Blog #6: Alien Ambassador

A constructivist’s approach to a UN alien ambassador would be cautious, but open-minded. A constructivist would emphasize the importance of being patient and understanding the policies and intentions of these beings before making a decision on how to treat them, and what course of action to take. An important factor in the relations between our world and that of the aliens, from a constructivist’s point of view, is the hope that they will recognize our efforts in attempting to work with them. This ambassador would accomplish the task by listening and working with them to ensure that whether through trade, or simple coexistance, these relations would be beneficial for everyone involved.

A slightly different viewpoint about an appointment of an ambassador to the aliens would be from a realist’s perspective because the ideals of realism are not as focused of the importance of international institutions, and an ever-changing global structure. The values of realism are more invested in the safety of individual nations, and therefore the citizens of those nations. A realist would suggest military input, and would attempt to develop some sort of agreement with the aliens to ensure that our safety would never be at risk. Personal gain, after safety, is the most important factor that would be of significance in this situation. The realist would then search for some natural resource or form of technology that could be gained from this outside life. Contrary to the constructivist’s beliefs, the realist believes that the global structure is generally unchanging, and the introduction of a new life could shift our balance therefore, is it crucial for nation states to protect their own self-interests and security, even if the alien life is relatively harmless, and diplomatic.

UN Ambassador to the Aliens

The issue of having an ambassador to aliens would obviously have different reactions in the contrasting realms of international relations theory. Specifically, I will be discussing the contextual differences of realists and constructivists.

Realists would not support the appointment of an ambassador to aliens. First of all, this theory does not have confidence in international institutions and allies, which undermines the UN altogether. Therefore, a realist would not view a UN ambassador as something that would beneficially affect nations. If a nation run by realists believed aliens to be a security threat, then it would establish its own alien ambassador so that it can independently approach the situation without relying on other nations. The realist idea of the world is that the global structure remains fundamentally the same; therefore they would predict most nations to focus on their own security because physical survival as a nation is the fundamental goal.

On the other hand, constructivists acknowledge the effect international law has on nations, including the power of the United Nations. To constructivists, an ambassador to the aliens would be a position that would benefit the globe as a whole if a situation of alien invasion occurred. Therefore constructivists would see it as a good move for all nations. If the possibility of an alien society finding Earth was deemed important enough to prevent, then constructivists would argue that it is imperative to have international norms and principles on how to approach such a situation already in place, which could be established through the UN Ambassador. The main issue with constructivism is its inability to predict the global structure, thus the presented constructivist argument as a preventative measure could differ greatly from how they would analyze such a situation after its occurrence.

The realist focus on physical security and the constructivist concentration on international institutions create completely contrasting approaches. Realists would take it as an opportunity to further internalize its power and security, whereas constructivists would use it to organize the world in a joint effort.

To Boldy Go, Where Realism Never Has...

Mazlan Othman, of Malaysia, was just appointed the UN's ambassador to aliens. Apart from showing unusual foresight on the part of the UN, it also speaks volumes about their attitudes towards potential alien invaders. Not their individual choice of Othman - the fact that they appointed a minister at all. If the UN harbored a realist view of intergalactic politics, they wouldn't bother with a minister to the aliens - it would just start building missiles with which to blow the aliens out of the sky. If the UN held a liberal view, it would welcome the aliens with a landing party of economic leaders, traders, and CEOs - all the better to start establishing trans-planetary trade. However, the astrophysicist Othman was appointed as an AMBASSADOR, and that implies a constructivist point of view.

Othman's extensive knowledge of the universe would (theoretically) prove to be something that would help her understand aliens a bit more than the lay-diplomat. That's where the constructivism takes hold - appointing an ambassador shows the UN is willing to listen, at least a little. If aliens were to come down to earth, we will not assume they are coming to harvest our brains and blow them away. No, instead, we will allow the aliens to speak to one of us. A diplomat's job, of course, is to be a liaison - and for that, a diplomat needs to listen. A diplomat needs to take in what the aliens say, put her information into the common pool, and let all the give-and-take coalesce into a cogent view of the relationship between the human and alien races. This is what constructivism is - not delivering a knee-jerk response based on a preplanned schema, but allowing for deviations in what is expected. Heck, by appointing an alien ambassador in the first place, the UN is deviating from what is expected. I'd say that we're on the right track.

From the V2 to Present Day

Since the 1947 Roswell incident America has been obsessed with extraterrestrials. Many intellectuals, scientists, and curious everymen have had their eyes turned upward, gazing at the stars hoping to catch a glimpse of life out of our atmosphere. The media monster has developed an intense fetish for alien “flicks” and horrible disasters involving non-human intelligence. From Independence Day to The Fourth Kind humans have been killed and mutilated by technologically and mentally superior races of life beyond our earth. But, despite all of the dramatic hype, the United Nations seems to have plans to appoint Malaysian astrophysicist Mazlan Othman as “Alien Ambassador” to the General Assembly. What does this entail? It certainly puts a serious spin on the question of other life in the Universe that could potentially have the ability to contact or even reach our planet.

            Many individuals view space as waste of time, research, and resources, although there are several scientific organizations and interest groups that advocate for the study of the Universe and the development of space-bound technologies. But, these cries fall very short of the intended ears, with the United States soon to be without a shuttle program and dependent of the Russian Federation for space travel. A very different scenario when compared to the years of the Cold War looming in the not-so-distant past.

            The question still remains, is the appointment of a UN Alien Ambassador worthwhile? Sure it is. Why not? In the event that human were to actually come in contact with extraterrestrial beings it is better to be prepared than not. It is possible for life to exist, despite how unlikely. Research in space is immensely important to the development in the technology sector. Who knows, perhaps the truth is out there, and maybe, just maybe, one day humans will find it.

Reflection #5

At the beginning of our class discussion on Thursday, the challenge of dealing with a giant alien spaceship seemed off topic from the one which we had read the night before: constructivism. However, upon reflective on this topic tonight, the concept of having to adapt our ideals to completely new situation, that could either hurt or help us, constructivism completely applies. We would have to re-evaluate our current take on foreign policy, and we would have to decide on how we wanted to be perceived by this new group of beings. Constructivists believe in constant change and open endings. In our class discussion, we came to a consensus that the main fear of the situation arose from the fact that the future relations between our country, and even globe, and whatever is inside of the spaceship are undecided, and open ended.

