Pontificating About Moe's Pontifications

I have been asked to comment on Terry Moe's review essay "The Revolution in Presidential Studies." At the onset, I must say that I am not fully comfortable in this role. Accustomed to writing research reports on evidence of scientific findings, I often believe (rightly or wrongly) that I have something new and important to say. I am not accustomed to offering opinions about opinions. And, of course, that is what this dialogue is all about--opinions. Terry's review essay consists of opinions about the occurrence of a revolution in presidential studies, rooted in rational choice, formal methodologies, and, according to Terry, destined to expand with new theories and methodologies in the future. Terry applauds the use of rational choice in recent presidential studies, and argues that a revolution is a good thing for the evolution of current and future work. In my view, Terry's remarks should be taken seriously, because he has often been a precursor of future political science theory and research (see, e.g., Moe 1984, 1990; Moe and Howell 1999b). Indeed, many of the ideas Terry has espoused (sometimes borrowed from other disciplines) have also been used in my own work (e.g., see Wood 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 2010a, 2010b; Wood and Waterman 1991, 1993, 1994; Wood and Anderson 1993; Wood and Bohte 2004; Wood and Marchbanks 2007). Thus, I am an occasional user of the theories and methodologies endorsed by Terry. On the Applicability of Rational Choice in Presidential Studies Terry states that "while rational choice is destined to be the prime vehicle of theoretical progress in the near future (emphasis on "near"), it is not destined to drive out other approaches to presidential studies even in the short term--and it is likely to lose its dominance over the longer haul, both in presidential studies and in political science more generally, to competitors that are far more in keeping with the concerns of its critics" (Moe 2009, 703). This is a different message than we have heard from Terry in the past when he advocated rational choice (Moe 1993), and one I think many readers will find more compelling. Terry continues to send the message that strong theory and formalization are important. In my view, how one views this message should depend on how one views science in relation to our field. I came to political science and presidential studies along a different path than many others. My early training was in the physical sciences, not the social sciences. In the physical sciences, strong unifying theories are commonly applied to the study of physical phenomena. For example, the theory of quantum mechanics applies broadly to the behavior of electricity, magnetism, mechanical vibrations, sound waves, electromagnetic waves, radiation, superconductivity, and a plethora of other physical phenomena that occur at the particle level. Quantum mechanics displaced Newtonian mechanics, another strong unifying theory, as an explanation of some of these phenomena. Quantum mechanics also sometimes contradicts yet another strong unifying theory, Einstein's theory of general relativity. As a theory, quantum mechanics is heavily steeped in mathematical models, and even laws about the behavior of matter at the particle level. When I worked in the physical sciences, I found quantum theory very useful. Similarly, as a social scientist, I have always felt strongly that scientific advancement depends on strong theories such as those rooted in rational choice (see, e.g., Wood 2010a). However, my experience is not the only perspective that should be considered. Before and during the time I was in graduate school, I had a friend, Dr. Thomas Goka, who was a biomedical researcher studying the causes of cancer. He is now a dean at the University of Texas Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. Tom is a medical doctor and also holds a doctorate in medical genetics. His methodology is not the application of formal mathematical models but experimentation. …