Texas BOE decide Thomas Jefferson is not that great

[Thanas]

So Teebs, why are we supposed to take your claim that this is not used in academic discourse on face value? I can easily contradict that from my experience.

[Teebs]

So Teebs, why are we supposed to take your claim that this is not used in academic discourse on face value? I can easily contradict that from my experience.

Well it's difficult to prove a negative. If you have an example then obviously I'd concede my experience was incorrect. I stick by my point about monarchs being irrelevancies to modern politics in Western democracies though.

[Thanas]

So Teebs, why are we supposed to take your claim that this is not used in academic discourse on face value? I can easily contradict that from my experience.

Well it's difficult to prove a negative. If you have an example then obviously I'd concede my experience was incorrect. I stick by my point about monarchs being irrelevancies to modern politics in Western democracies though.

Yes, but it always pays to use the correct definition. Otherwise, at least in German academia, you'll get reamed for being an idiot.

[Teebs]

Yes, but it always pays to use the correct definition. Otherwise, at least in German academia, you'll get reamed for being an idiot.

Obviously you should always use a correct definition, but if there are multiple ones you should use the most relevant. Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy are both terms which are correct descriptors of the British political system. Only one of them usefully distinguishes it from other political systems for people wanting to know how its government actually works.

[Thanas]

Yes, but it always pays to use the correct definition. Otherwise, at least in German academia, you'll get reamed for being an idiot.

Obviously you should always use a correct definition, but if there are multiple ones you should use the most relevant. Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy are both terms which are correct descriptors of the British political system. Only one of them usefully distinguishes it from other political systems for people wanting to know how its government actually works.

Why is parliamentary democracy more relevant? In any case, constitutional monarchy fits the British better. Because parliamentary democracy can also fit a lot of other nations. What sets Britain apart from, say, Germany is that it is a constitutional monarchy.

In any case, anybody who does not call Britain a constitutional monarchy first and foremost would be regarded as an idiot in German academia.

[Teebs]

Why is parliamentary democracy more relevant? In any case, constitutional monarchy fits the British better. Because parliamentary democracy can also fit a lot of other nations. What sets Britain apart from, say, Germany is that it is a constitutional monarchy.

Constitutional monarchy can also fit a lot of other nations - most of the Commonwealth, the Netherlands and Spain among others. With the proviso that I've never studied the German presidency in any depth so I'm happy to be corrected, my impression is that the German President fulfills an almost identical role to that of the Queen in the UK. He is meant to be an apolitical actor with a small role in government formation and dissolution. The only significant difference between the two is that the Queen gets the position through inheritance and the German President gets his through appointment by the Bundestag. Essentially it ends up as what label is put on the same role.

If I was picking one factor to differentiate between the UK and German political systems it would be that Germany is a federal nation with all the impacts on party and government structure that that brings.

In any case, anybody who does not call Britain a constitutional monarchy first and foremost would be regarded as an idiot in German academia.

Must be a national difference, as I said the term just didn't turn up during my degree.

[Thanas]

Constitutional monarchy can also fit a lot of other nations

Far less than there are parliamentary democracies.

Must be a national difference, as I said the term just didn't turn up during my degree.

Or maybe your study program just sucks, because an english law lecturer from Exeter had no problem using the correct term.

[Teebs]

Constitutional monarchy can also fit a lot of other nations

Far less than there are parliamentary democracies.

Not helpful if it's a trivial difference though. I don't know if I'm failing to make my argument clear enough or if you just don't like it.

Must be a national difference, as I said the term just didn't turn up during my degree.

Or maybe your study program just sucks, because an english law lecturer from Exeter had no problem using the correct term.

It might have, since I did PPE at Oxford* (arguably most respected politics course in the country) it probably didn't. Also there's a big difference in the way law academics and politics academics look at these kinds of things I've found (I'm currently studying law). From my, admittedly limited perspective, the legal perspective delves into all the technicalities and what *could* happen regardless of political reality. The politics academics are interested in the way the system works de facto.

*I'd be happy to back up that claim with some mutually agreed evidence since I'm aware people make lots of big claims over the internet.

