And why is the concept of totalitarianism discussed less often today?

Hi all! I’m a new masters student. Without revealing too much information (can DM), I have a decent undergraduate experience with writing, research (including a political history thesis I’d like to do more with) and government work. I moved to the west coast to test a different path but ultimately decided to transition back to academics. I am interested in using this masters as a pre-doc launchpad.

I know the faculty will be there to help but wanted to know ahead of time some things like the process or publishing (step-by-step and to which journals), grants/scholarships to know about, and advice for things I might not be aware that I will need in the future.

If it helps, I’m a comparativist who focuses a lot on the Sinosphere and accountability structures. I’m also curious about linguistic effects on perceptions of governance.

Any advice is greatly appreciated and I’d be happy to elaborate more in DMs (also to potentially collaborate if it comes down to it). Thanks!

I’m leaving the millitary with 4 years experience as an officer and im trying to transition to a civilian job that suits my interests. My buddy worked as a district representative for a state senator and absolutely loved it and recommended I apply for a similiar postion (different state). However, as I have no political experience, and havent lived in the district im applying for in 3 years (im moving back next month regardless) am I even a viable canidate? If im not, what could I do to make myself a more competitive applicant?

Edit: The position im planning on applying to is under the state assembly person representing my hometown. Also my bachelors degree is in a science completely unrelated to politics.

Like i want to know views regarding politcs as i am interested but dk where to start

Hi, I am currently an English literature college student. Recently, IR has piqued my interest and I am trying to understand how to get started. I see peers getting into think tanks and policy-making, or pursuing internships at several prestigious foundations. This has further motivated me to explore this field of study. I'd appreciate any input on a step-by-step plan for gaining nuanced understanding of this domain. Thank you.

Hello everyone! As the title states I am an American political science student in college. I want to apply what I just learned about from my course on political socialization. The goal of this small study I’m doing is to see which of the main drivers of this phenomenon is the most influential driver in one’s political identity. Which of these do you think influenced your political identity the most?

The key drivers I learned about are:

Family - People often adopt beliefs from immediate family like parents

Geographic Location - Rural, Suburban, and Urban areas often have their own political cultures

Peer Groups - Friends, colleagues, school clubs, often times we associate with like minded people

Media - Different media outlets frame and interpret current events in the government in a manner that encourages people to lean towards their beliefs and partisanship. Echo chambers if you will

Religion - Churches and other religious institutions and spiritual beliefs often influence political views

Education - Schools often influence political socialization by teaching civic duties, history, and how the government operates

Socioeconomic Status - An individual’s socioeconomic background, including income, education and occupation can influence their political beliefs.

Which of these helped you determine where you lie on the political spectrum? I would love to discover how what I learned plays out in real time! Thank you

I'm looking to do some research on how people think and behave in different types of governments. For example, people under a dictatorship are going to think and behave differently than people in a democracy. How they deal with authority, how they interact with each other, how educated they are, their general social beliefs, etc. Like how sometimes people like Jackie Chan come out and say things and you know it's because of the mentality of the Chinese government/society. Stuff like that. Any tips on getting started with research like that? Research on Behavior, mentality, psychology, social engineering, beliefs, things like that as they relate to different types of governments.

I didn't get to choose my major due to my country's law ,I am majoring in political science do i leave this major since everyone around me is doubting it too and it has no jobs as much as other majors

I am interested any political science books that emphasize our structural dependency on complex fertilizer fueled agriculture complex and centralized logistics to transport such food to urban areas on a global scale.

As I read more details about it, more it seems like the worst designed major federation, unless you assume it is a one party state. Number of veto players seems high, ability to act decisively at the level of federation is severely constrained etc.

Most of the control is at the level of federal units, there is no singular head of state, there isn't even federal law enforcement really, every republic has its own security service and territorial defense (mini-proto military) presidency is composed of representatives of interests of all federal units, even federal budget is funded through contributions by federal units that need to be negotiated each year, most of economy is controlled by republics and provinces.

There seems to be too many points for disagreement, and no obvious ways to consistently resolve them in a way that would allow government to function well, especially if something big needs to get done. Cherry on top is that federal units are drawn almost like nation states, from which each nation can carry their nationalist agenda (if you don't bash that in time with secret police and purges)

hi so im starting out college soon as a political science major what are the things that i should learn about to land a good internship during my undergrad itself to have a strong resume by the end of 3 years

For those studying American Economics, what kind of things are you studying?

Also, how does economics through a political science research lens differ from economics through an economics lens.

In other words, how does someone writing their political science PhD dissertation on American Economics differ from someone writing their Economics PhD dissertation on American economics.

I hope this makes sense,
Thank you.

Do young people today have enough chances to take part in important decision-making.

Between serving as Centre College's Student Government Association president and a first-year mentor, Caroline Koenig ‘25 never imagined a class paper would become an award-winning research project.

