The Perplexing Problem of a Preponderance of Perspectives

Throughout this class, we have focused on three different lenses through which political scientists view and interpret state actions: constructivism, realism and liberalism. But of course, this raises the question, does asserting one of these mean you do so to the exclusion of the other two? The answer, like so much in life, is a mix.

Once upon a time, I had an ethics teacher (if one can teach ethics) who posed a question to class: what is it always, under every circumstance can everyone agree is wrong to do? The answer is: nothing. There are almost no black and white issues in the world today, especially in the field of international affairs. For example, when handed the prompt in class on Tuesday I complained to PTJ about having to argue against an idea I agreed with. But after exploring and developing a counter-argument to the constructivist notion, I found myself actually supporting the liberal argument. But I still think the constructivist notion has substantial merit.

So, I would posit that all views have varying degrees of merit depending on the situation. Sometimes an issue can be as black and white as 99% realist but still 1% constructivist. So, an honest and unbiased observer would be able to see the various facets of the situation and how they apply to each theory. Some people will, of course, only see certain sides of an issue but taking a step back should reveal that all views have something to offer. That said, constructivism is just plain silly.

Mai Theeries R Rite

International relations is a uniquely interesting field of academia due to its holistic approach to the world.  Various schools of thought attempt to formulate ideas as to why the world exists, behaves, and is shaped the way it is.  Determining which school of thought to use within real world policy can be an arduous task.

Realism, liberalism, and constructivism all provide different explanations as to how our world interacts.  Policies governments enact can be interpreted as being based upon a specific school of thought.  For example, enacting a missile defense system in eastern Europe could be seen as realist since nations can't be sure what Russia's intentions are in the reason.  A missile defense system could deter the potential risk of Russian aggression and would be in our nation's national security interest to enact this system.  The example can be used as the basis of another question: are theories the basis of policies or do theories emerge from policies?

I believe that both options provide some level of truth.  Sticking with realism, since we can't ever be entirely sure what the intentions of another nation are, policies are sometimes enacted in a precautionary manner.  Something that has the chance of improving relations, fiscal status, etc., is better off than the risk of the inverse.  I think this shows that there can be some level of theory as the basis of policy.  Whether one theory is better/used more than others can be dependent on the situation, who's enacting what policy, or the more likely answer, it's indeterminable.  Policy does require some detachment from theory due to the importance of falsifiable action that can be required.  Theories can cause policy paralysis as different schools of thought argue over the "best course of action" based upon their beliefs. One school of thought being "more accurate" than the others doesn't necessarily disprove other theories.  Theories are based upon the compilation of historical events and a specific trend of principle that can be isolated within that period of time.  That being said, history is currently occurring and is constantly changing, theories that are strong now could be disproved, weaken, or even be eliminated.  A main example of this is the introduction of nuclear weapons.  In a previous post I explained how the introduction of mutually assured destruction radically altered IR theory.  Nation-states now had to interact with the knowledge that states were capable of virtually eliminating their existence with the atomic bomb.  This allowed for various facets of realism to arise and strengthened and weakened other theories.

In the end, determining one theory over the other is a endless process with potentially no end in sight.  Learning about these theories and their real world relevance is what's important is our understanding of them.

Clashing Theories

The discussion of determining which international relations theory is correct and which are false is a waste of time. Like anything that contradicts another thing, a common ground cannot be found without compromising the essence of each theory. Religion is a perfect example. Two contradicting religions cannot be practiced by one person, because religious principles are stated in truths, and when these do not coincide a person cannot practice both religions without breaking the spiritual understanding of each religion respectively. To be more specific, Christians base their faith on the belief that Jesus, whom they believe is God’s son, came to earth and died so that believers could be granted forgiveness from their sins and, upon death, be accepted into eternal life in heaven. Hinduism is based on the recognition of Brahman, a three-in-one god, and the principle of reincarnation. The ultimate goal is to eventually reach Nirvana, the end of their reincarnation journey. Christians believe that one must believe in Jesus in order to receive everlasting life and since the Hindu religion does not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, it is impossible for Hindus to enter heaven. Another even more stark contradiction to both above mentioned religions is atheism. Aligning oneself with a religion that states the belief in a higher, holy power directly contradicts with the belief that no higher power exists.

Similarly, it is impossible to decide which IR theory is correct. All theories are subject to each individuals opinions and perspectives. Although there may be overlapping qualities in the theories, or there may be grey areas in which multiple theories seem applicable or no theories seem applicable, each stands on its own, unable to be meshed with the other theories. Individuals must decide for themselves as to which theory they find more applicable to world politics.

It's all in theory (but not really)

The blog question for this week is a really interesting one. The way Professor Jackson words the question, he implies that it's important to define an entity using a theory of international relations. On the contrary, I think the guest speaker from Wednesday, Dr. Howard, made it seem as though explaining something through theory is inconsequential compared to actually dealing with the situation or organization at hand.


However, if you are determined to focus on the theories and schools of thought behind the issues, you have to accept differences between explanations as unavoidable. It is up to the individual to decide which explanation they feel is most likely. There is also the possibility that the real answer is a combination of the answers produced by different schools of thought. People and countries rarely do anything for just one reason. 


Also, the question " If one perspective is accurate, does this necessarily mean that the others are wrong?" is very confusing to me. How could we ever know for certain that one perspective is accurate? The intersubjectivity that Wendt loves so much assures that we can never be certain. But, if you could prove for certain that a perspective was accurate, it would not make other perspectives wrong. It can be compared to viewing a statue from different points in a room. One person might say "that is a statue of the front of a man" and another might say "it is a statue of the back of a man", but only a person that has traveled around the room and looked at the statue from different points can say "it is a statue of a whole man." However, all three people would technically be right. 

A Fear-driven French Identity

This weeks trip to the French Embassy was perfectly applicable to class. I really enjoyed the relevance because I was able to apply the theoretical aspect of identity that was discussed in class to the specifics of French identity. The French diplomat addressed the French idea of identity: French first, everything else second.

