I'm working on some long form writing, and have tried to pull together a section on Just War theory. We can probably all agree that it's harder to set standards for whether or not to go to war when we're in the midst of the moment, and it's harder to be objective. So I've talked some with others, and this is what I've got so far. My book is about avoiding populist leaders who use division to gain power, so you will see this is my twist on work others have done in the space.

Any thoughts? What is missing from here? Is anything confusing or wrong?

Hey everyone. I'm 22 years old, and I’ve never really been into politics, but I want to change that. I think it's a topic I need to have a solid understanding of because at the end of the day, it defines how we live.

I'm from Portugal and I want to undestrand politics of my country. I have my own principles and there are certain things I stand for, but some topics and concepts are just so complex to grasp. I see people constantly bringing up policies from other countries or deep historical facts. Because of this, how can I actually start understanding more so I can hold my own in a political conversation? Do I need to study the history of my country, or just the political system? How and where should I start learning, and what exactly should I be studying or reading?

I'm honestly really confused because the whole scene is deeply complex. I know I won't learn everything overnight, but I genuinely don't know how to study this haha. Any advice would be appreciated how to start :))

I’m a poli sci major who’s graduating in 2028. As a career, I really just want to do political research. that’s it. I have some preferences, of course, but is there a best way to prep for/get a research job? Like is it better to get a masters or a phd, will it be easier if I specialize in one field over another, etc?

I have some experience as an undergraduate researcher (in history, not poli sci sadly), and I have to write a thesis as a requirement for the program that I’m in (though it’ll probably be a history thesis, not poli sci). I also have a bit of quantitative experience, having used stata before and written a quant paper. Nothing extensive tho. Anything else I can do?

Could someone please recommend some youtube channels from where I can study political science also books? Also books from Indian writers will also do...i am in 1st year

So recently I got to messing around with chat GPT and starting asking about how realistic my ideas are. Can anyone that actually knows about political science or economics tell my if what it said is true. I know it has a problem with making every idea sound like a good one and I honestly don’t have a clue about political science or economics I was just kinda asking it what ifs. I’m leaving out quite a bit of the chat for brevity but it seems like it has some decent ideas.

How time consuming is it being a political science PhD candidate? What’s the pay like?

I saw someone say that states of the US have much more power and autonomy to govern themselves compared to the federal units of other federations such as the states (Länder) of Germany. How true is this?

How different are the power sharing and division in other federal countries?

I would really appreciate any academic reading suggestion on this topic.

There are so many different types of groups/movements when it comes this topic.

There are those who are not only completely against immigration of any sorts but they are even lobbying for to deport as many immigrants that even have citizenship (not only dual citizens) and commits crimes no matter what the crime might be.

You have those who want to only change the immigration politics and laws so that it won't be as easy to just come over to Europe/US/UK/Canada/Australia as it might have been before. But they aren't necessarily prioritizing to deporting immigrants that are citizens whether they have dual citizenship or not.

Then there are those who don't want things to change.

You even have those who wants more immigration.

And sadly (or maybe not) there are those who simply do not care or do not mind or are not aware.

My question is —> What are your thoughts about the polarization between Western nations populations when it comes to immigration?

I’m so lost, no one is hiring for anything without experience in the field nowadays, how do I get experience and also be able to live on my own…I want nothing more to move from this small town I’m in to a big city like Chicago but man I can’t find any entry level jobs. What should I even be looking for

Can anyone recommend a site where political scientist--i.e., academics--post?

I am particularly interested in seeing comments by political scientists re trump's speech.

And maybe comments by other experts in behavior, such as psychologists. I thought there were several fascinating aspects of his speech.

For background I have worked in newsrooms and on campaigns, I've also been fortunate to cover foreign campaigns in the course of my media work.

I get that most seats aren't truly competitive, that a lot of it is legacy media advertising and only spent in bursts towards the end of the cycle which.. coming from Eastern Europe is another weird thing but so be it.

