As a young undergraduate in the late 1990s, I majored in political science and minored in history, mostly because I enjoyed family discussions of these when I was growing up.  I took a lot of courses describing international affairs, domestic politics, comparing different countries, and learning about different periods of history. 

Maybe universities still teach that way.  But it doesn’t seem that way anymore. 

Universities are more interested in regulating and stifling speech than in teaching students.  Since when is the word “American” bad? How does banning that word teach students how to function in the world? How does that teach students how to be scientists or doctors or engineers, or how to do anything else?  Why is it wrong to teach that there are two genders, male and female?  How is it possible for mathematics to be racist?

In modern times, political science seems to be mainly about justifying more control over people, more foreign adventures, and more empowerment of large corporations and transnational institutions such as the United Nations (UN), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), or the World Economic Forum (WEF). That’s the trend in Foreign Affairs, which I subscribe to.  Many books by professors or by institutions are advertised in every issue; these are usually wordy tomes that prescribes complicated and costly solutions to the world’s woes. Not surprisingly, most of these solutions involve transnational institutions and their poking, prying, and meddling in the national affairs of every country and the affairs of individual citizens.  The academics believe that their academic credentials make themselves superior to everyone else, and that those who lack academic credentials are rubes who need guidance in the form of endless regulations, hectoring, and nagging.  God forbid that we consider returning to a minimal night-watchman state instead of endless programs of questionable utility funded by endless debt and inflation. 

One of my pet peeves in political science is the term “resource curse”.  Stop saying this! Resources are NEVER a curse! Resources, energy, the knowledge of how to harness them, and work are what brought our species out of the Stone Age!  The real curse is rotten, inept, corrupt, and oppressive governments, as well as the corporations and academic ideologues that hijack governments. But if we called it the “government corruption curse” or the “government tyranny curse”, people might start being skeptical of government. Can’t have that; it might be bad for the MICIMATT gravy train.  Hey academics and environmentalists – if resources are such a curse, stop using them. Sell your homes and your cars. Get rid of your smartphones and your laptops. Stop flying to conferences; walk or ride a horse instead. Don’t buy your food at the grocery store or have it delivered; get off your butts and get back to hunting (without modern weapons) and gathering.  Show us how we can live without resources.  Lead by example or shut up. 

The professors and the globalists behind corporations and transnational institutions want a world government.  They believe that the world will function more smoothly – for themselves – if nation-states are no longer sovereign.  Sovereignty, as defined by one of my professors long ago, is supreme legitimate authority within a territory.  Robert Heinlein’s more cynical definition is that “sovereign” is a place in the dictionary between “sober” and “sozzled”.  The bottom line is that the globalists want to suborn traditional nation-states to the authority of transnational bodies.  They are well aware that most people worldwide are deeply skeptical about world government, for many reasons. They won’t subject this to a public debate in every nation.  Instead, they try to sneak it in by treaties, conventions, or simply getting potential future leaders or influencers to sing from the same horrible songbook. 

What is good governance?  What is most likely to bring peace and prosperity to every nation, regardless of culture or religion or demographics?  Many books have been written about this, but it’s hard to beat David Landes’s definition in The Wealth and Poverty of Nations:

1)    Secure rights of private property, the better to encourage saving and investment.

2)    Secure rights of personal liberty – secure them against both the abuses of tyranny and private disorder (crime and corruption).

3)    Enforce rights of contract, explicit and implicit.

4)    Provide stable government, not necessarily democratic, but itself governed by publicly known rules (a government of laws rather than men).  If democratic, that is, based on periodic elections, the majority wins but does not violate the rights of the losers, while the losers accept their loss and look forward to another turn at the polls.

5)    Provide responsive government, one that will hear complaint and make redress.

6)    Provide honest government, such that economic actors are not moved to seek advantage and privilege inside or outside the marketplace.  In economic jargon, there should be no rents to favor and position.

7)    Provide moderate, efficient, ungreedy government. The effort should be to hold taxes down, reduce the government’s claim on the social surplus, and avoid privilege.

