Back in the day, when I was at Texas Tech, I taught the required course of American and Texas Public Policy.
I started by defining the two ends of the spectrums for a democracy:
nightwatchman state that only focuses on international threats or ... Sweden.
The point? 1/x
That the US and, yes, Texas, would be someplace in between those extremes with lots of choices over different policies.
That markets work in very painful ways if not regulated. Sure, companies that make dangerous products will eventually go out of business as word gets out 2/x
but people have to get hurt for a company to get a reputation for being dangerous, for instance.
oh, and markets also fail and then what?
That collective action problems means that without someone or some group to provide public goods, they don't happen.
3/x
I never tried to provide a "right" answer. Just that all these areas of public policy present tradeoffs.
It was, as I said, a required class for all students at TTU, so many students were not happy to be there.
Hard to disentangle some of dislike for required class 4/x
versus the material itself. My evals were ok, which may be surprising upon reflection given how much I challenged some core beliefs--that government is, well, evil--of more than a few.
5/x
I wonder how those who took classes like that view deregulation of utilities vs those who did not--that is, before this crisis.
After all, at the time, and I think still, all college students had to pass two poli sci classes to graduate.
6/x
Just pondering aloud 20 years after I left Texas.
Sure, it is the fault of the Republicans for disserving their constituents. But they kept getting elected for reasons...
One party, one grid, foreseeably bad outcomes.
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When a counter insurgency is successful, people think of the insurgents as mere criminals and don't really think that hard about the government's ability to sustain itself.
People don't like to securitize things like pandemics or such for a variety of reasons. However, when violent actors threaten to kill politicians, including the 2nd-3rd in line, well, it comes pre-securitized.
Which means we need to think a bit about the war ahead.
One of the fundamental points of convergence among scholars of international relations is that uncertainty is usually bad.
Countries tend to do things that make things worse when they are uncertain 1/x
That cooperation is hard in an uncertain world. Institutions were designed to reduce uncertainty.
Here is where Trump comes in: 2/x
Trump attacks pretty much all international institutions--NATO, World Trade Org, NAFTA, UN, etc.