Customer Reviews

Political Science: An Introduction (9th Edition)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

First off, to be honest, I am not sure if the text is biased or not. I do recall a section where he states that the Republican Party is the party for rich white males and the Democrats are the "everyone else" category. He seems to insult both with fervor. As far as content and layout, the book is not great, and is downright confusing at times. The author mixes in gross generalizations and his own opinion into fact and tries to pass it off as such. He makes sarcastic comments such as posted by another reviewer about needing terrorist attacks and such to ignite interest in politics. I mean honestly, who really says things like that? And we should be learning from this guy? No thank you.

The only "good" parts of this book are the tips on writing papers which are actually helpful. Ironic that the best parts of the book are not actually about politics at all.

Let me start by admitting I have the Seventh Edition (2000), not the 2002 version. However, I doubt that there could be much improvement. This "textbook" can only be the product of gross incompetence or extreme bias, I will let you decide which.

For example, page 340 reads "It is true that some regimes commit acts of great evil; military regimes in Argentina, Chile, and Guatemala killed thousands on the slightest suspicion of leftism. But how is it that these military regimes came to power? Why does system breakdown recur repeatedly in such contries?"

So, does the author not know that we, the US, overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz in Guatemalla, and Allende in Chile? Everyone else knows this...and does the author not know that Chile, prior to this installation of Pinochet, was the one stable democracy in Latin America? So how then is Chile a case of this "recur(ing) repeatedly? (sic)" It happened once. Does the fact that two of his three examples of internal "system breakdown" leading to regime change actualy represent partially, or largely, the external actions of a superpower interfering in the internal affairs of weaker soveriegn countries not seem to be problematic? How can these be used as examples of internal processes when everyone knows what really happened, and that is not it? The author, in order to assert this, must be grossly ignorant of history (thereby disqualifying him as a viable authority in the field) or, knowing history, must be intentionally and knowingly distorting it for political reasons (thereby making him unquestionably biased, intellectually dishonest, and also therefore unsuited for the field).

On top of that we have the unfortunately normal systemic incompetence of the Political Science field in general. "Theory" and "causation" are words which they have no grasp of the meaning of in academic discourse. Methodology is a joke; a pile of correlations mushed together with assertions and assumptions (some already disproven for a few decades elsewhere) to create just-so stories does not make a legitimate theory or even hypothesis. We know too much about human nature, via studies done in Psychology, Neurobiology, and Evolutionary Psychology, and empirical information from anthropology, primatology, and ethology, and theoretical and empirical knowledge supplied by evolutionary biology, to just "assume" that humans are rational and go merrily on our way as Political Science is still doing. There is a huge body of knowledge on this question now, entire books debate it back and forth. It is in no way legitimate to simply plead ignorance and continue to build huge mental constructs of how the world works based on assumptions we in no way can justify making given what is known.

If this field were in any way deserving of the word "science," the knowledge that a fundamental "assumption" was seriously in doubt would result in massive questioning of the veracity of the ideas based on that assumption. That has not happened.

I urge you all not to waste your money on this book, I could give many more equally damning examples but the above should suffice. I also suggest that Evolutionary Psychology would be a far more profitable course of study if you want to know about human political behavior.

My first purchasing experience.
The book is great.
I'm in hong kong but it only took a few weeks for me to get the book.

very good service, the book was in very good conditions, it took only 5 days to have the book at home, it was cheaper than in libraries.

I really enjoyed reading this book where it appears to cover the many important subjects within political science. I give this book a 4 because the author focuses mainly on Western politics (primarily on the U.S.) where I would've enjoyed a greater coverage on more Eastern theorists. This is just my opinion of course where it certainly is a introduction book by not delving too specific into any one subject and instead covers a breadth of issues. Since I am new to this field, I found the further readings section at the end of the chapter helpful where I recently purchased a book on political theory because of it. Any one who is curious about the field should certainly start with a book like this.

P.S. The author's humor at times was a bit much but I suppose everyone has their own style of writing and communicating.

This book's author comes off through its pages as a newly-graduated socialist who loves the ideology but doesn't want to be branded with its title so he calls himself an independent and attacks anyone who disagrees with his "universal truth."

I like studying political science, but I never act as though whatever I believe is without flaws, much like the author of this book does. Then again, it's difficult to understand what the author's point was in writing the book, as most of it plays out as a disjointed and frustrating text by someone who is struggling with repressed ideological alignments.

When the book starts it discusses the percolating up and down models, where either society is a reflection of the state or vice versa. While our good author mentions this, he never really explains what position the book takes, so when I did an online quiz for the chapter it puzzled me considerably. Then it drowns on about different social theories in a very eloquent style that looks good until you realize it doesn't help for study and fails to convey anything meaningful that the author is thinking. One might argue that this was used to eliminate bias, but it undermines firm study points and makes the author look like a man for all seasons without saying anything worthwhile about his beliefs.

At the end, the text comes off as a convoluted mesh of partisanship and pseudo science that made me waste time when completing assignments in a class that could have been more enjoyable. I would have much preferred an unabashed socialist(or whichever ideology the author is) text that makes me think based upon that opinion, thus allowing for compelling arguments and workable exam study.

Not recommended to students at all. Even if you love the author's viewpoints (which are impossible to find in the text), you will discover that it is a painfully long and boring ride for an introductory book.

I got this book for a college class.
I am really angry that I paid for this and that I am going to a school that requires this piece of trash for a class.

I read the introduction which explains that as a Political Scientist we must deal in fact without being angered by the facts. Ok I'm fine with that, sounds like collegiate thinking to me, however on the same page under the title
Regimes it states:" Totalitarianism is a disease of the twentieth century"

I decided to do a few spot checks and just randomly pick a page and read it, Boy oh Boy what a book!

page 113 states as a fact "Nice guys don't rule countries like Iraq".

It just gets better and better. I am sure there is stuff in this book like the descriptions of the political parties mentioned by the previous reviewer as well though I have not yet gotten to those parts.

This book says not to get angry at the facts yet presents opinions as if they are facts.

I'll give my opinion: If these are the political advisers our "leaders" follow, it should come as no surprise that the business of politics is so unpleasant. My advise, Do not take a class that uses this as the text book, get your money back from the school and take a different course.

This is a used book and was exactly as described. The price was great and a lot less than what the college bookstore wanted for it new. I definately would order again.

The value was unbelievable ! I bought this book for a class I am taking at Northeastern University. The bookstore had it for $110.00 - purchased it thru Amazon for just a few dollars AMAZING !!! I will shop no where else - only Amazon !! The book was in good condition.

This was a great book that I would recommend for anyone pursuing a professional career and it doesn't matter in what field of work. There is politics in everything!!