Historians and political scientists argue endlessly about the merits of their disciplines. Each side claims to be empirically-based while challenging the usefulness of the other’s methods and approaches. But the difference between political science and history can be summed it more easily, it seems. Historians recognize the futility of playing with counter-factual history.
At the New Republic political scientist David W. Rohde (not the Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter at the NYT) would have us believe that John Kerry’s defeat in 2004 was “the luckiest break” the Democrats have caught in more than 40 years. Had the Democrats not lost that election, Rohde claims, they would have been dragged under by the quagmire of the succeeding four years. It’s as if Democrats have no real ability to chart a new course.
Continue reading

