Political science is a largely worthless term, it is not in any way something that can be defended, but it is typical of modern western political thought in that it is built atop deterministic metaphysical assumptions regarding humans which are woefully wrong. Think back to the entire underpinning of Hobbes and the modern liberal tradition.
Political science proper in its current guise is a creation of the Foundations, through which the Liberal elite of the USA and UK sought to establish scientific government. Auguste Comte has his mirror in the form of Charles Merriam in the USA, whose wiki page should be read. I have written on the logic of this development in relation to the Cathedral concept previously, and the manner in which progressivism and empiricism go hand in hand here.
The absolute deluge of money which has created political science keeps a lock on what can be researched, and what cannot be. The impetus is not on correctness of value, it is on the closeness of the research to the demands of this “science” which is itself selected by Power. Such a mechanism has virtually zero potential for producing anything which is explanatory in any way, shape, or form, and is merely an arm of study which is by default supportive of democracy, progressivism and liberalism- all forms of the same process of Power destruction. To complain of this process and call for intellectual plurality is a form of futile begging.
The foundation funds, while being of extreme value at the beginning (and still useful now,) appear to have been overtaken by the education institute’s funding capabilities, which form a re-enforcing feedback loop. No matter how incoherent, useless and plain wrong the production of this school of thinking, the funds keep coming. It is not premised on correctness.
The enormous prestige which political science endures regardless of its silliness at every single point feeds into subsequent generations, and into the general culture of society. Young intelligent people do not have the time or ability to investigate the background of this thinking to make judgement on it, to assume they could is stupid, instead they take society’s established points of prestige and then emulate, and aspire towards them. Education is a process involving a great deal of trust. You have to trust the educators to educate you. So a politics student will enter university on the premise of being educated in the cutting edge of politics, only to be spoon fed a great deal of stupidity that has nothing to do with any conceivable and observable reality, but has logic in relation to Power. They then progress along this process of education, and when it comes time for research, the areas of grant money are clear. This is a very well oiled, self running machine, and it has been running for some time.
Any attempt at understanding politics as understood in the Aristotlean sense must by necessity be immune to the western tradition, and immune to the effect of the prestige that is afforded to it. The ease with which the allure and temptation of a modicum of acknowledgement from this pit of uselessness can create is a strong pull, but if anything worthwhile is to be produced, it has to be in complete hostility to thought in the current paradigm of unsecure power. The mashing into progressive pulp of anything that comes into contact with it is clearly a process of this prestige and monstrous selection pressure of this thing. You enter into its grinding mechanisms, and the promise of a tiny sliver of power entices domestication.
An easy way to do this is to aggressively reject all acknowledgement from educational institutes and current structures. Totally reject them. Seek no influence in them, and seek no progress in them. They are dead.
Political Science should then be a dead term, finished, a joke that will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a footnote to human folly. In its place the study of Political Logic takes its place. Once can see this in all of the thinkers that have been in any way correct in the past, and in all the great political treatises that a slavish adherence to positivism is not present at all, and that the application of deduction and induction is unimpeded by useless “science” in everything.
Clear examples of this include Aristotle’s Nicomanchean Ethics, Confucius’ Analects, and The pamphlets of Thomas Carlye, Burnham’s Machiavellians, De Jouvenel’s On Power and other such works. Many of them take pains to make the case for rejection of positivism in the epistemology of politics. All of them are roundly ignored by current institutions as they are inimical to unsecure power systems. There has been no conscious ban on them, the selection process makes this unnecessary. Again, complaining about this is as futile as building a dam of twigs to stem a river.
Compare the value of insights from any section of the above mentioned works against the combined output of Game Theory, statistical analysis and other aspects of “science” and the “science” comes off badly.
So what does Political Logic look like?, well we have De Jouvenel to provide an example. In what way could Political Science have conceived of the notion that central Power in the form of the kings were the engineers of political levelling as a means of conflict against intermediary powers? And that this process is largely the process of the modern state which is a decephalised entity that is unable to engage in any behaviour beyond this, as any attempts to do so are met with the removal of individuals in question by default? Impossible. It could not even begin to comprehend it. So it is worthless.
The same goes for Carlyle’s prediction of the breakdown of society and the effect of lack of governance, as well as Aristotle’s understanding of the necessity of a political unit towards which ordered goods must be aligned for a functioning society, and the Political nature of ethics. Science is barren here, except as a means of scepticism to use against political blocks, or as a source of selective data to be used as “impartial” support of a position.