Being a Political Science Major During Election Season

This Election Season: everyone has an opinion more so than ever before. Whether you wish to argue that we have never been more polarized in history, or if there has been precedence for worse, this period will no doubt go down in history. For the academics, this is a particularly curious time to study how the presidential candidates engage with the American people, what tactics they employ, which work and which backfire, and most importantly, how the US citizenry elect their next President.

As a Political Science student, I spend much of my time studying the origins of democratic systems, domestic and foreign relations and related policies. Aside from simply learning the rules of the politics game, we learn how the games were developed, how policies are formulated and the inner workings beyond those that the media spreads. When matters such as politics and the election are such a core part of your academic studies, you’re engaged with the November build-up in a very different manner. In some ways, Political Science students get the inside scoop: we are given the full context, or at the very least, aim to gain that full picture. Ideally, we expose ourselves to varying opinions, we read and come to class prepared to critique what we have studied.

I find myself lost in such conversations, where professors, students, relatives and friends assume that they understand an entire issue simply because they read a headline. Perhaps they even a big expose on Planned Parenthood or another hot button issue, and  are therefore convinced in this manner or that. They may even claim they’ve grasped the problem in its entirety. But I wonder if it is possible to attain such knowledge, unless your opinion is close to expert. I wonder about this because we often gloss over events, experiences and issues, because we assume some politician made a statement for the sole purpose of the words being uttered, for the publicity of it.

“He or she must be anti-Israel because of that statement issued,” we sometimes think. It is possible the politician is anti-Israel. It is also possible the politician used calculated rhetoric to gain the upperhand in a certain circumstance, to appease a third party. Perhaps the Prime Minister of Israel was even involved and agreed. We get frustrated when we see something is not quite as we would like it, yet we rarely consider the manipulation games going on. In 1998, Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, essentially agreeing to major global warming cuts in emission. He did this knowing full well that Congress would never agree to it. But his signing of the Protocol helped him appear supportive of the international cause while not truly committing to the implications of such agreements.

We assume we are receiving all of the information, that if we read the latest article from a credible news source, we will understand the pressing issues the country faces, and even understand them on the global scale. This thinking is deeply flawed; we can’t pretend some piece of anecdotal evidence or one persuasive argument can stand equally to that of the entire Situation Room. Being present when the issues are being discussed is the only way one can gain a comprehensive understanding of agreements, political meetings, and policies drafted.