how much they’ve been able to reduce the trafficking? Is it a question of whether they’ve been able to crack down on illegal traffickers? What is the source of the U.S.’s concern here?
MS. NULAND: Well, that the overall picture is still very high on a global scale.
The Obama administration has used executive power to modify another immigration rule, the dreaded 10 year bar.
The latest policy change is focused on illegal immigrants who have a spouse, parent or child with U.S. citizenship. Currently, in order to become legal they must leave the United States and apply for a waiver forgiving their unlawful presence in the country. Only then can they apply for an immigrant visa. And if they don’t get a waiver, they are barred from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, depending on the case.
The specter of being barred deterred many from applying. But under the rule change finalized Wednesday, those who qualify will be able to apply for waivers from within the United States starting March 4. Applicants must return to their native country for a brief period for the consular immigrant visa process.
Today I received a hard copy of the American Political Science Association's Political Science in the 21st Century Task Force Report. I read through it, and its discussion of how to make political science research relevant is not very good.
My discontent stems from the fact that it totally ignores social media, which currently is the most important source of connection between political science and the wider world. In fact, I did a search and found no mention of the word "internet." The report therefore has an old fashioned flavor, seemingly unaware of the important trends of the 21st century. Thinking of such trends, I have opted out of receiving APSA journals in hard copy, yet I receive this report dated October 2011 in January 2013. There is in fact a PDF available online, so I chucked the hardcopy straight into the recycling bin (or maybe they are just late in sending it to me, and I am whining long after everyone else already did).
There is no mention of blogs, Twitter, Facebook, or other media. Instead, we get reference to a single New York Times article from 2009 where a reporter complains about political science. Therefore the report was badly outdated long before its publication. The Monkey Cage blog began in November 2007 and so was there for everyone to see before this report was completed. Apparently the authors knew nothing about it, or the many blogs on a wide variety of topics written by professors that engage the mainstream media and others who have traditionally been skeptical of the discipline. Dan Drezner had a good post on this topic in November.
I don't want to be harsh, but I do want the political science establishment to budge a little bit more. There are a lot of cool things going on in the 21st century and APSA should be cognizant of that.
Anti-Chávez commentators in the U.S. always have a major problem. On the one hand, you want elections to yield an opposition victory and hope they do, but you can't admit that hoping for a victory actually means you think a victory is possible, which in turn defeats your "dictatorship" meme. From the Heritage Foundation:
If snap presidential elections are held in the coming weeks, they will not necessarily favor the democratic opposition, especially if the Chavistas preserve their unity. While the likely opposition candidate Henrique Capriles, governor of Miranda, appears more popular than either Maduro or Cabello, his ability to deliver an electoral victory is still in doubt. An emotional hangover following Chavez’s death, promises to continue in the fallen leader’s footsteps, and an unfair electoral process might easily give a decisive edge to Chavez’s successor.
Matthew M. Singer, "Economic Voting in an Era of Non-Crisis: The Changing Electoral Agenda in Latin America, 1982-2010." Comparative Politics 45, 2 (January 2013): 169-185.
Abstract (article is gated).
Latin America's political economy has shifted in the three decades since the return to democratization, with the inflationary crises of the 1980s fading into the past. One consequence of this change is a reduction in the electoral salience of inflation. While electoral support for the incumbent in the 1980s and 1990s was strongly tied to his or her ability to prevent increases in prices, in the 2000-2010 period there was no significant association between inflation rates and election outcomes. Instead, incumbents who presided over a growing economy in the last decade reaped electoral benefits. The importance of the economy for electoral outcomes varies over time and even across economic indicators.
Juan Carlos Garzón Vergara has a post about how the marijuana legalization discussion plays out in the U.S. and in Latin America. In particular, he notes that Latin American political leaders along with the general public view legalization with some concern.
This is true, but I think his last paragraph actually points to the much more important dynamic going on.
However, this situation should not obscure the significant progress made in the public discussion regarding the hemisphere’s failed war on drugs, and the need to adopt a different strategy. On the contrary, it is necessary to intensify the debate within the countries and have a clear regional position about a likely legalization of marijuana in the United States. Latin-American countries must decide whether changes are going to be the result of a regional consensus, or if it will be a unilateral decision from the United States – again.
Nothing starts off a new year like profanity-laden insults. I read David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross, which obviously also became a movie. It was a spontaneous pick-up from a recent trip to my local used bookstore.
Anger, fear, and frustration pulsate from the dialogue. Everyone is constantly and publicly aware of their standing within the real estate office, with the board reminding them of their status. Status improvement essentially means the ability to sell plots of junky Florida land to unsuspecting people. Reading it might actually make you feel a little better about yourself.
In the movie, Mamet added a character, Blake, played with Alec Baldwin. An inspired choice:
The biggest story at the end of 2012, which may well be the biggest Latin America story of 2013, is the Hugo Chavez saga. What a mess. From the AP:
"The president gave us precise instructions so that, after finishing the visit, we would tell the (Venezuelan) people about his current health condition," Maduro said. "President Chávez's state of health continues to be delicate, with complications that are being attended to, in a process not without risks."
Many, many times I've criticized those who exaggerate the Iranian threat to the United States in Latin America. The Iranian response, however, is no better. From Iranian state press:
Ahmad Reza Dastgheyb, a member of the Majlis Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, said on Saturday that the United States “used to adopt every measure to achieve its own interests” in Latin America.
The Iranian lawmaker censured Washington’s stance on Latin America and said today, people in that region will no longer let the United States continue with its ambitious policies there.
Iran is a source of inspiration to Latin American people in view of the “freedom-seeking, revolutionary and anti-imperialistic thoughts” it provides Latin America with, Dastgheyb stated. “This is unbearable to the United States.”
