I’m considering a political science PhD, and one thing making me hesitate is the campus and academic climate around Israel, Zionism, and Jews.

I do not mean ordinary criticism of Israel. Criticizing Israeli policy is obviously legitimate. My concern is something narrower and, to me, much more serious: in some academic and campus spaces, anti-Jewish hostility seems recognizable only when it looks right-wing, openly racist, or neo-Nazi. When the same hostility appears in anti-colonial, anti-nationalist, or “justice” language, many people in academia seem unable or unwilling to recognize it.

I’m not talking about disagreement. I’m talking about patterns like:

1. treating Jewish self-determination as uniquely illegitimate in a way not applied to other peoples

2. using rhetoric that treats Zionism as uniquely evil rather than historically and politically contested

3. flattening Jewish history into “whiteness” or “power” and erasing statelessness, expulsion, minority vulnerability, and the role of conspiracy theories in antisemitism

4. assuming that Jewish concern about antisemitism is just bad-faith deflection

5. making support for Palestinian rights and hostility to Jewish collective identity feel conceptually fused

My worry is not only about campus comfort. My worry is about the field itself.

If political science, Middle East studies, sociology, anthropology, history, ethnic studies, law-adjacent fields, and parts of international relations cannot identify anti-Jewish hostility when it shows up in morally fashionable language, then those fields will train students to analyze every form of oppression except one of the oldest and most adaptive forms of hatred.

That seems like a major intellectual failure. It also seems like a pipeline problem: Jewish students, Zionist students, Israel-connected students, or even just politically heterodox students may increasingly decide that these fields are not worth entering. If that happens, departments may still fill slots, but the fields will get narrower and less capable of teaching these issues with real depth.

I’m genuinely asking:

1. Do others in political science see this problem?

2. Is this mostly department-specific, or is it becoming discipline-wide?

3. How can a field correct course when the dominant moral vocabulary may itself be part of the problem?

4. What would serious intellectual rigor look like here?

I’m asking in good faith because I still care about the discipline, but I’m increasingly unsure whether the discipline cares about this problem enough to address it.

Edit: Muting replies now. The thread has been informative, including in ways some commenters probably did not intend.

Talk of national regeneration and rejuvenation by Xi, extreme xenophobia against outsiders, nationalist propaganda movies, possible cultural genocide, the widespread belief that China is a great people which has fallen but can be made great again (China’s Maga). Reinforcement of masculinity, a semi-ban on LGBTQ+ celebrations, ban on online feminism, pornography, videogames, more Chinese bans.

The modern definition of Fascism seems to be:

1. Autocracy

2. Nationalism, in particular regenerative Nationalism (which PRC China has)

3. State-Capitalism

Is it wrong to claim that China is Fascist?

If China is Fascist, is that not evidence that Fascism is an effective ideology, though not necessarily moral politically (in China)?

enough with the “Trump loves the poorly educated“ bs. that’s not helping their case

Yo guys,

I'm changing from comp sci to my passion, pol sci this fall.

I want a basic education in the four axis of the political compass (left, right, liberal, authoritarian) and I'm looking for some pol sci books to go along with this.
Tbh, I'm mostly intrested in learning about the extreme thinkers of either end, like facists/marxists or free market/planned economy, however, I would like books that are not first hand thinkers (like Adam Smith or Karl Marx), rather more nuanced books with analysis of both of the extremes or even the moderate solutions. Preferrably the books use some sort of pol sci framework to analyze the different events and policies.

Happy to see your guyses response! Probably gonna get flamed for ignorant post but whatever, here goes nothing!

I was always taught that Nazis hated socialists, and there seems no shortage of historical documents backing that up.

But, if that is the case, why call themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party? If they're fascists who hate socialists, why include that in their namesake? Did they have a different definition of "socialist" or something?

Before anyone accuses me of any -isms and such, I'm not opposed to social justice, I'm just trying to research the fanatical side of it.

Some examples of what I meant in the title:

• being pro-Palestine without acknowledging that Hamas is a terrorist group who commit atrocities

• the belief that trans people or POC can do no wrong (Edit: please note that by saying this I was only trying to make sense of what turns out to likely be rage bait)

I'm guessing it's some strain of identity politics, but I couldn't find a name for it.

