Obamas Election to Be the First Black President of the USA - Research Paper Example

Obama’s election to be the first black president of the USA Barack Hussein Obama II was born in august 4. 1961 and was elected president of the United States. He is currently holding the office of the president of the United States. He is the 44th president of U.S.A and became the first African-American president. Initially he was the junior senator of Illinois from 2005 and resigned from the post for U.S presidential election. He assumed the American presidency on January 20, 2009. There are a variety of opinions regarding the factors leading to his election. It could be random or there could be a calculative approach working behind the scenes. There are many opinions some of which the paper takes up relating to essentially two of the political theories. Research problem There are many opinions about the methodology of study of political science. Now the question is which study will be best suited to test the empirical or theoretical validity to justify Obama’s selection as the president of U.S. In this respect what study can give us a perfect prediction of Obama’s success in the last general election in U.S.A? Although there is no proven mathematical formula of politics for his success. There is also a debate as to what are the predicted factors that led him to be the president. Political theorists differ about the political prediction in the U.S in recent times over the issue. The paper carefully analyzes the question - Is there any calculative mathematical formulae used for Obama’s success to the chair of the president? Methodology The method followed is this paper is that of secondary research encompassing a literature review of four works out of which the works of Ian Shapiro (2002), ‘Problems, Methods and Theories in the Study of Politics’ and that of Peter Guy (2005), ‘Institutional theory in political science’ are the main ones from where two theories have been adopted for the analysis in this paper. Shapiro describes the political scenario of America as a fractured discipline. This theory relates to problem driven and theory driven study of politics. The paper finally focuses on the importance of predictability of the factors leading to a political event adopting the case of Obama’s election. Theories In respect of the research question we can discuss two studies, namely, 1) “Problems, Methods and Theories in the Study of Politics” by Shapiro (2002): The theory states that the science of American politics is basically a fractured discipline; and 2) “Institutional theory in political science” by Guy (2005): The theory of institutionalism may be divided into two categories – rational choice and empirical approach. The future researchers can study the following discussion of this paper in order to ascertain the correct methodology of prediction in the study of political science. The following paper discusses these theories in detail and finally, applies it to the case of Obama’s election. Discussion and analysis In his work Shapiro (2002, 20-38) states that the science of politics in the U.S is a fractured discipline. There are many differences of opinion in many schools of thoughts and it is not understandable as to what divides them. Obviously one of the groups of political thinkers analyses the issue by the use of research, textual criticism while the other group of scholar depends on the mathematical process. A group of political scientists opines that studying political science in numerical way is abstract while the other group opines that the old way of studying politics is of no use. There is clear cut difference of opinion about the scientific study of political aspiration of a political life while the others believe that it is not the case. The latter group vows that the uncertainty of human actions and the nature of politics can be explained through their methods of study. As per Shapiro, the rational theorists hold that the individuals are self-interested which drive them to the extremes of human motivation. However, there is a question about the methods of study in the politics. Here problems of study in politics also arise. The advocates of this opinion argue that first the political problems and then the methods to be understood while discussing the politics. The methods will come first and then problems for study in politics. But here is a lacuna. The proper characterization of the problem has to be understood first for studying politics. Social reality can be described in many ways, as Shapiro writes; scholar should rigorously study the social phenomenon. Shapiro points out that the description of real problems might be the key factor in order to assess the study of political science. According to Shapiro method- driven political study ultimately is morphed into theory- driven work and this undermines the problem driven politics. But there are ways of problem selection in the study of politics. Refinement of theories and methodological tools are necessary for the political work. Shapiro in his work, ‘Problems, Methods and Theories in the Study of Politics’, discussed the problem driven and theory driven study of politics. He pointed out that practically there is no difference between the above two ways and in fact there is independent theory for the characterization of problems. In his opinion, there is no single factor for a social reality and it is wrong to select one factor for a problem. Shapiro points out that the capacity of prediction of a political event is the right way to study politics. But this prediction also has its drawbacks as the problem selection might not be accurate. The researchers of political science must study the political reality while writing their works. This is proved with the rise of democracy in the world which political scientists have theorized. The problem gave birth to Alexis de Toequeville, Martin Lipsett, Barrington Moor, Rueschemeyer and Stephens. So there are lot of problems and evolution of society which gave birth to democracy. There is no general theory of political events. If political scientists follow a set of certain predictions for evolution of democracy in a general theory, it will be a wrong one. Take the case of invention of a scientific instrument. There is no reason that others will follow the same process of invention of that instrument. If political researchers think that they can put up a theory on the basis of a previous event, their decision will be full of loopholes. So the study must rectify the errors and it should be on the theoretical basis along with the ready availability of recent technique and data. But with paucity of correct data and technique the task will be a futile one. For this knowledge enhancement is necessary. Only method oriented study without field research may lead to a failure. This is particularly true about the 1960’s behaviorism in American politics when in 1990 behaviorists forwarded the proposition “Catholics in Detroit vote democrat”. In that case main stream political scientists ignored the true political study. So, the theoretical study with an empirical research will be a full of loopholes. Prediction may be far from reality. The method driven way may be misleading as it is accepting a wrong set of understanding in reality. For example, in 1970 a question was raised about the determinants in the policy of industry in capitalist democracy. The question was regarding who are the people drafting the legislation and it were discovered that it is written by organized capitalists and labor with the government. This led to the research and reframing of the political theory. So the political scientists have a duty to