[Thanas]

Not helpful if it's a trivial difference though. I don't know if I'm failing to make my argument clear enough or if you just don't like it.

No, it is that your argument does not make any sense. I was taught that it is better to always use a narrower, more fitting description.

It might have, since I did PPE at Oxford* (arguably most respected politics course in the country) it probably didn't.

Which doesn't say a lot.

Also there's a big difference in the way law academics and politics academics look at these kinds of things I've found (I'm currently studying law). From my, admittedly limited perspective, the legal perspective delves into all the technicalities and what *could* happen regardless of political reality. The politics academics are interested in the way the system works de facto.

Well, no. Law is very much a study of how systems work. In fact, constitutional law is arguably the most closes to how a political system works as it actually deals with how a law is passed instead of political ideologies.

[Teebs]

Not helpful if it's a trivial difference though. I don't know if I'm failing to make my argument clear enough or if you just don't like it.

No, it is that your argument does not make any sense. I was taught that it is better to always use a narrower, more fitting description.

Which is just stupid if that definition tells you nothing about a political system. If I want to teach people about the functioning of a government I don't divide them into categories on purely cosmetic issues. Creating close to meaningless categories doesn't make a simple categorisation system better. I could categorise people I know using beards as the defining characteristic and it would create a pretty narrow category. Saying someone was in my 'beards' category would be very unlikely to tell you anything useful about them.

Tell me, please, beyond the labels of Queen and President, what does Britain being a constitutional monarchy tell you about its political system and how it differs from that of Germany?

Also there's a big difference in the way law academics and politics academics look at these kinds of things I've found (I'm currently studying law). From my, admittedly limited perspective, the legal perspective delves into all the technicalities and what *could* happen regardless of political reality. The politics academics are interested in the way the system works de facto.

Well, no. Law is very much a study of how systems work. In fact, constitutional law is arguably the most closes to how a political system works as it actually deals with how a law is passed instead of political ideologies.

What do you think studying politics involves if not the way political systems work? I suppose you've got the split between political theory and comparative government types, but the idea that you don't look at how modern political systems work is incorrect. I suppose the two end up being quite similar as they move towards each other, but coming from different perspectives I would say. One with a more broad brush generalist approach while the other starts from nitty gritty technicalities and moves out. Maybe. I need to think more about that.

[Winston Blake]

I don't see why introductory high school textbooks should be written like academic discourses at the level of a university politics degree. I was taught in high school that I live in a constitutional monarchy. You can call that a 'technicality', but I think schools need to teach a lot of the common-knowledge technicalities that adults casually omit, or else they wouldn't be common knowledge.

I haven't at any point said that school textbooks should be written with university level material, I've only brought up university level material to make a point about what the accurate view of government is. My objection is simply that it's inaccurate as to the actual way the country works. If those 'common-knowledge technicalities' in fact give a misleading impression of the way things work then why should they be included?

(You know, I honestly wasn't trying to take some kind of stand on political terminology. I know nothing about this field. I just noticed that the BoE-proposed term 'constitutional republic' neatly matches up with 'constitutional monarchy', which is what I was taught Australia is.)

Anyway, you have constantly said things like 'the way the country works', 'how modern political systems work', 'the way things work', 'the way the system works', and 'the functioning of government'. You seem to be dismissing the term 'constitutional monarchy' because it does not describe how the system works, and is therefore 'not useful' and 'misleading'. However, here's a thought: what if 'constitutional monarchy' describes what the system is, and 'parliamentary democracy' describes how it works?

E.g. What is the Australian political system? A system composed of a hereditary head of state (monarch) plus a constitution which invests power in the people. How does it work? Electorally it operates using a representative democratic process with universal suffrage, and legislatively it operates using a parliamentary process. I.e. 'Composition' vs 'Operation'.

The terms would then be complementary, and the difference between the German and English usages simply comes down to preference for 'what it is' vs 'how it works'.