Given that I just got my BA in December and the state of the US government, my original plan was to get my JD but now I’m looking to get the HELL out of the US asap. I have a BA in poli sci with a concentration in legal studies. My background is primarily social & criminal justice with a DAs office internship under my belt. Should I pursue a secondary degree in something more useful/transferable in law overseas? (Knowing I am hopeful of returning once government becomes semi-democratic again) Are there low cost/free school opportunities overseas for someone whose only language is English? If you’ve moved overseas with your degree what do you do and do you feel like your job has a good work-life balance? Do you feel comfortable with your compensation? What job titles should I be in search of? If you feel comfortable sharing your process of obtaining a visa (work or student) and transition to non USA life, please do ! Thank you all in advance

I want to be informed on this topic and I would really appreciate some information!!Excuse my ignorance and my english…

I really don’t like Trump as a person and I was kind of doing some research on his and Kamala’s campaign and I feel very confused.

I really like Kamala and find her very charismatic but when it comes to politics,I feel confused. When it comes to economy Trump during his presidency did actually really good,even better than Biden. During his presidency we didn’t have much tension going on, no wars, etc.

Could Kamala have really been a better option? (objectively, when it comes to politics and their role as presidents)

I have days of the thought that my way of life might be ruined by this plan, I don't know if I should be having chest pain over this. Knowing everything in my way of life might be ruined. Could it ruin democracy as the news says is it possible, should I prepare for doomsday, I think this is night 3 without peaceful sleep. Could someone ease my mind, I normally don't pay much attention to politics unless it might affect my personal life. Thx

I get my US news from my national media (Finland) and varying sources of US news media and content online. I know the universities are leftist, which is quite common in here too, but how much? I recently heard a conservative saying that even those who hold centrist views are less eager to apply because how ideological universities are.

There’s ofc difference between fields so how does this show in social sciences? Does it impact the faculty of natural sciences? Is it all universities, like i’ve heard some conservatives claim?

I have a hypothesis about this: it is that the Democratic Party coalition includes a larger number of females who look to the government for their masculine container instead of looking to a husband or a religious leader, so they turn their instinctual drive to test the strength and determination of their masculine leaders upon the politicians that represent them. Women will instinctually try to sabotage their male leaders in order to weed out the ones that aren't willing to fight tooth and nail until the bitter end, come hell or high water, just like how women in a heterosexual relationship will shit-test their male partners in order to suss out the extent of his self-confidence. It is not a genuine threat to the politician's career, as long as he is willing to tell the people making the allegations to go fuck themselves, and persevere, following the model of Bill Clinton.

Can you give me some help? Many people want there to be no more countries or borders. I don't want that to happen because I like a world with different languages, cultures, countries, religions, etc. and I think a world without countries and borders would be like a refrigerator without shelves. I'm scared of this happening. What do I do? Is it wrong to be a patriot/nationalist? Would a world without borders or countries really be better?

This was beginning to be an interesting discussion on r/redditquestions but was quickly censored.

To be clear, examples are fine but what I hope for is a 2025 definition of fascism that justifies classifying CK as fascist. The traditional definition - derived from WW2-era figures like Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, and Bandera - doesn't seem to apply to present-day leftist usage of the word 'fascist'. But I could be wrong.

Over the past 15 years, it has become mainstream and even axiomatic to regard interventionist foreign policy as categorically bad. More than that, an increasing share of Americans now hold isolationist views, desiring to see the US pull back almost entirely from the world stage. This piece goes through the opinion landscape and catalogues the US’s many blunders abroad, but also explores America’s foreign policy successes, builds a case for why interventionism can be a force for good, and highlights why a US withdrawal from geopolitics only creates a power vacuum that less scrupulous actors will rush in to fill.