Since visiting the embassy, I have read several articles about the recent actions of the French government, specifically the controversial actions of the French Parliament’s ban on the wearing of burqas and President Sarkozy’s law to remove the Roma from their camps. Both actions, though carried out by separate bodies within the governmental system, reiterate a fear-driven mentality to maintain a pure French identity. Whereas the United States was founded by immigrants and has, generally speaking, been rather welcoming of immigrants through its history, France has historically been much less tolerant of meshing cultures. Banning the wearing of burqas is a perfect example of French assimilation and the erasing of previous identity to become solely French. This video news report (http://online.wsj.com/video/french-parliament-backs-veil-ban/C6F48A08-7B76-4422-8458-FCFA5D92D7B7.html) states that in addition to being fined if caught wearing a burqa, attending French citizenship classes may also be required. Is this legislation passed out of fear or hatred? Its hard to say. However, I think that the French government fears it may lose its identity to the new European identity officially defined by the establishment of the European Union (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575492011925494780.html).

President Sarkozy’s dedication to destroying the Roma camps and deporting the Roma from France, seems to be yet another means of protecting the French identity. Sarkozy blames the Roma for acts of violence and other criminal acts, such as trafficking. Instead of addressing the issues within the Roma population, Sarkozy has chosen to further the issue of human rights violations by ruthlessly destroying the lively hood of thousands of individuals (http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGPRE201009131861&lang=e, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11243923).

Where should the line be drawn? Is identity what a population is comprised of or what a government molds the population to become? I think that the answers to these questions depend of the type of government that is ruling a country. In America, individuals can, for the most part, practice any religion, wear any clothing, speak any language, etc. This attracts many immigrants looking for a place to fit in and succeed. Many countries, however, have governments that forbid any type of personal of public identity that is not sanctioned by the government (i.e. China).

Though identity can be a complex aspect of international relations, it is vital. How world leaders, populations, governments, and organizations view themselves and other countries, is essential to how each actor will interact with all the “others” that exist in the international venue.

The Pledge of Allegiance is Fascist and Creepy

I know many people totally disagree with me, but I really do think that making kids say the pledge of allegiance is really creepy and kind of fascist. It seems eerily similar to indoctrination. I was talking with Holly and Artina, and they made a really good point. Why were we expected to pledge every day? Isn't once enough?  How many times do children have to pledge themselves to a country before the government believes they mean it?

Also, I really think that if we have to pledge to anything, it should be to the human race or to the planet earth. Seriously, the kind of nationalism that no one thinks about- like saying the pledge every day- is the kind that scares me the most. Dr. Lawrence Britt (although I can't say anything about his credibility; he could be a crazy for all I know) outlined the fourteen defining characteristics of fascism, and the first one is,

"Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use                    of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays."

Sound familiar? I'm not implying that the American Government is fascist or anything; it's just something to think about.

PS, I know this is really heated, so I know I'm setting myself up to get flaming comments. Say what you like.

Week 5 Reflection (9/20-9/24)

This was, I admit, one of the more challenging weeks in WP as of yet. The main reason for this, I believe, is the fact that I'm not much of a constructivist. Oh sure, I think they're right about some things but as my blog posts indicates, I'm don't buy into their whole system. That made Wendt's already incomprehensible reading, even more dreadful. And let me just address that for a moment, actually:

There's such a thing as writing in a coherent fashion for a specific audience and in such a manner that you communicate your point clearly, and there's such a thing as writing a piece that is deliberately obtuse and incomprehensible to the layman. Maybe, and I'm not ruling this out, I'm just not too smart but it seemed to me that Wendt was nearly incoherent. I would read whole paragraphs and not understand a single sentence. While I eventually got the main point from the reading, it was a painful slog.

The visit to the French Embassy was more interesting, but did suffer from a few flaws I thought. Firstly, I just didn't think the diplomat who presented to us was particularly exciting. I liked the tour but it was hotter 'n heck outside and I wanted to retreat to the AC when the guide said, "oh, it's so nice. Let's do all the tour out here!" Thankfully, the other guide saved us. Also, waiting 45 minutes for the bus was a slight pain in the derriere. Toby had an interesting question about the recent abduction of French nationals by members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the recent involvement of the French Military in strikes against AQIM. But, unfortunately, the diplomat refused comment.

The new discussion format in class was certainly interesting, but I did not like it overall. While it was surprisingly successful in self regulating, I still believe it would inevitably break down as it did toward the end. Plus, as PTJ predicted, some of the quieter members of the class who may have had valid points, were not heard. So, I admit, this was not my favorite week. But with the interesting lab on Wednesday (in the Formal Lounge!) and seemingly good readings lined up, I'm excited for next week being much more enjoyable.

Reflection 5 - Need...Moar...Lolcatzz

This week consisted of constructivism, a visit to the French Embassy, and a discussion of identity via our relationship with immigrants/foreigners.  The discussion that resonated with me the most was how immigration is to the U.S. is framed.  We watched numerous videos in class that showed attitudes toward immigration ranging from drivers license tests being required in English to the "natural beauty" of America.  These attitudes towards people not native to America were discussed in class but I feel that there is a larger importance to these attitudes.

How we approach immigrants is unique.  Generally, we acknowledge differences between us, Americans, and them, the foreigners.  This dichotomy that's established reinforces structural stereotypes that exist in the status quo.  For example,  in the "Welcome to America" clip, many stereotypes and techniques were used to differentiate between America and foreigners.  Clips of foreigners were juxtaposed with clips of white Americans.  Additionally, the clips of the foreigners were of them in their native garments, reinforcing their clear difference from Americans.  While the intention of the video may not have been to establish us-them dichotomies, the assumptions behind the video are uniquely flawed.  While the United States prides itself in being a melting pot nation, flawed representations and forms of securitization consistently occur.  Tightening on immigration laws are an example of the U.S. securitizing against the threat of the immigrant.  While these issues weren't entirely fleshed out in class, it seems that the representations we see via Youtube videos and media, can potentially have a larger impact on nation-state policies.