I sure don’t see any of Landes’s prescriptions being implemented today in the United States. The Federal Reserve has been debasing the U.S. dollar since 1913.  The federal government is spending money like water; the national debt is almost $32 trillion dollars.  One “solution” to the national debt has been to vastly increase the size of the Internal Revenue Service and tax anyone making more than $600 on side hustles.  Apparently reducing civilian and military spending is anathema. Admiral Michael Mullen, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in 2012 that the biggest threat to U.S. national security is the national debt.  Over a decade has gone by since he made that speech, yet the national debt has grown by leaps and bounds.  Instead of “hearing complaint and making redress,” the United States government jumped into bed with Big Tech to silence complaint.

There is no attempt to promote energy generation except for ground-based solar and wind, which are politically correct but intermittent.  Mining on Earth is highly restricted.  There is some justification for this in the sense that mining can be very destructive, but little acknowledgement that these resources are needed. Star Trek replicators do not exist.  Some companies are preparing to mine in space, but there seems to be no encouragement by the U.S. government.  No one seems to have thought through the fact that electrification of the economy will require lots of metals, including rare earth elements.  Recycling of rare earth elements and precious metals in electronics seems to get very little attention.  The British are doing it; why can’t we?  Some companies are preparing to mine in space, but there seems to be no encouragement by the U.S. government.  Orbital solar power has been studied by the U.S. government many times (look for the links at the end of the article), but not implemented.  In theory, studying something is a way of making sure that the government does not waste manpower, money, or time on something unwise; in practice, “studying” something is a quiet way to kill it. 

Civilian spending programs seem to be about promoting the homeless-industrial complex and traditional K-12 methods of education, without any attempt to think about whether these programs are solving the problems that they are ostensibly meant to solve.  Are alienating and overcrowded “kid factories” really the best environment for turning children into educated, self-reliant adults?  Ssshhh…you’ll offend the public school unions.  Is a university degree the only way up?  Ssshhh…you’ll offend the professors and the administrators in universities, who need to keep the student loan gravy train going.

The military budget is now over $800 billion dollars, yet somehow it takes a long time to bring weapons from design to front line, and somehow the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy has grown larger than the United States Navy, despite the smaller Chinese military budget.  Somehow various kinds of drones are sneaking into restricted U.S. airspace, within the continental United States.  What are we getting for this $800 billion?  Has the U.S. government been spending too much on power projection (aircraft carriers, long-range bombers, etc.) and not enough on home defense? Is it possible to involve We the People more (here and here) instead of just relying on hideously complicated and expensive high-tech programs? Should we put more effort into securing our borders, our airspace, and our coastlines?  Ssshhh…you’ll offend the military-industrial complex. 

The United States is in danger of being trounced economically or militarily by countries that make stuff and do stuff instead of studying, filibustering, and litigating everything to death.  What do the academics have to say about that?  Mostly nothing useful.

None of David Landes’s prescriptions require any transnational organization of any kind.  The only requirements are understanding of these solutions and consensus within every nation for implementing it. That’s the toughest part. Some people won’t understand; others will understand very well but also understand that honest government would mean a loss of power and profit for them or even imprisonment.

In addition, the concept of the nation-state is eroding.  Many people are more concerned with older methods of identification such as race, religion, or clan.  A few people are talking about “network states”, but Earth is still organized into territorial nation-states; the members of “network states” are still going to be subject to territorial nation-states.  Robert Heinlein warned about the rise of corporate states – that is, corporations that can match the economic power of conventional nation-states -- in his dystopia Friday, which depicts the breakup of the United States and has a hilarious and prescient parody of California.   

It might do academics some good if they went out and got their hands dirty once in a while instead of just wallowing around the halls of academia and government and writing position papers. A few do, but not many; they’re happy in the MICIMATT.  Their lives are good; most other people’s are not.  Political science isn’t about good governance anymore. It’s about academic prestige, corporate donations, and government contracts. My old major has gone down the drain. Not surprisingly, government’s ability to do its job has gone down the drain too. 

NOTE: I edited this on 08-25-2023 to denounce the term “resource curse” and to add some comments about the night-watchman state and about home defense.