Exceptionally up-to-date and rich in cross-national examples, Political Science offers an unbiased and thorough introduction to the basic concepts and theories of political science. With a critical look at the major theories, it exposes students to many ways of thinking, and challenges them to think critically. Emphasizing both U.S. and comparative politics provides students with a solid foundation for connecting their studies on what is happening in the world around them.
Truly unbiased. Anyone calling this biased is clearly a liberal. This book tells the truth and presents the facts and straight logic.
The liberals are the ones who call all truth and facts "biased," in order to advanced their liberal agenda. People on the left are always accusing the right of being biased, or something is biased toward them, etc. They do so because they tell a bunch of lies, and don't want people to discover them, so the liberals then twist the logic.
If you want a book on political science which just tells the truth and facts and straight logic, then this book is for you. However, if you fall into the liberal premises, then this book is definitely NOT for you.
Author needs to take Political Science 101 While study one night I had to stop and write up a review for this "textbook". I agree with the other 1 star reviewer. At first I thought the person was exaggerating. Boy was I wrong.
The author is very biased and one sided and that is just not acceptable when writing a Intro to Political Science book. There are ignorant and bias thoughts and sentences throughout. Here are two examples, both on the first page of the first chapter:
"Interest in politics in the United States has slumped. Not only students but also attentive and educated citizens have turned away from politics."
Here's another, a paragraph down.......
"Perhaps terrorism and recession are needed to renew interest in politics." This guy is an ass!!
Do no waste your money on this rubbish. I suggest in its place "Ideals and Ideologies: A reader" (5th ed. by Terence Ball) as an excellent Intro to Political Science textbook. If your professor requires this "textbook", bring to the attention of him or her that this is not good study material.
"Unbiased?" Yeah, right! 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.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Trevor