States and Social Norms

If you were to ask a realist about what constrains state action, he would likely say "not much, except the sense of self preservation preventing the state from intentionally provoking a war it does not want". With no super-national authority, with the international system in a state of "anarchy," what does constrain a states action? Anything? Certainly, one can say there are things states should not do, but without any form of higher authority to challenge it, what's to prevent the state from doing that? Is an unenforced rule still a rule?

We have evolved in such a manner that Western Enlightenment values are considered the most desirable and the democratic system pervades in all the major centers of power in the world, and even where they aren't and it doesn't, there is still at least some respect for the values (mostly). So, one can say fairly conclusively that every society has social norms regarding the role of government, and the international system even has a set of norms that is fairly widely agreed upon. We, all being Americans who, for the purposes of this discussion, all subscribe to Enlightenment values, can agree on at least a basic set of rules to govern the international system: states should not kill their own citizens without just cause, states should not aggressively and unprovoked make war on other states, states should not silence dissent, states should productively participate in the international system, states should have free and fair elections...

But, as even the most obtuse international observer can tell you, this is not the case. States kill their own citizens without cause all the time, states often make war on other states (See the August War most recently), states often silence dissent and so on and so forth. So, if these norms are regularly violated, are they really rules? Well, yes - to a degree. One could argue that these American values don't exist in these countries but look above: how many of these are really unique to America and western liberal democracies? Maybe one or two.

So then, are states ever constrained by these norms? Well, yes but only when such social norms are enforced by force. Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait because they were violating international norms, they did it because nearly a million allied troops threw them out by force. Do social norms prevent North Korea from attacking South Korea, or is it the 2 Carrier Battle Groups parked off their shoreline? Did Noriega turn himself on peaceably, or did US troops drag him to court? Did South Africa give up apartheid and it's nuclear program because it was feeling generous, or was it the heavy international pressure and sanctions?

We would all like to live in a world where states act in a reasonable way and are constrained by some non-violent super-national authority and they would choose to be a productive member of the international system, with coercion. Unfortunately, as we can so often see, that is not the case. Do social norms sometimes dictate state action? Yes, but not often. And when it does, it is generally because the states know there will be violent retaliation for their violation (sometimes). Self interest plays a far greater role in why states do what they do than a nebulous set of social norms.

Blog 5

Government has existed as many different things in many different places throughout history. After acknowledging this fact, it is hard to discern what norms exist for governmental powers and actions. In America, the U.S. government is expected to remain, for the most part, out of individual affairs whereas, in other countries the governments may have established a norm of quite the reverse.

Despite these differences, however, a global norm of morals does exist. It is not acceptable for states to commit acts of moral injustice (i.e. genocides, murder, any human rights violation, etc.) and this expectation is held to standards made by the U.N. and other institutions. Unfortunately, this moral code is often breeched by nations on the road to power and self-interest. The blog question poses that there are either limiting social expectations, or all norms are reducible by those hungry for power. Both are applicable. Yes, there are social norms and expectations for the state, but everything is and has been overridden by governments thirsting for power. Just like the norms for a professor (cannot touch students, cannot physically, emotionally or sexually abuse students, etc.) can and have been breeched, global norms are often breeched as well. In the case of a professor, a violator of any major norm will result in a loss of the teaching position, and thus a loss of power. Similarly, a state that breeches the moral code is often approached by the U.N., often occupied or attacked, and in a sense losses some of its power as well.

On a personal and individual level, social norms are very powerful. Unfortunately, states are not worried about embarrassing themselves, or disrupting class when their phone rings. As realists often point out, states, especially developing states, have a thirst for power and will do anything to quench that thirst.

'Murricka - Videos correlating with today's discussion

 

W33k 4 R3fl3ckShyun - Now Available in Lolcatz

The highlight of last week was probably the visit to the State Department.  Originally I thought sitting down with David Bame would involve a boring, yet informative, speech regarding international relations.  Surprisingly, he focused more on our questions as opposed to himself.

It's nice to know someone cares about me in this world.

This allowed us to ask a wide array of questions from U.S.-Syrian policy, changes in the International system, and even questions regarding the future of U.S. unipolarity.  One thing that resonated with me after leaving the session was the holistic aspect to IR the State Department seemed to have.  Many organizations and think tanks seem to associate themselves with a specific ideology, for example the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute, but the State Department, specifically Mr. Bame, was generally fluent in all aspects of foreign policy. This revealed to me a few key concepts.

First is that the U.S. plays a vital role in issues throughout the world.  Changes in leaders from Korea, Cuba, or even nations within the E.U. all play some sort of strategic role for the U.S. Due to the U.S.' arguable as a world leader, for now, there are geopolitical benefits with ties with countries.

Meeting with Mr. Bame reinforced why I love international relations.  Unlike many countries, the U.S. is generally making active multilateral attempts at foreign policy.  While there are important areas of concentration, every nation-state is important to the U.S. on some level.  This holistic approach to the world is one I find appealing.

Week 4 Reflection

This week we discussed the most vital aspect of government, its method of replenishing itself. When we traveled to the Department of State and spoke with David Bame, I began to think about the inner workings of the United States government. This very important man was discussing politics with a troupe of college freshman. Thats a big deal! The United States government is, for the most part, open with its citizens. We have a government such that we, the citizens, vote officials and leaders into office. There are lobbyist and interest groups that appeal to congress. There are non-profit organizations that work for worthy causes. In contrast, many countries would never allow citizens, especially students, into a federal building because no aspect of such governmental regimes appeal to the popular sovereignty of the people.

