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. While not as prominent in the Obama administration, neoconservatism continues to be an important philosophy shaping American foreign policy today.
Here are five neoconservative positions regarding US foreign policy:
1. Internationalism: Neoconservatives argue that 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. This means that the US should, in general, be more interventionist in its foreign policy outlook.
2. Primacy: Neoconservatives argue that American dominance in world politics is 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: Neoconservatives argue that American power is the source of global stability, not the UN Security Council or NATO or the European Union. So, US foreign policy should not be afraid of acting alone (unilaterally) to maintain US national security interests and global stability.
4. Militarism: Neoconservatives argue that because the US should be able to maintain global stability and spread democracy abroad, a strong US military is needed.
5. Democracy: Neoconservatives argue that it is in US national interest to spread democracy abroad.
Do you agree with all five of these neoconservative foreign policy positions? Do you disagree with all five of them? Or, do you agree with some of them? Which do you agree with and which do you disagree with? Why do you agree and/or disagree with them?
If you disagree with one or more of them, what problems can you imagine might arise with these neoconservative aims? For instance, could policies aimed at spreading democracy abroad create problems for the US? Could unilateral US intervention abroad cost the American tax payer too much? Etc.
If you agree with more than one of these neoconservative foreign policy position, which do you feel is the most important? Why is this the most important position? Which position is the least important? Why is it the least important?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
America in World Affairs: Ignorance, Inequality, and World Standing
This week we finish up our discussion of contemporary democracy in America. We start talking about global politics and how they relate to different countries, especially the US.
Recall Bulworth. The film serves as a satirical critique of American democracy. It comments on a number of problems and issues that Americans face domestically. At the same time, these domestic problems and issues also impact the standing of America in global politics.
At one point during a studio interview with a reporter, Senator Jay Bulworth says:
Think about Bulworth's criticism and then read this Newsweek opinion piece. In part it says:
What do you think?
Does the inequality between the wealthy and the poor and the inequality in their education negatively impact the United States's world standing? Are America's best days behind us? Does America's standing in world affairs matter? Should we care more about world affairs or domestic affairs? Is there a difference between world affairs and domestic affairs? Should the government work to lessen inequality between the wealthy and the poor and improve public education?
Recall Bulworth. The film serves as a satirical critique of American democracy. It comments on a number of problems and issues that Americans face domestically. At the same time, these domestic problems and issues also impact the standing of America in global politics.
At one point during a studio interview with a reporter, Senator Jay Bulworth says:
Obscenity? The rich is getting richer and richer and
richer while the middle class is getting more poor/ Making billions
and billions and billions of bucks/ well my friend if you werent
already rich at the start well that situation just sucks/cause the
riches mother fucker in five of us is getting ninety fuckin eight
percent of it/ and every other motherfucker in the world is left to
wonder where the fuck we went with it/ Obscenity?/ Im a Senator/ I
gotta raise 10,000 a day every day Im in Washington/ I aint
getting it in South Central/ Im gettin it in Beverly Hills/ So Im
votin from them in the Senate the way they want me too/ and-and-and
Im sending them my bills/ But we got babies in South Central dying
as young as they do in Peru/ We got public schools that are
nightmares/ We got a Congress that aint got a clue/We got kids
with submachine guns/ We got militias throwing bombs/ We got Bill
just gettin all weepy/ We got Newt blaming teenage moms/We got
factories closing down/ Where the hell did all the good jobs go?