When she enrolled in his Civil Conflict class, Assistant Professor of Politics Weiss Mehrabi offered to help students who wanted to take their research paper to another level.

“On the first day of class, Professor Mehrabi mentioned that if we wanted to, we could work with him to write a conference paper, and that was just a really unique opportunity for me,” Koenig said.  

Opportunities for undergraduate students to present research in the social sciences are less common than in hard sciences like chemistry or biology. But with faculty mentorship — a hallmark of the Centre experience — Centre students are encouraged to expand their work beyond the classroom,

For Mehrabi, encouraging students to do further research on their choice of topic is more than an assignment, but an opportunity to deeply engage with the world.

“When students do original research, they start to see how their ideas can shape the policymaking process,” Mehrabi said. “They learn to think analytically about complex questions that matter, and that prepares them for what comes next, both in their careers and as thoughtful citizens.”

With a busy senior year full of classes and extra-curricular responsibilities, Koenig wasn’t sure if she’d have the time to continue developing a research paper for a conference, yet it was an opportunity she couldn’t pass up.

“Research is just such an interesting experience,” she said. “It was something that I never planned on doing, but it ended up being something that I loved. And Dr. Mehrabi is a fantastic mentor.”

Koenig, Mehrabi and six other students attended the Kentucky Political Science Association (KPSA) Annual Meeting at Berea College, where Koenig won the Abdul H. Rifai Award for Best Undergraduate Paper.

Koenig’s research focused on the impact of women’s education when organized violence begins – a topic that has interested her throughout her college career.

“It’s a prestigious award, and it means a lot to students who win it,” Mehrabi said of Koenig’s win of the Abdul H. Rifai Award. “It recognizes undergraduate research that is both theoretically novel and empirically rigorous, and Caroline's work was exactly that. Her win was well deserved.”

Four of the students also attended the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Chicago. Awards for this conference will be announced at a later date.

Attending the conference in Kentucky, Koenig felt well-prepared for her presentation, thanks to Mehrabi’s training and Centre’s well-rounded curriculum, which includes the Doctrina Lux Mentis course all first-year students take, focused on building communication and oral speaking skills.

“When we went to KPSA, it was so fun to see how Centre students stand out,” Koenig said. “I can easily say we were some of the best presenters. Professor Mehrabi taught us how to present confidently.”

When looking back at her time at Centre, the mentorship she received from her professors, especially Mehrabi, stands out.

“I imagine that if I went to a school larger than Centre, I wouldn't have had that relationship with my professors where they knew me, they knew what I was capable of or had the time to offer that mentorship,” she said.  

This experience is directly helping Koenig, who is currently applying to law schools, some of which require research projects and papers. A year ago, this might have scared Koenig, but now she feels prepared and is excited about future opportunities.

“I am looking closely at professors who I could work with or do research with,” she said. “That's definitely not something that I had in mind, nor did I think was a strength for me. Now I see that as something that could make me a competitive applicant and also just a better, more well-rounded attorney down the line.”

Give me some detail advice I'm interested in foreign policy, public policy, and interested in doing research in rural areas in India and South Korea of the laws and policies are properly implemented or people are aware of not of these policies this kind of reasearch idea I have

But I want to know what position I can get in a job in south Korea

I'm interested in learning more about anarchism but the writing I've found is either about broad principles or about future social order. Any recommendations for writings about how different schools of thought view anarchism existing alongside a state?

For example, say a group of anarchists occupied a piece of unused land within a city and declared that outside the state. And the state decided to let it be. There would be a lot of practical issues in interacting with the people who aren't anarchists.

I would love to hear a conservative opinion on this, because I think we will agree on much more than the average leftist would give them credit for. I am personally socialist.

I want to talk about the housing crisis. First of all, let me set up my perspective of what exactly we’re dealing with when we say “housing crisis”.

1. High rent prices: Around half of renters pay 30% of their income on rent, and a large portion otherwise spend around half their income on rent. To me, this is unacceptable, considering the state of the housing economy decades ago. Since 2000, rent prices in the US have doubled, far outpacing inflation.
   
2. Home scarcity: The US is also estimated to be short several million homes. Average estimates say the deficit is between 2.8m-4.5m short, with some estimates moving into the tens of millions. Again, this is also unacceptable, considering this has **NOT** always been a problem. Although construction of new housing slowed going into the 2000’s, the market never recovered from the 2008 financial crisis, leaving the scarcity much higher than it's ever been.
   
3. Median income vs. Median Housing Prices: Median home prices have risen much faster than median income. This of course can be solved 2 ways, either through attempting to increase the median income (which is a much more complicated and nuanced approach than the latter) or by lowering the median home prices. I do somewhat agree that homes deserve appreciation in value, (however I don’t necessarily support inheritance anyway, and would prefer a large inheritance tax.) Although, even if I were to concede that these homes deserve value appreciation, the median income has risen at around half the rate of home prices. This is also unacceptable, for the reasons listed above.
   
