The Caucus for a New Political Science (CNPS), emerged from a meeting of graduate students at the 1967 convention of the American Political Science Association. It is based on a demand for a new... Show moreThe Caucus for a New Political Science (CNPS), emerged from a meeting of graduate students at the 1967 convention of the American Political Science Association. It is based on a demand for a new relevance in political science. Political science is considered irrelevant if it is uncritical of society and assumes the values and social priorities of corrupt bureaucracies, powerful elites or unjust social practices. The ’established’ political science profession is accused of justifying everything in the American political system as unique and workable and of condeming attempts to change it. Stability, rather than change, is the highest value, and conflict may be resolved peacefully and fairly within the existing system. The new conservatives desire to avoid major issues in favor of trivialities is mentioned. Behavioralism, emphasizing the fact/value dichotomy and preoccupied with questions of method and model-building, supports these conservative tendencies. Political scientists have become ideologues of the government. Professionalism and its rewards are determined less by the values and ethics of the discipline than by the values and ethics of the social and political status quo. A radical political science is needed to give more relevance to the political science profession. A radical political science can be defined as an attempt to use the tools which the discipline has created in order to solve the problems which society has created. There are three prospective lines of development for a radical political science: (i) a primarily theoretical one — the development of new paradigms for research and political analysis or new modes of inquiry; (2) the politization and democratization of the APSA and the reform of the discipline, teaching, curricula — with the CNPS as the pinwheel for reform; (3) the creation of a research-action political science focusing on criticism of American institutions and analyses of alternative social priorities. Show less
The results are presented of interviews held with 47 persons, who in the fall of 1966 founded ’Democrats ’66’, a new political party in the Netherlands, which said to aim for a ’radical... Show moreThe results are presented of interviews held with 47 persons, who in the fall of 1966 founded ’Democrats ’66’, a new political party in the Netherlands, which said to aim for a ’radical democraticization’ of political life. Oral interviews were held with the 13 persons in Amsterdam who had established the first contacts. Thirty-four other persons were mailed questionaires; thirty-two of the latter were received back. The respondents listed the following objections to the existing political system: paralysis of party-politics, dissatisfaction with the workings of the political system, lack of alternatives for the voters. Twenty respondents had in the past always voted for the same party, twenty four persons had changed their party-choice. The Liberal party (VVD), the Labour party (PvdA) and the Pacifist-Socialist party (PSP) were most often mentioned as former party-choice. Most of the respondents came from the western part of the country; among those there were 19 from Amsterdam. Of the 2500 signs of support that had been received by October 1966 24.5% came from Amsterdam, 11% from The Hague and 5% from Rotterdam. 'The average age of the respondents was 38; the average age of 44% of their earliest supporters was lower than 30. Seventy-four % of the respondents professed no religion. Sixty-six % had attended a university; most of these had studied law, economic or social sciences. The average income was ƒ 32.000,—. Their occupations were mainly of the white collar type; journalists predominated (more than 20%). Finally, the educational background, occupation, income and party-membership of the founders is compared with those of their fathers. Show less