There are certainly downfalls to our government. Many point to education, balancing state and federal powers, the electoral college and many laws and policies as culprits of negatively affecting our government, and it may be true. However, our government has lasted. When other governments have struggled to survive, the United States has stood strong. Why? I believe it is because there is hope in democracy. If someone dislikes something they can advocate for change. For example, if I dislike our current president and oppose his policies, I can plan to vote against him in the next election and I can actively engage in politics elsewhere to lobby agains his actions. Our government is also built on a system of checks and balances. So, if I vote and my candidate does not win, I know that the winning candidate will still have to clear his actions with other actors in the political world.

Somehow it just works, and it wouldn’t work without voting, or democracy, or people like David Bame who defend the rights of U.S. citizens and correspond both internationally and with a bunch of freshman.

Week 4 Reflection (9/13-9/17)

This week in World Politics allowed us to explore the various underpinnings of the notion of a liberal, democratic state. This weeks blog question was perhaps the most entertaining, but also difficult question to date. While I certainly feel strongly about the virtues of the liberal democratic state, having to voice those beliefs and to extrapolate on them posed a challenge. I also found it difficult to formulate an opinion on the issue of the uninformed voter voting. While we are all uninformed to one degree or another, where’s the line? What makes an “informed” vote empirically “better”? Moreover, is it better to note vote while uninformed or to go ahead and make an uninformed choice? I would like to say everyone should just be even modestly informed but looking at the American electorate… well… we need to be realistic. So that part of it certainly posed interesting questions, questions I’m not even sure about my answers to.

Visiting the State Department was an interesting experience as well. I have long been aware of the concept and renewed focus on soft power but still found it an enriching experience. I did think that the presenter tended to gloss over potential troubles and take a rosier view of things but I still found him an immensely interesting and enjoyable fellow to listen to. The ability to get to meet the actual people who turn the wheels of government and interact with them in an informal context is one of the best things UC has done for me and I am continually grateful for it; I look forward to the next such experience at the French Embassy.

Reflection, week 4

I thought the most interesting thing about classes this week is what we didn't talk about. We were discussing mechanisms for keeping the uninformed masses from voting, and most people seemed at least a little willing to agree with the concept of a social norm that uninformed people shouldn't vote. However, as soon as we started throwing around things like poll taxes and literacy tests as requirements for voting, everyone jumped back from the whole subject faster than I could blink, but we never really talked about why.

Of course, we all know why poll taxes and literacy tests make us jumpy; they have long been instruments used to serve racist purposes. But I'm just curious; do you think we all would be so reluctant to even consider something like a literacy test if America didn't have such a difficult history with institutions like that?

I think we would have been more split. A poll tax does seem inherently wrong to me; there's just something really awful about the idea of keeping someone from voting because of their financial situation. However, at first thought, I don't see anything particularly wrong about wanting someone to be able to read before they can vote. You have to be literate in order to become a naturalized US citizen anyways. Isn't it natural to expect from ourselves the same thing we expect from others? I think that most, if not all of our reluctance at the idea of a literacy test for voters stems from the concept's racist past. Just something for us all to think about.

So, on the extremely tenuous theme of preconceived notions (i.e. I really wanted to put a West Wing clip in this post), here's CJ Craig freaking out over something on Big Block of Cheese day.

An Informed Electorate?

It's a question that proponents of Democracy have long struggled with: the uninformed citizen. In a society, such as our, that values each individual as being equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of race, gender, color or creed, the principal of "one man, one vote" has been the corner stone of our civil society. But, that is nice in theory; but in practice, there are many who do not bother to inform themselves on the issues, but still vote. This gives rise to the question: is it better to make an uninformed vote or not vote at all?

The foundation of our democracy is based on the participation of every able citizen in the political process. Informed or not, it is critical that every citizen who can vote, votes. Though, it is certainly unfortunate that those who vote don't always take the time to inform themselves, it is more important that we have a truly participatory democracy.

Why is it important to have as many people as possible participating in the political process? Well, first of all, there's the moral imperative. Thousands of Americans died to free us from colonial rule, hundreds of thousands died to help free the world from the scourge of fascism and thousands more have died to help us live in safety and security here at home. To sit back and not devote 30 minutes of your day to voting when good men and women have died for your right to do so, is morally unconscionable.

But more than that, it is your duty as an American to participate in the political process and to inform yourself of the issues. We have a representative political system, but if people don't participate in the system, can it really be a true "representative" system? If the foundation of our democracy is the participation of every able citizen in the political process, is it that much of a stretch to say that any American who realistically can, but doesn't vote is undermining the foundation of our political system? A representative system is only representative if enough people vote to lend it legitimacy. If only 5% of people voted, is that representative? Is 70%? I don't know where the line is, but I do know it's incumbent on every American to vote, even if they don't inform themselves on the issues.

Vote or Die - Why Eugenics is a Good Thing

  

The right to vote is Constitutionality backed by numerous amendments.  The 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendment all address the issue of suffrage.  In the status quo, voting occurs on the micro level, through mayor election, town hall, golf club presidents, etc, and on the macro level via presidential and mid term elections.  For the United States, being a major playing in international affairs, the decisions as to who represents populations domestically, can have international consequences.  Regardless, the ability to vote, is an essential component of any democracy.

While there are numerous facets and attributes that comprise a democracy, the process of voting is uniquely important.  The concept of voting is a personal commitment/advocacy towards an issue/person/ideology.  Regarding the level of political awareness people contain, I believe that anyone who votes has some level of awareness that connects them to their vote.  I made a comment on Alyssa's blogpost of an example of a very generic stance on an issue.  Even issues that probably aren't part of a politician's platform can be reasons someone votes.  For example, in the 2008 election, certain African Americans arguably voted for Barack Obama simply because he was black.  On the micro-level, they connected to Obama because they believed his position in office would benefit them due to their ability to connect with him via race.  Other people may vote for issues such as environmental and foreign policy or social and economic views.  The thing is, I don't see a clear difference between people voting for someone on race or people voting for someone based upon the candidate's stance on DADT.

