This week we are shifting gears. So far this semester, we have talked about anarchy, which is the condition out of which governmental order and political struggle emerges. With the emergence of government, we have talked about four different kinds of government that have historically taken shape and could possibly take shape in the future:
1. Governments organized around class struggle between socialists and capitalist oligarchs.
2. Totalitarian regimes controlled by one central Party that works to organize, unify, and more stringently control the population through symbols of national identity, the heroicization of a leader, surveillance, and violence. The individual is enveloped into the collective and finds value primarily through the Party.
3. Libertarian governments that recognize the inherent moral right of the individual to own and control their body and property and so these governments cannot legally infringe on those control rights.
4. Contemporary democratic governments are organized around two or more political parties. Eligible members of the population are allowed to more or less participate in the processes of government and more or less hold elected leaders accountable.
In the coming weeks, our gears will shift to important arenas of political struggle, like: foreign policy and war, immigration, colonialism, and global political economy.
This week's blog post focuses on foreign policy.
In public discussions of foreign policy, the word "neoconservative" is often used. While having older roots, this word and way of organizing foreign policy became very popular during the George W. Bush administration--and is associated with the launching of the US 'war on terror' and the subsequent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Not as significant in the Obama administration, neoconservatism arguably continues to be a significant foreign policy philosophy today.
Here are five neoconservative commitments associated with US foreign policy:
1. Internationalism: The US should play an active role in world politics today by maintaining and extending the current global order that is in line with our national interests.
2. Primacy: American dominance in world politics is a stroke of good fortune for the world and for the US. US global dominance should therefore be maintained and no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the US.
3. Unilateralism: American power is the source of global stability, not the UN Security Council, so US foreign policy should not be restrained to act unilaterally to maintain US national security interests and global stability.
4. Militarism: To unilaterally maintain US national security and democracy, global stability, and to extend democracy abroad, a strong US military is needed.
5. Democracy: Since US national identity, interest, and security are associated with democracy, and because the lack of democracy abroad is seen as a source of instability, democracy and the extension of democracy abroad is very important. Democracy at home and abroad is seen as in US interests.
Do you agree with all five of these neoconservative foreign policy commitments? Do you only agree with some of them? Which commitment do you feel is the most important? Why is this the most important commitment? Which commitment is the least important? Why is it the least important?
Do you disagree with any of the five neoconservative commitments to US foreign policy? Why do you disagree? What are some of the problems you can imagine might arise with the neoconservative commitments?
I agree with some of these policies but I also believe that some of them are not good because the United States think they are superior to everyone else in the UN. I believe that the UN is there for a reason and the US should not be able to bypass them and do what they want. I think in the case of the war on terror, yes action was needed to keep another attack from happening on American soil but did this solve anything? I really don't think it solved anything because Bin Laden had not been captured and he still had many followers so who is to say that they are not planning another attack.
ReplyDeleteTo me, I feel that the neo conservative commitments make the U.S. look similar to a regime that is focused on only dominating other countries in the world. The commitment of primacy is a prime example of this argument. America, especially during the Bush administration, has become fond of having complete power. I also disagree with the commitment of internationalism. Although America has been seen as the "world police," they only intervene when it is seen as profitable to themselves. In addition, the United Nations is made up of other countries that come together to sort out problems that may be seen globally. This also leads me to disagree with the act of unilateralism. Why should the United States then provide the power and stability to the U.N.? Having neo conservative ideals present in America may prove beneficial, but in the end, it seems as though it would only allow for the United States to grow more egotistic than it has already become.
ReplyDeleteI do, for the most part agree with all five of the neoconservative foreign policy commitments. I believe that the militarism policy is most important for our safety, and stability in case of attack. The US needs to know that it has a strong defense ready, in case of threat or tragedy. The military is also needed for preventative measures when it comes to threats to our country. If we were to have a weak military system, what is to stop our enemies or possible enemies from taking advantage of our weakened military state? With a strong military front we send the message that we aren't going to be easy to take over or overthrow. I honestly can't say what the least important policy is for the simple fact that they are all important for the stability of our country. All of the neoconservative foreign policies help our country in keeping it strong.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with all of the 'parts' of the neoconservative foreign policy. Primacy is on of the parts I oppose. There is no reason we should be able to tell another country who is not under our ruling that they cannot have a military that rivals ours. The stronger their military is the better off they are to protect themselevs so we wouldn't have to send thousands of troops into a war. I also think that Militarism is a very good example of how stupid the US is. There is no reason for our army to be strong to worry about other people's business we DO NOT and WILL NOT rule the world, they need to stop trying. That also leads into Democracy, we need to stop pushing it onto other Countries. We are hardly Democratic so maybe we should practice what we preach before pushing it onto other people. I feel like that want others to be 'Democratic' that way we can then control how there government is ran. Neoconservative policies are obviously not keeping anything secure right now, so it needs some modification.
