Suchergebnisse

Sir James Cable is a noted writer on naval affairs. His Gunboat Diplomacy, 1919–1991 is a well regarded classic on the role of naval force. His latest work is a historical survey of the political purposes for which gov- ernments have made use of naval force. Cable defines "naval force" as that "ex- ercised by fighting ships manned by disciplined sailors at the direction of a central command responsible to the political leadership." His definition is necessary to distinguish naval force as we understand it today from the force exercised by pirates, privateers, adven- turers, and users of "landing craft" (such as those that brought Roman sol- diers to Britain in 55 A.D.) or galleys, which served merely as conveyances to bring soldiers together for seaborne hand-to-hand combat.

Of all the freedoms for which the cold war was fought, free enterprise was deemed sufficient for acquisition of all the other freedoms. The task of political science should now be to expose the loose and insecure moorings of economic ideology and to develop an approach more appropriate to the realities of our time. Our new millennium is a corporate millennium that has been interpreted in the hegemonic model to mean private and free (that is, unregulated) markets. However, any theory capable of incorporating the corporation has to be one of political economy. The first section of this article identifies six state-provided assumptions homo economicus has to be able to make prior to making or entering a market, without which homo economicus stays home. The second section puts the issue in a global context by identifying three developmental tracks—macro, meso, and micro. Their existence denies the possibility of a pure economic theory of globalization. The third section describes the distinctive politics of each of the three tracks, demonstrating still more conclusively that political economy is the only approach competent to deal with the new corporate millennium. In conclusion, the author argues that political economy is and should be the new political science that this new era requires.

The 2006 midterm has undercut some familiar assertions about contemporary electoral politics. Political analysts seem to have overstated Republican advantages in several areas: voter turnout, campaign finance, congressional apportionment, party unity, and social issues. The GOP's loss is the discipline's gain, as the election raises good questions for scholarly research.