This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, July 1, 2011 - In his examination of the nature of scientific inquiry, Thomas Kuhn postulated that research was always marked by a dominant paradigm that shapes the hypotheses tested and the methodology used to test them. The social sciences also work with dominant paradigms. For example, behavioralism has been the dominant mode in studying American politics and international relations since World War II. Political scientists have relied on large data sets and econometric techniques to explain political behavior.
In academia, buying into dominant paradigms helps young scientists obtain jobs and later secure tenure and promotion. The key to upward mobility is publication; and research outside the norms does not stand as good a chance of being accepted in journals. Kuhn postulated that a major revolution in theory building and method was needed to topple the dominant paradigm. Such revolutions are rare, though urban political study has seen rival ideas gain some traction.
Moving beyond academia, one sees dominant paradigms playing an increasingly important role in our nation's capital. A perhaps-frightening intransigence can be seen in economics.
Franklin Roosevelt used Keynesian economics to fight the Great Depression. Government spending is to prime the pump to restore movement to a dangerously moribund economy, even though deficits would accumulate. Paul Krugman is a contemporary exponent of this philosophy. Those who embrace the opposite paradigm favor limited government. Their mantra is keep taxes low. Some still adhere to the Laffer curve: cut taxes, revenues fall, revenues then rise to higher levels because the cuts stimulated the economy. Hence, many Republicans eschew any tax increases or other revenue enhancement, such as cutting tax breaks for ethanol production. Any GOP member of Congress who speaks of raising revenue becomes a pariah quickly.
The Democrats have their own mantra regarding social spending. Although not as united as their opposition, they tend to label any cutting of Social Security or Medicare disastrous and unthinkable. Other social programs are guarded ferociously as well. It thus becomes difficult to examine bureaucratic insufficiency or regulations that hinder rather than help services.
Both Democrats and Republicans use their positions to appeal to their bases and to set the groundwork for the 2012 elections. There is not a great deal of give since no one wants to stand apart from their party. Perhaps only a Kuhnian revolution can tear down the barriers to reach compromise and progress.
There is a need for new methods of examining the role of taxes and spending in overall economic health. Too often, as in academia, political practitioners cling to a "received view" even when there is no overwhelming evidence to support it. With Democrats and Republicans each bent on playing to their base, the likelihood of reassessing means and ends is not likely. Ironically, there is evidence of economic upswing after tax cuts and after tax hikes. A study including the deficit and the effect of military spending, for war or otherwise, could shed greater light. Most Americans favor increased taxes on the very wealthy, who seem to save rather than invest their tax savings. The "no new taxes" paradigm originated with Ronald Reagan. but he both lowered and raised income taxes.
The debate on raising the national debt ceiling provides a perhaps scary backdrop to dueling paradigms. Since the ceiling has always been raised, albeit at times reluctantly, we cannot point to the concrete effects of a failure to act. Checks and balances and separation of powers generally lead to inactivity in the American system. The clash of the paradigms makes such stasis even more likely.
In the sciences, dominant paradigms have dictated the direction of research and have affected careers. This phenomenon -- now apparent in U.S. politics -- could have more drastic political and economic effects. What is believed to be right and true prevents the consideration of alternatives in both arenas.
Lana Stein is a professor emerita of political science at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.