ReplyDelete-Tiffany Anders.
I like most people do agree with some of the ideas of neoconservative foreign policy. one thing i dont really agree with is that of primacy. Yes our military may be the strongest in the world but who are we to say no one can be greater than us? i do believe with should strive to stay on top but we cant control what other countries do to strengthen themselves.i do agree with the rest of the points and cannot really say which one is less or more important. i do kow we need a strong government but do not see the point in saying we are stronger than everyone else and we somewhat run the UN and things of this sort.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see both the advantages and disadvantages to each approach to foreign policy, I’d have to say that the strategy I find the least fault with is that of internationalism. From what I understand of it, internationalism seems to be the least arrogant approach to being involved in the global community. I feel like the method supports backing off of influencing each country with our ideals and policies, and ultimately allowing each country to manage itself according to its people’s best interests. On the other hand, I find the policy of unilateralism the least appealing of the five. It seems like unilateralism calls for maintaining the idea that the United States is the greatest country in the world, so consequently the UN isn’t necessary because no other country’s opinions are as important as ours– which comes off as a little more than condescending.
ReplyDeleteThere are definetly some good policies but you must always take the good with the bad... meaning they are not all beneficial or can be successful for all. Unilateralism in my opinion is probably the most unappealing just because it feels so foriegn to me. Democracy would probably be the most successful, this is a of course a fully pure and functional democracy. There is not a single government that can satisfy everyone nor should we expect everyone to agree, because people are all different and are from different situations. We all value things and consider them realted to their lifestyles. It all comes back to social class. You must first have basic needs to therefore consider anything above this.
ReplyDeleteJessica Dant
It seems to me that intense involvement with foreign policies are a strong role in the neoconservative way of dealing with distant issues in the world around us. I personally tend to agree with most of these policies of US foreign involvement. Although I do not think that they are all needed such as internationalism, I agree with our US policies but that doesn’t mean that we need to force any of our ideas directly on any foreign country. Everyone doesn’t need to agree with the US national interests. Primacy is a touchy subject, it is always better to be the top economical power in the world, but to use the words global dominance as a description isn’t a positive way to promote what the US stands for. For the most part I agree with the approach of Unilateralism. America does hold a certain source of world power, and it is needed to keep American citizens safe, the restraint of this should not be allowed. Militarism is something that should always be maintained, a strong military means a strong country. Although I’m not to sure about using this to extend democracy, we shouldn’t force anything on other countries unless they ask for the help in establishing democracy.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Marion
I agree with some of the policies, however I don't agree with all of them. I believe the most least important would be primacy because like a classmate said, we should not be able to tell people they can not have military to protect themselves because we do not need a rival. If that was the case then they would have no protection for themselves. I feel the most important policy out of all of them would be democracy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the neoconservative policies, but like some of the others, I think that primacy is a little much. I agree that we need to strive to stay on top, and always try and be the best, but thats not to say that others cannot try and out do us. We can't tell other countries to not have a military just because it will rival us. I think that any other country deserves at least the right to try and protect themselves. But like I said before, I always think the US should try and out do other countries with whatever we do to try and stay superior.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of them because first of all, democracy is the most important subject in a government. If we want to be equal with no one taking advantage of anyone, it is best for the nation to have democracy. Unilateralism has a good tie with U.S democracy because, once the government understands its people, there is no fear in communism. U.N in other hand shouldn’t be the source of global stability since they don’t fully know what and why a nation needs to have democracy. Militarism is needed for defense in case a nation like U.N tries to go against us just because we have too much power. There shouldn’t be any exaggerations with the military in terms of soldiers trying to dissolve people says in government like a totalitarian. That is why the U.S is a great nation, and clearly understands what it citizen wants. Even though government often makes some bad decision on how to spend our tax money.
ReplyDeleteI have both an agreement and disagreement on Internationalization and primacy because a nation should be free to do as it please. In this free will, comes some limit tough. Nations shouldn’t treat its citizens as slaves. Everyone should have equal rights. The U.S on the other hand shouldn’t also get involved too much in other countries problem. We should worry about what is going on down here first as a primary target. Resolving other nation’s problem could be instead settled by the closest continents. It like doing someone’s homework without finishing yours and even getting more homework. Yes, we should maintain power in the world and even insert soldiers to spy on nation. But getting too involved in other nations activities just makes us the bad guys, for they need their privacy too. These are reason why we get attack more often. Nation who doesn’t need our help should be left alone. I’d say the least important is internationalization simply because U.S should respect other nation’s privacy like ours is respected. Most countries have a reputation for something, not wanting any spy or intrusion in how they do their best sustaining their market. We should instead worry about how our economy is doing first before setting our foot in other nation’s problem.