Constructivism also applies to the way we would treat this situation within our own country. We debated over whether or not a media blackout was necessary, or if we should evacuate the Washington D.C. area. The constructivist theory is centered on the concept of adapting oneself to the current situation, and reacting to different people in different ways based on preconceived social norms and instincts. Another question that produced a wide range of answers was whether or not we should make the first interaction once the ship landed. And if so, who should it be? A constructivist will not say that since our further relationship with these aliens is based on how they initially react to our primary action. Therefore, we reached the conclusion that maybe we should send Obama, or Hillary Clinton out first. However, the problem then shifts to concern for our safety. Is it more important to protect our leaders, or to make a welcoming first impression? I was pleased with the conclusion we developed by the end of class: we should be prepared with our military on defense mode, but we should not make assumptions because their situation is, again, like a constructivist would claim, open ended.

Ignorance Isn't Always Bliss

After Thursday’s hypothetical extraterrestrial situation, I became really curious on how we would actually respond to such an event. More specifically, I was intrigued by the best way to approach the media situation. What is the most important goal in such a circumstance: focusing solely on fixing the problem which in turn keeps the public ignorant or dedicating some time to keeping the public updated in order to conserve public image and maintain calm?

Obviously the main objective is solving the ambiguous and threatening issue at hand. Therefore, all possible effort should be put towards how to approach the aliens before and while they are on the White House lawn. However, this is going off the worst-case scenario: there’s no time to think of how current actions will affect the aftermath because we are working off the assumption that there might not be an aftermath. The distinction in the two approaches to the media issue begins here. Should we be assuming we will survive or should we make no assumptions and work solely towards survival?

In my opinion, we should choose the former: we should assume that there will be a world to come to after the extraterrestrials and that there will be people there to hold the government accountable for all that they did during the crisis. Without a doubt, maintaining a sense of calm will reduce a number of issues that might erupt if we did not take these precautions, which would ultimately save the government further trouble during this already threatening situation. Keeping the public informed is the best approach in comparison to the alternative of keeping them in the dark. In this case, ignorance is anything but bliss. In fact, it would simply be chaos and panic.

Intellect and Instinct

            And God said, “Let there be mankind and they may make war of unforeseen magnitude…” These may not be the ideal words of a God that the majority of the human race believes in, but it certainly reflects the words of the God of history. Man has been violent and bloody since the beginning of His existence, and this violence has extended into modern history, culminating at the bloodiest engagement in human history, the Second World War. In response the unpredictability and high frequency of human on human violence, only enabled by the rise nation-state, three main theories of international relations have arisen: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. These three theories form an overarching understanding of world politics and provide a foundation for analysis of international issues.

            The European Union’s wide range of problems is a perfect example of the spectrum of international issues: Turkish/Algerian immigration into Europe, terror threats, descent of Euro value; Spanish, Portuguese, Irish, and Greek bankruptcy. Different factions of the EU legislative body hold differing viewpoints in how to resolve these issues, holding true to the triad of conceptual understanding (realist, liberal, and constructivist). Each facet presents their “rationale” in the perception of the issue, attempting to out reason each of the others.

            In the end, though, every intellectual is attempting to merely employ their own perspective and rational understanding of the world around them. Whether realist, liberal, or constructivist, all intellectuals are pursuing the same end, a better understanding of the happenings of reality. In an ideal world, a better understanding of international relations will cater to stability, security, and prosperity. Although, as history has shown, there is no foreseeable end to violence among nations and large social groups, it is simply a natural impulse that cannot be stifled by mere paper-pushing intellect.

Wendt Revisited

One of the points Wendt made in his essay jumped out at me: that in a first encounter, the pool of knowledge drawn by reciprocal, friendly actions can move two agents past a stage of self-help and into one of friendly relations. Now, it seems to me that for the most part, this rings true: when I met my roommates, I didn't go into the process planning for a power struggle. Instead, we all three acted amiably towards each other, have refrained from using/abusing each other's stuff, and therefore have drawn a common pool of friendliness and respect - not just in terms of expected actions towards me, but also in terms of how I expect to act towards them. Again, I feel as though in a perfect world this is what would happen in all relationships of any kind. However, I was very quickly able to think of an example where a peaceful original pool spawned a more aggressive creature: English-Indian relationships.

By "Indian" here, I mean the Native Americans whom we encountered on Roanoke Island in 1585. Originally, Sir Walter Raleigh wanted the Indians and English on the Island to act in harmony; and at first, they did. In fact, they got along very well, with the Indians more than happy to assist the colonists in food production and the like. Then the English accused the Indians of stealing a silver cup, and all hell broke loose. The colonists burned down a village and executed the chief, also by burning. The colonists then beat a hasty retreat for home. In 1587, the colonists tried again; they, of course, disappeared, either swallowed up by the wilderness (having been left to starve by wrathful Indians) or killed outright.

This also applies to the Algonquin Indians whom the colonists at Virginia got to know so well. The reputation of the English as vicious, merciless conquistadors is simply not true - at least not from the beginning. To the contrary - the English greatly admired the Indians. The English had been worried - are Englishmen getting too far from their roots? Are they getting too obsessed with "stuff", with glamor rather than substance? Are they getting too far from God? When these English saw the Indians, they saw a pure race. They saw the Indians being taller and better-toned than the English, and concluded that this physical supremacy came from an inner supremacy as well - they must know secrets about food and lifestyle that the English don't. They saw Indians having not CHRISTIANITY - but that just meant a blank slate, a people to be molded into perfect followers of God. The Englishmen harbored thoughts that the Indians were even potentially a better race than what the English had become - and hoped that the Englishmen, in helping the primitive savages take that last step, would find again what had once made the English race great.

