An underlying belief on the positive relationship between educating the young, on the one hand, and the economic, political, and cultural survival of a nation-state, on the other, seems present in virtually all modern and modernizing societies in the world (Chabbott & Ramirez, 2000). In the United States, this belief takes on many forms, but chief among them is the idea that education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) plays a vital role in the health and preservation of the country as a whole (Holdren & Lander, 2012). This belief can be justified, to some extent, by how reliant we all have become on the products of STEM disciplines. A democratic society in which large numbers of people are dependent on using these products but are otherwise unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the scientific and technological principles behind them is arguably setting itself up for failure. Nonetheless, contemporary arguments in favor of STEM education often employ narratives that are not novel but instead resemble certain philosophical antecedents. Hence, the author's interest here is not whether justification for the belief in the fundamental role of STEM education is necessary or sufficient for how we function as a society. Rather, what they wish to call attention to in this essay is how, in advocating for more mathematics and science education, national leaders often make use of a trope not unfamiliar to the Western philosophical tradition: education as the solution to a societal crisis. This article uses three short historical readings to illustrate this point. First, the author shows how Plato's "The Republic" and Rousseau's "Emile, or On Education" could be read, inter alia, as elaborated responses to a critical societal problem or threat the author wished to resolve. The author then sketches out how STEM education developed in the United States, paying attention to how it has been officially defended. Finally, the author contrasts and critiques the similarities and differences between these narratives and gives some reasons for being critical of them at the end.