I get emails from the American Political Science Association's discussion page on Linkedin, and would like to offer a small piece of advice: be very careful about taking any advice people post on there. This one is particularly bad.
Do NOT pursue a Ph.D. just because no one can take the degree away from you or to "feel well educated." Holy cow. What that really means is that you get a Ph.D. just to put it after your name in every piece of correspondence you send in order to impress people. When you just end up unfulfilled and unhappy, don't blame me.
Also, NEVER take advice about a Ph.D. from someone who does not already have a Ph.D. because they have no idea what they're talking about and should not be dispensing advice. One important exception to this is getting advice from someone who got a job they love without a Ph.D.
I think APSA should have a free PDF right on the front of their homepage with short essays on the pros and cons of a Ph.D. in Political Science. Undergraduates and MA students want to know more but don't know who to ask and can't find reliable advice online.
The Strategic Studies Institute published this report by Max Manwaring on Venezuela. It can best be characterized as a meandering and conjecture-laden rant. Its main point seems to be that if you repeat the phrase "Marxist-Leninist," and sometimes also "Leninist-Maoist," then your reader will understand what you mean even if your narrative makes no sense.
Like many other paranoid accounts of Venezuela, the report is based on the premise that even after over a dozen years in power and countless threat assessments, we are still having the wool pulled over our eyes by Hugo Chavez, who is an evil genius of almost supernatural ability. He will destroy all we hold dear and maybe even steal our precious bodily fluids.
I admit, I had to start skimming. What rational person would dive deep into rhetoric like the following?
The dominating characteristic of a war of this kind is political-military, economic-commercial, or cultural- moral. Within the context of these combinations, there is a difference between the dominant sphere and the whole, although a dynamic relationship exists between a dominant type of general war and the supporting elements that make up the whole. As an example, Qiao and Wang state that conventional military war must be strongly supported by media (propaganda/information/moral) warfare and a combination of other types of war that might include but are not limited to psychological war, financial war, trade war, cyber war, diplomatic war, proxy war, narco-criminal war, and guerrilla war.
I haven't bothered to comment on Mary Anastasia O'Grady opinion pieces for quite a long time because she is so insistent on avoiding common sense. But a former student emailed this one to me, so I can't resist.
The essence, and I promise I am not making this up, is that John Kerry is not fit to be Secretary of State because he opposed the Contras. Yes, correct, we're talking the illegal Nicaraguan war of the 1980s that resulted in the Reagan administration selling arms to Iran. O'Grady is locked in that era, apparently lamenting the fact that Oliver North ever got caught, and quoting a random 1996 article in The New Yorker to make her case.
That's pretty much it, with a little Honduras sprinkled in, and that is why I've tired of commenting much on O'Grady.
Here is the chart of the day from LAPOP. It's especially notable because there are plenty of corruption measures, but it's much less common to ask people how much they think their government is doing to combat it.
I'm quoted in this Brazilian paper's article on Paraguayan President Federico Franco's popularity. I never spoke to the reporter, who must have read a blog post. This happens periodically, and I think it's great because it reflects a goal of this blog, which is to connect academia and the broader world. It actually works better than an interview in some ways because I am writing precisely what I mean rather than answering questions off the top of my head. Quote away!
I read about efforts by Dale Murphy fans to get him into the Hall of Fame. The rationale? Not performance, which even they admit is only Very Good. Instead, they argue that if Barry Bonds and all the other players with steroidal clouds over their heads are being punished for bad behavior, Murphy should be boosted for good behavior. There was hardly a nicer guy in baseball.
This is a terrible idea. I think MLB's best solution is to rewrite the HOF rules and get rid of the character part entirely.
5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.
Back in March I mentioned the Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012, which has passed the House and now has passed the Senate. Here is the text.
It is a piece of red meat for a vocal minority, and generally seems harmless unless I am missing something. Within 180 days of enactment, the State Department must write a threat assessment, which will be interesting to read. For the most part, neither the Defense nor State Departments see Iran has much more than a potential threat (a category that could fit a lot of countries) so it may not generate the kind of outrage the bill's authors desire.
As I wrote back then, one important point to keep in mind is that the bill stipulates the creation of a "multiagency action plan" in Latin America, a place where Iran is not considered a threat. Forcing this on Latin America could backfire.
The report on academic fraud at UNC Chapel Hill is sad to read about for several reasons, aside from the fact that I am an alumnus.
First, the idea of a "student-athlete" is terribly abused. Rich, and often white, people want young men, often black, to make them a ton of money playing football. Very few people care what happens to those young men. Give them fake grades and keep them on the football or basketball team. They won't make a dime out of this multi-billion dollar industry. In fact, if they receive any tiny gift they'll suddenly be investigated.
Second, we see the development of a culture of corruption surrounding athletics at the departmental level. An administrative assistant gets a $100,000 inheritance. A department chair makes fake classes to keep justifying his budget and gain new faculty lines after there is an investigation at Auburn about football players. (As an aside, the author of this much anticipated report did not bother interviewing either one of those individuals, saying he just left messages!).
Third, there was an amazing lack of oversight at the college or university level. Loads and loads of grade changes, plus a high number of independent studies (about 300 per year in one 5 year span, which is mind blowing), in a department known for attracting athletes, clearly should have brought attention from higher up. But see the first point about that.
Fourth, and perhaps the worst, no one is talking about overhauling the system. Slap Carolina on the wrist and keep things the same, pretending that this is all about education and not money. There will be another scandal like this somewhere. Given the system and the money involved, it's just a matter of time.
© Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