However, we all know what actually happened. After a while, distrust took over. Even with reciprocal relations established (the Indians were very big on that - so big that when the English didn't give back equal value, the Indians stole it), trust was never fully established. Maybe it was that the English didn't realize what ACTUALLY equal value was. Maybe it was because the Indians stole to make up the difference. Maybe it was just because the Englishmen had formed mistrustful assumptions about other Englishmen, assumed their neighbors were scheming with Indians to take over other's lands, and acted accordingly. Maybe realism took over, and the English realized that the Indians were an advanced race with a high-level religion, government, and economy. Whatever the reason, the English suddenly began to move from primarily treating the Indians with great respect for their culture and intelligence, to using inflammatory language and destroying that culture.

So what do we draw out of this? In my opinion, there should be a corollary added to Wendt's theory. Yes, INITIALLY, when two agents meet, if one uses respect the second will as well. However, this cannot last; if the two agents must constantly interact, eventually external circumstances and realizations will color relationships until something turns. There is absolutely no way to ensure that a change in the status quo of alter (for example, if it forms an alliance with a third agent) will transform how it acts towards ego. Therefore, respect and peaceful relations is not just or even mainly predicated on reciprocal pools of knowledge between individual states; ALL elements of a state must be known and accounted for to predict future hostility or peace.

Blog #5: Gaga's Nation

“I want to liberate them, I want to free them of their fears and make them feel that they can create their own space in the world"- Lady Gaga

If Lady Gaga were a state, the state would be seen in the eyes of the rest of the world as controversial and have its own set of norms, unique to those that are followed by all other nations. It would be a democracy that closely resembles the United States. Lady Gaga herself is the self-proclaimed embodiment for all that is misunderstood. For this reason, this state would be criticized by most other societies for its acceptance, and even encouragement of practices that are considered taboo in other parts of the globe such as feminism, transexuality, and freedom of speech. Even now in all of her ubiquity, she is cast off as that singer who dresses outlandishly and dedicates all her awards to the gays. This is because more often than not, the general public makes the mistake of taking Gaga at face value. While she may seem like she is doing it all for the attention, all of Lady Gaga’s outfits and behavior are a strategic plan to make a very specific statement. Gaga’s nation would be created in an act of rebellion because Gaga and her “monsters” would be criticized and not taken seriously by a previous empire or other form of government. She would then create a land that would be known for hundreds years to come as a place where people could come with nothing, and through shear determination achieve everything. This is what Gaga truly stands for, despite the freak façade that often overshadows her words.

Lady Gaga Land

As we all know, Lady Gaga has incredible control over the masses through her pop culture identity. Therefore, if Lady Gaga were a state, it would most definitely be a dictatorship. Her propaganda would consist of the nonsensical lyrics and the ridiculously catchy beats to her songs that would convince her citizens that their state is utopia.

The fact that Lady Gaga Land (in reference to the hypothetical state) is a dictatorship does not mean that it would be a bad place. On the contrary, it would be one of the most socially liberal nations in the world. Lady Gaga’s tendency to disregard social norms through her mannerisms and clothing choices demonstrates her belief that originality is a good thing. Therefore, the mere idea of social norms (including gender roles) would be eliminated, which, according to constructivists, keep stability alive. Furthermore, her blatantly sexual image would allow all things that are socially taboo, a part of normalcy. Most importantly, Lady Gaga land would have better civil rights than the current United States. She would uphold equal rights for absolutely every group in existence because there is no sense of “different” to discriminate against. These examples are all in reference to the internal social system that would be in place.

As to the international stage, Lady Gaga Land would make decisions based on its own self-interest because the prosperity of the state is the ultimate goal. It is important to note that the state would be almost anti-constructivist because the international institutions that achieve “governance without government” would not be of importance to Lady Gaga Land, as explained above (PTJ). Lady Gaga Land would end up being more realist than anything else, merely because (1) it’s not a democracy (liberalism) and (2) norms are nonexistent (constructivism). Lady Gaga land would deliberately breach protocol in important international meetings and thus would not have good relations with other countries. Therefore, the international structure would resemble that of the Cold War Era. Specifically this means that countries would be constantly on edge and wary of Lady Gaga Land because of its radical behavior.

Ultimately, Lady Gaga Land would create a fragile international system despite its benefits as a socially progressive nation.

The State of Gaga

If Lady Gaga were to mystically establish her own state, how would the world be changed? Well, for one, the world would be in a state of shock. A famous singer founding their own country is unheard of. Secondly, many sub-cultured individuals would defect to the State of Gaga, being attracted to the style of its founder. So, finding themselves destitute of "weirdos" and in semi-disbelief, the nations of the globe would ponder the purpose of the famous pop star’s decision.

Although, a better question would be inquire the action of the nation from which land was taken to found the State of Gaga. More than likely, the “Gaga-land” would be gobbled up by force from the moment of its founding, unless of course Lady Gaga is in the possession of a secret private military with which she could utilize to found her own country. If the State of Gaga did happen to survive for any considerable length of time, it would more than likely be ignored by other nations. Its sovereignty would not be recognized, simply because of Gaga-land’s lack of capacity. What potential does a nation full of oddly clad, borderline psychotic singers and dancers have? Nearly none, because no one would take the inhabitants, nor the leader, seriously.

So, from the logical argument drawn above, the international ramifications of the establishment of the State of Gaga would be minute. Gaga-land has no potential of surviving, much less making a definitive impact if it did survive. Sorry, Lady Gaga, it does not look like you are going to become a supreme national leader any time soon, although it would be quite a sight.

And Now For Something Completely Different

Lady Gaga is clearly a unique and polarizing individual. Some (like my father) love her music and think she's bold and fascinating. Some (like me) think she should cut out the music videos and focus on singing like a normal person. However, one thing I have learned about Lady Gaga is that she is not all about meat dresses and bloody videos. In fact, I think that if a nation state were to somehow take on the characteristics of Lady Gaga, that country would hold a role in the world much like the one held by Australia.

Now, let me defend that. What do you think of when you think about Lady Gaga? As noted above - meat dresses, ridiculous music videos, bizarre social commentary. When you think of Lady Gaga, you think of her in the context of a caricature of herself - only outlandish actions register and are repeated, because it seems outlandish things are what Gaga sells hardest. Australia also embraces its caricaturial convenience. Australians know that their accent and culture is easy to make fun of, knows that its slight ridiculousness makes the state more endearing, and shamelessly pushes its own image.