Now obviously there is a difference between the two, what I'm arguing is that both are individual reasons to commit to something.  These commitments are the foundation of getting involved in the democratic process.  Voting opens up a forum in which people can promote, discuss, and share their ideals.  Even people who get in and get out, meaning they simply vote and leave, engaged themselves within the democratic system.  The great thing about the United States is the ability to freely promote your own personal beliefs.  While there are "uneducated voters", they have engaged, even on the smallest level, the democratic system.  The potential for ideas to be shared and debated is magnified with a vote.  People are exposed to other people with different or similar ideas and that congregation of people can enhance political awareness.  While people may not know about various aspects of a candidate's platform, they may vote just based upon their social location.

I'm not sure if my argument is coherent or not, but my basic thesis is that uneducated voters aren't bad, in fact, I'm not entirely sure I agree that there is such thing as an uneducated voter, there are simply people who vote for different reasons, be it minuscule or not.  Either way, the concept of voting is a vital component of a democracy and is a form of civic engagement that should be actively promoted.

Voting: Educated vs. Non-educated votes

If I were a candidate for a political office I would want as many votes as possible, educated or not. In fact, I might even rely on propaganda to win votes. I wouldn’t care about how educated my voters were. This is the political game. However, after taking a step back and analyzing the situation from a theoretical standpoint, educated votes are a necessity for sustaining democratic ideals. The object of a democratic government is for the citizens of a nation to express their political opinions through the election of officials who represent what the majority of voters think and care about. The full benefits and beauties of democracy are not fully reaped unless every citizen votes, and every citizen’s vote is educated. By “educated” I am not referring to the scholastic exposure of the voters, but to the extent of their knowledge of the political race, the candidates and the current issues in society. A democracy cannot represent the opinions and convictions of a population if the votes are not backed by knowledge about the candidates and their platforms.

That being said, democracy, by definition, is government by the people, and thus it is against the very fundamentals of democracy to deny any citizen, of proper age, a vote. Voters cannot be filtered by their knowledge of government, history, current events and/or candidates. It is simply non-democratic. If the government controls who votes, the government can then control its own affairs, elect officials that coincide with its current policies and thus destroy the democracy, for this type government would be dictatorial.

Having established that voter education is important, yet it is unconstitutional and undemocratic to prevent voters from casting a vote based on electoral knowledge, I must state any vote is better than no vote. At first, it seemed more logical to say that a non-educated vote is more harmful, however, upon further thought my view was swayed. Most voters align themselves with a political party that most accurately represents and upholds their political ideals. At the polls, the voter is either highly versed in the candidate’s platforms, in which case they may vote for the candidate of either party, or they are poorly acquainted with the elements of the election and vote along with their party’s candidate. This is key. A voter, uneducated in the platform of a candidate, still casts a vote for the candidate merely because of party association. It could be argued that this is why, in U.S. politics, a third party candidate is rarely acknowledged as much of a threat. Uneducated voters have not taken the time to research candidates within or outside of their party and will thus default to voting with their party’s candidate. Although this vote may be considered “uneducated,” the fact that the voter has aligned him/herself with a political party, backs their vote with at least a basic amount of knowledge regarding the meaning of the placement of their vote and is thus more important and “better” than no vote at all.

What's in an uninformed vote?

"I was watching a television program before, with a kind of roving moderator who spoke to a seated panel of young women who were having some sort of problem with their boyfriends - apparently, because the boyfriends had all slept with the girlfriends' mothers. And they brought the boyfriends out, and they fought, right there on television. Toby, tell me: these people don't vote, do they?"
                                           -Martin Sheen as President Bartlet on The West Wing


I happen to have a very strong opinion on uninformed voting: it shouldn't happen. I suppose that it's understandable when someone is uninformed and votes in a country where stable communication methods aren't available, but in the US in particular, what excuse is there? Just thinking about the number of ways people have access to free news here is astounding; network news, radio news, the newspaper at your local library, the internet at your local library, those campaign pamphlets that volunteers really, really want you to read about their candidate. If a person can't be bothered to take advantage of the resources being presented to them, they shouldn't take advantage of their right to vote, either. 


Voting while uninformed causes people to make superficial judgements about candidates based only on assumptions. What if you walk into the voting booth really determined to vote pro-life? Sure, it's a safe enough bet that voting Republican will mean voting pro-life, but there are pro-choice Republicans and Pro-life Democrats out there. You'd be doing yourself a disservice and actually increasing the influence of people that disagree with you by voting uninformed.


It's just as bad to vote based on the mindless ranting on either side of an election or to vote based on something that has nothing to do with politics. I wish the people that voted for Obama because he's black, or voted for McCain because Obama's a fascist socialist [yes, it confuses me too, but I've actually heard someone try to use that as a legitimate argument in a discussion] had just stayed home on election day. 

Week 3 Reflection

In class, we concluded that realism leaves out many things, the most prominent being human nature, human rights, and humanitarian intervention. Realism generally places an individual or a group of individuals in charge of the political and military actions of a nation-state. Doesn’t this then place politics into the hands of an individual? Personal morals are still present. Machiavelli says that there are two kinds of morals; morals that approve any action that leads to success, and morals that are used when dealing with other humans in a personal manner. I would have to argue that the former is an excuse to be selfish and immoral on the road to power, instead of a way of being moral.

Politics are personal. Committing an immoral act from a political office is no less immoral than a civilian committing an immoral act in society. For example, the Holocaust, a government sanctioned event, is no less immoral than the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 led by an extremist group. Both are disgustingly immoral and neither can or should be justified. Even if Machiavelli’s idea of morals is applicable, I would argue that these were both incidients applicable to the set of personal morals. Individuals lost their lives, and families were destroyed. It can’t get any more personal than that.

Morals are foundational within every individual, therefore they do not fluctuate with circumstance. Morals are not situational, and this is where Machiavelli is wrong. Gunning down a village just to win the fear of a nation, and thus power over them, is not moral. Killing off entire royal families in order to take power without distraction is not moral. There are no exceptions or loopholes in morals. Period.

