Reflection #10: Crazy People Everywhere

DC was flooded with political enthusiasts this weekend for the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Showing up with ATV’s Body Politic at 6 AM to do some reporting actually ended up being completely worth it because we ended up being first row for the whole show. While doing interviews, I met many visitors who had driven from various places including Minnesota, Ohio, and even California. The political puns and more serious messages were ubiquitous on the thousands of signs being proudly displayed by the young and old. The most popular response I received when asking some of the interviewees what this rally meant to them, was the fact that politics has just gotten out of control. We are unable to get anything accomplished because politicians are too busy trying to promote party agendas. Our country is in chaos because everyone is freaking out, when actually, things are relatively okay. Often times our leaders, citizens, and especially the media tend to exaggerate certain topics in order to manipulate fears. Although there is no doubt that we are in a crucial point in history and we are dealing with serious issues such as a war, economic troubles, and domestic disputes, we tend to forget that compared to most of the global population, we’re doing fine and should probably consider calming down for a hot second. Hence, my interpretation of the name of the rally: Should we put things into perspective and use logic to stop being ridiculous or should we actually be even more afraid of this downward spiral?

The message behind the rally was extremely relevant to our conversation in Thursday’s class about terrorism. The attacks of September 11^th were horrific and affected the lives of so many people. However, as discussed in the Threat Exaggeration article, when we put it into perspective, was it really worth a war, discrimination towards an entire culture, and such hyped up fear? Maybe we should have quietly stepped up our security without making such a scene or furthering a political agenda. The sane road would include worrying less about dying on a plane crash into a tall building, and more about not letting the media and certain stereotypes affect how we view the world and live our lives. We should take a traumatic event and use it to unify ourselves, instead of assume a state of paranoia. In my opinion, if I die today, then I die today. While we shouldn’t use that as an excuse to live recklessly, eventually one day that phrase will be true. Why live everyday in fear that it’s the last?

On a lighter, and less cheese-tastic note, the rally actually was a blast even though it was freezing. Also, Halloween with Letts 6 will be a weekend we’ll never forget…except that one girl who got a concussion.

For the United States, Everyday is Halloween: A Sense of Fear and Duty

            Imagine living a life where you could never sleep, and every second of consciousness is a battle with physical and mental exhaustion. But, then add on the fact that you have no true comrades that will loyally stand by your side; enemies and traitors lurking behind every corner. Yet, you had an eternal obligation to provide aid and assistance to those in need, to fight tyranny and evil everywhere, and to liberate the oppressed. This is the life of the United States of America. We are the world police and hold a responsibility to export democracy, while we can trust no one and have monolithic enemies abroad.

            It may be quite a divergent comparison, that is comparing the duty of a nation to a holiday, but the concept fits shockingly well. The basic premise of Halloween does represent horror, fear, deception, and wrongdoing, which parallels the environment of the U.S. in the international arena. One could say this outlook is stark, but rationality does not care about feelings or altruistic impulses. The motive of the United States, one involving systematic military engagements, regular diplomatic and political clashes, and an ultimate objective of global freedom, permeates the senses of the mind of our State with the same emotions of someone walking through a haunted house: a state of mind that we have grown accustomed to over the decades following the Second World War.

            Whether or not this is a “correct” state of mind for our nation is not the point, we must first understand this state of mind before we assess its legitimacy. We must put ourselves in the shoes of the United States, and its subconscious – the Constitution. It is our duty as a people and as a union. Our nation will adapt as the international condition becomes inevitably better, and our view will probably soften as the world gradually becomes privatized, democratized, and progressively more rational. Rationality is the desired end-result of history. A united humanity behind a common front of rationality and secular thought. A long disparaging path lies ahead, but humans are rugged and resilient; we will survive, have no concern.

Restoring Sanity

Waking up at 5 AM, only to find that the Metro doesn’t open until 7 and all the other adventures of October 30th 2010 were completely worth it for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. Marches and rallies have always been my favorite form of political expression, and this was no exception. It was an amazing atmosphere, not only as a Jon Stewart fan, but also as an American citizen.

Although the show itself was not the most incredible thing I have seen, it was the rally atmosphere that made it a memorable experience. There was an impressive guest list, but the constant stream of songs became a bit tiring. Also, Jon Stewart’s closing speech was a bit melodramatic and overly simplistic, but it was overall inspiring and enhanced the surrounding mood. Regardless of these aspects, I am still glad that I attended. The clever signage and chanting always make rallies magnificent. Add in the Mythbusters, and I was sold.

The current political situation has become one of inefficiency and disunity. Even if we disagree with one another, it is always important to keep the conversation civil, reasonable, and purposeful. As all these characteristics have been lacking, the Rally to Restore Sanity was necessary. Furthermore, it was impeccable timing to have right before the mid-term elections. Hopefully it will motivate people to vote based on credibility and policy, not merely party affiliation. On November 2nd we shall see if we actually did restore sanity this Saturday.

Winning the Battle

First of all, I'd like to start by saying that I'd much rather be writing this blog about the Rally tomorrow. Unfortunately, that plan was spiked before it started, because I have a musical to play in at two in the afternoon Saturday. Curse playing a musical instrument. Anyway...

I have to say that, after the lengthy discussion on terrorism and security that we had, that I feel as though my initial view is still the one a favor most. I strongly feel that our disproportionate fear of terrorist attacks has a place, and furthermore will eventually find itself sitting in the fabric of our nation and occupying a more rational place in our minds and our policies. This more lucid reaction to terrorism simply has to be internalized by the American mindset and institutionalized firmly into the American system.

Here I will reiterate the argument that I posited in class. As I see it, people are irrationally and disproportionally worried about terrorist attacks for the same reasons that many people are irrationally and disproportionally worried about airplane accidents. Both type of tragedies summon up images of massive destruction and near-certain death; both indicate a complete lack of control by the victim over the chain of events during the tragedy; and both seem to be completely random occurrences that do not discriminate as to who it kills - neither cares if you have money or not, are black or white, etc. They cannot be reasoned with. Add in the fact that terrorism on home soil is a new worry for Americans, and remembering that all new things (electricity, automobiles, and, yes, airplanes) scare people to death, and it's easy to see why terror is so terrifying.

