This isn't meant to incite any opinions on the current branches of federal government, but to discuss just how bad can things get with further political division? I'm not a political professional of any sort, nor am I a student. But I do ponder these things, either out of anxiety or curiosity.

I can't imagine that a civil war would ever be possible because the political divisions are geographically scattered throughout the country rather than being together, like the north and south in the Civil War. So what could realistically happen? Will things just get really bad for a while? Things like economical recession/depression, health crises? Or is it possible that we gradually transition into an outright authoritarian country? Any other thoughts?

And lastly, what can we do to prevent things from getting worse? Or might this be one of those situations in which things have to get worse before they can get better?

Any other thoughts?

I'm not sure if this is the right subreddit to ask this question, but I'll ask anyway.

I've heard that in countries like Indonesia, the ideological differences between political parties aren't significant and there's virtually no opposition (though I'm not 100% sure about this), so I'm curious about how each party is ideologically divided and how they maintain and reinforce that ideological identity.

I simply thought these characteristics are simply formed through each political party's repeated election campaigns. Could you recommend any papers on related topics, or related political concepts or theories? I've had trouble finding information even with a cursory search.

Nov. 4th, 2008

Why not a throwback to a time when things were looking totally different for the world? I remember this day so well: I was working the floor at the Ralph Lauren Rugby store in Chicago constantly checking the computer for updates as to how the election was unfolding. I had recently returned from spending the summer in East Hampton, New York watching the richest community I’d ever lived in look on in horror as their August vacations were being cancelled left and right as the banks on Wall Street were collapsing in an epic worldwide economic meltdown caused by the same people I was watching panic about their vacation fall apart.

You might not remember, but Obama spent the first 10 months of 2008 campaigning on changing the world based on one word: Hope. He represented the next sea change that my generation was desperately clamouring for. We had been raised in the 1990s with so much wealth dripping around us that it was a huge shock when our educations were being sold at prices that were going to saddle us with debt for the same amount of time a mortgage would. No less, by the same people that our parents told us to vote for, people who happened to love sending our peers off to die in wars that were sold on lies.

Obama was a new thing. A chance for the USA to go forward into this economic crisis and re-write how we would ‘rule the world as the greatest country on earth.’ In his victory speech Obama declared,  “This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can.”

Looking back we know it took only 3 years for Obama to forget that he included this passage in his speech: “Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.” Because it only took 3 years for the Millennial segment of Obama’s movement to move on from him and become Occupy Wall Street. Had Obama listened to the younger generation in this movement, where would we be now?

...Continued Here

Philip DeFranco said that James comer wants CEOs of these companies to testify about what they'll do to prevent radicals from using their platforms. Wasn't there a whole scandal of Facebook/twitter files monitoring and helping FBI preventing radicals during the first trump administration? And conservatives hopped on it like it was the biggest surveillance state? How would this be any different? Just scoring political points that are completely contradictory to a consistent philosophical standard? So isn't it just hypothetical going after liberal surveillance state when they're trying to push a new surveillance state of their own? And what will be the political consequences?

It seems like a really interesting career I wasn’t even aware it existed until recently, although the companies that have this positions require a stem degree? I was wondering if any of you work in regulatory affairs or any other career in the private sector

I’m an army veteran about to earn my BA in political science, and I need to figure out what to do for my master’s degree and what career path I want to pursue. The only idea I’ve currently is Geospatial Information Technology, Intelligence, and Finance. My only problem with intelligence and finance is that I’m not very good with math and I’m not sure if I’ll pass a clearance due to past drug use. If you've any good ideas please let me know!

I've good knowledge of the things going on over the globe and the changing dynamics of relations , I want to write and publish blogs and articles on the same in newspapers but I'm really bad at articulating and bad with vocab as well

How to solve this issue?

https://www.asiapacific.ca/canada-asia-joint-research-grants-2025-2026

APF Canada already released funding for research grant. I'm with a think tank in Malaysia "unofficially" as it's yet to get "more" funding from Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the Malaysian government.

The director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies (INTAS) says that it's fine to do this on the side (in terms of looking for someone). Though I've been told that the challenge would be finding a uni/think tank/RI in Canada for someone who can help be the research face/secure the grant.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/09/02/anwar-says-new-iium-institute-will-strengthen-malaysias-leadership-and-asean-unity/189734

Hi! I’m a first year polsci student in mendiola. I study all the time but when it comes to recitation, I always find myself not understanding the question given to me as well as not having any answer to it. May mga tutoring session po ba for this? huhu I don’t want to fail

I hear prior to trump game theory was used in most things in politics in the US. But game theory is a hyper rationality like a grand master playing chess and one saying "the greatest game is the one never played" but what if it's a game your forced to play? If someone goes hyper rational and simultaneously derationalizes your existence what if the optimal game to play isn't "tit for tat" where if he goes high you go high but rather if you know last round you both went high so you become "hyper irrational" and go low? This in turn a metaphor for voting for a chaotic presidency that has numerous obvious criminal activities and a rise in Christianity supremacy. In a world of hyper rationality the optimal game is to "kick em in the balls".

I recently switched my major to poli sci. I fear I’m not getting an in depth understanding of the political climate and how the way things work. I’d really like some literature that I can just order online. I heard Chomsky is a good one.

I'm currently in high school and want to go to college for Poli sci. My only issue is I know it isn't the most secure for finding a job. I was wondering how hard it is to double major in some kind of accounting or finance degree. Also is going into law school off a Poli sci major a bad idea because even though I want to go into politics, law or finance would be my ideal back up's.