[Teebs]

Anyway, you have constantly said things like 'the way the country works', 'how modern political systems work', 'the way things work', 'the way the system works', and 'the functioning of government'. You seem to be dismissing the term 'constitutional monarchy' because it does not describe how the system works, and is therefore 'not useful' and 'misleading'. However, here's a thought: what if 'constitutional monarchy' describes what the system is, and 'parliamentary democracy' describes how it works?

E.g. What is the Australian political system? A system composed of a hereditary head of state (monarch) plus a constitution which invests power in the people. How does it work? Electorally it operates using a representative democratic process with universal suffrage, and legislatively it operates using a parliamentary process. I.e. 'Composition' vs 'Operation'.

The terms would then be complementary, and the difference between the German and English usages simply comes down to preference for 'what it is' vs 'how it works'.

Actually I think that works for me as an explanation.

[Thanas]

Which is just stupid if that definition tells you nothing about a political system. If I want to teach people about the functioning of a government I don't divide them into categories on purely cosmetic issues. Creating close to meaningless categories doesn't make a simple categorisation system better. I could categorise people I know using beards as the defining characteristic and it would create a pretty narrow category. Saying someone was in my 'beards' category would be very unlikely to tell you anything useful about them.

Tell me, please, beyond the labels of Queen and President, what does Britain being a constitutional monarchy tell you about its political system and how it differs from that of Germany?

On its own it does not tell you anything, no more than the label parliamentary democracy does. That is why one actually assumes the person who is sitting opposite you knows what you are talking about in those discussions.

What do you think studying politics involves if not the way political systems work?

Over here it seems to be more of a "law light" combined with "how to get initiatives started etc.".

I suppose you've got the split between political theory and comparative government types, but the idea that you don't look at how modern political systems work is incorrect. I suppose the two end up being quite similar as they move towards each other, but coming from different perspectives I would say. One with a more broad brush generalist approach while the other starts from nitty gritty technicalities and moves out. Maybe. I need to think more about that.

It tends to be a bit different from my experience. You get a strong framework in year 1 and 2 (basic freedoms and constitutional/parliamentary law) and then you descend into technicalities.

[Teebs]

On its own it does not tell you anything, no more than the label parliamentary democracy does. That is why one actually assumes the person who is sitting opposite you knows what you are talking about in those discussions.

I was about to jump on that, saying I learn far more about a political system by being told it's a parliamentary democracy than if I'm told its a constitutional monarchy. But then, you're right, that's based on the assumption of people having both ame level of knowledge and terminology as me.

Over here it seems to be more of a "law light" combined with "how to get initiatives started etc.".

It seems to be a bit different here then, what you're talking about sounds more like what I studied in high school, certainly my degree level studies were completely unlike law. What you described as constitutional law sounds, to me, more like aspects of my politics studies. Funnily enough the constitutional law that I've studied has seemed to me like a combination of "politics light" and black letter law. although I tend to assume that's because I'm studying it at a relatively low level.

It tends to be a bit different from my experience. You get a strong framework in year 1 and 2 (basic freedoms and constitutional/parliamentary law) and then you descend into technicalities.

I suppose that sounds about right, but I have still found the approaches taken quite different. If I use the monarchy in Britain as an example, it got a fair bit of focus in my constittutional law course because in purely legal terms it's quite important. On the other hand, my politics courses have ignored it almost completely because in practical terms it's completely irrelevant - the Queen does as she's told and if she didn't she'd be out. Thinking about it, I can see it as a weakness for both, in the case of law time is being spent on something that isn't an important issue and if it did become a crisis would almost certainly be solved in favour of Parliament, regardless of the law involved. On the other hand, politics is ignoring the arguments behind their conclusion. Personally I'd say that you want to focus on the issues that actually determine the running of the country, considering the limited time available in a course, but my background is political and I only started on law this academic year so you'd expect that.

[Lonestar]

To back to the OP a bit, the Frekanomics Blog on the NYT website has a pretty interesting entry on the proposed "reforms".