Now, just as it is generally understood that we cannot undertake a "war on airplane tragedies", we similarly cannot expect to win a war on terror in general. However, just as increases in airplane technology, airtraffic technology, and standardized tuneup systems reduce the chance of individual plane crashes, new measures and institutions will decrease the chance of individual terrorist attacks. As I said in class, I have no idea how many terrorist attacks have been thwarted due to new security measures that were effected after 9/11. However, if that number is greater than 0, then a great number of lives have already been saved. If the recently derailed attack on the Metro met its end in a post-9/11 program, then the worry we put into terrorism has done its job.

Some say that America worries too much, that by putting so much into the terrorism issue we are giving terrorists exactly what they want and that we are making America weak. I say nonsense - another massive attack on America would be a far greater signal of success for terrorists than many failed ones. You know the old saying "They won't pay to put up a stop sign until somebody gets killed"? The World Trade Center was that kid, and our new attention to detail and clamping down on security is the safety we needed before but are getting now. Putting thought, ink, sweat, and political muscle into terrorism defense may have given terrorists "legitimacy" - but it has also given America teeth.

As for the fear that strikes Americans about terrorism, even though you should statistically fear the family dog many times more: this will go away. Fear about terrorism is abundant and fantastic because it is legitimate to fear it and because it - and the institutions that deal with it - are relatively new. However, people have legitimate fear of murder, of drugs, of gangs, but not disproportionate ones; that's because the institutions that deal with those problems have been around for a long time. They are trusted, they (and the problems they solve) are relatively well-understood, and they are a part of America's landscape. I predict that as the years roll by, terrorism and the institutions that deal with it will also be internalized by America; and in this fashion, constructivism will mean that we as a people will become USED to this problem, and we will know that it can and will be dealt with on a case by case basis, just as murders are. In time, fear of terrorism will ratchet down from one of a supernatural pitch to a more decent level. Maybe to the level of a fear of airplanes.

Blog #10: Threats

In my opinion, a threat is constituted as a harmful act that has the potential to create chaos and jeopardize a certain harmonious pattern of living. However, this definition could mean a multitude of different things to different nations, and certainly to different individuals. A global threat is much more general and inclusive than a national threat because just as nations have different opinions of what constitutes a threat, nations also have different priorities, strengths, and shortcomings. These could be anything from resources, to capabilities and depend on the economic and ethnic makeup of its citizens. Therefore, I believe the greatest threat to global peace and security is our lack of co-operation due to our lack of communication.

I think that our lack of communication is generally an umbrella for many other issues that could also threaten global order. For example, as states earlier, nations have varying capabilities and even certain advantages because of geographic location, and schools of thought. In an ideal world, we would utilize these abilities in order to solve climate, poverty, and resource-based problems or at least we could begin to try and solve these problems. Unfortunately, nations do not communicate effectively. Thus, if we were to collectively experience some sort of disaster, which required immediate action, we would lack an effective means of communication. Sure, each nation has its own procedures, but it is perplexing as to why we have never had a system inclusive of multiple nations I began to really think about this issue when Sarah brought up the possibility of having a “global phone tree.” I actually think this idea would be useful and effective. Although international organizations allow for global communication, it is not their primary goal. The lack of global communication is such a threat to the world because it could aid in virtually any specific type of crisis, and it is a vulnerable aspect of our global order.

The Casualties of Corruption

In the realm of world politics, a “threat” would be defined as something that holds the potential of causing damage to a society. The difficulty in addressing this arises in identifying what is considered “damage to a society.” This could range from physical damage, such as casualties, to ideological damage, where an idea suffers. The former is simple enough, but a specific example of ideological damage would be the stigma now attached to Islam, that all Muslims are violent extremists. This is damage because people associated with Islam (an idea, faith) now suffer from discrimination and prejudice. Therefore, a threat in world politics can be any number of things. Seeking to answer what the greatest threat to global peace and security would be is difficult. However, I would claim that to be corruption.

Corruption is what drives leaders to put their needs and wants in front of their state and their citizens. This causes the marginalized to be taken advantage of, the rich to abuse their power, and injustice to reign free. Corruption tends to create leadership resembling tyranny, the enemy of free markets, democracies, and individual rights. As liberalism dictates, the further we stray from these, the further we are from global peace and security. In Jack Snyder’s “One World, Rival Theories,” he notes that “the belief that democracies never fight wars against each other is the closest thing we have to an iron law in social science.” Therefore, corruption brings states away from true democracy, which makes peace and security more difficult to achieve. One can only hope to attain these goals if corruption in leadership is eliminated.

The most prominent example in the world today would be that of Afghanistan. Currently, the United States is fully invested in reducing corruption within the Afghani government so that American withdrawal can begin. Once corruption is eliminated in the country, it will become self-sustainable and will finally be able to prosper. Corruption is hindering Afghanistan from a state of prosperity, stability, and peace.

In 1999, BP participated in a conference on corruption, in which they outlined all the ways in which corruption erodes society. If you are interested, here is the link on what they said:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=2000415

Back To Your Regularly Scheduled WP Blog

The largest problem in world politics for the WORLD - and, thanks to our entangling alliances, the US - is nuclear arms and what to do with them. Now, most familiar with this space are also familiar with the dangers of nukes in the hands of North Korea and Iran. Obviously, efforts must be made multilaterally and urgently to stop events of that respect from transpiring; these things are paramount to securing the security of our near future. However, nuclear arms are dangerous no matter where they are housed, or who houses them; and regardless of what future weapons may come, the ones we have now are a big enough threat.

There are several reasons for this. First, the New START drops the level of active missiles for both the USA and Russia to 1,550. This is a large reduction from the original START; however, this number is still much larger than is necessary to prevent an attack from another nuclear country. If the level of deterrence is defined as "enough weapons to survive a first strike by another power, and still be able to counter effectively" - and if "effectively" can be reduced to a matter of 5-10 cities razed, not the pulverization of an entire country into a modern-day salt-sowed Carthage - can we not dig deeper into the nuclear stockpiles of both countries? We can certainly go under a thousand - perhaps (probably?) more than that.