I agree with most of the polices listed above, except primacy. I feel that it is a little harsh to limit other countries the power to out due our government and military. Yes, we have the most powerful military in the world and should still uphold that, but who are we to say that another country can't go above us? Our military does an excellent job at defending our nation and protecting us, we should remain superior but should also grant opportunites to other countries.
ReplyDeleteThere's a variety of important policies we as a society should remember and accept. We have to take the good with the bad and realize that not everything can or will be beneficial for us.
Elizabeth L Higgins
Well although I do agree with a decent amount of our foreign policy, I think it is very undemocratic of us to force our type of government and our policies on other countries of the world. Yes, while our system deals more with the people, that does not mean that other systems that are different do not as well. We certainly should not be allowed to overstep the EU, just because we are a global power. Our nation does a decent job sometimes, tending to its people, but whos to say our system is the best and every country should have it. I do not think we should be forcing our ideals on another government and trying to govern the world when we can't even put food in everyone's mouth and a shelter over everyone's head. I think we need to get our own country together before pushing it on another country. More problems in our system need to be cleared up first.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about this extensively over the past few days and I have decided I believe all five of the neoconservative policies are important to our country. The most important one which stands out in my mind is militarism. It is essential for The United States of America to have and maintain a powerful military system. We must have constant protection from those who wish to do our nation harm and take away our freedom. Without a strong military in place our nation would crumble.Everyone in America depends on our military for protection and safety it's how we can sleep at night knowing there is always a watchful eye on our country. The policy which I find least important is that of primacy. Why is it necessary for our nation to be dominant in politics? We are constantly sticking our noses into other countries' problems and the end result is never very uplifting. It is understandable that we are interested in what goes on around us and we must be aware of conflict but we should not always become involved in matters which don't concern us, at least not at the time. We also find it necessary to want to stifle other nations when it comes to their opportunity to grow and prosper. I believe we need to relax when it comes to this and realize other nations aspire to grow and they feel the need to be protected also. I do not feel we should push how we govern on other countries, either. They all have to be responsible for how their nation runs. Our country could avoid a lot of headaches if we would just butt out sometimes. Laura Remsburg, 100-04
ReplyDeleteI'd have to say I agree with those who say that these neoconservative policies are important to the U.S. In order to be a strong world power, the U.S. needs to beaware of what is going on internationally; this does of course need limitations or other countries could be angered or feel threatened. A strong military is another bery important aspect for a strong power. Because the U.S. is a powerful nation with many freedoms, it needs protection from those who want to destroy it. Primacy is the more difficult part of neoconservatism. We don't want other coutries mad at us for being overconfident or having a "big head," but if America really is the dominant country, why not try to maintain that?
ReplyDeleteLaura Gentile 100.04
I agree and disagree with these 5 neoconserative commitments. I very much agree about the military, our force should be strong and ready, everyone needs back up. For the US it lets us know we are protected and safe. I disagree however with the commitment that states we should be in power over everyone and every other country. Why should our country be in control of everyone? Each country is different and their leaders should be able to take lead just as ours do. Who are we to tell them what to do.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the five neoconservative commitments I agree with a few of the policies, but there are still a few that I disagree with. I think the policies that I disagree with most are the primacy policy and militarism policy. I feel that it is really important that the United States shows some power, but I do not really feel like they should have a “global dominance.” To be honest, I do not feel that any country should have “global dominance.” I feel that our country tries too hard to “help” other countries out and show our strong militarily, but we have our own problem in America that I think should come first before we try and act like we are the best. It is important that the other countries know that we have a strong military but once again we do not need to get into their business and we really don’t have to rule them. We also cannot tell other countries what they can and cannot do, and if they want a military we really cannot stop them; we do not rule every country in the world. Having a military is also a sense of protection and if they want to use the military for that aspect, we shouldn’t stop them just because we are afraid that they could potentially become a rival. I feel that Democracy is probably the best neoconservative policy we have because our country shows that a democracy is completely functional. We take into consideration of everyone’s needs and we try to make a better country for Americans.
ReplyDeleteJenna Benke
I don’t really agree with all the neoconservative forgein policy commitments. The fact that the U.S. is trying to dominate and control the entire world is really a bad thing. If we look back into history we have a great example of a government becoming too powerful and eventually what leads to its fall. The example that I am talking about is the Romans and their empire.Their governing power was so large and so intense that it was too much to handle. I do however, agree with the use of the UN to help with global stability I feel that helps with keeping everything on neutral terroritory. However, I disagree that the US holds the power to step over UN policy. I feel that we do need a strong milta because it is important to be able to protect ourselves and possible others who might be in need of assistance. When the US does grant assistance it can't be that we just think that they need it, they have to actually ask for it.