However, Gaga has a less weird, more caring side as well. Gaga has no problems using her superpowers for good rather than evil, speaking out against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and throwing her weight behind AIDS awareness and The National Alliance to End Homelessness. She is a gifted pianist and (despite her computer-compounded efforts to convince us all of the contrary) is a talented singer. She was also academically successful in high school and (until she dropped out to pursue music) college. In short, Gaga is a diverse and conscientious actress on the social and intellectual stage. Australia is also diverse in those fields. For example, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called climate change "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" and was a leading voice in calling for CO2 reduction. Australia's school graduation rates are among the highest in the Oceanic area, and its troops serve proudly around the world (including in Iraq). In short, Australia is more than just kangaroos and funny accents - even if that's what everybody thinks about them.

Of course, Australians also tell their kids Santa Claus delivers gifts on Christmas Day from the back of an Outback Jeep. And Lady Gaga DID wear a meat outfit. So we probably won't stop making fun of either of these proud, forward-looking nation states any time soon - there's just too much material.

The Balance

The State Department budget is equivalent to the funding allocated to the military bands of the United States. One could say that this is a sign of the faith the U.S. government has in diplomacy, or one could examine it from the perspective that diplomacy is a more efficient alternative than waging war. To maintain peace by diplomatic means is simply a more fiscally responsible option. Negotiation does not require the massive re-allotment of resources that the mobilization and deployment of troops requires. Although, we cannot forget as logical citizens, that there is no better deterrent to international violence than a large, rapidly deployable, technologically advanced military.

So, our responsibility is to do determine the most effective balance between arms and Foreign Service, a balance that keeps us ready for conflict, yet capable of averting it. This balance could be seen from a managerial perspective as reconciling the theories of I.R. Realism and I.R. Liberalism: maintaining powerful state sovereignty by means of the military and flexible state malleability through diplomacy. A successful balance would leave a state free of prolonged, expensive engagements that were unnecessary, while also allowing it to remain strong enough to engage large enemies abroad.

Coexistence

I believe our discussion on the validity of democratization has been adequately addressed by our class, but there are still a few points that I have been itching to get in.

The main consensus that we reached as a class was the idea that democracy is the goal that all nations should work towards. In reference to Doyle’s article, he establishes that democracy is not only this, but the governmental system that all nations will inevitably reach thus creating a state of “perpetual peace.” However, one of the main issues with elections and democracy is that it might not assimilate well with the nations that don’t reflect our individualistic ideals. From there arose the idea that the pro election arguments are mostly only valid for the already successfully democratized governments. Therefore the anti-election arguments supported the ideals of the nations that fit into the “other” category. However, when we boil this down, isn’t it essentially saying that the “other” cultures that do not uphold the same values as democratic nations are backwards and wrong?

The entire issue of democratization ultimately divides up the world into the democratic nations as good and progressive, whereas the others are neither as successful nor valuable. However, the anomaly that is hardly negligible is China. Their government radically differs from us, but succeeds to the point of (and a bit more than) United States. Is a federation of democratic nations really the way to achieve “perpetual peace?” Or is it the ability to successfully coexist with different governments, if that is even possible?

What Would Jefferson Do?

Earlier this week, I wrote a post stating that without elections, there would be "anarchy". Immediately, my watchdog-colleague Cavington corrected me, more precisely defining anarchy as a state of true personal liberty - "chaos" was the word I was looking for. You'd think that systems of government, as vital and intrinsic in all of our lives, would be something standardized at this point. Something streamlined. Something that, if not perfected, should at least have a clear vision of what it wants to be.

However, that isn't so. Anarchy has multiple connotations and derivations; so too does America's own republic. The republic we see today is not the republic that our founding fathers envisioned. Thomas Jefferson loved freedom; he loved it so much that he despised and feared debtors and manufacturers. Manufacturers, Jefferson argued, are not free, because they are enslaved to the pernicious price fluctuations of their wares; debtors cannot be free because they live their lives in the shadows of men to whom they owe the fruits of their labor. In fact, Jefferson argued the only free people are property-owning farmers; only they can provide entirely for themselves, without the outside help by peers or the government.

This argument, however, precludes certain freedoms that today's America considers necessary. Jefferson - and other important Brits and upper-class Americans - did not think that non-property owners should have the franchise; property-owning rule, NOT rule by everyone, was considered the key tenent to republicanism. After all, reasoned Jefferson, those without jobs and property are resigned to lives of being rabble, constantly stealing and panhandling, incapable of supporting themselves. How can those unable to support themselves support a nation? One of Jefferson's friends, Andrew Fletcher, supported a plan to enslave (enslave!) property-less whites so they would not cause trouble.

This view was extreme, but its general sentiments were not out of line with its time (John Locke, for example, encouraged a "working school" idea which essentially enslaved children). These views are obviously not anywhere close to mainstream in today's idea of a republic. What does this mean? Maybe it means we can't always look to our Founding Fathers for advice. They were certainly smart guys with great vision for our country, but in the last two hundred plus years, their views and ours have grown distant. What seemed logical to Thomas Jefferson does not seem logical today - and that, in turn, may not in two hundred years to that time's leader of the free world. In other words, maybe we should stop pushing our "American" brand of governance onto other states.

We don't exactly know what it is ourselves.

Reflection #4

I thought that this week’s visit to the state department was incredibly relevant to our class discussion about democracy comparatively to the other trips we’ve taken. I really enjoyed what David Bame had to say about foreign policy and his experiences at the State Department. The way he respected our questions and remained interested in our thoughts made it hard to believe that he has spent so much time in the Middle East and was in the actual operation center on September 11^th 2001. In our class discussion the next day, we began to discuss whether or not it is right for the United States, or any other country for that matter, to enforce democracy.