Hayek Propped Up by Government Intervention
By JUSTIN WOLFERS
Sunday’s New York Times reported on attempts by the Texas Board of Education to rewrite the high school curriculum in accordance with its conservative values. While there’s always an element of ideology involved in economics—my personal beliefs shape what I choose to research— I regard my job as generating truths. I’m interested in either generating facts which have the virtue of being true, or theoretical frameworks to better help us understand those facts. So I find the raw ideological force exerted by these “educators” to be both striking and dispiriting.

How do they plan to rewrite high school economics?

In economics, the revisions add Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, two champions of free-market economic theory, to the usual list of economists to be studied – economists like Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes.

Taking social science seriously surely means teaching the insights of the most prominent, most important, or most influential economists. This involves teaching important theories—even those you disagree with. There’s no doubt about the influence of Smith, Marx and Keynes; Friedman also belongs. But does Hayek belong on this list?

Let’s use data to inform this debate. I counted the number of references to each economist in the scholarly literature indexed by JSTOR, finding 30,708 articles mentioning “Adam Smith”; 25,626 articles mentioning “Karl Marx”; and 4,945 mentioning “John Maynard Keynes” (the middle name was required to avoid articles by his father, John Neville Keynes). “Milton Friedman” sits easily with this group, and was mentioned in 8,924 articles.

But searching for “Friedrich von Hayek” only yielded 398 articles; adding “Friedrich Hayek” raised his total to 1242 mentions; also allowing “FH Hayek” raised his count to 1561.

By the way, “Lawrence Summers” was mentioned 1712 times, adding “Larry Summers” raises his score to 1972 mentions; and also including “LH Summers” raises his score to 2064.

I also tried searching only on surnames, and received roughly similar rankings (although the counts of Smith, Summers and Friedman were grossly inflated by eponymous authors).

This exercise suggests that Larry Summers is more influential than Hayek, and so I’m led to conclude that teaching “insights from Larry Summers” involves less of an ideological subsidy than teaching “insights from Hayek.”

“I’m not suggesting we do either, only that we set the bar for teaching economic ideas at a uniformly high level.”

I’m not suggesting we do either, only that we set the bar for teaching economic ideas at a uniformly high level. If this cuts out Summers, it cuts out Hayek.

These data suggests that Hayek just doesn’t belong with Smith, Marx, Keynes, or Friedman. In fact, it seems that despite having enjoyed a much longer period to accumulate citations, he is still much less widely cited than Larry Summers. Sure, Hayek was an insightful economist. But insisting that high schools teach Hayek is a clear statement of ideology, not of economic science.

The message from the Texas Board of Education seems to be: If you can’t win in the marketplace of ideas, turn to government institutions to prop you up. I don’t think Hayek would approve.

7:19 p.m. | Updated

Peter Klein writes to let me know that “Hayek published most of his English-language papers and books as ‘F. A. Hayek,’ not ‘F. H. Hayek.’” Thanks Peter, that’s useful. (Now, if only he was taught in the high school curriculum, perhaps…) Taking Peter’s suggestion seriously, I amended my search to include: “Friedrich von Hayek” OR “Friedrich Hayek” OR “FH Hayek” OR “FA Hayek” OR “F.A. Hayek” OR “F.H. Hayek.” This still yields only 1745 Hayek references. While his total count is now slightly higher, the main conclusions remain unchanged: Hayek rates slightly fewer mentions than Larry Summers, and many fewer than Smith, Marx, Keynes or Friedman. (Aside: JSTOR counts citations across many disciplines, not just economics.)

What’s the point of this analysis, anyway? My personal sense is that Hayek belongs among the 64 Nobel Laureates in Economics. Equally, I don’t think he has had the influence of Smith, Marx, Keynes or Friedman. But that’s just my opinion, and my conjecture isn’t worth much—hence the need to gather data instead. So I came up with my simple comparison. Sure, it’s not perfect, but now at least we’re talking about data, instead of opinions. My findings are stark enough that I suspect more sophisticated analyses will yield similar findings. But again, that’s an empirical question. So if you, dear reader, can find a more useful way to quantify the influence of Hayek relative to others, I’m sure this will be a richer conversation with your comments.

Link