Why do we have to worry so much about nuclear weapons if the United States has them, though - by far the most in the world? The biggest reason is not fear of attack but fear of accident and error. For example, most of our nukes are under a "launch on warning" system, where a huge amount of missiles can be launched at a moment's notice. What if this came on account of a false report? A radar blip or computer error? Why are our nuclear systems launch readiness still stuck in the 50s? And what about the threat of terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon by stealing it? Less nukes would mean less of a likelyhood for this to happen.

Most of all, though, the United States should be worried about Israel. We are very closely allied to this very aggressive nation, and an avid reader of this blog already knows all about my views on the subject of Israel and nuclear weapons. It is not necessary to restate it here, except to reiterate that it is quite within the realm of possibility that Israel will use a "launch on warning" quick-strike nuclear attack on PURPOSE, to quickly devastate an (even if only perceived) attacker, and that this would only draw the United States in. Far worse, Israel is limited by no START treaty.

One modern nuclear weapon can unleash more destructive power than any other force on earth. With the sheer numerical amounts that are at the disposal of man today, a war or even an accident could cause irreversible tragedy for not just any one nation, but potentially a huge swath of the world. Reigning in these weapons - with the aim of eventually reducing to zero - is the biggest step we can take to providing for a future where, at the very least, one's world will not become vaporized overnight.

Rational Debt Analysis

            The most obvious and rational threat to the national security of the United States is the federal debt of the American government. Due to the ever growing federal infrastructure and the vastly unnecessary amount of publically-owned services, greater and greater amounts of national tax revenues have been spent annually. Since the Second World War, the United States has been actively pursuing a government deficit of irrational proportions. Unless action is taken within the next two decades, public debt will be at a level at which no “next generation” will able to conceivably pay off.

Seeing the rationale and logic behind this argument, and the clear backing of common empirical data, federal debt is clearly the prime national security threat to the United States. If the government bureaucracy does not take action against this Frankenstein of poor financial planning, the United States will lose its great ideological war against irrationality. With this crushing defeat of the American people will come the death of freedom, and the closure of the modern era. The vanquishing of modernity is a defeat for social progression in regards to human welfare. This course of mankind is a blatant path leading to human social destruction.

Nothing to be Worried About

In World Politics this week we discussed the national security strategies of the 1950s compared to that of 2010. The major differences between the two documents demonstrate both how far we’ve come, but also how the issues we are faced with have become more threatening.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the United States’ strategy focused on Soviet Union containment, whereas we are now focused on the fight against “violent extremism.” Although both issues are fighting ideologies in some ways, communism and anti-American sentiments, the difference of who is creating the threat poses a larger risk to national security. In 1950, we were fighting against a state. This is a situation we have faced before, state-to-state combat. Even though the circumstances of why the United States was fighting differed from past wars, it was generally the same idea. However with the growth of terrorism, the United States is facing a threat posed by non-state actors, people that are difficult to trace, contact, and negotiate with. We have entered a completely new arena of world politics.

Although the 2010 document portrays all that the United States has accomplished over time, it also shows how dire our situation is, especially in comparison to 1950. Nuclear warfare is still an issue, except this time it is even more difficult to discover where they might be coming from. All this is hidden in Obama’s optimistic and hopeful language, which does an excellent job of reducing fear of the threat that we face with terrorists. It seems as if we have nothing to worry about. I’m not sure if I appreciate that or not, Obama.

Reflection #9: To Each, His Own

World Politics this week was much more active and opinionated than usual because we got to talk about our first major topic that applied to our current situation. In my opinion, the most educational, and genuinely interesting aspect of national security was comparing the NSE-68 document from the cold war era, and Obama’s national security policy. To me, the differences seem far more extensive than just the transition from emphasis on the use of hard power to soft power as a means of protecting our people and ideals. It is also a clear representation of the progression of priorities and even social norms to the American people as a whole.

The NSE-68 document supported the idea of defeating the enemy through our most effective means; this is a reflection of the paranoia that was emphasized by the media mostly, but still remained a concern in the average American household. Although part of the strategy was to maintain ties with our allies, these nations were in fact extremely similar to our own. The “us” was more exclusive, and the “them” was more specific. Contrastingly, Obama’s strategy addresses our need to build our image as a more co-operative nation, while still influencing others to understand why they too would benefit from our democratic system.The emergence of political correctness affects the values and therefore the priorities of American society today. The average American child is taught to value equality, while paranoia towards “them” is often exploited by the media and criticized by the average citizen. Today, our concerns are more collective, but at a hegemonic level. Obama says in the current document that “We want a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.” This is represented through society by the encouragement, and rewarding of those who act as the “bigger person,” and set an example in the hope that others will follow.

While paranoia absolutely still exists, it is renamed “Islamaphobia,” and it is considered more socially unacceptable to call someone a terrorist than it would have been to call someone a communist. Obama emphasizes that we should instead, step back and consider the future of our citizens and ask, “Is there a better way to solve this problem, and also benefit the world as a whole.”

Ultimately, the goal of being permanently “secure” is obscure and ever changing, as observed through these documents. While American national security has always been centered around protection of our people, ideals, and the maintenance of hegemonic influence, the means by which we go bout achieving this security is constantly being explored and in some ways this change in inevitable because global society is also constantly changing. Technology, and the average person’s ability to communicate with such a vast array of global society have caused our methods to also change. Having deadly weapons, while necessary, does not simply solve the problem anymore, and chances are, we will have to change these methods again as the world continues to progress.

Warning: This Post Has Nothing To Do With WP

The Scene: TJM paces in his cramped dorm room, hands clenched tightly around his head. An agonized look on his face, he gracefully trips over a flipflop on the floor, deftly manages to avoid falling into a desk corner, and ends up on his knees. Woe is unto him. He cries into the darkness:

TJM: Somebody! Football God from up above! I need help and I need it now! I beseech you, send me your most sagacious messenger to show me the way!