To me, the phrase “enforcing democracy” seems slightly oxymoronic. Someone in class mentioned that democracy isn’t really democracy unless it is a product of the nation’s own citizen. I believe that democracy might not be for every single country for a variety of different reasons. For example, in many collectivist societies, harmony of the people and government along with preservation of culture and traditions are considered far more significant than individuality and competitive progression. In cases like this, a foreigner invading said nation would be seen as a threat to all that is valued by these people as opposed to the way we tend to view these situations. Interestingly enough, the State Department has different opinion on the matter. According to their website, “When historians write about [our] foreign policy…they will identify the growth of democracy as one of the United States’ greatest legacies.” While I have no problem with this statement, the page fails to go into detail about the means by which this is done. The page is filled with phrases like “prosperity for the new world,” and the U.S. will “establish vibrant democracies in [other] countries.” The colorful language provides a nationalistic feel, but I still can’t help but get an undertone of “the ends justify the means” type of attitude. Overall, I think this is a topic that will always be used to criticize our government, but truthfully after visiting the Defense Intelligence Agency, and learning that there are in fact many decisions being made that are deliberately kept from U.S. citizens, the sad but true fact is that many of us would rather believe that democracy is a perfect system instead of questioning the foundation and beliefs of our country.

Elections - Yay or Nay?

Let’s face it, we need elections. The other options include a government where the people do not have a say in politics. Granted, our election system undoubtedly has fundamental flaws. However, the solution is not to completely forsake the system altogether. The solution is to continue working on it until we have it right.

The major flaws in our election system include how it does not appeal to the lower classes and how the Electoral College transforms elections into an indirect process where the populace isn’t truly represented. The former is easily resolved: keep polls open as long as possible (noon to midnight) and make it a national holiday. If we don’t have to work or go to school on Labor Day, then we can make this adjustment for elections. Furthermore, the Electoral College remains important despite its pitfalls because it enables a stable political system. If it weren’t set up this way, then we would be stuck in a vicious cycle where radicals gained the popular vote and completely transformed the country until we later regret it and revolted.

The fact that we can have such a thorough discussion on what is wrong with our current election system proves that we can easily turn the dialogue towards how we can fix these issues. This, ultimately, is the more important discussion.

Blog #4: Democracy...effective?

From a young age in this country we are taught to appreciate the value of being able to vote. Starting as early as middle school, young students are given the opportunity to run for classroom council, as my school called it, or other mock-positions. We are taught that our voices matter, and that we should appreciate that fact. This trand continues through high school, until that illustrious day when we get to cast our first ballot. It’s interesting because in the environment of the most politically active school in the country, the refusal to vote is extremely rare, and people would never admit it if they didn’t participate. This passion and appreciation for the democratic system are the reasons that I would not be willing to live in a place without the option to vote.

While I do believe that there are flaws within the democratic system, and many people remain skeptical about the impact of just one vote, I believe voting is in some sense a form of nationalism in our country. Voting, in my opinion is a strong form of nationalism because of the obstacles that many American citizens had to face just to have that specific right. The United States was even founded on the belief that every citizen should have the right to be represented. Since then, groups like African Americans and women worked hard and dealt with hell in order to cast this one ballot. While It is true that most citizens take voting for granted, I think that living in a place where my opinions had no value would create a lack of enthusiasm for the prospects of change, and therefore progress. Additionally, democracy may not be perfect but it is the one system that has seemingly been working better than anything that has been tried before. Although it is not always apparent, the enthusiasm that many American have for power of opinion sets us apart in the global scheme of things.

Elections or Efficiency?

Yes, democracy is an inefficient method of running a country, just as capitalism leads to inequality in the distribution of wealth. But, what else do we have? What are our alternatives? - Fascism, Communism, Military Junta, etc. Although the "American System" may not be the most efficient method, it has a well-rounded balance of qualities. Elections keep people complacent, and executive decree gets things done. Social welfare provides a safety net; neo-liberal transnational corporate capitalism generates wealth.

It is in our system, the American way, that the world has seen the most success. The United States has managed to maintain a fairly patriotic population while also nourishing rugged individualism; developed the most powerful military in human history, while also avoiding a police state. It is in these examples of American society that humankind can truly see the beauty of our social framework, although, we are unique. We do not have a feudal past like the Old World; from the start we were built a strong foundation of republican and laissez-faire ideals. We do not have a noble class; instead we have a ruling, wealthy class that earned their way to the top through hard work and ingenuity. We were blessed with a vast store of natural resources and land for economic expansion. In other words, we are very lucky. Chance played out in the American favor.

Most parts of the world that have experimented with capitalism and democracy - two things that go hand in hand - have descended into chaos and poverty. Simply, because they were not ready for the responsibility that comes with the freedom to elect, to purchase and own, to administrate equal justice, etc. When people are ready to free (i.e. the Iranians, the Cubans, the North Koreans, the Sub-Saharan Africans, etc.) they will choose to be so. The Americans seized their future in their own hands and took the wheel of fate, as did the French, the British, and much of the developed Western world. Freedom is a choice, the choice to revolutionize.

Stumping for Campaigns

Let's be frank: There is no real modern day substitution for a fair election. As for an unfair election...it's still probably better than any other system. Obviously, American elections (with a few hiccups over the years) have gone smoothly, and other developed democracies have generally been fine as well. More to the point, what on earth else would we use to transfer power from party to party or person to person?

One option, I suppose, is to go back to Italy circa Machiavelli's writing and let local leaders have at it. Unfortunately, we would run out of local leaders, because eventually they'd all be dead. What is the problem with elections? That not everybody is completely represented? That sometimes, the firms we invest in turn out to be Lehman Brothers? That is a fact of human fallacy, both of the elected and the electees - not everyone can be happy. Not everyone, moreover, can be represented - many of them will CHOOSE for this to be so.

Without elections, we go back to a colder world. We return to a world where hard force - not hard cash - is the currency of the coup. We will see slings and arrows of fact, not slings and arrows on the FM, determining the life and death of a candidate. A country without elections? We need only to look to Kenya, a horrifying real-life example of the election/anarchy dichotomy. Pre-election breakdown, Kenya was a breath of fresh air, a state for all others in Africa both to aspire to and to proudly point at as a symbol for African Progress. Post-breakdown? Well...anybody who has seen the photos, the sickening montage of men on fire and of women screaming, knows that without valid elections, the state means nothing. There are then only people; and people, naked, run scared.

