The first rule of political science is to take political science as an ahistorical and neutral thing.
The second rule of political science is to under no circumstances provide explanation or clarification of the terms of discourse, but just assume they are understood as ahistorical concepts (capitalism, democracy etc.)
The third rule of political science is to take society as scientificly observable.(do not question what science is!) If you cannot explain something, merely retreat to the following defences:
- “It is just too complicated to explain or understand fully, so take my scientific word for it”
- “March of history”
- “Current year”
- “Just hasn’t been discover/explained yet, so take my scientific word for it”
- Conduct a new survey that will finally prove it.
- Conduct another survey.
- Conduct anouther survey with new leading questions.
- Conduct anouther survey which ignores that opinions are not intrinsic, but socially formed.
- Conduct anouther survey to prove what you want by fixing the sample, use leading questions and ignore that opinions are not intrinsic.
- Conduct more surveys.
- “End of history”
And the final rule: do not ever, ever, under any circumstances open the book on the issue of democracy being historically contingent and not a scientific and neutral state of mankind, because to do so renders political science a contingent thing born of democratic society and not ahistorical or “scientific” by its own measures.
What political scientist is going to admit that their university education and career was based on bullshit dreamt up to further democracy by the Progressive elites in the early 20 century? None.