Wind weakly rushes through the room; a somewhat-intimidating burst of smoke and light occurs. Eli Manning, quarterback for the New York Giants, appears. His trademark deer-in-the-headlights look is exaggerated by the multi-watt halo he wears, which makes him squint something fierce; without the shoulder pads, he appears to be similar in stature to my 16 year old brother. Eli idly scratches his head, waiting for TJM to make the first move.

TJM: You...you're the Football God's most sagacious messenger? I mean, you're my favorite player and all, but -

EM: Yeah, yeah, you were expecting Peyton, right? Freaking Peyton. Well, Peyton's the usual liaison, but he's busy making another commercial right now, so I'm his stand in. As a Giants fan, I would think that you'd be excited about this any - hey, stop laughing!

TJM: Well, you do look ridiculous,

EM: (Fidgeting awkwardly with halo)...fair enough.

TJM: Anyway, the question I have been fighting with is this: I've been a Giants fan my whole life. I've supported you guys through the thick and thin, through all the dropped passes on poorly thrown balls and all the bad sacks you've taken -

EM: Clears throat

TJM: Through all the terrible interceptions, and how you turned us into a losing team in 2004, and -

EM: All RIGHT! All RIGHT!

TJM: - But now, I'm playing fantasy football. And now, I'm drafting people like DeSean Jackson on the Eagles, and now I'm paying very close attention to the scores and stats of other games than Giants games. Frankly, it's making me very uncomfortable with my fandom. What can I do? Should I stop playing fantasy football?

EM: Well, TJM, let me ask you something. Who do you think is the starting quarterback for MY fantasy football team?

TJM: Well, you, probably.

EM: Wrong! It's Peyton! And my backup is Phil Rivers - and I hate that guy. The point is, you don't draft people who you like, or who you hope do well. You draft people based on who's best. And that's how you should do everything in life - by being competitive, and being fair. Let me ask you, how are you doing in your league?

TJM: I'm in first place by a wide margin.

EM: And how does that make you feel?

TJM: Well...good, actually. Like a world beater

EM: Exactly! Life is about winning, not being a nice guy to EVERYONE. If I cared about making everyone think I was a team player, I wouldn't have forced a trade from the Chargers to the Giants. Now instead of being 2-5 in San Diego, I've won a Super Bowl in New York -

TJM: New Jersey.

EM: Whatever - and I'm having fun. Just remember that it's best to worry more about enemies than friends - and that means worrying more about your rivals on your Fantasy league than worrying about us Giants. We'll be fine. And besides, if you spend a little energy in your dorm room rooting for a player for the Patriots or Cowboys instead of us, we'll forgive you. After all, you know when you yell and scream at the TV to run faster or tackle him already or for God's sake Eli stop throwing to ball to the wrong jerseys? Yeah, we can't actually hear you.

TJM: (Horrified) NO!!

EM: YES!! If you really need to talk to us, you can write us a letter, and there's a very very small probability I or somebody associated with the Giants will read it. But I wouldn't count on it. Gets up, stretches. Well, I hope we've learned some valuable lessons about realism today. I should be on my way, and good luck with your Fantasy team.

TJM: Wait! One last question. How's YOUR team doing in the family league?

EM: (...) Don't want to talk about it.

Silence

EM: (Brightly) But at least I'm beating the guy who drafted me!

Silence

EM: I'm gonna go.

Flourish; Exeunt

Our Future: Freedom or a Handout?

National security is a major tenant in regards to national success – if not the most important tenant. But, let us expand our understanding of national security to mean economic, political, and military "security" (or the ability to maintain a nation’s current standing in these fields). So, what does is this require? “Security” in the overarching since of the term requires a proactive and aggressive policy making and implementation: an economic policy that favors corporate trans-national capitalism, a domestic political policy that pursues national unity, a foreign policy that actively seeks the fulfillment of national interest (especially, the control of international institutions), and a defense policy that utilizes “preemptive engagement” of international threats.

What does this mean for the United States? – We are headed in the complete opposite direction that we need to be driving towards. Deficit spending needs to be cut, NOT increased (the slashing of entitlements programs and the implementation of a reverse income tax). Defense spending needs to increased, not cut (defense spending makes up less than 1% of the U.S. GDP, while entitlement program spending composes 80% of federal spending). We need to pursue unilateral influence over the international institutions like the United Nations, rather than encouraging corrupt and devious, heavy foreign, non-free world influence.

Yes, I understand international cooperation is well and good, but we must ask ourselves, what do we prefer? Do we value wellbeing over freedom? The end game is to die of your own freewill or by the whims of a Politburo in Washington who has you bound hand and foot to nationalized healthcare program? Take your pick right now, for we are on the precipice of a slippery slope, covered in the deep red hue of Marx’s blood. Shall we remain free, ladies and gentlemen, or are we to find ourselves two decades from now dependent on the handouts of a centrally planned economy?

Why You Play The Game

Winning in Risk involves taking the entire board - holding every single territory. If real life was like Risk, I imagine that dominating the entire globe in such a fashion would be tantamount to winning too. After all, if you did that, you wouldn't have to worry about international relations anymore - there would be no more "international" to worry about.

However, that is simply not possible in the real world, because over-extension is a real possibility - and unlike Risk, you can't just hold on for a single, final turn to win. Winning in real life is winning in the long run, and to that extent a victorious nation would need to possess the most powerful economy in the world, the most educated citizen base, the most powerful military, AND have the majority of the world's resources/transnational corporation's headquarters located within its borders. This would lead to winning, AS LONG AS the hegemon (as this hypothetical winner would surely be) also possesses peace with all other nations for at least a turn.

In real-life, I imagine the way to win would be to take yourself out of the game. The game of life involves worrying about other players and their goals and means. A hegemon with the strongest economy, tons of resources, and a steady supply of brilliant citizens to keep the economic infrastructure up to speed would help keep globalization at bay. A nation that is truly on the track of winning would not need any other country - maybe to export to, but certainly not to lean on. This winning nation would also need an uber-military, so other countries do not think about disrupting the hegemon for fear of being destroyed. Finally, peace needs to exist between the hegemon and all other nations - not most, all. If all nations are friendly with the hegemon at the moment all of those nations become to afraid to alter that friendly status quo, AND at the moment the other nations need the hegemon's relative health to provide goods and services, the hegemon would win.

