Without scientific verification of the soul (i.e., call to the physical sciences), the social sciences are left with only free will. The people are able to create their own ideology, regardless of circumstances; however, the people live under state / society rules and regulations (i.e., circumstances). If the soul was verified, then free will would need to be tied to eternal structures. Verifying the soul would begin to validate external forces (e.g., Durkheim). In the early 21st century, the social sciences are hence still debating what constitutes as “science.” If there are no eternal external structures, then we truly are blind to development and the “real” structures to be embraced.
During the holiday seasons, great faith is placed in religious stories. In fact, many American political scientists may only study within the political structure / core of liberalism; however, that research is biased because many people don’t “subscribe” to liberalism, let alone know what it is (i.e., 10 percent of Americans can define progressive / conservative liberalism in America–after decades of political science research on liberalism).
The problem for religious voters, on the one hand, is that both parties are not able to make changes towards the Kingdom of God; and on the other hand, the Kingdom of God is not going to be running the government (i.e., Jesus denies religious leaders a revolution over the government–thus not the Messiah and executed. This meant that “a religious question” was the cause of a “political question” and the religious hierarchy won).
Meaning, religious people may have the right to vote, but they may not have a good reason to vote, especially if all political parties support the median religious voter in the electorate. American politics may seem unimportant to millions of potential American voters.
With respect for millions of voters, political scientists cannot only study capitalism and democracy as American political development because it leaves out multiple groups in the American society. Even if it were only necessary for political scientists to study government interactions, we still find elements of republicanism in the American society (e.g., Ericson, my dissertation ).
So, to what degree is liberalism “the force” in American politics?
It’s remarkable that one can argue that external forces are not capable of serious scrutiny by a social scientist (or not real), but that literally 4,000 articles describing “American liberalism” (i.e., put in quotes in J-Stor) doesn’t reflect a political language as an exogenous structure. And when you take “American liberalism” out of quotes, nearly 80,000 articles are returned!
Who wants to develop a few algorithms!?
My point is that the field of political science should be careful to “believe” what they constitute as “reality.”
To make this point clear: To what degree is liberalism an eternal political language–where souls remain in Plato’s Cave (read The Republic, Book VII)?
Haven’t political scientists, with 4,000 articles on “American liberalism,” described the true landscape of liberalism–or are some of the studies simply descriptive of the struggle coming out of the cave? I think the latter is most often the case.
This is the bridge towards a more responsible political science: In the early 21st century, we are beginning to have the ability to describe what liberalism “really is.” We must look at our current reality as somewhere on our way out of the cave–but not yet out! After all, all Americans are not under the liberal Rubicon. Like, ex-cons are still denied the right to vote in some places. Homeless people are not integrated into capitalism (i.e., progressives and conservatives differ on solutions to this problem)! In many regards, America is not a liberal society.
My main point is that we should realize that “our liberalism” is still defective and not “real liberalism.” The same is true about the soul: We don’t know how it works yet. The social sciences should be careful to construct our understanding of external structures, knowing that they will be constantly revisited and renewed as another step is taken towards the light outside of the cave–if indeed there are “real” political language structures.
As a subsidiary point, social scientists, if democratic, must begin to incorporate more groups into research and analysis. After all, some voters do base their vote on religious thought–and not liberal thought. In a democracy, all factions matter as a fact, even if liberalism is most significant at the end of the day to developing American politics.
Without a multiple traditions analysis, we deny ourselves the right to climb out of different caves–republican and authoritarian caves being at the top of my list.
Even if we develop a few algorithms to define political languages through an analysis of 80,000 articles about American liberalism–the results still might just tell us our location inside the cave called liberalism.
Alas, we are found.