Well, Ill tell you where they went/My contributors make more
profits makin, makin, makin, Hirin kids in Mexico/ Oh a brother
can work in fast food/ If he cant invent computer games/ But what
we used to call America/ Thats going down the drains/Hows a young
man gonna meet his financial responsibilities workin and
motherfuckin Burger King? He aint! And please dont even start
with that school shit/ There aint no education going on up in that
motherfucker/ Obscenity? We got a million brothers in prison/ I
mean, the walls are really rockin/But you can bet your ass theyd
all be out/If they could pay for Johnny Cochran/ The constitution
is supposed to give them an equal chance/ Well, that aint gonna
happen for sure/ Aint it time to take a little from the rich
motherfucker and give a little to the poor? I mean, those boys over
there on the monitor/ they want a government smaller and weak/ but
the be speakin for the riches 20 percent when they pretend theyre
defendin the meek/ Now, shit, fuck, cocksuker, thats the real
obscenity/ Black folks livin with every day/ Trying to believe a
mothefuckin word Democrats and Republicans say/ Obscenity? Im Jay
Billington Bulworth And Ive come to say/ The Democratic partys
got some shit to pay/ Its gonna pay it in the ghetto/ Its gonna
pay it in the- [talks a little] You know the guy in the booth whos
talking to you in that tiny little earphone? Hes afraid the guys
at network are gonna tell him that hes through/ If he lets a guy
keep talking like Im talking to you/ Cause the corporations got
the networks and they get to say who gets to talk about the country
and whos crazy today/ I would cut to a commercial if you still
want this job/ Because you may not be back tomorrow with this
cooperate mob/Cut to commercial, cut to commercial, cut to
commercial. Ok ok I got a simple question that Id like to ask of
this network/ That pays you for performing this task/ How come they
got the airwaves? Theyre the peoples arent they? Wouldnt they be
worth 70 billion to the public today? If some money-grubbin
Congress didnt give them away for big campaign money? Its
hopeless you see/ If youre runnin for office with out no TV/If you
dont get big money/ You get a defeat/ Corporations and
broadcasters make you dead meat/ You been taught in this country
theres speech that is free/ But free dont get you no spots on
TV/If you want to have senators not on the take/ Then give them
free air time/ They wont have to fake/ Telecommunications is the
name of the beast/that, that, that, that, thats eating up the
world from the west to the east/ The movies, the tabloids, TV and
magazines/ they tell us what to think and do/ And all our hopes and
dreams/ All this information makes America phat/ But if the
companys outta the country/ How American is that? But we got
Americans with families that cant even buy a meal/ Ask a brother
whos been downsized if hes getting any deal/ Or a white boy
bustin ass til they put him in his grave/ He aint gotta be a black
boy to be livin like a slave/ Rich people have always stayed on top
by dividing white people from colored people/ but white people got
more in common with colored people then they do with rich people/
we just gotta eliminate them. White people, black people, brown
people, yellow people, get rid of em all/ All we need is a
voluntary, free spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial
deconstruction/ Everybody just gotta keep fuckin everybody til
theyre all the same color
Think about Bulworth's criticism and then read this Newsweek opinion piece. In part it says:
To appreciate the risks involved, it’s important to understand where American ignorance comes from. In March 2009, the European Journal of Communication asked citizens of Britain, Denmark, Finland, and the U.S. to answer questions on international affairs. The Europeans clobbered us. Sixty-eight percent of Danes, 75 percent of Brits, and 76 percent of Finns could, for example, identify the Taliban, but only 58 percent of Americans managed to do the same—even though we’ve led the charge in Afghanistan. It was only the latest in a series of polls that have shown us lagging behind our First World peers.
Most experts agree that the relative complexity of the U.S. political system makes it hard for Americans to keep up. In many European countries, parliaments have proportional representation, and the majority party rules without having to “share power with a lot of subnational governments,” notes Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, coauthor of Winner-Take-All Politics. In contrast, we’re saddled with a nonproportional Senate; a tangle of state, local, and federal bureaucracies; and near-constant elections for every imaginable office (judge, sheriff, school-board member, and so on). “Nobody is competent to understand it all, which you realize every time you vote,” says Michael Schudson, author of The Good Citizen. “You know you’re going to come up short, and that discourages you from learning more.”
It doesn’t help that the United States has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the developed world, with the top 400 households raking in more money than the bottom 60 percent combined. As Dalton Conley, an NYU sociologist, explains, “it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Denmark, we have a lot of very poor people without access to good education, and a huge immigrant population that doesn’t even speak English.” When surveys focus on well-off, native-born respondents, the U.S. actually holds its own against Europe....