ReplyDeleteChristina Haag
I personally do not agree with the majority of the policies. I'm one of the people who think that the US is too involved in world politics and should not play as active of a role. I kind of agree with the second point, I think we should retain our dominance in the world, but not be so forceful about it. I also agree that we should have a strong military as long as it doesn't become too strong. I don't agree with the last point though. Just because democracy works well for the US does not mean that they need to make it their mission to go around spreading it to everyone else. If the other countries want it then thats fine but it shouldn't be forced upon them.
ReplyDeletei would agree with all of the neoconservative policies under some circumstances. Every country strives to be the best. all countries want to be the strongest in all aspects; when it come to military and economic wealth. there's just too much responsibility with being the most powerful. if i knew that our countries representatives wouldn't abuse that power for their own personal means then i would agree.these policies are all benificial to a country. but the fact is they would abuse the power. if a country didn't agree with us we would just make them agree. if these policies were only to protect the US then and not to control everyone then this would be ideal.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that it is America's right to police the world and make it a safe haven for democracy. Although the government might say that we have one of the best governments in the world, I do not believe that we should push our not-so-perfect government onto other nations that may not want it. I feel that the neoconservative idea that we should bully other nations into forming governments like America's is screwed up, and we should back off other nations. Also I disagree with the whole notion that America should have the best military force in the world. I despise the fact that Americans believe that we have the best military and government, because in reality we are in two wars that we are NOT winning, and our government is neck deep in debt and all the other B.S. Rather than going with this whole view, our government needs to humbly look at themselves and realize that we are not the best and try to better ourselves in non-violent things. For instance the educational system is screwed up, perhaps we should focus on producing more intellects rather than war mongering dumb asses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of neocencervative poilicies. I think the most important one is the Militarism because we need a strong military to protect us and to fight for our right. Even though I think that we should have a very strong military I dont really agree with Primacy. Other people should be able to have military and strong forces and try to be better than us. We should give other people that opportunity.
ReplyDeleteMegan Williams
The neoconservative policies are not beneficial on a global bases. We live in a very diverse world with people of different cultures,values, and ethical beliefs. It would be ignorant to assume U.S. neoconservative policy is fit for every type of nation and every type of people globally.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do believe neoconservative idea's were created out of good intentions for society as a whole, there is to much emphasis on the U.S. as a controller.
I personally feel it is important for the U.S. to have a strong military presence, but only when it is needed. I do not believe in forcing Democracy on Nations that otherwise do not always wish for it. We should act out of aid for others, not with force.
Clay Delaueter
PSCI 100-04
The only one that I fully agree with is number one. I believe that it is important for the US to play an important role when it comes to world politics because if we weren’t involved who knows what would happen. However, the other four I don’t necessarily completely agree with them. I wouldn’t say that American dominance in world politics is a stroke of good fortune for the world. I would agree that it is a good fortune for the US but not for the whole world. I also don’t agree that no other power should be able to militarily and economically rival the US, if that’s the case then it should go both ways.
ReplyDeleteI think Nonconcervative is the best way to del with the foreign policy. Militarism is a very important factor because america always needs protection. We like to know we are being kept safe and don't have that much to worry about. And since America is has a pretty big target on it, its always safe to make sure nothing bad happens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Militarism and Democracy (to a point). Militarism seems important because it only has our protection at mind, and does not deal with other powers. America does unfortunately have enemies, so our military strength is very important. I agree with Democracy to a point. It is important to try to push countries towards Democracy if their current government isn't doing well, and it is very important that we continue Democracy as opposed to changing to a different type of system. Although it is good to suggest Democracy, I don't think the U.S. has any right to force it upon another country unless they are truely suffering.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Internationalism, Primacy, or Unilateralism. Internationalism sounds to me like us forcing others to change for our own benefits. It's one thing if somebody needs our help, but if they're fine the way they are we need to stay out. Although it is comforting to be at the top, Primacy is too far. We can make an effort to advance past others, but we have no right to make sure others cannot advance. Primacy sounds too much like sabotage to me. Unilateralism is a very cocky and arrogant policy. We may be the strongest, but that does not give us right to control everyone else. The United States was not always a top power. Just because we are now does not mean we should get carried away.
I disagree with most of these ideas. I don’t think the U.S. should be one huge reigning force over the entire world. I feel like if the U.S. would focus on what international links they actually NEED and get rid of ones they don’t need to function then we would be seen less of an intrusive country. I think that if the U.S. tries to have the biggest and best military with the biggest and best weapons threatening other countries and trying to enforce our government onto other countries, they will be more hostile towards us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the neoconservative foreign policy commitment internationalism because the United States should be involved in foreign politics and interact with the rest of the world. Seeing or hearing the perspectives of other nations will (hopefully) help to round the United State’s perspective. I also agree with the democracy policy because I do support democracy over totalitarianism, oligarchy, monarchy, and so forth. However, the United State’s democratic effort is not perfect so I don’t think the US should dictate the exact standards of democracy (as it is not a true democracy, but rather a democracy founded on capitalism). I think internationalism is the most important neoconservative foreign policy commitment because the less connected around the world the United States is, the weaker and more vulnerable it is. Primacy, on the other hand, is the least important of the neoconservative foreign policy commitments because although the US should be involved, it doesn’t need to be at the top of the game. I disagree with parts of all of the policy commitments because they all make the nation taking on the commitments seem…egotistical, for lack of a better word. The policies create a setup for war-worthy competition. If every nation tried to adhere to these policies, war would never end – that is, assuming that war is the way dominance is achieved or maintained.
