Last Reflection

This semester has ended much quicker than I thought it would. However, it doesn’t feel like we have actually reached an end yet. Even though the World Politics formal class is ending, we will all still be living on the floor together, we will still be seeing plenty of Gunperi and PTJ, and world politics will still be a major part of our lives.

I’m very appreciative of all that I’ve gained from PTJ’s World Politics class. Including the very unorthodox and unique class structure, it was an overall pleasing experience. After reading and gaining my own opinion on the articles, it was an interesting idea to have us discuss these opinions and thereby gain substantial knowledge from these readings. My favorite discussion from the semester was in reaction to Enloe’s “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs.” Considering the radically differing spectrum of opinions we have within the class, it was intriguing to observe the various ways in which people saw Enloe’s argument. The dynamic of our class in general was always fascinating.

As a whole, this class was an excellent introduction to world politics and a significant step towards my major in International Studies. Because of this class I’m really excited for the rest of my education at American University. Clearly we have excellent resources, incredible professors, and unbeatable company. It’s only going to get better from here.

Sovereignty and Differences

In Rosenblum’s Horizons, she argues that the only way to keep these phenotypically different human beings safe is through sovereignty over their own land. One interpretation of this idea is that sovereignty protects difference. However, I disagree. This can also signify that sovereignty defends common interests, values, and goals.

The threat that faces these slightly different humans is persecution from earth-dwellers that only see their differences. The natives are very aware of the differences as well, “They just know that you smell wrong, move wrong… don’t seem like them. Body language, facial expressions, body odor… you’re different. Not tribe” (158). Furthermore, Rosenblum demonstrates throughout the novel that human nature is to hate anything that is different, which explains the vast amount of genocides. Therefore, the push for secession in the novel comes from the native-borns out of their need for protection. Therefore, sovereignty doesn’t preserve those differences; it simply acts towards the common goal of protection from persecution.

A real life example would be that of the United States. Does our sovereignty protect that which differentiates us from the rest of the world? No because there is no one culture that can be identified as wholly “American.” There are specific ideas and values that do, such as democracy and individualism. In this sense, our sovereignty defends our rights to pursue these common goals and values. If others around the world disagree, then they can theoretically find another sovereign territory in which their values are upheld.

Sovereignty is not simply a means of protecting differences. I believe that its true function is to allow people to pursue common goals together. We can coexist because we have sovereign territories that protect our common goals within our communities, rather than our differences in comparison to others.

The Travesty That Is Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving conveniently happened to occur right after we finished Todorov’s Conquest of America. Coincidence? I think not. Therefore I’m dedicating this reflection to the irony of the unifying nature of Thanksgiving and the hypocrisy of the holiday.

Thanksgiving is the day we commemorate that wonderful day when Native Americans and pilgrims feasted together at the same table, celebrating the fruits of their labor. It is believed that this first meal was more of a harvest feast, rather than a meal of thanksgiving. This tradition only developed later on in American history, while the colonists were busy conquering the native heathens that helped them survive those first winters so many years ago. Only at this time, were they giving thanks for the good fortune that they had received. So what exactly is behind these heartwarming feelings that bring us together on this holiday? I would argue that we’re all just tired and need a break because, frankly, it can’t be that we’re celebrating the history of Thanksgiving.

Just as the Museum of the American Indian demonstrated, Thanksgiving is another portrayal of how the United States has not taken responsibility for the genocide of the Native Americans. We try to redeem ourselves with the exaggerated story of Thanksgiving, which is seen in what our youth is told about the holiday. We teach elementary school children that Thanksgiving is about how two different groups of people came together to share a meal and count their blessings together. However, history tells us that this is not entirely accurate, and also not the full story of Thanksgiving. Why is the United States still unable to confront its demons? Regardless, Thanksgiving is a nice holiday to celebrate because of the values we currently associate with it, as long as we ignore its murky history.

Coming to Terms

The Museum of the American Indian simply reinforced all the issues I have with the history between the United States and Native Americans. It seems that after all these years, we are still not able to come to terms with the genocide that the United States carried out on its own land.

I do not agree with the inaccuracy and confusion that comes with the term “American Indian.” Those deciding on the name of the museum decided that “native” implies primitive, which is why it wasn’t named the Museum of the Native American. However, calling them Indian is simply inaccurate. An Indian is someone that “originates,” for lack of a better word, from India. As an Indian myself, I have had people ask me if my father wears feathers and dances around fires. Putting aside the absolute political incorrectness of this question, it demonstrates the fallacies that the term “American Indian” presents. “Native” does not have to mean primitive. For me, it simply means that they are the original descendants of the land, implying respect as opposed than anything else.

The other main issue I had with the museum was how it avoided the word “genocide.” There is no doubt that it was one, therefore why refer to it as “a wave of death” instead? The use of passive verbs demonstrates how the United States still hasn’t taken responsibility for the mass, systematic extermination of a people. In my opinion, the Museum of the American Indian was more of an insult than a tribute.

