The following story is the fourth installment of the Political Science in Arkansas interview series, where we profile political scientists throughout the state. Today, we talk to Williams Yamkam. He is Assistant Professor of Political Science and the Chair of the American Democracy Project at University of Arkansas-Fort Smith, and serves as the program chair for the 2021 ArkPSA virtual meeting. He received his PhD and MA in political science from Wayne State University, and graduated from the American University’s Campaign Management Institute in Washington, D.C. His research and teaching focus on American national government, state and local government, comparative political institutions, the U.S. Congress, and campaigns and election.
What do you consider your career accomplishments?
I am very much humbled by the opportunity I have had to lead a team of students, faculty, and staff to create a civic engagement program that fosters civic engagement and political participation among UAFS students [through the American Democracy Project]. It is quite rewarding to get students to learn about the American democratic process by allying theoretical principles with the practical applications of politics through town halls with public officials, election fairs, political debates, panel discussions, voter registration drives, etc.
What got you into studying political science?
Since I my high school years, I was somehow fascinated by (American) politics, so much so that I ambitioned to come to the United States, from my homeland of Cameroon, to study and master most of the facets of (American) politics. And I am still doing that.
What did you study for your dissertation, and what does your dissertation research teach us about modern politics?
My dissertation was about using the theory of evolution as a metaphor to explain the evolution of political ideologies and understand the reason behind the different manifestations of a given theory in different countries. In essence, what transpired what that, just like organic matters evolve as a result of an interaction between the genes and the environment, political ideologies manifest themselves as a consequence of the interactions between their ‘genes’ and the ‘cultural’ environment in which they are implemented.
What does it mean to be a comparativist studying politics? Is being a comparativist a methodological choice about using case studies, a conceptual choice, a scope choice about studying things beyond the US, or some other thing entirely?
It’s all of the above. Understanding the methodology used in comparative politics is just as important as the study of concepts, and case studies. Above all, the focus is on establishing a causal relationship between two or more variables so as to explain political phenomena WITHIN a given country. Then, the task is to compare and contrast the said phenomena with their manifestation in other countries so as to establish a pattern of causal relationships that could enhance the body of knowledge in the field of comparative politics in particular and in the field of political science in general.
Some political scientists argue that American government and politics courses should be taught in a comparative context to introductory students. Where do you stand on the issue?
In principle, I would agree with that stance. For, there is nothing wrong with exploring a variety of instructional methods to educate our students. However, the challenge seems to be to figure out a way to teach this comparative approach to students who don’t even yet have a good grasp of the basics of American Government and Politics. Maybe one could explore the possibility of splitting that introductory course into two different courses to be offered in two consecutive semesters.
Are voters in the US and elsewhere rational in their act of voting? How so?
Given that voting is a personal affair, it stands to reason that any vote is presumed to be somewhat rational. There may not be a consensus on the legitimacy of a given reason to vote for a candidate or another, but a reason is a reason. As the literature has demonstrated over several decades of research, voters have a variety of reasons that determine how they cast their votes. Those reasons can range from economic, political, cultural, ideological, partisan, to personal reasons.
How do you think the 2020 presidential campaign is different from past campaigns; how is it similar to previous political campaigns?
The COVID-19 pandemic definitely changed how candidates campaigned in the 2020 elections. Most candidates had to be creative in how to best connect with (potential) supporters. From virtual campaign events to mail-in voting, the 2020 campaign upended the traditional rules of campaigning. Besides, the fact that President Donald Trump is a polarizing figure stoked the enthusiasm on both sides of the political spectrum. And since a presidential race has an impact on down ballot races, many down ballot races saw some undue influence from the race between President Trump and former Vice-President Joe Biden.
However, traditional campaign elements still remained such as the need for a catchy message, a compelling messenger, a good ground game plan, a solid air game plan, adequate fundraising, an efficient campaign operation, etc.
The 2016 election brought a great amount of public criticism of political polling and how the media explained polls about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Do you still have confidence in polling and its role within American electoral campaigns?
Yes, I still believe in polling. Polling is both a science and an art. It is true that many pollsters got it wrong in 2016 and many more got it wrong in 2020. That is most likely attributable to some built-in assumptions that turned out to be wrong. For example, some pollsters on the right side of the political spectrum kept advancing the notion that there are ‘Shy Trump Voters’ in the country who either would decline to answer questions from pollsters or would be untruthful about their true feelings towards President Donald Trump. However, many other pollsters disregarded this notion. It turned out that just like in 2016, there were many shy Trump voters in 2020 that were not accounted for by many pollsters. It seems these pollsters did not make the right adjustments that could have made their polling assumptions more in line with reality. National pollsters may just have to be careful to not let groupthink influence the assumptions that they build into their polling modeling. That being said, polling is still a scientific and reputable endeavor.
Is Trump an anomaly of conservative ideology and the Republican Party, a substantial shift for Republicans and conservatives, or a continuity of Republican and conservative ideology?
I may be wrong on this but I don’t even think President Donald Trump operates from a specific ideology. True, he is a Republican. True, he has implemented a series of conservative policies. But, I think he is more of a populist than anything else. For many decades he cozied up to democratic politicians in New York and in the country. Along with some of his adult children, he held many liberal views for many decades. I personally think that had he felt that there ever was a chance for him to win in the democratic primaries, he probably would have run as a Democrat in 2016.
Like many politicians, he certainly has used demagogic tactics to advance his political interests.