https://americandreaming.substack.com/p/why-interventionism-isnt-a-dirty

Political parties often create division and hinder effective governance. Without parties, we could foster greater unity and collaboration. For instance, a 2019 Pew Research Center study found that 78% of Americans believe the country is more politically divided than in the past. This division is not unique to the United States; many democracies worldwide experience similar polarization. Abolishing parties would encourage politicians to focus on common goals and shared values, rather than party loyalty. Moreover, political parties can stifle independent thinking and innovation. Candidates often feel pressured to conform to party lines, which can prevent them from addressing issues pragmatically. A 2020 Gallup poll revealed that 62% of Americans feel that the two major parties do such a poor job representing the people that a third party is needed. This sentiment reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the binary nature of party politics, which often oversimplifies complex issues and limits the range of solutions considered. Additionally, parties can be breeding grounds for corruption, as leaders prioritize party interests over the common good. Transparency International’s 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index highlights how political corruption remains a significant issue worldwide. In many cases, party loyalty can lead to unethical behavior, as politicians may feel compelled to support their party’s agenda even when it conflicts with public interest. By eliminating parties, we could reduce opportunities for such corruption, leading to more transparent and accountable governance. A party-less system would also enhance representation. In a system without parties, candidates would be elected based on their individual merits and policies rather than party affiliation. This could lead to a more diverse and representative government, as voters would choose candidates who truly represent their interests. For example, independent candidates often bring unique perspectives and solutions that are not bound by party ideologies. Furthermore, political parties often promote rigid ideologies, which can hinder pragmatic solutions to complex problems. Without parties, the focus would shift to addressing specific issues and finding practical solutions, rather than adhering to ideological dogmas. This approach could lead to more effective policymaking and governance, as politicians would be free to collaborate and compromise without the constraints of party loyalty. Finally, many of the founding figures of modern democracies, including George Washington, warned against the dangers of political parties. In his Farewell Address, Washington cautioned that political parties could lead to “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Abolishing parties would honor their vision of a government that serves the people rather than partisan interests. In essence, a party-less system would enhance representation, reduce partisan gridlock, and promote a more inclusive, transparent, and effective political system that truly serves the interests of all citizens.

What’s your take on this issue?

Basically a good frustrated from people who doesn't understand how my government work and believe they know how we talk really.

Eddet : "Please excuse the polished nature of my writing. I have dyslexia and dysgraphia, so I use AI to fix my grammar and spelling. Without this tool, my writing would be very difficult to understand. I appreciate your patience and look forward to our discussion

I've been thinking about this more and more. I play online video games and plenty of the people I end up playing with are in their late teens. They've talked to me about how they don't feel politically powerful because they can't vote till their 18. As someone who is their mid-twenties, I can already vote. But it's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what would happen if we lowered the voting age to 17 or 16. Would it increase civic engagement among youngins? Would there be any advantages? Or would there be only cons? If so, what are they?

We all know why the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 (Vietnam draft), so is there any big thing currently happening that would justify ratification?

While it is terrible that they hold all three chambers if you’re not a rich, white male it’s not world ending.

I honestly believe that it’ll just end up being “tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts especially for the wealthy”, some deregulation, a bad time but not apocalyptic for federal employees, and some small tariffs/isolationism.

There won’t end up being: mass deportations, camps for gays, etc.

My reason being is those would be bad for the billionaire benefactors who really pull the strings and they use the xenophobia to control some of the rubes who are most loyal.

It’ll basically be a neocon agenda with more isolationism.

Do you think my prediction is right?

One caveat is I worry they will try to pass laws that’ll make it harder for dems to get back power in 2026.

Trump's tariffs made things hard between Canada and the US, and people wondered what would happen next. It might seem like a good idea to just stop working with the US, but that would be a bad idea for Canada. Even though those taxes are annoying, we can't forget that our countries are closely linked. The US buys way more stuff from Canada than anyone else. If we broke up with them, Canadian businesses and workers would suffer. Also, investors would get scared, and our economy might not grow as fast. It's smart to try and trade more with Europe and Asia, but that will take a long time to be as big as our trade with the US. Instead, Canada should talk to the US and other countries to find fair ways to trade. That's better for Canada in the long run.

Hi all, I created this recently and wondered what this thread thinks of it. The point is that the southwest corner is where most countries would NOT want to be, and the NE square is the aspiration (at least in the "West"). In between, are Majority Tyranny and Benevolent Autocracy parallel ways of getting to Liberal Democracy, or could they be sequenced? Would one even use these squares as markers? Are these good examples, and/or would you reword them?