One last PS - globalization is a dirty word for a winning nation. The reason for that is simple. Globalization is not winning; it is an intertwining of all the nations into one loose web of dependency, something President Obama seems to appreciate the idea of. However, we all know how tenuous alliances are; any dependency at ALL on another nation leaves you vulnerable. Globalization extends the game - makes it a peaceful one, but makes it one that drags on and never sees one clear winner. Only by removing yourself from the global order and providing a dominating presence can a nation also remove itself from the rules and boundaries of the game and assume a PTJ-like presence over the rest of the field.

Blog #9: Epic Fail.

Contrary to the game of RISK, which involves an obvious, aerial view of the game-board (the world), paying for a war by simply giving up one of your troops, and rolling dice to determine who gets a certain territory, in the real world it’s actually impossible to win because every nation has its own goals, and the playing field is far from even.

However, if winning were an actual possibility it would mean that a nation exerted, and maintained social and political influence on all other nations through international institutions and effective communication. This influence would not necessarily be caused by military to economic dominance, but these could play a key factor in becoming the “winner.” Having a strong influence through global institutions would mean maintaining control of organization such as the United Nations and International Monetary Fund. Although having control of all these institutions, and having overwhelming influence sounds slightly like implementing a dictator onto the rest of the world, this is untrue because all nations would continue to function independently, with their own governments and domestic institutions. Of course, power and a prosperous economic position are ideal in case others begin to disregard this nation’s influence, this would hopefully be avoidable through effective and frequent communication with those being influenced, especially “second place winners.”

While dominating international organizations, maintaining a forceful army, and a flawless economic system are unlikely, they are still tangible goals. However, convincing human beings that one specific school of thought absolute, right way is much more inconceivable: people always disagree. Sure, it might be achievable for a moment, but the true power (and winning) lies in maintenance of these tangible goals, plus indisputable influence. Unlike RISK, there is no “final round.” In fact, the winner of our game was able to make certain moves, and make certain sacrifices because they knew that after this round, the game was over and it would no longer matter what happened to most of their armies and territories. This situation is not applicable to real life, therefore true winning does in fact mean maintaining one’s power for an infinite amount of time.

In our global society, perhaps it is a good thing that it is so impossible to actually win. Progress comes from change in ideas and without this change, and conflict the world would be stagnant, granted there would probably be less fighting and it would be a serious plus to be a part of the winning team, but we would also lose the exchange of ideas, a key factor in progress on an international level.

A Project for the New American Century

Victory, what is it? What would it mean to “win” in the field of world politics? Simply, to win is control, dominate, and prosper. Whenever and wherever this victor nation will rise is questionable, but it will be easily noted when the time comes. A victor nation will hold the following characteristics: 1) control of the majority of global resources, 2) a large, self-sustaining, well educated, and “well-to-do” population, 3) a quickly deployable, large, technologically superior military, 4) control of global commerce through its currency being the “main currency of global business,” 5) control of global institutions, 6) the majority of transnational corporations headquartered in its borders, 7) a direct claim of a large section of territory on the Earth’s surface, 8) leading space program and dominate control of activity within Earth’s orbit. Essentially, a world political victory would revolve around three fields: economic prosperity, military dominance, and technological progression.

The entities that have closest in history to a “hyper-power” status are the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the United States of America. These four “Empires” have had the leading economies, the strongest militaries, and have held the most cutting edge technologies of their respective eras in time. And, as we can see from the lessons of history, a global victory is certainly not easy. None of these empires have made it. The U.S. has come closest, rivaling even the Roman Empire in historical perspective, but has also failed – gradually losing hegemonic authority. We are riddled with political strife, social disunity, impending hyper-inflation, and an over extended military force.

So, what could be the key for a U.S. world political “win”? The process would proceed as follows: step 1) the creation of a political confederation of the two dominate U.S. political factions behind an established “American National Front;” step 2) utilization of the political unity to deregulate the U.S. economy and privatize many government responsibilities; step 3) encourage the rebirth of American heavy industry by slashing corporate taxes and deregulating wage laws – make the U.S. a new “tax haven” for transnational corporations; step 4) regain unilateral control of the United Nations, WTO, IMF, World Bank, and other global institutions; step 5) lead the global community in space exploration – establish a permanent presence on the Moon, place a man on Mars, perfect the International Space Station system, and acquire orbital dominance.

This only a small fraction of the necessary steps for a “New American Century,” but they are key steps that would allow the United States of America to remain the global hyper-power for at least a few more decades. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. simply cannot lose its grip on the global community. If our nation ever so much as falters in the slightest degree of international control, the world will descend into a horrible state of extreme disorder, violence, and poverty. We are the bread basket of the globe, the world police force, and the leader in information technology. Let us remain as such.

The Greatest Game Ever Played

Well, not really. After all, it was a mismatch on the board, with the Blue team possessing superior firepower right out of the gate (not to mention all-star diplomat Kate). However, to fulfill my objective and win the game of Diplomat Risk, I needed not just brawn, but brain. My team needed not only to wrestle the pivotal Ukraine from an enemy whose aims were fundamentally opposing ours, but also do so with the nodding approval of the international community.

Lacking the tact to do so forthrightly, Kate and I did the next best thing: we lied.

We lied in various ways. One of our favorite tactics was to tell another team we would cede them territory or carve them a path, with the provision that they first vote on a World Sanction. This was particularly effective on Yellow, who needed territory any way they could get it, and Green, who needed territory we possessed that bordered resources but was too scared of our might to pursue it militarily. As could be gathered by our eleventh-hour ceding of part of Australia to Yellow, we were fully committed to fulfilling our promises to cede territory after acquiring the Ukraine. Unfortunately for everyone else, Blue won before such promises could actually take shape.

