Why to Avoid Intro Classes, and Bullshit

Recently Foreign Policy Magazine ranked the world’s worst textbooks, defining “worst” as being the most propagandist.  For example, China made the list, supported by the following quote from a “widely used history textbook:”

"The fundamental reason for the victory [in World War II] is that the Chinese Communist Party became the core power that united the nation."

Foreign Policy Magazine doesn’t explain, but I assume that the “worst textbooks” they cite were written for children or young adults, not for college students who presumably are trying to hone some skill of critical thinking.  My textbook for POS 110: American Government and Politics does not share this excuse.

The textbook for POS 110 is quite inspiringly called The New American Democracy.  From the title one could guess the authors cast a rather rosy hue on our empire, but like any good political scientist and unlike most ASU students, I decided to actually read the textbook before making any judgments.

On page 8 the authors contrast government by the many with government by the few, writing: “In the twentieth century alone, millions of people have died at the hands of rulers who gained near-absolute power—tyrants such as Germany’s Hitler, the Soviet Union’s Stalin, China’s Mao, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.”

Woh now!  As a political scientist, I’m afraid I have to question some shit.  If our purpose is to assess the efficacy of different regimes, we should also mention successful governments headed by one person, like Turkey under Mustafa Kemal or Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.

After laying out the US system, the authors use page 21 to address some common criticisms of the US government:

“If American politics and government are so blameworthy, why are the governments of so many new democracies adopting institutions similar to those found in the United States?”

Now, as a political scientist I might have some reservations about this rhetorical question, like why are the authors asking a rhetorical question?  Their intended audience is college freshmen who are ill-prepared to argue with academics in the field.  Being a little more experienced, I would point out that the authors don't specify which governments have adopted similar institutions.  Nor do they explain which institutions are adopted and why.  They also don’t try to analyze whether foreign governments are really adopting American institutions or just democratic institutions that might be more similar to Britain’s or France’s.

Next the authors defend America by saying, Hey, at least we’re not as messed up as these countries:

“Americans have watched in horror as civil war or genocide has erupted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Chechnya, Albania, Zaire, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone.”

The first thought of a college freshman reading this is probably: Where the fuck are all these countries?  As a political scientist, however, I might have to ask these authors what exactly our country's role was in these conflicts.  How many were started, supported, or ignored by the United States while we “watched in horror?”  I’ll give you a few seconds to count.

Now that our blowjob to American government textbook has generously opened its pages to the world, ASU political science freshmen are given their first summation of US foreign policy.  It goes like this:

“Citizens of the United States have enjoyed a government that has a better record than most at protecting them against foreign aggression while usually avoiding unwise involvement in foreign conflicts.”

Ok, good record . . . (thinking) . . . 7 + a tie in Korea – 1 for Vietnam + 2 for the Gulf War cause you know, it was awesome + Trail of Tears = ok yeah they keep us safe, the first part is legit.  Now for the sec—OH DEAR LORD!  I mean I'd like to know just which unwise foreign entanglements got past us?  There’s invading Canada, Vietnam and Cambodia, junta in Greece, coup in Chile, terrorist war in Nicaragua, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanist—we’re running out of countries!  Oh, there is one place where we didn’t intervene.  Rwanda.  Well thank God we stayed out of that mess.

Of course these authors aren’t idiots.  They’ve been saving their trump card to refute the non-believers.  And right there on page 21 I found it:

“Critics selectively cite statistics showing that the United States is worse than Germany in one respect, worse than Japan in another respect, worse than Sweden in some other respect, and so on.  But can one conclude with confidence that any other government of a large country works better? Probably not.”

Indeed, I for one am so pleased that these authors have taken on critics who would stoop so low as to select their data—or even have data.  Notice that the authors do not explain what these statistics say, or why they might be wrong.  As a political scientist and a native speaker of English I have to question countering statistics with “Probably not.”  And again with the rhetorical questions.  You, college freshman, in your first college class reading your very first chapter, will you argue—with full confidence—that any other country is better than America?

To conclude my fellow students’ indoctrination, the authors, on page 23, write:

“The United States, for all its problems, has as good a government as exists anywhere, and a better one than most.”

“Better than most”—well that means good.  “As good as exists anywhere”—ok so we’re definitely at least tied for first place.  That means we won, right?

Now imagine being a Chinese citizen and reading this American college textbook about our government.  I think a lot of this would sound about as jingoistic as the Chinese history book that attributes Japanese defeat in world War II to the Chinese Communist Party.

I often criticize the American government’s past and current policies, and many people disagree with me.  That’s ok.  As political scientists, we need to understand multiple points of view, see the big picture, and evaluate arguments with evidence, rather than unsubstantiated propaganda.  Perhaps many people will agree with the statements in my textbook that I have ridiculed.  Regardless, where is the academic merit in criticizing others’ statistics without citing them, explaining them, and refuting them?  Is there anything remotely scientific  in saying that our government is “as good as exists anywhere” and “better than most?”  

This is not a high school giving us just enough background to simply function as citizens.  This is a university that students are paying to guide them in analyzing, criticizing, and reshaping politics.  And—to be frank—they’re being handed propagandist bullshit.   Thank God I can smell it, probably because I never took POS 110.