A Tom Coburn coda

Wed, 10/14/2009 - 3:33pm

When we last left off with Tom Coburn's jihad against public funding for political science, Coburn was arguing that, "Theories on political behavior are best left to CNN, pollsters, pundits, historians, candidates, political parties, and the voters, rather than being funded out of taxpayers' wallets."

After the blog mockery that this observation received last week, I see that Coburn is doubling down on this strategy: 

[T]he Oklahoma Republicans office was not shy in its point-by-point rebuttal, with jokes about tweed jackets and the cushy life of the average college professor, and questions about whether ivory-tower political scientists aren't overmatched by the semiprofessionals on the cable and network talkfests.

"The irony of this complaint is that real-world political science practitioners employed by media outlets - [George] Stephanopoulos, [Peggy] Noonan, James Carville, Karl Rove, Paul Begala, Larry Kudlow, Bill Bennett (the list goes on) - may know more about the subject than any of our premier political science faculties," Coburn spokesman John Hart said.

Well, one could respond with jokes about the uber-cushy life of the average U.S. senator, or proffer jokes about Coburn's belief that he's a human lie detector, or just marvel at the vast foreign policy knowledge that Stephanopoulos, Noonan, Carville, Rove, Begala, Kudlow, and Bennett possess. 

But I honestly don't see the point anymore.  Matt Blackwell at the Social Science Statistics blog explains why:

In the 111th Congress, Coburn has had very little success with his amendments [batting 3 for 29, or .103--DD]...

Seven of the rejections are instances when Coburn's amendment was tabled without discussion. Most of the rejections have been of proposed budget cuts or banning funds from certain projects And this is just in this year. Out of all the roll call votes on Coburn-sponsored amendments in the Senate over his tenure, only 8 out of 68 have actually passed....

Tom Coburn knows that putting out no-win amendments is a great way to take positions in the Senate without committing to anything. Minority amendments are a costless signal of the blandest kind--even a political scientist can see that.

Indeed. 
Daniel W. Drezner | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Dr. Coburn also made the

by johnhart on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 4:59pm

Dr. Coburn also made the following remarks yesterday:

"... we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars paying for grants, through the National Science Foundation, to universities that have billions and billions of dollars in endowments. As a matter of fact, Tufts University has billions in endowments ($1.4 billion). They charge their students $40,000 a year in tuition alone. They are the recipients of some of this grant work, and they are the ones squawking the loudest."

"So here we have an entitled class of professors in political science who now don't want their gravy train taken away when I say right now there is no way this can be a priority for this country with the debt we have and the economic situation we have."

It's astonishing that leading intellectuals can't have a rationale and respectful debate about priorities. Dr. Coburn is simply saying we can't afford everything and that we therefore must make hard choices. Political science, in his view, is less vital than other areas of the budget.

If Tufts wants to conduct this research they should use their own resources or explain why it's more important for the federal government to fund this research than other priorities. Arguments based on the NIMBY (be prudent but "Not In My Back Yard") principle don't cut it.

Perhaps we should study how the political science community became like the groups they study - another special interest group fighting to protect its place at the federal trough all the while oblivious to other competing priorities.

Tom Tomorrow

by B. Elli Cose on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 10:18pm

I am not, nor have I ever been, a political scientist. But, in response to your (johnhart) comment, the broader issue is not just the politicization of science (here, oddly, the politicization of political science) but the gleefully anti-science and indeed anti-intellectual attitude of the latter-day Republican Party.

And then of course there's the fact that Tom Coburn, medical degree notwithstanding, wouldn't even know which way was up if he ever bothered to open a political science (or any social science) journal. Such people are not competent to judge where research moneys go and where they do not. Regretfully, Coburn's lack of competence is itself an "unknown unknown" to him.

And finally...

It's astonishing that leading intellectuals can't have a rationale and respectful debate about priorities.

Let's assume that you (johnhart) meant rational. But I do apologize if I did not come across as entirely respectful to Tom Coburn. I cannot suffer fools like him lightly.

For someone who obviously

by blue13326 on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 10:13am

For someone who obviously fancies themselves an intellect, you should learn how to structure an argument.

Let me restate yours:

'I don't like what Coburn is saying because I think Republicans are stupid. And since Coburn is a doctor and a Republican, he must be stupid, too.'

So, basically your argument is the adult equivalent of sticking your tongue out at someone.

And, who's the fool?

Hmm

by kwo on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 5:03am

You're accusing Coburn of political incompetence because his amendments don't get adopted? Seems a rather shallow metric. Why not examine the merits of those amendments?

Coburn's a scrappy guy. Whatever you say about NSF funding for political science, you have to give Coburn credit for being almost the only Congressman willing to take on Washington's sacred cows.

Another issue

by kwo on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 5:09am

In your earlier post, you pointed out that the NSF has funded important political science work. Are you saying this work could not have been done without NSF funds?

Y'know, for all the ad hominems you're throwing at Coburn, you've got some pretty big holes in your own logic.

What holes?

by Daniel W. Drezner on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 7:50am

As I said in my original post, this kind of research has public good characteristics. Absent public fuding, I some of it would have been performed anyway, but there would have been considerably less. As a political scientist, I'm fully aware of research programs that die on the vine if there is no funding.

Coburn gets points for political showmanship, but his policy logic demonstrates an abject ignorance of the law of diminishing marginal returns. If he's genuinely worried about the budget deficit, then he should be focusing on big-ticket items, not lines that amount to $9 million a year.

As for the opportunity costs of funding political science over other NSF projects, again, given the much larger existing outlays for the other sciences, I would wager that the benefit of an additional $9 million per annum in these fields is outweighed by the first $9 million for political science.

The fact that Coburn wants to zero out this outlay rather than cut even other social sciences exposes this as a stunt, plain and simple. One that will fail, and therefore deserves little in the way of further attention.

Your logic fails. We're going

by blue13326 on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 10:16am

Your logic fails.

We're going broke. Cutting fat out of the budget is going to be necessary, and even painful, part of our future, regardless of whether they are a lot of little things, or some big things.

It's hard to argue that a $9

by kwo on Fri, 10/16/2009 - 1:10pm

It's hard to argue that a $9 million outlay deserves much attention. I guess that's why I like Coburn: in the massively impossible game of curbing government spending, he's one of the few willing to take the bottom-up approach.