Another tactic was to lie about what our goals were. Blue Team did an excellent job concealing what our specific objectives were; Red head of state thought our goal was to get all the cities, and I allowed him to continue that thought. Meanwhile, I told every other team that my primary objective was to eliminate Red from the board. That was laughably false, but people bought it enough that they allowed me to airlift fifteen troops into Asia - the better, they thought, to crush Red with, so that other teams would have more room to breath. They knew how dangerous that was, but they figured allowing me to win the Sanction battle would increase their chances of winning the war; little did they know that that battle WAS the war.

Why did other Heads of State believe I was their staunch ally (as Alex did)? Why were other teams so willing to take my side against a less-fearsome Red, all in exchange for a distant promise of troop retraction and territory succeeding? The reason, I believe, has something to do with constructivism. The Blue Team was the hegemon, and our hegemon (the USA) does not crush weak nations. It works with them. Hence, weaker states like Green and Yellow may have had a subconscious connection - The USA is going to destroy the other world power, which is repressive! I know that because the USA says so! And then I'll be that much closer to succeeding! - and they may have believed that Blue would be too worried (as a hegemon) with powerful-ish Red to care about smaller nations. Which is true. But it didn't stop us from soliciting support.

Also, there may have been some human-level constructivism at play. I tend to be a fairly nice guy to just about everybody, and the people who played with us today know that. I don't mess with people, or even play practical jokes, and I'm one of the quieter guys on the floor by far. All those things draw up an identity of a Head of State who, when he looks you in the eye and says he'll cede the Ukraine to you, Green Team, in a couple of turns, after he's established a European foothold, if only you'd vote for a World Sanction, actually and truly has your best interests at heart. Who knows - there may well have been Alex thinking I watched football with Tom yesterday, he wouldn't lie to me. Which is true. I wouldn't. Unless, of course, we were playing board games.

And if you think I'm bad with Risk, wait until we all play Monopoly.

Reflection #8: Mid-Terms Aren't That Bad, At Least I'm not Salome...

Remember at orientation when they told us that come mid-October we were going to go from anxious, newly independent, obsessed with our new friends to stressed out, sickly, nervous wrecks? That was not a joke. That might be a little bit of an exaggeration but with the exception of still being obsessed with the sixth floor of Letts, everyone definitely revealed a different side of themselves these past couple weeks in the midst of mid-terms, the changing weather, and lack of sleep. That’s why our recent game of Risk, and the trip to the Kennedy Center were two incredibly refreshing events that I think we all needed.

Risk was interesting because for one, I’ve never played before and two, I tend to get competitive and enjoy activities like this one. One of my favorite aspects was the “special power” that each diplomat and head of state had that no one else knew about because it represented a sense of constructivism in terms of shifting the way that each state reacted to each individual state. The resemblance to the set up of modern states could also be seen through the power struggle that has continued throughout the past three classes, and also the hesitancy in making bold, yet strategic moves. Or in other words, risk. I was excited to visit the Kennedy Center for the first time to see my very first Opera. However, Salome was not what I was expecting at all. While I thought it was interesting and the talent of the singers was overwhelming, I felt that the story line was a little slow and the dialogue slightly repetitive. I still appreciated the melodrama and couldn’t help but think, “at least I’m not this girl.”

Fanatical Obsession and Rationality

There is a fine line between obsession and rationality. In many ways rationality, or the pursuit of it, can become a deadly obsession. Just as Salome removed the head from Jean-Baptiste, the seeking out of rationality can muddle your sight to literal irrationality and decapitate your reasoning. What a bane, obsession is. What a real damper on intentions it can become. But, in the end, depsite running the risk of becoming infected with the disesase, "obsessive-rationality," seeking rationality is always - always - better than submitting yourself to illogic.

Obsessive rationality is - pound for pound - better than obsessive irrationality. The latter being Salome, the former being Ayn Rand. Which would you choose? Who would you rather be?

The world, on the other hand, is obsessively irrational. Governments, cultures, and individuals wander aimlessly around the globe, knowing not what their motive is. Instead, they allow their actions to be guided by emotion and petty passions. Politics is governed by passion, while economics is governed by reason. Hence, the reason why one is so inefficient while the other is a perfectly balanced system of perfect efficiency.
So, take your pick: be ruled by Salome, or by the Market?

Thank You

Being that it was my first time seeing an opera, I was blown away. I felt like I was in one of those movies where the protagonist is watching some sort of entertainment and is completely captivated with the stage. The camera focuses solely on the character in the audience without even a glimpse towards the actual performance. Not that I thought that cameras were on me because of how interested I was, but it just seemed like I was making the exact same face that all those actors had made.

I am no opera critic, or any expert on fine arts for that matter. All I know is that those voices were incredible, the stage direction was impeccable, the costumes were to die for, and it almost made me want to live during the times of the kingdom of Judea and John the Baptist. Almost.

As many times as the UC tried to warn us of the perversely strange nature of this play, none of us could have been prepared for what we were going to see. Seeing Salome ravenously make out with the beheaded John the Baptist made me so happy I decided to become a part of University College. Thank you so much for giving us that opportunity.

The Art of Argumentation

The simulation was a very interesting window to the realm of political decision-making. Somehow while preparing for the simulation, I found myself unexpectedly passionate about our stance on domestic content requirements. As we were going through our argument, I began to genuinely believe that removing these tariffs would only benefit the American economy. I appreciate this political process so much more, especially due to the fact that the most important factor is who made the best argument.

This process stands in opposition to other political situations where the most powerful, the most influential, and the richest special interest groups are the ones that generally prevail. Granted, being all these adjectives would undoubtedly help one’s argument because of access to resources, but it does not guarantee a win. It’s very comforting to know that all these decisions come down to the facts. Now, of course facts can be manipulated for almost any perspective so it is obviously not a flawless system. However, this simulation allowed me to appreciate the art of argumentation.

Even though the majority of the groups supported the domestic content requirements, the President voted in favor of removing them. I like to look at this as the triumph of the underdog. Although some could say this is a tad melodramatic. I'm glad we had this simulation experience because it provided an incredible amount of insight into the world that we will be entering after college. A world of arguments.