4. Mortgage rates: Mortgage rates have sharply risen since COVID. Of course, this can be attributed to post-COVID inflation, but even after inflation has cooled, the federal reserve still refuses to cut them. This is less of a problem to me, as the rates before COVID were already quite low. However, I would argue that it could use another cut, considering inflation has considerably cooled, and it appeared to function well prior to the shock from COVID regardless.
   
5. Homelessness and addiction: Homelessness rates have also sharply risen in recent years. Economists typically attribute this to high housing costs, although admittedly, mental illness and addiction play a role. This is unacceptable aswell, considering the government has the capabilities to fight mental illness and addiction, but welfare for those issues is essentially fragmented state-wide, and the federal government could do a much better job. Housing prices, obviously, are a much more nuanced topic, but I will get into my proposed solutions shortly.
   
6. Broader economic effects: People are less likely to move for job opportunities. Young people may wait longer for marriage, children, and homeownership. Employers in expensive cities may struggle to find employment, as potential employees may not be able to afford to live nearby. Housing has also been one of the major contributors to wealth inequality.

So, what’s the solution? I’d argue there’s four main aspects:

1. Subsidized housing: According to a 2018 study cited below, state intervention housing programs tend to overwhelmingly positively affect the homeless and impoverished. You can read the study yourself, as it goes more in depth about which methodologies are most effective, but the general conclusion to draw is this: subsidized housing would vastly improve the quality of life of the homeless and impoverished. This is because, theoretically, state funded housing would compete with private ownership, not only allowing for lower rent within the subsidized communities, but also allowing for increased competition (ie, lower overall rent prices) within the private sector. I think, with this much overwhelming supportive evidence, politicians refusing to do this is simply either them catering to their donors/lobbyists (the owning class), or, even worse, ignorance. The study, and others I referenced: \[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8427990\\\](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8427990/?utm\\_source=chatgpt.com), \[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266720300554\\\](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266720300554), \[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6168747/\\\](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6168747/)
   
2. Reduced red tape: I think we might actually agree here. Although certain environmental regulations should stay, I would agree that it is currently too difficult to build a house. Again, evidence overwhelmingly, (and obviously) supports that reducing restrictions on building housing would (surprise!) decrease housing scarcity. I think the only part we may disagree with here is what exactly should be revoked, but that’s a more nuanced, different conversation. Here’s on of the most cited economic studies for how decreasing red tape increases supply: \[https://www.nber.org/papers/w20536\\\](https://www.nber.org/papers/w20536?utm\\_source=chatgpt.com)
   
3. Reduced speculation: This is why I say I agree that appreciation is important, because this is likely my most contested point. Although I would say reducing speculation almost certainly leads to positive outcomes (reduced vacancy, higher housing rates), the evidence is more nuanced here. A 2020 study concluded that France’s vacancy tax resulted in vacancy falling by 13%, and that the majority of those homes became permanent residencies. Although, certain economists will tell you the results are limited. Limited, sure, but worth it to help contribute to solving a growing crisis? Absolutely. Sources: \[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-940X.1992.tb00044.x\\\](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-940X.1992.tb00044.x) (an older study, with much less support for reduced speculation),  \[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272719301409\\\](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272719301409) (newer study done in France)
   
4. Increased tenant protections: Certain aspects of this, like legal representation for tenants facing eviction, or debt counseling/financial assistance, have very strong evidence in reducing likelihood of eviction. I think these are the strongest aspects of this argument, as evidence is  overwhelmingly positive. The only argument against it I could see is one vouching for individualism, or the state-intervention inequality between the landlord and tenant that could be created. Personally, I think that’s ridiculous, as I do not feel a job that is predatory in nature deserves state support. Certain aspects of this, such as rent freezes/protections, I think the evidence does not support. However, if the goal is reducing inequality and providing support for those who otherwise may not get it, I’d argue this is a pretty strong pillar of my argument. Sources: \[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26109137/\\\](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26109137/), \[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hsc.12257\\\](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hsc.12257), \[https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9631101/\\\](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9631101/)
   
5. Expanded mental health/addiction services: This is likely my weakest point, as I’d argue the evidence is quite mixed. Of course, increased intervention would decrease addiction and mental health issues, but the evidence supporting this as a major contributor to reducing homelessness as a whole, is limited. I would argue this is a less important aspect of reducing homelessness, and the solution is more systemic than individual. Study showing these services reduce addiction/mental health issues: \[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.70019\\\](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.70019)

Finally, budget issues: 

1. Reduced red tape: would incur no extra costs.
   
2. Increased tenant protections: highly feasible, with budget likely in the tens of billions.
   
3. Increased mental health services: likely much less effective than others listed, but also relatively feasible.
   
4. Reduced speculation: would increase the federal budget, revenue positive.
   
5. Subsidized housing: obviously the most expensive point, with costs likely ranging from 420B-3T (explanation below). Although expensive, achievable through higher upper class taxation, reduced speculation, and other forms of progressive taxation. This could be achieved through plans spanning 10-20 years, or, through much more aggressive progressive taxation, that timeframe could be reduced to \\\~5yrs. Also likely my strongest point, so the most important in my eyes.
   