ReplyDeleteKyra Wood
One point i don't agree with is the democracy part. What other countries do is their business as long as they don't interfere with our country or cause other problems. I do somewhat agree with it only because it would make the world a more simplistic place if every country was democratic. I believe internationalism and militarism. Internationalism keeps our country aware of what is going on globally and if we are needed in assistance with other countries. Other countries also need to know their place in the ranking system and according to many countries along with ourselves im sure we are ranked most supreme and who wouldn't want to be at the top. Militarism is also important because we need national security incase of an emergency situation or danger lurks. I somewhat agree about the spreading of democracy but not completely. I do strongly agree with the primacy because we as a country need to be ranked supreme leaders and to be known as a force to be reckoned with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the points. I dont really agree with the point that we need to try and push democracy on others. Let them choose the type of governtment they want to have in place. If its not the best choice then thats on them not us.
ReplyDeleteI would like to key in on one aspect that stands out in all five of the neoconservative commitments. That one outstanding commitment is that America is to be a dominant force global, and is to have no rival. The United States of America is a powerful country. It has the military capability to take on comparatively mighty nations. The United States has a powerful tie to every country it has contact with. With this in mind, the United States should not press its power to oversea the Globe as a whole. To do this is to overstep their boundaries by impeding upon the interests of billions of people over the lives of only millions of american people. The United States should not follow any of these neoconservative commitments because they will lead to violence among countries who do not wish to be submissive to a nation that is superseding their own interests. I feel that for the United States to remain a powerful nation, it must gather powerful and trusted allies, not seek to control the global populace.
ReplyDeleteDevin Raine
I am personally against this policing the world crap the United States is so fond of. We do not have the right to just dictate how the world can operate. The idea that America alone is keeping the world from falling to pieces is ridiculous, as is the idea that everyone should just fall in line behind us or stay out of our way. Gee, could we get a little more arrogant/egotistical/self-righteous? Didn't people come to America to get away from tyrannical bullies who wanted to force everyone into believing the same way? Did I miss something in history class? And yet here we are shoving democracy and our policies down everyone's throat, does the word hypocritical mean anything? I'm not saying we shouldn't be active and make sure we are taken care of internationally. I'm not saying we shouldn't help protect other democracies, when the people of those countries want a democracy. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a strong military or economy. I'm not saying we should have to answer to anyone about protecting ourselves or our allies abroad. However the idea that this world is ours alone and we should rule it is out of line, and that is what a lot of these "neoconservative commitments" sound like. Our way is the only way and we should be able to reinforce it without anyone else's say so. That's bullshit. Still I wouldn't mind having the strongest military or economy nor being active internationally such that our interests are protected (without infringing on other countries rights/sovereignty except in self-defense).
ReplyDeleteI agree with alomost all of the neoconervative commitments. The one I find to be of less importance is the primacy one. I don't think that it's best to have that kind of attitude. One of them I do approve of is the internationalism. I think that it's important to keep up with foreign polotics because we should know whats going on around us.
ReplyDelete-Rebecca Harrelson
For the most part I disagree with the neoconservative commitments. I don't like the idea of America operating the entire world. The US' links with other countries is very important, I agree with that, but I don't think that the US should be so involved with affairs of other countries. I believe that these commitments will just lead to further tension, disagreements, and possibly violence amongst countries.
ReplyDeleteKacy Cooper
I agree with most of the neoconservative commitments except for the primary one. The US should not be in control of the entire World. We are only one country and don't have the right to tell all the other countries what to do. Other countries should have the opportunity to have their own military ideas and political ways. Not every country has to be exactly like the US.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with all of the neoconservative commitments. Like Kacy Cooper said, I don't think we need to be controlling of every other country. We need our limits. I do, however, believe that we need a military to protect ourselves if need be. We also need to be a part of the rest of the world, not by trying to control it, but by being informed/educated of what are going on. If other countries ask for our help, we should lend them a hand, in case we need their help in the future. I believe Democracy is the most important neoconservative commitment. Why, because we need to hear from the people and other country's people. The least important neoconservative commitment would have to be either Primacy or Unilateralism because we can do with out these commitments. They are not the most demanded or recognized types of commitments.