Of course, elections that fail can result in anarchy. And have no doubt, elections DO fail, especially in developing states with nationalism festering among tribal lines (this is a post for another day). That said, as the otherworldly Michael Jordan noted, "You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take". You need to put stability out there - in some form - to achieve anything. Now, does that mean democracy for all nations, fledgling and otherwise, right off the bat? I don't know. Again, another day, another post. But I know that anarchy can never be option, because that means giving up on the concept the human beings are able to figure things out. I, for one, will never let go of that thought.

Reflection #3

This week in my Understanding Media class we are required to spend 24 hours on a “media fast.” This basically means that we have to go a day without the Internet, texting, movies, television, magazines, ect. The point is to notice how much the media, including the news affects our world, and the frequency to which we utilize these resources, whether for entertainment or dependence. Admittedly, I have putting this assignment off for as long as possible because it is just incredibly inconvenient. However, this week’s lab at the Newseum required me to think about how the media affects my life in an entirely different way. When we think about dependence on the internet, cell phones, and technology in general, a sense of guilt remains in the backs of our minds because so many people view these resources as a double-edged sword: helpful, yet harmful. People claim that we don’t interact with each other the way we used to, and that pretty soon we’ll all just be hermits who check up on the world through various websites and friends that we have never actually met in real life. After seeing the 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and Pulitzer Prize winning photographs, it is impossible to see the media as anything but a blessing, and key resource in today’s world. There is a quote on the wall of the September 11^th movie room that reads, “There are three kinds of people who run toward disaster, not away: cops, firemen, and reporters.” In some ways, I feel like the reporters should not be held up to such a high pedestal, especially during the 9/11 attacks, but the bravery really is undeniable. This was most prominent to me at the Hurricane Katrina exhibit. While everyone was desperately trying to escape the disaster, the reporters were desperately trying to get in. One story that stood out to me in particular was told by a reporter who traveled into the chaos with his team and was confronted by many more obstacles than just finding a good story. He explained that he had to ask the men he came with if faced with the choice of saving a life, or getting a good story or picture, was he allowed to choose the former? In these terrifying situations, these people must do much more than just their job. The Newseum also made me think back to our debate about Machiavelli. While we argued that his attitude towards political image would never work today because of the media, the twisting of stories still exists today through PR firms as was demonstrated by many inaccurate claims made by various big name publications. In general, I have to disagree with the claims that the setbacks brought by technology and often times the media, is equal to the benefits. I believe the benefits of being able to know what is happening in the world at any given moment far outweigh the fear that we are headed towards a hermitic society.

In Defense of America

I'm currently reading a book called Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith. In one of the essays included in this book, "A Nation is a Nation, is a State, is an Ethnic Group, is a...", Walker Connor makes an interesting point. He argues that America is not a nation "in the pristine sense of the word" - which is news to anybody who was alive on September 11, 2001.

Connor's initial point is that the terms "nation" and "state" are often conflagrated and confused. Connor says that nations - people of a common background and history - are the TRULY unified social denomination, while a state is comprised of multiple nations that often war and collide. All of this, in its own way, is true - sometimes, groups within a state conflict. However, Connor goes on to say that the reason different nationalities can't unite is because they don't react to the same symbolism - their backgrounds don't line up enough for true unity.

Connor obviously hasn't considered that Americans don't hold on as tightly to their heritage as others do. Immigrants from Mexico do, but that's because many Americans push them away, and the Mexican immigrants need to have SOMETHING to hold onto; once the inevitable day comes when Mexicans are accepted, they will assimilate into Americans first and very foremost as well. I speak with conviction, because that is what happened in my heritage. My grandfather and great-grandfather moved here from Sicily. At the turn of the 20th century, Italians were discriminated against and rejected; they lived in their own communities in New York, held tight to their Italian-ness. When my grandfather got to school in Brooklyn in the 40s, that was slowly changing. Today, Little Italy is barely alive; my family speaks only English around the house and doesn't celebrate many traditional Italian holidays. My grandfather speaks of being American first, every time. Once a nationality is accepted into America's fiber, it becomes American.

As for the symbolism, well, on this day nine years ago, 285 million Americans all looked to the same flag, the same eagle, the same flaming pillar as one. This was the day when of all of God's children - "black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics" (as put by Martin Luther King), as well as Italians, Japanese, Muslims, and Irishmen - came together in shock, grief, anger, determination, and a oneness that showed the world America will not be threatened. There can be no doubt that Americans comprised a nation that day - and there can be no doubt that people of all blood and creed can find their brothers every which way under the American flag.

A Recollection of Subjects

Looking back over the last few weeks, I have conducted a simple analysis of the wide variety of opinions that have been presented to me through seminar discussions, readings, and research. There seems to be a distinctive divide in the opinion base amongst the peer body and intellectuals. The chasm seperates the altruistic-idealists and the objectivists. The majority is composed of the altruistic-idealists, which would be expected to be found on a college campus stocked full of naive "budding humanitarians." The objectivists, although the clear minority, is strongly opinionated and presents a good argument at that. The topics of this past weak were clearly more attractive to the objectivist faction, and kicked up some high tensions from the altrusitic-idealists. Realism struck a high note, but made a rational and pure case for itself. Despite its strong dislike by the majority, it clearly presented the only pragmatic option in the realm of international relations. Although, I would say that the majority of us agreed that despite the almost vulgar reationality of realism, its theories and predictions cannot be fully discredited.

Proactive Defense

When Machiavelli states that fortune favors the bold, he is, of course, encouraging the taking of a proactive role in the international political arena. This is wonderful, correct advice. The United States has followed this example in many presidential administrations, in regards to different presidents’ foreign policy. During the Cold War, many presidents followed the policy of “containment,” or, in others words, actively combating the spread of Communism: President Truman’s Korean War, President Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Vietnam War, and of course, the rogue non-presidential example of Texan Representative, Charlie Wilson’s War in Afghanistan. Other past examples include, the CIA’s multiple wars in Latin America, fighting Leftist rebel groups like Che’s failed revolution in Bolivia, the Iran-Contra Affair, Operation Archangel during the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Marshal Plan, etc.