study and critically scrutinize the events for evolving a proper and practical methodology of contemporary political science. Defective accounts of events are widely accepted and it should be severed from the myths and misunderstandings. The second theory (by Peters Guy), that is, the institutional theory in political science has come up in recent years. The theory has theoretical as well as methodological problems. The theory relies on the static condition of an institution. It does not consider the institutional variables. While explaining the meaning of institutionalization we must understand the dynamics of institution so that it will be easier to understand the social and political phenomenon. For better understanding of the institutional approaches we have to study the description of the nature of the institution. Institutionalism has many versions. Normative approach of institutionalization is a major approach. The advocates of normative approach argued that in order to understand the behavior in politics by the individuals we should first understand ‘logic of appropriateness’ through the involvement of which social values are made. There is also a question of rational choice in the institutionalism. The members of the institutions act as per the arrangement of the particular institution. Historical institutionalism is another concept which means that historical events are controlling the behavior of an institution. The empirical institutionalism discusses the formal structure of the government, differences between the presidential and the parliamentary government. Again Steve Smith in his work (2001, 189), ‘Social Constructivisms and European Studies’, stresses on two main points for political study. First, social constructivism enhances powers in respect of the study of European governance and the second there is no social constructivist theory. The first is concerned with European governance and the second one is related to the theory of international relations. Derek (2005) points out that government complies with ruling of international court. But Why? Compliance is due to the ‘instrumental calculations’ by the actors and it is the normative approach towards law which compels the actors to follow the rulings. On this count we must not for get the analytical aspects of instrumental models. It is, therefore, both normative and instrumental that compel government actors to comply. With the relation of the above mentioned two theories we can discuss the success of Obama in the U.S presidential election. Obama is not a leftist rather he is a moderate. During his election campaign he clearly stated that he will govern the states in a progressive way in a political divided county which of course moderate. He rightly extended emotional spirit that it is a war between good and evil. Progressive citizens see this victory of the righteous Left. Obama focused his campaign on ‘change’. Both the liberals and leftists thought that the slogan is progressive and they thought that the country would be free from the elements like Clinton and Bush regime. The institutions and the civil rights organization welcomed this victory of Obama. They wanted to get rid of the Clinton and Bush’s policies of free trade, inequality in wealth and aggressive foreign policies. They hoped that Obama will bring liberal changes in labor laws and try to bring world peace and thus restore the dignity of the United States. The political institutions hoped that Obama can deliver and he can bring the reforms in a liberal way. The victory of Obama has increased the claims of liberals and progressive. They think that the centre of power has now become left centered and a new wind of social and political air is blowing which will result the death of old hawks in the politics. Progressive institutions were disappointed with Bill Clinton as he adjusted with the conservatives and his failure to the progressive causes. Leftist’s institutions also had anger against Bill Clinton for his activities. It is the problem driven situation which Shapiro has explained in his works and which Obama could predict rightly. U.S.A is a racist’s society where the color of people is always considered for more rights. The progressive and liberals supported Obama though in part decided to rally behind him as they thought that he could do away this racial discrimination from the society. During the election Obama knocked everybody’s door and assured them that this racial discrimination would be a thing of the past in the U.S. the political researchers have predicted his success in the election before his nomination. He won the election due to a large no of black and Latin voters in the key states. Obama was also supported by black young generation voters as the racial discrimination plays an important role in U.S.A. Although media put a comment that there was a change in voting pattern and which is race-based, still Obama fail to win a majority in eleven states and won in five other states with a slender majority where white voters dominate. Further Obama failed to secure majority of whites vote nationwide. Progressive voters were eager to get a left-lining president and they put their hopes on Obama. They thought that he is the progressive leader. They did not accept any criticism of Obama by the other political institutions. Even Paul Krugman criticized his economic as well as health care policies which Obama openly made to public during campaign but this campaign of liberals was not accepted by the electorate. The supporters of Obama linked him with Lincoln who certainly was not a radical. He even did not abolish slavery in the U.S. in initial stages of his tenure. Later he was compelled to abolish the slavery system due to war. The progressives compared Obama to John .F. Kennedy in respect of racial equality. Kennedy under pressure of civil rights activists passed the legislation of civil rights before the end of his life. Concluding remarks The actors of non government formations are insisting for progressive reforms and they want that Obama should deliver. The left also admits that they misread Obama. Progressives have a desire that Obama will rise above race politics and establish values in the social and political sphere of the U.S. society and finally progressives should make a concrete political agenda which can be accomplished in the coming years and form a strategy to achieve these goals. From the above mentioned two studies of Shapiro and B.Guy. Peters respectively and the success story of Obama in the U.S presidential election we can draw a pertinent question about the research methodology in political science. The problem in the U.S society which was predicted by democratic institutions was correctly detected while the institutional approach was rather historical. The researchers have a scope to examine as to what methodology will be accepted for their future works. Although the Shapiro’s approach that problem in a society should be detected at first and it should be based on perfect data and techniques but still the work of institutional bodies cannot be ignored. References 1. Derek, Beach (2005) Why governments comply: an integrative compliance model that bridges the gap between instrumental and normative models of compliance, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 12, Issue 1 February 2005, pages 113 - 142 2. Guy, Peter, Institutional theory in political science, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005 3. Shapiro, Ian, Problems, Methods and Theories in the Study of Politics, Yale University Press, 2002 4. Smith, Steve, ‘Social Constructivisms and European Studies’, The Social Construction of Europe, Sage, 2001 Read More