ReplyDeleteAnna Wilt
I have mixed emotions about these policies. While all of these policies may be important, some of them make the US seem power hungry. Especially with primacy, militarism, and unilateralism. The US is supposed to be part of the UN, not overpowering the UN. Primacy, militarism and unilateralism all make it sound like the US must be the highest power. From primacy is states that no other power should rival the power of the US. Militarism just backs up this policy. and unilateralism suggests that US power is the source of global stability, not the security council of the United Nations. There is a reason they are called the United Nations. These policies make it seem like the US is basically running the show. they are superior to all other nations. If anything, i would think that this would make nation's more wary and hostile towards the US.
ReplyDelete-Amber Ropp
I agree with some of the policy commitments but some I do not. I find some of these commitments are interesting others are over the top. The commitment of internationalism is a reasonable one. I believe U.S. should only extent its influences and politics when it is in line with the national interests. I think we should not poke our noses into other countries' businesses if those don't concern us. I also believe militarism is good to an extend. A strong U.S. military is good for maintain U.S. national security and democracy. However, I don't believe it should be use to extend democracy abroad which brings up the commitment of democracy. It is good that we show other countries our democratic government, but I think it should be a decision depends upon the citizens of those countries. We should not have to use force (military) to make other countries a democratic one.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely do not agree with the commitment of privacy. When we make sure that no other power should be able to both militarily and economically rival of the U.S. are we sending out messeges that we are here to dominate? What about equal opportunities and we preach that we are all equal in the Constitution? Are we contradicting our believes when it comes to 'us' vs. 'them'?
Yuet Chu
I agree that the US should play policeman to the world when the US is in danger. If conflict between two other countries is being them then the US has no reason to involve them in the matter. I think American dominance is best, because I live in America. I’m sure people in other countries want to feel they have dominance; everyone wants to carry the big stick. I don’t think that US policies should go for the whole world, why should we say what is best for another country. I think a strong military is needed for the US so that we are protected. I agree with some of these positions and kind of differ from some of them.
ReplyDeleteTim Zeigler
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Amber Ropp. I am at a position where I think it's okay that we go help other countries but I don't think we should be trying to help people that don't want help. I think sometimes we spend all this time and money trying to help a cause that doesn't want helped and we have people in this country that could use that attention. I think it is in our country's best interest to reach a lending hand out to other countries that need help and want it. Some day if another world wide war breaks out it would be nice to have those alliances. I just don't think we need to get caught up in a lost cause. When it comes to the military issue we most certainly need a military force to protect our country.
ReplyDeleteSamanthia McQuade 100.03
I agree with most of these neoconservative commitments but not all of them. I think the most important are the militarism and the internationalism. It is very important that we have good relations with other countries to maintain the peace that we can. However, I don't think that we should put ourselves in a position in any country that doesn't want us there. I don't agree with part of the internationalism statement, "Maintaining and extending the current global order that is in line with our national interests." Maybe I am misunderstanding that statement, but I don't believe we should be forcing our interests on any other country. We believe in freedom in the United States and I think we need to apply that outlook to other countries as well. We obviously need to protect our country but we need to keep other countries in mind as well. Having a strong military is vital for any country. You never know what can happen at any moment, but I think it is important not to over react, and don't put ourselves in any situation that we don't need to be in. If another country needs our help and makes that clear, I think then would be a good time to step in and help.
ReplyDeleteKelsea Weiant
100:04
For the most part, I agree with most of the commitments. However, there is one that I do not agree with. Primacy, I do not agree with. It makes us look like we are trying to almost take over the world. Yes, I do believe that it is extremely important for the US to be strong especially in terms of the military, but to say that no other country should be able to be our rival in any aspect concerning that is wrong. Economically, it would not be good either. If something were to ever happen to our economy, we would need to rely on other countries to bounce back and borrow money and if our country is the only economically dominant, let alone stable one, how would we ever get back on track. I believe that Internationalism is the most important to maintain/focus on because we need to be active participants in what is going on in the world and not just focus on ourself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the five nonconservative polices. I am an American and I support that America should be first and in control. I agree mostly with 1 and 4. We should play an active role nationally so we know what is going on around the world. We don't want things to happen from the unexpected if they could have been prevented. We need a strong military to protect us from countries that dont agree with us and whom are out to get us because they dont like the way we run our country. Those too me would be the most imporant out of the five but i agree with them all.
ReplyDelete--Sabina NIcewarner 03
I agree with basically all of the policies. I definitely believe the military one is very important. We should have a strong military that can keep our nation safe in times of need.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe, however, that our country should try and be in control of everyone else. What gives Americans the right to say what goes on in other countries? If you go into a strangers house can you do whatever you want? No. It should be the same for countries.