Reflection, week 3

The topics we discussed in class this week gave me a good bit to chew on. I find Machiavelli's The Prince ao be overly cold for my taste, but I reluctantly agree with some points. Reading The Prince was rather like reading an economics textbook, but with human livelihoods and power in place of goods and profit. Machiavelli makes it plain that he believes that people can be manipulated to do whatever you want them to, if you know the proper way to go about doing it. Almost the entire book would be useless if that wasn't true. My US Government teacher from high school would always say, "You'll never go broke in America telling people what they want to hear." This really applies to the entire world. You can get away with almost anything when you tell people what they want to hear. The obvious example of this is Hitler pulling the wool over the eyes of the entire German population by handing them a scapegoat (the Jews) to blame their economic troubles on. But what about the USA PATRIOT Act? [I'm not using all capitals to simulate yelling here. It's really an acronym- Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act- lame, right? Not making this up!] They told us what we wanted to hear- that we were gonna catch some terrorists! And poof- suddenly enough of us were ok with a massive violation of privacy to make it an act of Congress. 


And now, for a fantastic dose of comic relief, here's Eddie Izzard on sovereignty, international relations, and the like.


Warning: contains foul language, massive political incorrectness, cross dressing, and some other stuff.




For the record, Colin Wick found this video first, and he fully analyzed this video in his blog post here.

Reflection 3D - A party for your eyes

tThis week's World Politics sessions consisted of a discussion on Machiavelli's political treatise, The Prince, a trip to the Spy Museum, and an in depth discussion on realism.  While each class seemed distinctly different, it was only upon reflection that I realized how intersectional this week's topics were.

The Prince provided the class with a depiction on sovereignty, national leadership, and international relations.  Machiavelli indicates that there are certain attributes and policies leaders should have in order to sustain their rule.  One example is the importance of defense and military.  Good leaders must be able to enhance the population's defenses while subsequently establishing a military force.  In the context of the Spy Museum, it is important for governments to have an effective espionage force that can predict and determine potential threats.  Each year the CIA, FBI, and various armed forces and intelligence agencies are able to deter numerous terrorist attempts.  Without these organizations, the U.S. would be extremely susceptible to attacks which could potentially destabilize our region.  In the context of realism, these policies can be categorized by offensive realism, coined by John Mearsheimer.  Offensive realism, which essentially indicates that nations actively promote their hegemony in order to deter any threats and maintain their security.  This could be arguably shown through the U.S.' presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Okinawa, South Korea, etc.  The U.S.' justification for leaving troops in these locations are because they provide a geographical and strategic advantage to the U.S. in the scenario that a nation threatens the U.S.' security.

While this is merely one example of how each of the classes interacted with each other, I believe this has importance on a larger scale.  The Prince was written in 1513 while the theory of offensive realism was developed in 2001.  The development and consistency of how nations interact is fascinating.  While it may not have been called realism, theories on how nations interact have existed for centuries.  Theories have changed and adapted with the consistent innovation of nations' technology and capabilities.  The concept of mutually assured destruction with the introduction of nuclear weapons altered IR theory significantly.  As nations continue to promote military technologies, some of which were shown in the spy museum, IR theory will maintain similar in some aspects, but may potentially change dramatically.

Week 3 Reflection (9/6-9/10)

This week we focused on analyzing Machiavelli and some of his political writings. I found Machiavelli very entertaining but, as I stated in my blog post, I did not find him too compelling from a modern perspective. But, as I dedicated a blog post to that, I will not dwell on it here. What I did find interesting was the Spy Museum.

Now, the Spy Museum itself was good, but not up to the standards of the Newseum which was fantastic. But it did raise some interesting questions about the role of espionage and clandestine activities in modern world politics. Countries, like the United States, are quick to laud the international system and international law but are equally quick to subvert and ignore it when it serves their interests. The US has no qualms about assassinating suspected terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan and Yemen and the coast of Somalia which is possibly in violation of the international law we claim to hold so highly. But it's not just the US, French Intelligence kidnapped Carlos the Jackal from a hospital in Sudan in 1994, an early example of the current controversy of rendition in the United States today.

Nearly every country makes at least a rhetorical effort to support the international system but nearly every country subverts it without fear of reprisal -- the worst that can happen is a strongly worded nonbinding condemnation that gets held up in the Security Council by Russia. While the spy museum didn't actually cover this in great depth, it did provoke this line of thinking on my part. It's, of course, necessary to occasionally operate outside the system -- the system is simply so dysfunctional and unrealistic that one would be irresponsible not to occasionally operate outside the international system. But where's that line?

Week 3 Response -- Machiavelli

Machiavelli paints a portrait of a ruler who must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his (and for Machiavelli, it's always "his") power. Is this an accurate portrayal of contemporary ruling elites? Should rulers follow Machiavelli's advice, even under contemporary conditions?

-----------

Niccolo Bernardo Machiavelli was born in 1469, and died in 1527; but not before writing extensively on the nature of power and examining the common characteristics of successful rules and distilling these into a series of political writings that remain relevant to this day. But it is important to note that Machiavelli is principally referring to principalities, he opens by disregarding republics. Which makes sense, because it doesn't seem that any ruler would be able to rule for very long if the populace had a say in the matter. Though, there are some exceptions to this.



But nevertheless, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that no -- Machiavelli does to an extent portray an accurate picture of modern ruling elites, his advice is no longer relevant to the world at large. Machiavelli's advice simply would not stand up to a government that has to routinely be accountable to its people. With precious few exceptions, people would not seek to keep people they fear in power -- and in any rate, it's hard to "fear" a democratic ruler because people always know they have the recourse of removing him/her(!) from power. But for autocrats, Machiavelli has much more relevance, even to this day.

