Craziest Republican of the Day: Tom Coburn (with his hatred of political science)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For seeking to "cut off money for the National Science Foundation's political-science program," as The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting. Said his press secretary:

Political science would be better left to pundits and voters. Federal research dollars should go to scientists who work on finding solutions for people with severe disabilities, or the next generation of biofuels, or engineering breakthroughs.

Look, there's nothing wrong with "finding solutions for people with severe disabilities" (though I would argue that biofuels are not the answer to America's energy woes, nor to global warming). Obviously, research dollars need to go to programs that have at least some practical use, at least for the most part. I would define "practical" fairly broadly, though.

And yet, even in a stricter sense, how is political science not useful. Coburn's office claims that some programs funded by the NSF "in reality have little, if anything, to do with science," but science, of course, isn't so narrow. The medical, energy, and engineering fields are "science," but the social sciences are a legitimate field of study -- one worthy of federal dollars.

Coburn actually dismisses political science altogether: "Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the Internet." In other words, politics is not a science, is not worth studying, and is certainly not worth funding. This is anti-intellectual philistinism in typical Republican form. If you really think watching cable news is the same as studying political science, you've never studied political science, and you certainly have no appreciation for its many invaluable contributions to society. (I say this as someone who studied political science for a long time and who has an advanced degree in it, but I know what I'm talking about -- more than Tom Coburn, anyway.)

In the end, though, what seems to be driving Coburn is not just anti-intellectualism but right-wing ideology. What he objects to, it seems, is not so much political science itself but the findings of political science, which -- as you may well imagine -- are often (usually, if not always) at odds with his conservative views.

The truth shall set you free, you see, and political science, like any other legitimate science, can be liberating. The senator from Oklahoma, however, like so many of his right-wing ilk, would rather we live in darkness.