The museum should have been a commemoration to the Native American culture in light of the genocide that the United States perpetuated. It should not have clumped all Native American culture into one. And it should have dedicated some part of the museum to the genocide itself. Hopefully one day the United States will be able to come to terms with our bloody history.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Although this is not entirely relevant to our class discussions on development, I wanted to reflect on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader of Myanmar. She and her party, the National League for Democracy, won the 1990 elections, but were denied power by the military junta. She has been under house arrest for at least the past 15 years by the military junta as a means to undermine resistance power within Myanmar. Her release from house arrest this Saturday was a momentous occasion for anyone that considers themselves to be human rights activists.

Aung San Suu Kyi won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and many other peace related awards throughout her life. She is a symbol for nonviolence and democracy in a country whose name itself can be synonymous with human rights violations. Despite the risk she puts herself and anyone associated with her in, she has vowed to continue to fight after her release. One of her most famous quotes goes against Machiavelli’s entire argument in The Prince. She said, “It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” Her beliefs are not radical in any way, but given where she speaks out, her strength is incredible. She is one of my idols, and the historic day of Saturday, November 13^th 2010 could not pass without me dedicating a blog to it.

My main issue with Machiavelli is with his sentiments such as, “Relying on the people is like building on sand.” Leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi help me see a brighter future, a step towards a more harmonic system of world politics because of their reliance on ideas such as “Human beings the world over need freedom and security that they may be able to realize their full potential.” I’d rather believe in humanity because only that gives me the hope that change is possible.

Are We Asking the Right Question?

The main issue I have with this question is that it addresses states as if they are people. It is unfair if a person cannot achieve his or her potential if they are hindered by situational factors. The reasoning behind why this would be considered injustice, in my opinion, is that the ability to pursue happiness (in whatever form that may come in) is a natural right. For me, a natural right is the idea that each human being is entitled to certain privileges (for lack of a better synonym) because of the sole fact that they are human beings. Therefore, when a person is denied the right to pursuing their own happiness, whether that is found in education or clay making, because of factors they cannot control (such as discrimination), then they are suffering from an unfair situation. However, the question of “fairness” is completely different when the subject is a state because none of the above applies. The only reason I would consider something to be unfair to a state is if the people within the said state suffer.

With this rationality, it is unfair that certain states experience economic successes and economic failures as a result of the disparity in readiness for global competition. However, I would argue this is unfair because the people born into the less fortunate states suffer from the disparity because they are unable to fully compete in the global market because of situational factors (where they were born) that they could not control. It is not an issue for the state merely because what exactly is suffering for a state if a state is nothing but a theory, idea, or state of mind?

Therefore this brings up a new question. Instead of “Does a state have a right to wealth?” we should be asking, “Do the people within the state have a right to wealth?”

Wealth & Poverty

I hope I’m not alone in saying that last week’s discussion on poverty and wealth made me a little uncomfortable. When we reached the point where the group was merely discussing their family’s means, I felt we had lost the point of the discussion. However besides that, there were many interesting points made that analyzed common conceptions of wealth from a different angle.

I agree with the definition we established, which identifies wealth as the ability to choose your investments. The most interesting argument supporting this definition, for me, was what Aubrey said about how we are wealthy when we have the ability to choose that lower paying job because we are not as concerned about money as opposed to someone with fewer means. The latter has no choice but to work at the high paying law firm, even if it is inconsistent with that person’s values and beliefs. This was interesting to me because this exact situation is that of “selling out.” Normally, a person that accepts the high paying job over the more fulfilling, but less monetarily satisfying is considered selfish and wealth-oriented. However, I have never stopped to think that maybe this is because they have no other choice. This is the only way to pay the bills.

Furthermore, the discussion of poverty seemed to be going in circles, but I wanted to discuss my own little anecdote on the subject. Both my paternal and maternal grandparents live in India. However, they live completely different lifestyles. My paternal grandparents live in an influential city in Kerala, where the industry is mostly academic and technology based, rather than the agricultural based area in which my maternal grandparents reside. My dad’s parents own one of the largest houses in the area, complete with working showers to dishwashing machines. They run a successful store that sells car parts, which was originally started by my great-grandfather. My mom’s parents live in a small, but comfortable home, where each shower requires boiling an enormous pail of water beforehand. They use the surrounding land as their source of means. In congruence with what we discussed on Thursday, my maternal grandparents are by far happier, and I enjoy staying with them much more. Although their conditions are not of the same caliber, they live without materialistic envy and with a pure gratitude towards life. Their greatest asset is the education they sought for each child. Now all seven are world travelers, living all over the globe from New York City to Ghana. Of my two sets of grandparents, I’m proud to be the grandchild of Anna and Joseph Maniattu because of what they have achieved with what they were given in the beginning.

Just as Frederick Douglass said, “You are not judged by the height you have risen, but from the depth you have climbed.” This rings more important for me.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.