But poll after poll shows that voters have no clue what the budget actually looks like. A 2010 World Public Opinion survey found that Americans want to tackle deficits by cutting foreign aid from what they believe is the current level (27 percent of the budget) to a more prudent 13 percent. The real number is under 1 percent. A Jan. 25 CNN poll, meanwhile, discovered that even though 71 percent of voters want smaller government, vast majorities oppose cuts to Medicare (81 percent), Social Security (78 percent), and Medicaid (70 percent). Instead, they prefer to slash waste—a category that, in their fantasy world, seems to include 50 percent of spending, according to a 2009 Gallup poll.
What do you think?
Does the inequality between the wealthy and the poor and the inequality in their education negatively impact the United States's world standing? Are America's best days behind us? Does America's standing in world affairs matter? Should we care more about world affairs or domestic affairs? Is there a difference between world affairs and domestic affairs? Should the government work to lessen inequality between the wealthy and the poor and improve public education?
Sunday, March 6, 2011
American Politics and Government
It is useful to think about the relationship between the rulers and the ruled along three lines:
1. Rule of the individual -- a king, tyrant, or charismatic individual who commands a political community.
2. Rule of the few -- an oligarchy, or when a comparatively small group of people rule over a larger political community. The Iron Heel offered an example of a capitalistic oligarchy and depicted life for a worker under such conditions.
3. Rule of the many -- a democracy, or when a comparatively larger number of people are selected by the community to rule over the community. The Probability Broach presented a democratic, proportionally elected, republic where at least 90% of the representatives had to cast a vote before a policy could be made into law. The government was small, uninvolved in peoples' lives, slow to act, and very democratic.
Look over the sets of questions below and spend some time thinking about and answering a few.
What do you think? Is America ruled by the many? Or is America ruled by the few? Should there be more democracy in America or less? What might more democracy look like for you? Could you give an example?
Is the American government too big or too small or is it just about right in size? Should we have a stronger federal government or stronger state and local governments? Would you like to see a government as small as the government in the Probability Broach or is something larger required? What particular aspects of the government (social security, military, unemployment benefits, welfare, etc) should be larger or smaller? Why should those aspects of government be larger or smaller?
Or maybe we should not be talking about the size of the government. Maybe we should be talking about the effectiveness of the government. Is the US government effective? If so, give me an example of what you think is effective government? Or is the US government ineffective? If so, give me an example of what you think is ineffective government? What could be changed to make some aspect of government more effective?
1. Rule of the individual -- a king, tyrant, or charismatic individual who commands a political community.
2. Rule of the few -- an oligarchy, or when a comparatively small group of people rule over a larger political community. The Iron Heel offered an example of a capitalistic oligarchy and depicted life for a worker under such conditions.
3. Rule of the many -- a democracy, or when a comparatively larger number of people are selected by the community to rule over the community. The Probability Broach presented a democratic, proportionally elected, republic where at least 90% of the representatives had to cast a vote before a policy could be made into law. The government was small, uninvolved in peoples' lives, slow to act, and very democratic.
Look over the sets of questions below and spend some time thinking about and answering a few.
What do you think? Is America ruled by the many? Or is America ruled by the few? Should there be more democracy in America or less? What might more democracy look like for you? Could you give an example?
Is the American government too big or too small or is it just about right in size? Should we have a stronger federal government or stronger state and local governments? Would you like to see a government as small as the government in the Probability Broach or is something larger required? What particular aspects of the government (social security, military, unemployment benefits, welfare, etc) should be larger or smaller? Why should those aspects of government be larger or smaller?
Or maybe we should not be talking about the size of the government. Maybe we should be talking about the effectiveness of the government. Is the US government effective? If so, give me an example of what you think is effective government? Or is the US government ineffective? If so, give me an example of what you think is ineffective government? What could be changed to make some aspect of government more effective?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)