But the majority of the world's governments are not accountable to their people; so why does Machiavelli not hold true in any meaningful sense globally? Well, while it is true that ~80 of the worlds countries are democratic and ~30 are "true" democracies, let's look at those "true" democracies -- the US, EU, UK, Japan, ANZAC and Brazil. The center of power in the world is heavily invested in democracies, even Russia and China have some sort of elections. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson and the wars of decolonization, the idea of democracy has fully penetrated nearly every single society in the world. Even those who live under the worst conditions of repression and autocracy (rulers Machiavelli would love), are agitating for democracy (Green Movement, Muslim Brotherhood, Cedar Revolution, Orange Revolution...). Rulers who routinely repress their people cannot be fully secure in their position in a vacuum. The only reason this is not more pronounced is that there are mitigating factors, like US aid to autocrats to keep them in power.

So, while Machiavelli can have some relevance in how modern rulers conduct themselves, he is no longer relevant to modern world politics. In addition, many of the autocrats who model Machiavelli break one of his cardinal rules -- don't be hated. So, if one looks at rulers who violently enforce their own power over the will of the populace as the modern embodiment of Machiavellian values, then yes -- Machiavelli has some relevance to the modern world as that is how the majority of rulers conduct themselves. But rulers undermine their own power when they do that, autocracies are never truly stable so one would be foolish to set out to model themselves upon Machiavelli.

How to be a Power Ranger - Machiavelli Response

The Prince articulates numerous attributes a ruling elite should preferably contain in order to sustain power over a population.  These attributes range from the ruler's generosity, reputation, and ability to effective promote the population's defense and military.  In the status quo, while there are different types of rulers and different methods on how those rulers attained their status, Machiavelli provides generally good advice on how the current ruling elite should govern.

For this blogpost, I plan on using the United States for my general example.  I haven't thought about this in the context of other countries and rulers, but if anyone sees Machiavelli not being applicable to other countries, feel free to tell me.  To begin, one of Machiavelli's points is regarding defense and military.  To ensure that the United States' hegemony remains strong, armed forces such as the Coast Guard, Air Force, Army, Marines, etc. exist.  Numerous programs and institutions exist that allow one to join the Armed Forces.  Additionally, strategic military treaties and agreements have the ability to sustain US' hegemony through missile defense systems and disarmament policies.

Another one of Machiavelli's suggestions is the amount a leader should be generous.  This is applicable for the United States through taxes.  Whether or not a government should increase or decrease taxes is an extension of the President's generosity.

All these types of attributes and policies a ruler should enact also tie into a ruler's appearance.  Obama needs political capital in order to push and pass bills that will benefit his population and also help his appearance as a whole.  Even members of the House and Senate need to be able to maintain an image which is vital in the reelection process and when the members are attempting to push a bill through Congress.

These principles established within The Prince are applicable in various forms for rulers today.  While there are some specific exceptions that no longer apply to rulers today due to the norms of our time differing from the norms back then.  I believe Machiavelli states his theory the best through his description of foxes and lions.  Good rulers should contain the wisdom of foxes and the ferocity of lions.  Maintaining a balance between the two can guarantee a sustained rule.

Question response, week 3

Modern politicians are prepared to do whatever is necessary to keep themselves in power, but I think they should instead apply Machiavelli's principles in order to keep their ideas in power. Even if a politician or public figure falls from grace, he or she ought to be ready to do whatever is necessary to make sure that his or her ideas retain credibility in the global forum. I believe this because ideas seem to have more power nowadays than individual people do. In a world where most governments have dozens or hundreds of people sharing power, concepts like the small government idea of the Tea Party have more influence than any one conservative congressman. So, if a public figure were to fall from grace because of a wrongdoing, he or she should stop advocating for their ideas, and instead have a more respected colleague continue the campaign, so that the concepts will not be tainted by scandal or discredited all together.

I also don't think that Machiavelli's ideas can be taken literally in these modern times. For instance, Machiavelli says, "If you take control of a state, you should make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once. That way you will not have to commit new atrocities every day, and you will be able, by not repeating your evil deeds, to reassure your subjects and to win their support by treating them well." Perhaps in a modern setting, this should read something like, if you have to raise taxes during your term, do it early on so people will forget you did it by the time the next election comes around.

Week 2 Reflection

This weeks trip to the Newseum was one that reminded me of national and international tragedy. Upon entering the Newseum, my group and I moseyed over to the Pulitzer Prize winner photographs. At first we were shocked by the content of the photographs, but as we looked longer and began to read the history and circumstances behind each shot we became burdened with our sudden sorrow. I began to ponder the necessity of media. How can media be good when it spreads the horror of individual and international disasters?

My visit to the September 11th exhibit was heart wrenching. I saw how the media provoked overwhelming sorrow and a need for unified retaliation. The Katrina exhibit brought similar feelings, and I watched the headlines portray hopelessness and despair. Both exhibits, however, did reveal the aspects of media that make it a necessity. The first is that people want to know. Despite their lack of sovereignty, many people want to be engaged in local and global affairs so they can offer help, prayers, and expertise. Secondly, without the general public knowing about the incidents, the actions of the president and other governmental authorities would be misunderstood. Any kind of reaction or change spurned from the catastrophic events would have lacked any kind of support if the average citizen was ignorant of its occurrence.

Media is our right. Many places throughout history and in the world today cannot freely release media. These are places where the citizens are told only what the government wants them to be told, and thus there is no way to challenge it, develop one’s own opinion, or find out the truth. Though media may bring devastating news, it is vital that we engage as active citizens and exercise our right to know and to speak up for the innocent and speak out against evil doers.

Week 2 Reflection (8/30-9/3)

I admit, I did not find this week particularly interesting. I chose not to do the question and while I read a great many blog posts, I could never really find myself enticed enough to the point where I would have a meaningful rejoinder. I understand the concept, and I understand its importance but I struggle to "get into" this particular subject matter in the abstract.

I enjoyed the readings, though. I am familiar with Walt from Foreign Policy and I generally find him tolerable. I disagree with him on many issues (he's far too realist, to the point where he overlooks the physical realities for the abstract laws) but he's always fun to read. I was not familiar with the author of the second reading, but his analysis was interesting as it brought a post 9/11 framework onto the '99 mindset Walt had.