Seeing that America did when the Cold War, I would say that pro-activity has indeed served us quite well. Realism would encourage taking a bold, leading role in international politics as well. Physical survival is equivalent to military survival and the expansion of global influence. Some would call this Jingoism, but I would prefer to call it an objective form of foreign policy. Rational, proactive defense: engage the enemy before they engage you. It’s safe, but requires the upmost accuracy in military intelligence. One must collect accurate data of foreign enemies’ military spending, logistical movement, military strategy, and their intelligence operations. A nation cannot afford to attack on false pretenses, although mistakes happen, one must prepare for them.

An Unforgettable Trip

I was not prepared to go to the Newseum today. I was not at all aware of how emotionally draining it would be. As an eternal skeptic of the media, I never expected myself to appreciate that museum as much as I did today.

Walking through the “Covering Katrina” exhibit was so familiar, yet so foreign. All the headlines were words I had heard before, but hearing them from the perspective of the reporters themselves was new. Their indignation in how long it took relief to arrive, their own personal fears when ensuring that their families survived, and their dedication to getting the story told despite all the elements against them (pun intended).

The September 11th exhibit was unforgettable. I’m completely confident that I was not the only one that teared up during the video. Even though we all know what happened and we have had nine years to get ourselves used to these facts, it is still absolutely heart wrenching to watch footage of this tragic event. This is something that America’s history can never overlook and the Newseum did a commendable job in covering it.

By far, my favorite section of the museum was the coverage of Pulitzer Prize photos over the years. It especially intrigued me how many of the pictures were taken out of mere chance. A photographer saw movement and quickly snapped the picture, unaware of how much emotion and legitimate story value they caught in that one image. It is difficult to choose a favorite. In fact, I’m not going to choose my favorite. I just want to point out the 1958 winner with the image of the playful little boy and the police officer. As the description of the photo said, the photographer managed to capture the identity of childhood innocence in that one boy’s face. (http://ohs-image.ohiohistory.org/images/about/pr/ctm/1958.jpg)

That’s an image I can never forget. Furthermore, the Newseum is a place I can never forget.

The Real AU and Beyond Response

The Real World: AU and Beyond: Is it always better to take the initiative in poli...: "In my personal opinion, to take chances is always good advice. However, to just go out and make a daring political decision is simple ignor..."


Overall I agree with your argument that making a bold political statement just for the sake of being bold is useless. However, I wanted to point out that this is not the activity that Machiavelli advocated. In fact, The Prince in some ways would support the argument you just made.

Machiavelli makes specific claims on how to act in certain situations, but on a whole he argues that it all depends on the situation. On the issue of fortresses, he stresses that “a ruler who is more afraid of his subjects than of foreign powers should build fortresses; but a ruler who is more afraid of foreign powers than of his subjects should do without them” (66-67). This epitomizes his idea that regardless of what advice Machiavelli provides, it all boils down to the given situation. This directly correlates with your idea that “a well thought out course of action might bring about great results.”

Furthermore, I wanted to iterate that we still don’t have a public option, even with Obama in office.

Regardless, we are in conjunction in what an efficient politician should do. Daring for the simple sake of being daring is utterly pointless.

Blog #3

Machiavelli’s claim that it is undoubtedly better to take the initiative in political life and struggle because fortune always favors the bold is consistent with the rest of his political theory because the overall theme of Machiavalli remains based around the necessity for a leader to prioritize his nation-state above all else. Throughout the novel, he has a tendency to adhere to the idea of control. Control towards political policies and control towards how a leader is viewed by his people. As discussed in class, Machiavelli suggests an allowance towards virtuous acts when it comes to matter of the state. In chapter XVI he discusses how a leader should be respected by the decisions he makes for the good of the state, rather than the virtuous nature of these decisions. During the debate many of us even went so far as to say that the good of state always comes before honesty towards its citizens. The idea of “the ends justify the means” that was a critical point during both debates goes hand in hand with Machiavelli’s claim that initiative in politics is vital.

Whether or not it is good advice to tell a leader that making a quick, maybe irrational decision is better than inaction is difficult to answer completely due to the complicated nature of The Prince. As discussed in the introduction, Machiavelli’s letter could be a satire criticizing Medicci’s ruling style, or it could be a legitimate argument. When it comes to difficult matters, leaders should be willing to make decisions that are often times risky, but necessary for the advancement of a state. However, most decisions should be made rationally and thoughtfully, without necessarily placing such a high priority on initiative itself.

Oh, the Joy of Despotic Values

Machiavelli presents a clear, coherent argument on how to maintain power as an authoritarian leader. He is undeniably objective and pragmatic when approaching this subject. In David Wooton’s introduction, he observes that “The Prince is a manual for tyrants” (xxiii). However, is this what leaders should be working towards?

Machiavelli argues that a leader must always be the strongest in any sort of political issue, in order to work towards the ultimate goal of always maintaining power. This is to ensure that said leader is never overpowered by another. However what if the conjunction of multiple areas is for the greater good of the nation-states as a whole? Would Machiavelli’s advice be beneficial? Take for example the plight of Italy during Machiavelli’s time. It was in complete disarray where each city lived under different rulers. This system debilitated the area, thus preventing the strength of Italy as a united nation-state. Therefore, Machiavelli’s advice is only beneficial from the leader’s perspective, not that of the state.

This specific piece of advice, in always maintaining strategy in political life as a leader, is cogent with the rest of his suggestions in how to keep power. He so radically states “it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her” (76). Although I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement, it sums up Machiavelli pretty well. Ultimately, he is simply a power-hungry political scientist.