I agree with the policies for neo conservationism. It seems to me the US already engages in this polices on an everyday matter and the world community seems to accept this. I believe the US to be the leader of the world community. We already implement the world police policy and take significant role in international political affairs. The US is the highest political power on the planet and no one has the power to challenge it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the five nonconservative policies, however I do not agree with primacy and unilateralism. I do not feel that the US should feel like they have to be dominant over other countries and groups of people. WIth unilateralism I feel that its important to have the interaction of the United Nations when it comes to making important decisions concerning the world. I believe that militarism is the most important out of these five nonconservative policies. I believe this is the most important because our national security is of very high importance in the United States. It is very important to have a strong military in order to keep our people safe and away from harms way. The least important from the five would have to be primacy because it is not necessary for the United States to be dominant over the whole world.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with all five of the neoconservative policies. I atleast marginally believe that all of those policies have a place in the US's foriegn policy. I think the "primacy" issue is the only one that gets to me... there is this need to be number one in this country. While I understand why that is important, I think we are viewed as bullies. We get ourselves into conflicts that, on the surface, dont have anything to do with us. The image we project to other countries isn't great a lot of the time, and no one really hides how they feel about Americans.
ReplyDeleteMy only real issue with this is that I feel, especially currently, that we are ignoring the big issues at home and taking on global issues. It's not that I think we have NO place playing a role in international conflicts and establishing relationships with other countries (obviously these things are important) ... but our own economy is crumbling and unemployment is depressingly high. We have issues at home to take care of, and I think that we need to make room within these policies to BACK OFF the international stuff for a bit and take care of ourselves.
-Challee Blackwelder
I disagree with most of the neoconservative foreign policies. To me the policies seem like the US is the greatest or most powerful country and should go out to conquer the rest of the world. I do believe we need a strong military for defense, but not to help spread democracy. Democracy has its flaws even here in our own country. Would a foreign country be willing to accept Democracy when it is forced upon them? I believe that trying to force this on other countries could have negative results. As we have seen in the recent years, some of the world is seeing the US as the "bully" of the world. We have our own problems so I believe we should focus on fixing them rather than make try to make other countries just like us.
ReplyDeleteInternationalism - I can understand that we (US) should look out for our best interests in the world.
ReplyDeleteMilitarism - I can go for maintaining a strong military; security being the first thing a government provides.
Democracy - It's an important thing for our country, but I don't know if we need to feel compelled to make all other nations democratic. I think that we can work on our own government, perhaps our example will seem worthy of emulating.
Unilateralism - If we have the power then perhaps we should lend it to support the UN, and not ignore it; would we like it if other nations did the same?
Primacy - I understand that we think we know best. I think competition is a good thing, but how exactly do we stop other nations from being rivals?
I agree with most of the policies listed above. The only policy I have trouble agreeing with is Internationalization. The other policies seem to be reasonable but every country should have the right to do what they want and Internationalization take that right away from them. Too much United States involvement doesn’t really help anyone. It takes the attention away from our country where the majority of the attention should be. The policy of Primacy is also questionable in my mind. In history a lot of the countries that have tried to hold too much power have inevitably hit their peak and then spiraled rapidly to their death. If we learned form the past then we should know that to extend our power too much and to exert our energy into being the best is only setting us up for failure. Militarism on the other hand is the policy that I agree most with. I think a strong, ready military is required so the government can provide the highest amount of security.
ReplyDeleteEmily Johnson
I agree with all of these policies for the most part, but i feel the military one is the most important policy listed above. As a country we need a strong military to keep our country safe and protected. On the other hand i do not believe we should abuse power and try to rule and control other countries. You can rule your area or country, but you cant tell everyone how to run their land and their people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the neoconservative foreign policies. I most agree with the internationalism policy because I strongly believe that the US should be active participants in achieving national interests. I also agree with the militarism policy because in order to maintain a strong order and security we need to have a military that can defend us if a foreign were to attack. I do not agree with the democracy policies, if other nations decide to not be a democracy that’s their right. Obviously a democracy does not work for us 100% of the time so who are we to judge others’ stability just because they are not a democracy.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Pevahouse 100.03
I agree with neoconservative foreign policies. And to all the comments about how arrogant the United States are and so on and so on, and how we should monitor what other Nations do to increase their personal military. Think about what would happen if we did not police the world. WE joined the United Nations to do this. And as for arrogance are you arrogant and cocky if you know that you are on top, and the most powerful, because of this knowledge people hate us, that is jealousy and is nothing we can control. But we do give foreign aid, The big problem comes up when its the topic of war, and the war on terror and how we did not go in with the U.N. support and approval. Yes we should have had their support but since we did not get it we had to do something on our own to show that you cant just attack us, humiliate us, and laugh about it with out any retaliation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all five of the neoconservative views expressed on this blog post. I think the first view is the one I would agree with the least just for the simple fact that I believe that the United States should play a role in world politics, but not be allowed to decide on which countries get to have power in the future based on our interests alone. The one I agree with the most is number four. If this point is kept up to the best of our ability, then the rest of the points will virtually fall into line of how we want them to.