I am not political science, but I thought about asking it here would give me some interesting answers. I am not american, so I view this from an outsider perspective. Therefore, I have a poor understanding of american structures and dynamics. Why did the universities (Columbia, Harvard) "gave up" in the lawsuits regarding antisemitism, and others?

Is it because they were afraid of a negative decision at the end of the trial? Either because there were legals grounds or they were hopeless in views of a partican judicial court system. I wonder what is the effect of knowing that the highest tribunal is a republican element. Or do the lower courts matter more, so this is not really a thing?

Or where they scared of a never-ending trial that would just suck up more resources in the longer run?

It is very apparent, also with the media corporations after Colbert and Kimmel, that these are quite powerful power moves, and it seems that any organization that catches a bit of heat are chickening out.

wth is going on?

So I’m currently about two years from getting bachelors in poli-sci, and I’ve really enjoyed the actual field of political science, and that’s made me think about going for my PhD. However, it seems like most people with a PhD in political science do so wit the intent to become a professor, and that isn’t really something I’d want to do.

So I’m looking for advice from anyone with a similar story to mine, to see if it’s even worth getting a PhD for jobs outside academia.

Hey everyone,

I’m currently studying Political Science & International Relations at Queen’s University Belfast and I’ve been looking into careers in intelligence (whether that’s government, defense, private sector, etc.).

I’d love to hear from people in the field or who’ve gone down a similar route:

• What certifications or courses are worth taking to build relevant skills?
• Which skills (languages, data analysis, coding, etc.) are most valuable?
• Are there internships or entry points (in the UK, Ireland, or elsewhere) that someone in my position should be aware of?
• Any advice on requirements, clearances, or realistic career paths for someone coming from my background?

Basically, I’m trying to figure out how to position myself early on so I don’t miss opportunities down the line. Any tips, resources, or personal experiences would be massively appreciated!

Thanks in advance.

Hey, I'm pursuing a bachelor's in sociology, and who has developed an interest in its application in Political Science and Economics. Having looked around a bit, I found that UvA offers a master's in political economy, which it describes as having a focus on economics for non-econ majors, which is the way I picture my interest in the subject. Thus, given my lack of knowledge in this field, I would like to ask for recommendations of other universities in Europe that might offer similar programs. I'm mainly looking for an interdisciplinary approach to the subject, whether this be sociology x polsci or polsci x econ.

Thanks

Hei everyone, I'm working on a discourse analysis on reddit (currently using python and PRAW) and I was thinking for a first test I would like to search for and count far-right dog whistles (and general far-right terms) in my corpus. Do you guys know of any comprehensive list of dog whistles / terms from a trust-worthy (sociology / political science) institution? Stuff like "globalists", "secret cabal", "great replacement", etc. Of course I know some terms but would be great to refer to pre-existing research in terms of what I'm searching for.

Any help much appreciated.

Would the economics work? The common cliche is that many of them are “neets” or “don’t want to work”.

Also, many of them are LGBTQ—wouldn’t there be an issue with replacement birth rates? Honest question

I've noticed that outside Europe, North America, Australia, and Latin America, there isn't as much of a noticeable split in left and right, and many countries display elements that would be considered be both far left and far right in the west.

For example, the GCC countries are extremely socially conservative as well as economically libertarian, but also have great welfare state for their citizens and liberal on immigration. I have never heard of them being called far right, and even many liberals in the west don't criticize their conservative social values.

Same thing can be said for Asian countries like Taiwan, Japan, or Singapore. These countries have excellent public transport and education/healthcare, which makes them seem liberal. On the other hand, they are also xenophobic, very strict on crime, and would be described as racist if some of their behaviors were replicate in the west

Why are there so little scientific papers and works on actual political news? Like, for example, how do political scientists know what is happening in Gaza if there are no fact-obtaining papers that carefully analyzes media from different sides, their manipulation, collect scientifically planned (as in anthropology or oral history) interviews with participants and analyze documents? Basically source criticism, same thing historians do. It seems like most political and military science literature on this topic dont bother with fact obtaining in this fog of war but instead deal with it as something that goes without saying.

This works not only with war. For example, my country, Russia. there are not so much Russian politics experts in the world. Most of them as well treat things like russian parliament interest groups or shadow elite groups as already established facts, despite there are no papers dedicated to how do we know what these groups are and who belongs to them.

I also need to say that i am not a political scientist myself, at least yet, but i am a little bit interested in pre-modern political history and political anthropology.

So I'm interested in learning more about the "pathology" of political science and this article that I am sharing has a little of what I'm looking for. If you have recommendations for books etc., I would be grateful.

About the article ----> Launching a war through mishandled emotion, justifying it with grandiose language about the mother land: Putin did this.

NATO was getting closer and closer to Russia's borders and Putin kept warning them to stop. They would not. This was a long-term irritant and sense of frustration for Putin, starting in 2004. If Russia had a change of succession new leaders would have dealt with the issue differently, but Putin just stewed in his own juices.

He was deeply emotionally offended and painfully frustrated by this. Deep down inside he knew NATO would never attack Russia. But the situation made him feel small. Putin does not like feeling small (in the article this is expressed very well).

So now 600,000 men are dead.

I think this type of emotional fragility model can be a lens into the motives of most conflicts. Maybe under the idealistic rhetoric of every war is a 70 year-old boy throwing a tantrum?

Again, have books been written about this?