Reflection #2

The first time I visited the Spy Museum was as an eighth grader on my school’s field trip to Washington D.C. My friends and I were fascinated by the secret tunnel, in which we could evesdrop on other tourists, and the Aston Martin which looked like it was straight out of a James Bond movie. This trip was very different because of my shift in mind from “oh my gosh this stuff is awesome I want to be a spy” to “This is slightly terrifying.” Much of my newfound anxiety was a direct result of the new exhibit, Weapons of Mass Disruption, consisting of a short film all about cyber wars. The video explained how cyber attacks are the terrorist outlet of the future, and even admitted that the chances of a serious breaching of our country’s cyber security is not possible, but in fact likely. There are even reports that some countries have already been successful in infiltrating systems in order to damage many networks. Today, we begin to freak out when our cell phones have low signal or if we are in a spot with bad wi-fi. One cyber attack could do so much more damage than most people realize. One interesting fact that was brought up in the exhibit was that the effects of a cyber attack would take us back to the technology of the 1700s, within seconds. Our dependence on the usefulness of technology has become so absurd that the threats posed by these cyber attacks would change everything. Although the Department of Defense as well as Homeland Security have started to take less physical acts of terrorism like these more seriously and have attempted to secure our electrical power grid, organizations such as the NERC have even commented that we are not prepared to immediately handle these types of attacks, let alone a full cyber war. Since decreasing our dependence on technology is not a feasible option, and working on stronger security to decrease the likelihood of these attacks is a slow, complicated process, I believe that these organizations should be working on ways to recover from cyber breaches if in fact they are as likely and as devastating as the experts claim.

U.S. vs. Xenophobia

The first thing I noticed when we entered RFK Stadium last night was its vacancy. In How Soccer Explains the World, Foer was definitely accurate on how “hating soccer is more American than apple pie” (240). This sport that is so wildly adored outside the United States, is only half-heartedly embraced here. Looking around at the game also demonstrated that its crowd tends to be “yuppie soccer fans” or immigrants. When examining why there is this unreasonable hatred, it can only be explained by xenophobia.

The “yuppie soccer fans,” also known as liberals, are the group normally affiliated with international ideals and “Europhilic cosmopolitanism” (248). The immigrants, for lack of a better term, are simply celebrating a sport that they are used to celebrating. The group of Hispanic people sitting behind us in the game was the source of most of the enthusiasm on our side. Therefore, if the only supporters of soccer are the ones that see past the United States borders, then clearly the opposition has some fear of the outside world.

However, I cannot fail to discuss the other side of the stadium, where the beloved hooligans resided. We ventured over in order to get a real feel for the game, and we definitely did. There was always a constant stream of cheers, even if the game was not reciprocating in excitement. I especially enjoyed their originality in creating profanity. There also was the intense hostility towards Columbus Crew, which became the most entertaining when Crew fans decided to take a lap around the stadium with their yellow and black flags. The disgust and anger was evident in the eyes of each D.C. United fan. It’s hard to fake passion like that. That side of the stadium truly felt like a European soccer game; so it looks like globalization is having an effect, no matter how xenophobic some of us are.

When a State is Not a State

Middle Eastern democracies are having a hard time grabbing a foothold. Although democracy is the best form of government conceived at this time, and although it has worked for Western nations for a while, developing countries have trouble getting the mix just right. Corruption, voting violence, and breakdowns along ethnic lines all plague nations transferring from regimes to legitimate government. In spatula's most recent, excellent post on the Andorran Atmosphere blog, he discusses the sovereign rights of two disputed states, Abkhazia and Somaliland. Here I take a different viewpoint: except in rare cases, new governments and nations should not be formed except when absolutely necessary, because of the bevy of things that can sour the process of becoming a capable nation.

Here, minds inevitably oscillate back to 10th grade history class, and you recall that the American colonies separated from a stable mother nation and turned out alright. However, there was a distinct reason that European nations eagerly waited for the American experiment to fail: there wasn't any precedent for it succeeding. Indeed, America remains the Great Outlier, having received from England a certain blend of - something - that allowed the States to secede (and succeed) quite apart from Europe. More modern colony-mothercountry breaks have not gone nearly so smoothly.

Let's look at some case studies: Algeria, a former French colony, broke off from France after a violent eight year conflict. French President Charles de Gaulle finally granted Algeria the right to a referendum on its future; Algeria chose independence. Unfortunately, Algeria went from benign French control, to an Algerian president, to a military coup and socialist, military domination within a few years of independence. This regime would last decades, the military still has a heavy hand in politics, and Algeria is currently trapped in the vice grip of Al-Qaeda. In Angola, independence from Portugal in 1975 led directly to a 30 year civil war. Since the assassination of a Populist political figure in 2002, the warring factions have come to a cease-fire, but elections are still not legitimate. For the sake of brevity, I'll stop here, but there are literally dozens of more examples I could have mention (you can check them out at Freedomhouse.org)

Back to spatula's post. As he noted in his post, the breakdowns of the USSR and of the state of Somalia lead to special cases; the "except when absolutely necessary" corollary in my above thesis applies here, and in my opinion Abkazia and Somaliland have at least legitimate reason to try a new government. However, this is no guarantee their gambit will work out soon, or at all - democracy's success is just too unpredictable for that..

The Beloved Duo: American Nationalism and Machiavellianism

American nationalism is a beautiful thing. Combined with the all powerful defense network the United States has constructed, to produce a pro-American foreign policy, we become the embodiment of Machiavellian ideals. Preemptive strikes against enemies, temporary alliances for immediate gain, clearing the way for American corporate interest; it all involves the essential message of Machiavelli's "The Prince" - adjusting your actions depending on the immediate circumstances of one's current situation and environment. America seems to have taken well to the Machiavellian doctrine of modern politics, and it seems to have treated us quite well. A nation of roughly 12% of the global population purchases and consumes 25% of the world's resources. A nation whose "poor" is better off than 75% of the entire world. We have done well. Thank you, Niccolo Machiavelli for introducing the world to secular and rational politics, for without your ideas we may very well still have be mere coastal nation, with an Imperial Spain to our south west, and vengeful Great Britain to our north. Without proactive defense measures, which some incorrectly deem as "aggressive," and a sense of pride we would be weak and malleable, and Machiavelli realized this principle many centuries before the world's last remaining superpower ever existed.