John Lemon has thought about this idea before and is on the verge of doing something about it (if one considers "verge" to be about 2 years or so). I actually was asked to compile a list of possible people, but it was pretty short. I would call the section -- Cranky Political Science.

Also, I think the "new political science" thing is funny (they even have cute buttons, of which I have friends who wear them). I'm sure there will be a post-new political science section soon.

The perestroika reception was morose, with speeches and boring shit, so I bailed and can't remember where I ended up.

And John Lemon almost attended your panel by ducking out early or a more important panel, until he was stopped in the hall by someone who wanted to go drinking. Nonetheless, John Lemon looked for you.

John Lemon also got one of the best shoeshine's there, from a guy who had more wisdom than all the R Kent Jenning's combined.

Given the systemic untruths that characterize political science in the formal service of an ideology, how about countering with "True Political Science" vs. "New Political Science"?

Or other titles:

"Lemony Political Science"
"Blues Clues Political Science"
"Science-y Political Science"
"Stalinist Political Science" (to piss off perestroika)
"We Want More Panels (So My University Can Pay My Way To Meet With My Friends) Political Science"
"Polly's Sigh"
"Once-A-Year Drinking Club"

Because I graduated from Claremont McKenna College, where most government professors served as fellows at the Claremont Institute, I can't say that I was ever subjected to "new political science." I guess I should consider myself lucky.

As for a name, I'll follow Joe's lead and vouch for "Rigorous Political Science."

You might co-opt the usual Birkenstock naming practice and call it the "New New Political Science" section. Now with less whining?

A few minor points:

1. I don't think there's a need for Yet Another Normative Organized Section, even if it's one whose normative aims are consistent with my worldview. I could stand a "Madisonian" group that only sponsored receptions with open bars, however (cash bars are evil). Just no damn panels.

2. (Corrollary to 1.) APSA is already too damn big.

3. Did you see the Caucus for a New Political Science ad in the program? If I wasn't on the market this year, I'd scan it in and fisk the whole damn thing in my blog. (That and the layout was completely pathetic; I'd be embarrassed to be a member of the Caucus if that's the best design job they can do.)

Now I have to go and purge my brain of all the PoMo bullshit I've been subjected to (despite my best efforts to avoid it by exclusively going to methods and quantoid panels) the last few days.

Chris, why do I get the feeling that, if nobody was around, you would've whipped out a can of spray paint and write "Non-" over the "New" in New Political Science? ;-)

I have another suggestion for the new organized group (or section). Initially I thought "Newer Political Science" but decided upon "Newest Political Science" so they couldn't one up us anymore.

Matthew: I have no problem with the Caucus for a New Political Science (except for their silly ad); however, I have serious reservations about the resources of APSA being used to further the normative aims of any group within the association, particularly in matters external to it. I wouldn't extend this complaint to, say, the Perestoikans; since their aims are generally stated in terms of things that ought to be changed within the APSA, I don't have a problem with their having a formal role in the association.

The NPS organized section is dangerously fence-straddling here. Should political scientists have an active civic role (if they choose to have one)? Absolutely. But I don't think APSA (or any regional association) should be the vehicle for that activism; it risks politicizing the role of the association and forcing the association to make statements that do not reflect the sentiments of significant portions of its membership. (Nor would I favor a "PoliSci for Free Markets" section or a "CrunchyCon Political Science" section, for the same reasons.)

(I just realized this should probably be a blog post over at SN rather than a comment. Ah well.)

I agree that it would be better if there were no partisan section such as the "new" one in the first place. But since it appears to be here to stay, it's only fair to start a conservative section.

I hate that the left has co-opted all the positive-sounding words like "new" and "progressive" and (worst of all, as it was our side's first) "liberal." Instead, we've been saddled with the tired, dull, and inaccurate term "conservative." If any of you do propose a "conservative" section, please don't call it "conservative."

How about reclaiming the L word by calling it the Classical Liberal section? Shouldn't be too difficult to reclaim liberal, anyway, as modern-day liberals seem to be running away from the title as if it were made of Kryptonite. Ever notice how the NYT always refers to liberals as "left-of-center" or "left-leaning" these days? Of course, they never call conservatives "right-of-center" or "right-leaning."

Free market poli sci sounds okay too. Everybody likes the word "free."