I did find the format of the discussion interesting, though. We didn't directly address either reading but instead PTJ attempted to direct the flow of the discussion so that we were unconsciously, to an extent, mirroring several IR theories discussed in the readings.

I went home over the weekend, so I'm not sure exactly how the whole Orange/Green/Blue situation worked out but when I got back today, it seemed to have played itself out. I apologize for the lateness of this post, but our house is being renovated and lack of internet and cable was an unfortunate side effect.

Reflection #2

During our sovereignty week, issues regarding the nation-state, sovereignty, and various forms of IR theory were read and discussed.  What captured me personally was the discussion regarding sovereignty.  What does it actually mean to be sovereign and is there an extent to which that sovereignty is regulated/dictated?

The Nation-State and Global Order provided a useful description of what sovereignty consists of and how it exerts itself.  The discussion in class primarily focused on the nation-state as a general entity.  After class I began thinking about how the nation-state exists within the United States' sovereignty.  In a recent response to a classmate's blogpost, I discussed one aspect of U.S. sovereignty via the plenary power doctrine.  In short, it seemed to me that there are certain aspects of U.S. sovereignty that are completely uncontested.  There are official Supreme Court rulings that indicate that branches of the government have uncontested authority over issues such as immigration and tribal issues.  This ability to exert power so effectively reminded me of the French philosopher/sociologist Michel Foucault.  Primarily known for coining the term "biopower" which is essentially the ability of modern states to exert control over their populations via different mechanisms.  In many of his books, most notably,The Foucault Reader, Foucault argues that the government has exerted control over areas of health, culture, family, and even religion.  This expansive control of power has functionally forced people to become dependent on the government.  He pushes his analysis further by arguing that the government's ability to sustain populations inversely allows them to mobilize populations to "defend the sovereign".  While this logic may seem far fetched, his theory essentially states that when the role of the government is to protect life, and the stakes are life itself, various atrocities are functionally justified to protect the population.  Examples of this extreme behavior has been shown in governments such as Rwanda and Bosnia where social-racism is rampant.

Reflection, week 2

Ole! Ole, ole, oleeee! Ohhhhleeee, Ohhhhleeee.
Ole! Ole, ole, oleeee! Ohhhhleeee, Ohhhhleeee.

#1 song to get stuck in your head. Ever.

For an American teenager with no ties to soccer past the obligatory year that everyone plays in elementary school, I was astounded at how easy it was to get into the game. Even though I had no affinity for DC United, apart from the geographical one, I really was sad when Columbus Crew scored that goal in the first half, and I was extremely disappointed when DC lost. I screamed and shouted and chanted and sang badly (here's to hoping my voice teacher never reads this post). I clapped and cheered and made a valiant effort to actually understand offsides, and I really, REALLY wanted that ginormous red and black skull and crossbones flag someone was waving across the stadium.

Soccer is addictive! I now understand why the rest of the world loves the sport. The atmosphere was electric, despite the bad fan turnout. I can't even imagine how exciting a game in Latin America or Europe is. It must be comparable to a large political protest , thousands of people being loud and rowdy and generally uncivilized in the name of a common goal (yay puns!).

I am also working on reading The Prince, and I find some similarities between Machiavellian philosophy and soccer. As in, the popular tactic is to foul and hope no one notices, and if you are called out on it, vehemently deny any wrongdoing or point at the other team.

                                          Scariest soccer fan I've ever seen, from this site.

Tribal Sovereignty

Global politics today only recognize sovereignty from nation-states, which, as Opello and Rosow clearly define in The Nation State and Global Order, is a “type of politico-military rule” comprised of many aspects including a specific geographic region indicated by boundaries. There are, however, other entities that are associated in organized groups, but do not have territory that is recognized by global politics, and thus these entities do not have sovereignty.

The perfect examples of this are tribes. America, which was once a mere land mass inhabited by Native Americans, has been transformed into a series of nation-states that have sovereign powers in global politics. The Native American tribes in the United States have undergone much cultural persecution, property confiscation, and limitation of sovereignty. These tribes, after many tortuous decades, have been given reservations on U.S. soil and partial sovereignty, but are given no say in the global political spectrum. In 1831, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia went to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Indian nations can be regarded as “‘domestic, dependent nations’” that are only theoretically sovereign. Over 140 years later, the Supreme Court ruled against the Indian nation again in United States v. Blackfeet Tribe. The 1973 court ruling stated that “‘an Indian tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States permits it to be sovereign’”(http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/nowyouseeit.html). Can the extent of sovereignty truly be governed by higher sovereignty? Isn’t the principle of sovereignty the opposite of being governed by another body?

This poses an interesting dilemma, reverting one’s thought process back to the definition of sovereignty. While the Indian nations within the U.S. may be autonomous and may, through cultural beliefs and practices, deem their rulers as authorities over their nations, it would be superfluous to argue that these nations have the power or the capacity to dominate politically and thus claim their sovereignty. Of course, this only applies to the tribes within the States. In Africa, for example, many tribes have strong and threatening dominance. In these situations, tribes have lots of power in their areas of influence, they have the capabilities to control many people within this area, they have created a position of authority within themselves, and they are autonomous in that the tribe governs itself. It could then be argued that these tribal bodies have sovereignty, but in this era when globalization has linked many foreign lands and politics are discussed, debated and determined on a global level, it becomes obvious that 1) only nation-states are given a voice of sovereignty and 2) tribes are seen as inferior entities to nation-states.

That being said, I do think that tribes, and clans should be recognized as sovereign groups. In the history of the United States alone it may have prevented much of the oppression and assimilation of tribal peoples. Recognizing these ethnic clans as bodies of influence might prevent some of the violent acts being committed between tribes because these entities would have the opportunity to politically wrestle for the land, rights or other issues that they deem necessary to haggle over instead of resulting to their only current means of persuasion: violence.