Happiness Is a Won Debate

I have to say that I'm quite happy with the results of our simulation - after all, the side my group argued DID win. As it well should have! It was a pleasant surprise that the views of my Sierra Club and of the AIAM were so sympatico - our arguments complemented each other well, and it was a very successful combination in the end.

Of course, part of the reason that it was nice to get help was that our Sierra Club chose a contrarian position. Jesse, my roommate, who's Sierra Club group was very much pro-tariff, repeatedly told me my group was steadfastly wrong. Perhaps he was correct in saying the Sierra Club would, in real life, would be against anything that could result in further globalization (like eliminating a tariff on foreign autos). However, we were able to build a cogent argument for eliminating that tariff, and we built it using a ton of research into the Sierra Club's stated positions regarding the United States, and we were able to clearly defend a position that left even our President a little jaw-dropped: "I never thought I would come in here and here the Sierra Club tell me cars are good," he said. That said, we convinced him of our unorthodox stance, and he backed our ideas: a win all around.

The most vital reason we won, though, was the incredible job my team did. It was uncanny how well we all worked together. There was no fighting, no arguing, no fretting over things getting done (or not). Everybody did their part with no complaints - and on time! It was a dream group. Whether it was Aubrey's research, or Rebecca's soothing voice, or Andrew's iMovie skills, or Christian's skillful discourse, everyone on Team Sierra Club nailed it. I'm very proud of us all, and really hope to work with these same people again in the future.

Reflection #7: Simulation

The simulation, although slightly hectic due to technical difficulties, went well and all groups seemed well informed, and prepared. The videos were impressive, and I was slightly worried that Gunperri misinterpreted one of the scenes in our video. Scott was portraying an angry autoworker, and we had asked him to curse in order to make a point that the situation was extremely frustrating for the average worker, like himself. We did edit the sound so that the word was muted, but because everyone seemed to think it was funny I was afraid that it might have given off the impression that we were trying to be funny when we actually trying to make a very serious point. Other than that, I was pleased with the way our group presented itself. My hope was that we would have the opportunity to debate with the other groups a little more, but we ran out of time pretty quickly. The “president” had some very interesting and thoughtful questions for each group, but unfortunately he ended up voting for the other side. Overall, I enjoyed working on this simulation and I hope that the major simulation goes just as well.

Trade Free and Right

Protectionism is bad. Period. Trade barriers increase tensions between nations and stifle economic growth.  Essentially, they are “nanny-laws” that baby domestic industry, by exempting them from international competition. When competition is eliminated in any facet of the marketplace, domestically or internationally, industry becomes inefficient and stagnant – a child of the State. Free trade ushers in prosperity. Trade barriers, on the other hand and in the opposite direction of their intended purpose, hurt a country and its citizens.

Abolition of tariffs by all nations would greatly benefit the global market. To allow the unbridled exchange of commodities and products would lower prices, increase industry efficiency, and lead to the betterment of mankind. How hard is it to understand that the Free Market is not evil, but instead the only rational system? Free trade, deregulation – the messengers of freedom and prosperity, what a beautiful thing.

Companies that support protectionism cannot compete, and therefore should not be propped up. Unions that support protectionism are essentially Marxist organizations and against all forms of American values. Free trade is innately American and the only means of effectively and cheaply protecting democracy abroad.

Reflection #6: Voices Under the Radar

This week has been the most interesting in regards to world politics, that I’ve had thus far. Our assignments touched on fascinating topics, such as the importance of culture, that are at times overlooked in the context of global politics. As PTJ mentioned in class, many people have the belief that since marginalized groups are smaller, and uneducated about policies, and worldly topics why would we study them? Shouldn’t we be studying the larger, powerful states?

This belief speaks directly towards the ideas and assumptions of state-centralism. If IR theories assume that states are unchanging, and that the actions of states only should be recognized, then yes, these marginalized people are dispensable. This can be justified by arguing that someone must always be at the bottom of the pyramid, so why try to change our system now? Also, social movements that do not directly affect the relationships between states themselves are similarly unimportant. However, this seems extremely naïve considering the countless examples of the power of the people causing serious problems for those who happened to be in charge, and serious changes to our global systems. Three examples of this are the revolution of Americans from the British, the Indians being led by Gandhi completely sans violence, and the more violent catalyst of indigenous rebellion by Che Guevara. These examples are relevant because the behaviors of these people are under the radar, and throughout history the suppressed have discovered various forms of rebellion that are still going on today. The difference is, the threats are growing increasingly dangerous and power struggles are more obvious. As demonstrated by the cyber-terrorism exhibit at the Spy Museum, these threats are less about traditional combat and more about the destruction of the things we depend on the most. If the state is supposedly more powerful, and significant than the people, then why are attacks shifting away from the military, and towards that which would cause chaos among the people?

State-centrism combined with our current global situation makes IR theories seem almost counter-productive. By not adapting to the times, we are being ignorant towards the future of our global systems. In fact, the state centric theory has a difficult time answering many questions about this future. Therefore not paying a sufficient amount of attention to these groups and movements is a crucial mistake, especially when the stakes are so high.

The Strength of the Powerless

My favorite part about Enloe’s “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs” was that it addressed the main issue I had with international relations theory. I understand that that these theories are merely different methods of seeing the international realm and attempts to understand international relations. However, its apathetic approach to the human situation started to make me question if international relations was the area on which I wanted to focus my education. Enloe’s article reminded me that these theories are not comprehensive and they thoroughly undermine the power that the “voiceless” have in society.

She argues that the main issue with international relations and the general way of understanding them is that there is too much focus on the powerful. As Professor Jackson noted while trying to keep the discussion going, “Shouldn’t we focus on the powerful? Isn’t that where everything happens?” I completely disagree with this. Enloe argues this to be a close-minded approach to politics because in the end, the “orthodox analysts of international politics [will be] caught by surprise” (189). The marginalized have much more power than one would expect because they have unique resources such as immense support amongst themselves and if they are given enough reason to, they have the potential for politically radical revolutions. Most of the best revolutions started this way.

