'Politics' is a 'public discipline'; it functions 'sluggishly', and is not a "science".

It's not easy to be a politician, (assuming 'serious motives' in the practitioner), because the trajectory between the Top and the Bottom of government, is replete with social, institutional and linguistic obstacles; of course, everyone recognizes that there is a 'gap' between the 'word' and the 'reality'; that's natural. Since, all our language is naturally 'abstract', there must exist a gap between the 'saying' and the 'doing'; except, maybe, exclamations of pain, like "Ouch". In such cases, the connection between the exclamation, and the pain sustained, is 'somewhat inseparable'. To be sure, such, is not the case with 'political terms'. Why is that? Simply, because the 'separation' between the Top and the Bottom of Government, is a real 'institutional separation' which creates a 'real relation' between the Top, or the few, and the 'real millions' of individuals at the Bottom. There is no question that both, you and I, are 'real', nor, that all 'Others' at the Bottom, are also real. There's also no question that, we live under government; nor is there a question that Government arises from the Constitution, and that the Constitution requires interpretation. Of course, this is the point, where 'interpretive practices' in the Judicial Branch, kick-in. The reasons for that is that the 'generalities framed' in the Constitution must be 'applied' to specific cases. But, only certain disputes can be heard by the Court. Why? because only certain disputes involve the 'mode' of governing, or the 'Constitutionality or Unconstitutionality' of the activity. But, Constitutional adjudication has its problems also. Why should that occur? Because they are also divided into Political Parties, and hence have different 'loyalties'. All Judicial candidates are asked if they will 'follow' the Constitution; yet, I've never heard of a candidate being asked, in 'unambiguous terms', if s/he, will 'renounce' his/her 'Party-loyalty'. Too extreme you say. Yet, its the only Branch of Government that should be 'Constitutionally Objective'. So how can Politics be a 'science' that determines 'proper' political activity? The term, "Political Science', is an oxymoron. To be sure, its "political", but, a "science"?, not even close.