No science in notion
I enjoy the columns of Dr. Bradley Gitz. Mostly, I believe, he is astute. However, last Monday he discussed President Trump’s ascendancy and termed that ascendancy “luck.”
Now Gitz has a specialty in “political science.” I submit that this term is a definite misnomer. There is no science in politics. Some have said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Be that as it may, we Americans try to make it otherwise.
Until the last century and a half, there was the quaint notion of “divine providence.” Many prominent Americans, from the founders—Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.—through the terrible Civil War, Lincoln and many others believed that there was precious little luck in the events shaping our country’s progress.
Andrew Jackson would probably be considered a “thug” today. He killed men in duels, was outspoken and brash. Yet I think few called it “luck” when he defeated the British in New Orleans. Even Jackson began to see himself as a servant of “divine providence.”
This whole idea is unpopular today. Perhaps it is because divine providence implies both a divine being and a purpose. And so the notion of “luck” is seen as a better fit.
Gitz says that most any Republican could have defeated Hillary. Whatever kind of thinking this is, it is certainly not science.