Not only is the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico an excellent example to reference, but so is the French Revolution. Its immense historical significance further emphasizes the power of the marginalized. The official beginning of the French Revolution is (arguably) Bastille Day, where citizens of Paris stormed the prison in order to gather weapons. However in the countryside, the peasants were attacking the feudal system in which they were imprisoned, known as the “Great Fear,” in order to gain their independence from an oppressive practice. It is examples like these that demonstrate that the more a group is marginalized, the higher risk there is for an unstable nation. However, the powerful should not pay attention to the marginalized merely out of fear. They should do this because that allows a better understanding of the nation itself, and a stronger one in result.

Marginalized Margins.

            Discussions of marginalized people, the plight they face, and as to what solutions can be pursued to improve their lot, strike fearful chords in the ears of a proponent of a mathematically inclined laissez-faire capitalist. Altruists unfailing hurl insults at the free market system, and decry its institutions in the face of the poor, lying to them by claiming that their hardship is the result of capitalism. But, what alternative do the “humanitarians,” “leftists,” and “socialists” promote? Their plans almost always arrive back at something along the lines of centralized planning, excessive regulations, forced reallocation of resources, etc. In other words, the inevitable outcome of altruist principles: tyranny.

            I have one question for the Marxist lot. In what countries have seen the largest natural redistribution of wealth, the largest growth of social and economic equality, the fastest withdrawal from poverty and launch into prosperity and social harmony? This can only be seen in the very countries that have adopted free market-friendly policies. The exact system the Marxists attempt to defame is the only system that naturally leads to the things they support: prosperity, progression, and equality.

            Of course, there has ever been a truly laissez-faire market anywhere in the world. The closest seen was the “Gilded Age” in the United States. Where railroads were covered through the West, factories sprung up fervently in the East, and crops grew bountifully. If only people understood the production capacity that could be unleashed if regulations were removed, government ownership privatized, and the Invisible Hand were let to reign free.

… Allow me to enumerate in the logical, mathematical viewpoint.

            There is a field of study by the name of Game Theory. Game Theory allows mathematicians to calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of certain scenarios. Based-on the study of these probabilities, the methods used to acquire them, and the attempted application of this practice to the natural world, essentially, mathematics can be used to predict human behavior, nature as a whole, the victor of in an armed conflict, market fluctuations, etc. Game Theorists, the most rational “understanders” of natural activity, have a general opinion of public policy favoring “Anarcho-Capitalism.” Anarcho-Capitalists understand that the global commodity market is at a fixed production capacity, meaning that there is a finite amount of resources. This “cap” of production capacity is determined by, of course, the natural capacity of the Earth, but more importantly by sovereign government regulations, international law, corruption, etc. Simply stated, if this cap is removed capacity will grow to meet the demand of the world population.

            Also, Game Theorists understand that the most efficient actor is rational self-interest. They understand that human are selfish, that even a seemingly selfless action is still a means of boosting the “Self.” So, if this unleashing of market power, by the removal of this figurative “cap” on production power is coupled with the naturally instilled selfish practices of humans and corporations – a scenario of legitimate free market anarchy, i.e. anarchy in the philosophical sense – the human condition will be optimized. In other words, the concepts deemed by moralists as sinful: greed, selfishness, ambition, will be the very ideals that pull those who have been pushed to the margins out of their horrid condition. Market deregulation in the realm of transnational capitalism is the only way to assist those of lesser fortune.

            Milton Friedman stated, “Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.” So, why rely on a decaying directorate for the solution to poverty, disenfranchisement, and inequality? Life begins with single decision to live. Prosperity begins with a single decision to be free. Let the market reign.

Salt and Margins

All the talk about marginalized people during class Wednesday made me think hard about oppressed minorities - not the Mayans in Mexico, whom I knew/know little about, but about the minorities I have studied: the Cherokees, the Algonquians, the Wampanoags. It also made me think about a different kind of Indian, those Indians who did not take up weapons but instead peacefully worked their way in from the margins: people who actually reside in India.

When a people are on the margins of society, they have a voice; it just is jumbled, confused, lacking a single coherent direction. The government can hear a rumble, but it is easy to ignore; there needs to be an instrument of the people, a trumpet, if you will, who can amplify and focus the message of the masses, choose certain symbols and phrases to hammer home, and turn a disgruntled populace into a force of destiny. One such counter-elite, and his campaign, was Mahatma Gandhi’s “Salt Satyagraha” – the Salt March. “Satyagraha” roughly means “truth-force”, and it was the non-violent resistance tactic that Gandhi chose during India’s independence movement. Gandhi’s vision of success through non-cooperation with a corrupt state culminated in his march, from March 12 to April 6 of 1930, in resistance of the Indian Salt Taxes. Since 1835, Imperial Britain had been imposing ever-harsher taxes on salt in colonial India. Tax rates were outrageously high on imported salt, but salt had to be imported, because it was illegal for Indians to sell or produce salt. This was particularly egregious because salt was abundant naturally at the coast. Salt, a necessity of life, was kept from the impoverished Indian multitudes by high fences at the coasts that prevented them from finding it, and by high Imperial taxes that kept them from buying it. Gandhi, therefore, selected wisely when he made the salt tax the primary issue of his first act of Satyagraha. Indian leaders were skeptical, thinking Gandhi should have picked a more salient bone to pick, like a land-revenue boycott (Gandhi, 2010). However, Gandhi the counter-elite had made a brilliant choice, because salt turned out to hold tremendous symbolic significance for the Indian people. Salt was something all Indians cherished and needed; it was something that washed up on their shores in large quantities; and yet what rightfully belonged to the Indian people had to be passed through a greedy, foreign middleman. Indian nationalism was inflamed in a way it had never been before. When Gandhi illegally took up a piece of salt from the coast, surrounded by media and proclaiming “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire,” he inspired Indians to take their subcontinent back. Millions of Indians began to illegally make and buy salt, openly rebelling against the British oppressors; over 50,000 were imprisoned (The 1930 Salt March, 2010). So passionate for their nationalistic cause were these Indians that they were willing to face British machine guns without violence on their own part. When India eventually gained its independence, it owed no small thanks to the efforts of Gandhi to remind Indians that their land belongs to them - and for reminding them that people on the margins do not have to dwell there.