In the December 1989 issue of PS, Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler argue that socialist nations are inherently more militaristic than capitalist ones because they are “driven by the bureaucratic imperatives of a society organized on collective coercive principles.” In contrast, “capitalist states, whether authoritarian or democratic, rely principally upon markets to organize societal activity. Markets organize people for private enterprise and rely upon voluntary exchange to carry on these enterprises” therefore, capitalist nations are inherently less militaristic (Dye and Zeigler 1989: 812). Below are some major differences I have with their position.

It's one thing to actually work in Congress or in an administration. That's “policy work,” and we political scientists are reasonably comfortable with the ways in which our particular substantive expertises can lead us to take on policy positions. But to get involved in “politics” itself, and in a presidential campaign no less?

There is no question that it takes some adjusting. Memos by 5:00, rather than a manuscript by next year. Speeches with lots of tag lines, and not a single footnote. In-depth analyses, but in a page, please. Journalists and politicos as peer reviewers. Debate prep, not lecture notes. Meetings with interest groups, not seminars with interested students.

It's definitely a different experience. But it can be a very valuable one.

It's not basic research. But it is involvement.

It's an altogether crazy way to lead one's life. But it's exciting, and it actually can be fun.

Socialism is not merely a way of organizing an economy; it is also a secular religion. And as a religion it cannot be falsified; it cannot be dis-confirmed by empirical evidence in the minds of its adherents. Non-believers might think that the spectacular collapse of socialism around the world—its demonstrated unpopularity and illegitimacy—would impress Marxists in American universities. But academic Marxists remain insulated from world events, spinning out theoretical webs undisturbed by critical evidence.

Recent events provide more dramatic evidence of the centrality of military force to socialist regimes. The collapse of socialism in Eastern Europe came about as a direct result of Mikhail Gorbachev's decision not to use military force to sustain these regimes; socialism survives in the People's Republic of China only because of the violent repression of Tiananmen Square.

As a political scientist who has managed issues in presidential campaigns, I have noticed the tensions between theory and practice. This tension was most evident in the Democratic party's decision to devalue its platform in the 1988 presidential elections. The decision revealed a serious misunderstanding of the political function of a platform, and contributed to Dukakis' poor showing in the general elections.

The recent events in Eastern Europe, and, for a brief moment, those last spring in China are initial steps in what may be the birth of stable democratic regimes. We are witnessing the early stages of great dramas in which whole peoples attempt to give shape to their political lives. These are the high moments of politics, an outpouring of energy from which enduring political institutions of popular control may be born. These are also times of enormous danger in which the seeds of future failures may be sown.

By thinking of these events in broadly constitutional terms, we may not only gain some perspective on what is occurring, but we may also increase our understanding of constitutionalism more generally. This can only do us, i.e., Americans, some good, inclined as we are to think of constitutional matters as the specific concern of courts. The Eastern Europeans and the Chinese may increase our understanding of the connections between constitutionalism and the creation of democratic regimes, and why such regimes may fail to take hold. These recent events also may have the benefit of reminding American political scientists that the creation of democratic constitutional regimes is one of their most important subjects, one that cannot be left to lawyers. After all, much of what we study exists because of a successful act of political constitution.

Professors Dye and Zeigler (D&Z) take the easy way out. They invite the reader to think of their present critic as one of those “academic Marxists” in the grip of a “secular religion” “insulated from world events, spinning out theoretical webs.” This approach enables them to rest secure in their ideological assumption that, while their critic is a hopeless ideologue, they themselves are value-free social scientists arguing closely from evidence.

Yet they continue to ignore evidence they do not find agreeable agreeable—as with the numerous examples of capitalist militarism and aggression I proffered. I noted other variables that could measure militarism, including treaties, overseas bases, striking power, mobility, levels of technology, etc. Given this opportunity to respond to these specifics, D&Z choose not to. One is tempted to conclude that they fail to answer because they have no answers.

A large corpus exists detailing the reasons for low turnout in American elections. It is not surprising that scholars disagree over the factors responsible. What should concern us is the extent to which single-factor explanations lead to serious misunderstanding of this phenomenon.

Piven and Cloward recently continued their crusade to relax registration statutes (1989: see also 1988a, 1988b). They contend that the most important causes of low turnout are “legal-institutional” features of American politics, especially personal registration laws. They assert that American turnout is lower than in most western democracies and what it had been in this country during the late-nineteenth century because registration laws keep many people, particularly those in the lower social orders, from voting. Eliminate registration, or shift the burden from individual to government, and the low turnout problem will be solved, so Piven and Cloward argue.

The management of large amounts of data is an important part of many research efforts. Quantitative data are inputted, stored, manipulated, and analyzed using such familiar tools as spreadsheets, database management programs like dBASE or Paradox, and statistics packages. However, some text based data such as bibliographies, text for content analysis, committee hearing transcripts, and historical information are not easily processed using such software. Statistics packages can handle only single words as string variables, and spreadsheets can usefully manage only short segments of text. Traditional database management programs can store and manipulate longer text segments, but many are limited to roughly three lines of text per entry or field unless they have a feature called a memo field to be discussed below.

When we covered this topic for PS three years ago, we concluded that high end word processing packages should be considered first by most scholars who work with text data. We noted that advanced word processors contain search and sort capabilities that may be sufficient for many needs.