ReplyDeleteChad Starner
Personally, I disagree with all of the neoconservative views. For one, no one country truly knows what a democracy is. Secondly, who would want their country run by their military? There would constantly be a war going on and everyone would use fighting as their way of settling a problem. Thirdly, primacy; leaving politics in the hands of the United States or any one country for that matter, is completely absurd. We cannot even have proper politics in our own country right now, more or less take care of other country's political problems. Overall, I disagree with all of the neoconservative views and believe there are many other ways to go about solving problems then to allow one single country to be in charge, especially a country that cannot even take care of it's own problems. I believe each country or five of our strongest country's should play a role in each of the neoconservative policies.
ReplyDeleteEmily Suranno
POLI SCI 100 sec 03
I disagree with all of them. No one country should have full military control. When a country has military control they could get control happy and start just doing anything they want and just be a bully. I wouldn't want my government to be ran by the military that just puts more power in the government and that would defeat the democracy. I would say if anything to get the world's strongest governments and let them all have a role in this. No one country should ever have full control.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Sawyers
Since the beginning of the USA, it has exhibited periods of both internationalism and isolationism. I am a firm believer that we need to stay involved in the global environment. I can go on for days about these questions. I think that they should have been broken down further.
ReplyDeleteWe need to be involved with the world. Our progress, security, and more depend on it. We also need to stay true to our beliefs in the USA. We cannot leave our constitution. We are in the middle of a great movement were the working class American is coming together. They are not protesting based on color, religion, sex, or creed but the course of action the politician have taken against our fundamental beliefs of what the constitution stands for and represents.
We need to stay hot on the ball in concerns with military and national security. We have experience when security and intelligence is cut in half as President Clinton did during his 8 years, September 11, 2001 could have been avoided or reduced greatly from the magnitude that it was. Yes, and I will argue with anyone with great emotion because I, as my father did, experience the cut backs Clinton did in almost every major areas of the military and intelligence gathering.
We need to be strong and not show arrogance. We need to be tough but also show compassion. We need to always be on guard but we cannot profile unless it is warranted with evidence proving there is danger. We cannot be naïve but we need to build our intelligence.
I agree with all of these commitments except the first one. I believe we should stay out of world politics unless it affects the US. As far as primacy goes, we are already the most powerful nation in the world and we should maintain that power: economically and militarily (although we are not that economically powerful anymore). I agree with unilateralism. The US is and has been the source of global stability for most of our lives. Militarism seems to be looked down on by some, but it is our main source of security (not just our own by of other countries as well) (does Korea come to mind?). A strong military is necessary. I believe it is important to spread democracy to where it is wanted.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with many of them.I definitely don't believe that the military should have full control of the government.The military should not have control of the government,but we do need a strong military too keep our country safe. But the important thing is that the military does abuse the power that they are given.As the famous quote says'with great power comes great responsibility'....
ReplyDeleteBlair Jewell Section 100.04
I agree with Internationalism to a degree. I believe we should be involved and active around the world, but not smothering in our beliefs. Sometimes we get carried away with making countries clones of ourselves that we force our ways on other which in the long run only fuels hatred towards us.
ReplyDeleteI agree more fully with Militarism and Democracy. It is necessary to have a strong military to be able to defend the way you life and protect your rights. Without that, we are vulnerable to attacks. Democracy is important because it allows the people to actively take part in the government. This keeps the people happy (sort of) and our government running efficiently.
Primacy is difficult to understand. We can really stop other countries from becoming powerful short of declaring war on them in its infancy. It would be hard to do that though, as we wouldn't have legitimate reasons for war other then we fear the growing threat. As for unilateralism, i think it is important for the U.S. to help as much as it can rather then trying to control everything. Its stressful to constantly try to police the world and it is a good way to gain and maintain allies.
I do agree with Internationalism to some what. I think we should be involved and active around the world. I do agree with Militarism and Democracy. We must have a good military to protect us for attack and your rights. The other I don't quit understand.
ReplyDeleteI feel like i agree with most of the neoconservative views especially the ones about policing the earth and promoting democracy and safety to the rest of the world. As with my last posts i think it is our duty as a nation to help provide for those countries less fortunate thatn our own. They are just as important as we are and deserve it so.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing i dont agree with is that we need to be the highest and most superior being. I think that if someon would rival us is would be good just as that we have a two party system with our government why can't the world have a two country leadership or more?
I feel that the military policy is the most important policy listed above. I believe that we, as a country, need a strong, reliable military to keep all of us protected. But along with this, I feel that we sometimes abuse our privileges as a military because we go out and try to tell other countries how to govern and control their people. I don’t believe that we have the right to show other countries how to run their government when we don’t even run ours perfectly. I think we should let other countries govern themselves, and GUIDE them to help them do better, not make them.
ReplyDelete