He is certainly an anomaly in that his personality can be quite abrasive to some. Plus, the fact that he had no prior political experience before his election as President of the United States might have created a certain level of angst in his dealings with various stakeholders within the government and within institutions such as the news media. Furthermore, his business background coupled with the fact that he was well off when running for office might have given him the boldness to speak and act in a carefree way that traditional politicians would not have embraced.
Given his huge following within the Republican Party, what is likely to happen is that President Trump will influence politics within the Republican Party in the years to come.
What can Americans learn from studying other representative democracies around the world?
Americans can learn that most representative democracies around the world have more than two political parties that represents a variety of ideologies within a political spectrum. Besides, they can learn that, to reduce the influence of money in politics, presidential elections in many countries are solely funded by the taxpayers. Also, many countries don’t allow political candidates to campaign until two weeks prior to a given election. Moreover, to limit the influence of the media in a given election, many representative democracies such as France require the news media to provide equal time to the candidates who are vying for a given political office.
What makes Arkansas politics unique as compared to other states around the US? What similarities does it possess?
In my opinion, the small size, the agricultural make-up of its economy, the folksy nature of its people, and the accessibility of its public officials, contribute to making politics in Arkansas quite unique. So much so that, despite the acrimony that often takes place in electoral politics, many Arkansas elected officials are known to be quite respectful and friendly towards their counterparts in the other party. This is good for the Arkansas democracy in that things can get done easier in Arkansas than in states where cutthroat politics is often displayed.
Politics in Arkansas is like politics anywhere else in that it’s all about acquiring, keeping, and increasing (political) power. And the most efficient way to achieving that goal is to organize as a political party to recruit candidates, formulate a policy platform, and mobilize enough voters to elect a slate of candidates.
Are there universal attributes that all successful election campaigns possess?
Yes! A successful candidate’s campaign often starts with a clear answer to the following question: Why are you running for office and why should people vote for you? The answer to this question must then lead to the articulation of a clear and catchy message that distinguishes the candidate from other (potential) candidates, a compelling messenger (the candidate) to effectively deliver the said message, and an efficient campaign organization to identify and mobilize enough voters to win a race. A catchy message and a compelling messenger are often enough to attract the enthusiasm of voters, which could then translate into a sufficient fundraising effort. All things being equal, the above-mentioned campaign elements are often enough to propel a candidate to victory.
Some political scientist, following WEB DuBois, suggest that understanding race is indispensable to understanding politics. Where do you stand on this issue? Can we understand politics without addressing race, or is it indispensable to our analysis of the world? Could we claim the indispensability of gender or class in explaining politics?
In campaign management training school, we were taught a couple of military concepts that are essential to mounting a successful campaign. Those concepts are referred to as the OODA (Observe, Orient, Direct, and Act) loop and as situational awareness, that is the ability of be aware of all the essential elements of a given (political) environment so as to make the necessary strategic and tactical decisions.
A U.S. political candidate or a U.S. political campaign cannot be situationally aware without taking into account race realities in America. I will go further to add that a political candidate or a political campaign cannot be successful without understanding the key political, economic, social, and cultural realities of the given geographic area in which one campaigns. This points to the understanding of identity politics and the key groups that can be part of a winning coalition that a political campaign puts together. As political scientists, we ought to have a good grasp of identity politics to properly understand and explain political behaviors.
How are you coping with the pandemic in the classroom? Are there lessons that this pandemic can teach us about politics and how we teach?
The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have affected all walks of life, including the field of (higher) education. Due to the need to observe social distancing guidelines, many adjustments have had to be made on many campuses across the country, including on my campus. From moving many regular courses online, to divvying up regular courses into more smaller sessions, my students and I have had to adjust to this new COVID-19-impacted environment. For example, I find myself compelled to record audio and video lectures to supplement my in-class delivery and accommodate those of my students who have been quarantined due to either being exposed to or being infected with COVID-19. Besides, due to enrollment numbers that have negatively been impacted by COVID-19, a focus has been put on devoting even more time than usual to make sure that we help students navigate this unprecedented situation.
In my opinion, one of the main political lessons that the COVID-19 pandemic has elicited is that a pandemic doesn’t discriminate between Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, etc. Therefore, it is imperative for public officials to set aside their own partisan orientations to work together, use facts to guide public policy, and swiftly and effectively execute that public policy for the good of the people. There are more important things in life and in politics than to score cheap political points.
You advise the African Student Association. What misconceptions do your colleagues, members of the community, and other Americans have about Africans? How do you confront those misconceptions?
It has been a pleasure of mine to serve as the faculty advisor to the UAFS African Students Association. Through this association, we have been able to expose UAFS students, faculty, and staff as well as members of the Fort Smith community to various aspects of the African culture (cuisine, fashion, performance show, history, etc.). The fact that we have consistently hosted more than 250 fees-paying guests over the years suggests that we have at least succeeded in generating some curiosity about the African culture on campus and in the Fort Smith community, and at most contributed to the education of our guests on the African culture. We hope to have dispelled many of the preconceived stereotypes that some in our community may have had about the African culture such as Africans living only in jungles as hunters and gatherers, Africans not wearing modern clothes, African countries being all dictatorships, etc.).
We figured it is only through engaging with and educating people in our on-campus and off-campus communities that we could effectively dispel any misconceptions about the African culture. Though we still have work to do, we seem to be making progress.