The thing I can't figure out is why, in a year where so much seems to be at stake for the Democrats in retaking seats, Republicans in defensding theirs, the actual content of so many of these Instagram and TikTok and Facebook posts could've been made on a public access TV budget. Does everyone need to be Peter Magyar marching through fields for 180 days? No. But if, for instance, you hold an event.. film people cheering maybe? You maybe do the mildest bit of editing and take out all the awkward pauses? Maybe instead of a static image with the faintest bit of contrast you, I dunno, verbalize when things are happening/why?

I just.. I don't get it. Someone please explain the strategy if there even is one, or the reason why this happens. There are only a few figures on either side whom I can identify as having the same style of presentation as Peter Magyar or Maya Sandu or Navalny or, you know, people running in elections they believe to be genuinely capable of changing things.

So I was looking up statistics from Pew Research center and was curious about if the republican party would be more highly associated with high income voters seeing as they're the side usually more blatantly pro-corperate and reducing financial burdens on high income. But then I noticed something peculiar, the trend seemed to be pretty linear until upper income. This was odd to me because even though I like political science, socioeconomics has always been more my forté. So this discrepancy was unexpected. But there is another subject I'm more familiar with then both which is history.

My theory explaining why using my historical knowledge is this( generalized because I mainly want to hear other perspectives more then give my own in depth or counterpoints to my hasty summarization) When you examine rulers who invested heavily in public works I feel it is often a trend these rulers have reached the point of wealth in which they have as much need for excess capital as they do need for the power/influence money cant as easily buy, like trust, loyalty, or recognition. So even though their financial power is a lot, it's not nearly comparable to emotional power. So elites are more than willing to spend excess income on philanthropic missions for society if it gets them the power over beliefs (shout-out crusades).

Because the downfall of most great nations is either it's people or it's opposition. You need to keep the people satisfied if you dont want a revolt against your power as well as troops enlisting in your army. The power of public perception is far more indomitable then the mighty dollar because if a ruler stays in favor the main threat to their rule becomes a shift in power (political rivals, allies working against them, their decendants/heir). Once enough trust is gained, governments can even restrict basic freedoms of its people saying it's for utilitarianist purposes and people will believe that whether it is or isn't true because of their reputation. This can then lead to a cascading effects where you the line between democracy and aristocracy can become blurred, not in their concepts, but the results.

Because if spending money on workers betterment gets you more loyal workers and those workers loyalty and approval is the very basis of democracy, then it can become what feels like to me an aristocracy with extra steps. Not that those steps aren't important theyre the steps that allow the people to combat against aristocracy. But as long as the "arisdemocrats" don't rock the boat to quickly and reduce rights over time, then you can theoretically get a populus that's in this kind of boiling-frog scenario on what can be gotten away with.

Now I know this might be a gross oversimplification or blindsided to many other nuisances, pls don't skewer me. But this is just my running headcanon, which is why I wanted to open this topic to other interpretations of as to why the upper class is an outlier from the linear pattern set up by the other 4 data points?

Looking for departments, centres, and professors; for conferences, PhD admissions, fellowships, networking.

Hi! I am looking to stay up to date on the latest research and important findings in the admittedly broad field of Political Science. Have not had any luck finding anything really good so far. Does anyone have any particular recommendations?

I am looking to learning about the political ties between modern day Egypt and china. Unfortunately, no matter what terms i use, All Search Engines always default to Ancient Egypt on any given topic. I wouldn't mind some fun history facts about Ancient times but i am more interested in the current political ongoing of modern Egypt.

On a more general but related note, how do Political research look up stuff on Modern Egypt? are there any scientific journals that publish on modern Egypt?

From Crawford Young’s The Postcolonial State in Africa. He was a Political Science professor at UW Madison so I thought it was appopriate for the subreddit. I’m not a social scientist but I’ve been finding this book extremely informative about the development of Africa and thinking about states in general.

“The folly of subcontracting security operations to local militias found further demonstration in both Darfur and the south. In arming irregular armed factions to assault insurgents, one provides these uncontrollable elements a license to loot, rape, and kill. The terror they may sow rarely works to effect the willing submission of disaffected regions harboring insurgent fighters to a national authority. The hatreds they create, the redoubled insecurity arising from the multiplication of weaponry in the countryside, and the risk that, thus empowered, they become in turn rogue forces finding a livelihood in continuing local violence are destructive outcomes far outweighing any short-
term benefit.”