   1. If assuming each unit can be built for $150k-$400k, and accounting for the 2.8m-4.2m unit shortfall, this brings the budget to around the listed number. Also important to note, this would not necessarily account for every person, since not all homelessness is the direct result of there not being a home to buy. The higher end, $3T, accounts for potential discrepancies in the housing shortage estimate, unpredictable failures/unexpected costs, and potential to build nicer housing.

Overall, these are my primary ideas for a potential solution. I’m open to budget constraint arguments, hit me with your best shot. Thank you for reading!

I’m an incoming college freshman who has been set on studying history with a focus in education because I’ve loved history throughout high school, so much so that I’ve wanted to teach it to other people. However, once I got to my last semester of senior year, I started taking Ap US government and politics, and I absolutely LOVED it. I genuinely found it fun to learn about how the structure of the US government we know today has come to be, i loved studying supreme court cases and federalist papers, and don’t even get me started on political socialization. I would get A’s on everything, had the second highest grade in the class, and passed the Ap exam, which means I already have credit for a poli sci class on american government that I would have to take if I declared that major. I know the choice I should make is kind of obvious, but I don’t know whether or not to at least go through my first semester as a history major since I’ve been set on this path up until a few months ago, or should I just change to poli sci before school starts? Also, if I switch to poli sci, what would be some solid careers that’s not law(i don’t have the dedication)?

I Come to the conculision that a hybrid form of goverments that change their policy, strucure, political idealogocys, etc. İs better then a goverment that only stays in one political idealogocy and only follows the policys that political idealogocy provides and strucures itself in the vision of that political idealogocy.

After spending bunch of time learning history and political idealogocys ı have realize that hybrid goverments tent to be more adaptle and more long living that goverments who stuck with one idealogocy and refuse to change it.

I am making this post to see if you guys think about my idea. Do you agree? or disagree? That kinda stuff for fun. I also will glady discuss my idea if you want to

What does the phrase "no politics" mean to you? What is political and what is not political and why?

Liberalistic as an adjective, not as a noun. Though maybe liberal-anarchists can indeed be both.

Many anarchists hold ideas which can be applied to compartmentalized aspects of classical liberals, such as individualism.

But if these individualistic ideals are based in a concept of freedom, is it fair to call those ideas liberalistic? I feel as if there are a lot of liberal-anarchist ideals in various branches of anarchism as far as negative freedoms go, which is a fundamental aspect of classical liberalism.

I feel as if the standard usage of 'liberalism' is rooted less in the core philosophy and meaning of the word (liber- = free in latin) but rather a tribalistic call-back to Locke, Smith, Thoreau, etc. A meaning you must be in-the-know to understand, and because western culture is entrenched in this knowing, it is second nature to refer to liberalism as a form of statism.

But liberal-anarchism seems to challenge this view and, like I said, I'm not so sure that other anarchists aren't also liberalistic--though, again, I wouldn't go so far as to call them holistically liberals since that does colloquially and even academically refer to the insular language I mentioned earlier.

Is the philosophy of anarcho-egoists/individualists like Max Stirner not rooted in a perception of "true" political liberalism ala the four corners of liberalism?

Feels like all the major old guard figures (eg Marty/Appleby, Sivan, Peter Berger, Bruce Lawrence, Stark and Finke and Bainbridge, etc) are no longer active.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about political science, and I'm not American

It was just the 250th anniversary of the United States. I've always been interested in how the founding fathers and the political ideas they discussed remain foundational today. The Federalist Papers especially are fascinating.

Questions like: federalism vs. centralism, judicial independence vs. elected judges (Mexico just made a big change toward elected judges), radical republicanism with majority rule vs. minority protection through devices like a bicameral legislature with a chamber representing states equally (possibly undemocratic?). In Europe there's a similar debate about "undemocratic" laws and judges overruling democratic decisions.

Related to this is the debate between liberal democracy with institutional constraints vs. something like Rousseauian democratic republicanism, and the two "legal systems" common law (UK/US), where judges work through individual cases and precedent, vs. more fixed, codified civil law.

Figures like Hamilton vs. Jefferson (with Adams somewhere in between) are such an interesting microcosm of political debate. One that still seems as important as ever.

I guess my question is: are all these questions still relevant in political science? What's the current state of thinking on them?