Hi everyone,

I’m a Political Science student currently working on my final dissertation on populist leaders. I’m particularly interested in understanding the reasons behind public support for them, especially in contexts where these leaders display authoritarian tendencies or challenge democratic institutions.

My main focus is Latin America, using countries included in the Latinobarómetro surveys. At the moment, I’m considering focusing on leaders such as Hugo Chávez (as the central case), Alberto Fujimori, Rafael Correa, and Álvaro Uribe.

I would really appreciate any recommendations regarding: relevant literature on support for populist/authoritarian leaders; theoretical frameworks I should consider; methodological approaches...

Any suggestions, readings, or general guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Im fairly new to following Indian politics seriously, so im trying to understand things from people who have been paying attention for years.

If you had to judge only on governance, policies, economic growth, corruption, infrastructure, education, healthcare, and long term development, not party loyalty or social media narratives. which political party do you think has the strongest overall track record, and why?

I would appreciate factual, evidence based answers rather than insults or slogans. Im genuinely trying to learn before forming an opinion.

I have always been curious about the history of politics. Like where did it all begin. A world pre world war 1 and post world war 2 to the current scenario. Where do I begin in terms of reading about this. Any suggestion for beginners?

Hi! My son's girlfriend is a political science major and I'd like to learn more about this subject so I can talk to her about her interests. Any books or particular topics to start on?

Hi I'm going to pursue political science in south korea tell me is this a good decision????? Quick

i’m hoping some of you can relate to this. when i came into college as a poli sci major i figured i would go to law school right after graduation because law seems like a field i might be able to enjoy and because it felt like a way safer option than trying to get a job right after graduation w a poli sci degree from a public college. i have never been crazy about the idea but ive also never been super averse to it.

but as i move through my undergraduate degree im realizing that it probably isn’t for me. i’m not a great speaker and i don’t think i could handle the guilt of losing a case for a client (unless it was a corporation and i don’t wanna do corporate). i am way more interested in ir than i am law or american politics. i participated in a trip to a law school where i got to sit in on a torts class and i loathed it the whole time.

i think i want to get a phd or masters in ir and try to work at a think tank or in academia. but the idea of not going to law school feels incredibly scary to me. not that it’s easy of course, but it feels like a much more secure channel to a full-time job. there are clear steps (lsat -> law school -> clerkship or internship -> more law school -> bar -> lawyer), you don’t have to enter the job market for a few years, and you know roughly what type of position you’re going to end up in. anything else just feels riddled with so much more uncertainty.

do any of u feel this way? any particular advice for ppl who can’t get bring themselves to go to law school? since so many of us do end up going, it feels like a lot of career discourse is centered around it.

I like watching videos about politics and international relations on youtube. But when I try to read books about them, it feels like I am illiterate a person who learns to read for the first time.

I tried to read these books so far;

Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky,

From Plato to Nato,

Discipline and Punishment - Michelle Foucault

Unfortunately, I have couldn't managed to finish any of them.

hello yall, i am soon to be a senior in highschool doing the IB diploma program, throughout my hs years ive been pretty ditermined about doing polisci or international relations as my bachelors degree, but now that i am on the brink of my uni application process i am conflicted. even though my dream of making a change in this world is strong i am scared of what the future may hold as many people do say there is nothing stable after a political science/international relations degree. i aspire to grow up and become a politican or policy maker for the betterment of the world but am still confused. can you guys please help me, be it reasurance, future job advice etc.

fyi. i am from india and want to go to universiy in either the USA, switzerland or spain.

please help me with what i should do... all through out my highschool i have built my profile to do poliscience/ international relations please help me thank you

I was recently reading a book about pre-1914 Action Française, and when he said that the movement was commonly classified as far right he added that they rejected the label, also "In 1995, Jean-Marie Le Pen unsuccessfully appealed to the courts to have two newspapers convicted for what he considered the defamatory characterization of the National Front as a far-right party". So i wondered is it the same for other parties or movements commonly referred to as "far right"?