UN Alien Appointment

The vast size of the universe leads a large number of individuals to believe that that there is in no way a possibility of Earth being the only planet with life forms. If there is other life somewhere out “there”, then it is only a matter of time before our world make contact. Under constructivism, the idea of relations with an alien species (leading to the ultimate appointment of a UN ambassador) is a difficult issue to tackle.
Constructivists are about the constant evaluation of the current field of identities. States create an identity of themselves in relation to others, yet there identity is different depending on the “other” they are dealing with. So an ultimate expectation by a constructivist is that the UN as a whole would deal with this situation in one way, yet individual nations might have their own reservations towards the alien species and therefore have stipulations within the relationship. For instance, the United Nations as a whole may simply decide to allow them to join the General Assembly and exist within the market. However, a nation such Russia might decide that they don’t want to freely trade with this alien nation and ultimately have a different relationship with the aliens outside of the UN. Yet, this relationship at any time could change, with Russia or the UN, through such methods as altercasting. More important than simply trade, though, is our world’s security. This alien force poses an additional state to add to our security/defense force within the UN or a potential threat to our world, which could ultimately lead to a complete change in the identities of the globe- where every nation bonds together to ward off this unitary enemy. However, before it gets to any point of changes in relationships, the UN (through the eyes of constructivism) should treat the alien force the way in which the nations within the UN would want to be treated by the aliens.
Under the idea of constructivism, international institutions set standards to which states can legitimately be held. The alien force would ultimately have to live up to these standards if it wishes to continue have a legitimized existence within the UN.

UN Alien Appointment

The vast size of the universe leads a large number of individuals to believe that that there is in no way a possibility of Earth being the only planet with life forms. If there is other life somewhere out “there”, then it is only a matter of time before our world make contact. Under constructivism, the idea of relations with an alien species (leading to the ultimate appointment of a UN ambassador) is a difficult issue to tackle.
Constructivists are about the constant evaluation of the current field of identities. States create an identity of themselves in relation to others, yet there identity is different depending on the “other” they are dealing with. So an ultimate expectation by a constructivist is that the UN as a whole would deal with this situation in one way, yet individual nations might have their own reservations towards the alien species and therefore have stipulations within the relationship. For instance, the United Nations as a whole may simply decide to allow them to join the General Assembly and exist within the market. However, a nation such Russia might decide that they don’t want to freely trade with this alien nation and ultimately have a different relationship with the aliens outside of the UN. Yet, this relationship at any time could change, with Russia or the UN, through such methods as altercasting. More important than simply trade, though, is our world’s security. This alien force poses an additional state to add to our security/defense force within the UN or a potential threat to our world, which could ultimately lead to a complete change in the identities of the globe- where every nation bonds together to ward off this unitary enemy. However, before it gets to any point of changes in relationships, the UN (through the eyes of constructivism) should treat the alien force the way in which the nations within the UN would want to be treated by the aliens.
Under the idea of constructivism, international institutions set standards to which states can legitimately be held. The alien force would ultimately have to live up to these standards if it wishes to continue have a legitimized existence within the UN.

UN Ambassador to Aliens

The most basic premise behind the concept of constructivism is the idea of governance without government. The purpose of an ambassador is entirely diplomatic; as the actual position is based off of image and the way other countries cooperatively perceive the ambassador. The all-accepting point of view allows for validity in the position, as other nations will view the position of ambassador seriously and the foundation for peaceful relations will be established. The fact that aliens themselves would have no concept of how international relations work or how the global community would respond to an actual alien attack could create some qualms about creating the position of ambassadorship to such an unexplored field like aliens. The constructivist point of view would view the position of an ambassador to aliens as useful in the way that a positive diplomatic image could be procured but at the same time, the skepticism with which the international community would view such a position could create tensions that a constructivist would possibly want to avoid because of the rigidity of the government aspect involved.

The liberalism perspective on creating an ambassador to the aliens would involve ensuring that cohesiveness is the highest priority. The international community accepting aliens would be a huge step in the global arena, as something so foreign is often hard to view as benevolent, especially when there is little to no means of communication. The regulations created around the position of the ambassador would only emphasize cooperation amongst nations and a complex interworking of global diplomacy to promote a peaceful message to be sent out to the alien invaders. The states themselves should be entirely capable of deciding their own individual responses to the alien nation, and they really should not be dictated by any other being that would infringe on their sovereignty. This approach has to coexist with collaboration amongst nations, as nations are free to govern themselves but must also communicate so as to create a unified message against foreign territories. The ambassador to the aliens would thus need to be viewed as something of a global representative of peace, bringing nothing but a positive message to the alien invaders.

The UN recently decided to appoint an ambassador in case of alien contact. Is this a good idea?

From a constructivist perspective, the United Nations appointing an ambassador for extra-terrestrial affairs is a very smart decision. Constructivists are very concerned with their identity and the images that they give others, as well as the identity and image that others have. Assuming that aliens ever come to Earth, an ambassador would be seen as very non-threatening. It would give the sense that the world was open to diplomatic negotiations and might help divert a small portion of the tension that comes with making contact. We might look at the idea of diplomacy as an institution in itself, and the norms that diplomacy has would help quell hostilities that the aliens might perceive. However, if some countries think that the ambassadorship is unnecessary, then they may not recognize the validity of the post and disregard it completely. The UN needs to cultivate the image of the alien ambassador is useful and completely necessary for security reasons, without sending the world into a panic.

From a realist perspective, the ambassador can be useful but in a much different way. A realist would argue that everyone works in their own self-interest, regardless of what any other state does, and that the work is all to achieve dominance. Thus, if aliens come to Earth, the ambassador would put on a nice show for a little while but conflict would inevitably ensue. Both aliens and humans would be fighting for dominance, so conflict would be a foregone conclusion. They would not be able to trust each other. The aliens would probably not trust the Earth ambassador in the end.

Reflection 5

This week’s discussion was primarily geared towards a real-life scenario, which I appreciate. I thought it was interesting that we came to a conclusion that it would be most important what “subtle” messages we would be sending by the smallest of moves. Would sending a few...expendable representative (i.e. Hilary Clinton) portray a defensive message? I thought that the best course of action would be to rely on a defensive plan of attack. That is, wait entirely for them to make any sort of first move and if and when they do, plan accordingly to their strike or peace offering.

I think that when nations become too wrapped up in planning pre-emptive strikes and form elaborate plans for how interactions with nations should go, the entire process of peace offerings is lost in the bureaucratic sense of over-analyzing. This can be tied to the international community relating to the European Union trip we took on Wednesday. Because every country within the European Union finds an utmost priority to preserve individual culture, the fact that there is no collective European identity works in their favor in regards to the rest of the world. The intimidation and the carefully planned international interworking would create a tense atmosphere that would most definitely override the original intentions of the EU if the rest of the world felt as though they were facing Europe as a whole, instead of Europe as it is intended to be- nations coming together with common interests and needs.

Reflection 5

I really, really liked the alien simulation that took place in class on Thursday. I thought that it was a fascinating and hands-on way to examine the idea of constructivism in a way that is accessible to everyone.

For me, a lot of the decisions made about how to prepare for the aliens rested on the idea of constructivism. Since constructivism involves the creation and application of identities for states and institutions, the process of answering an incoming alien vessel rested on how America’s identity perceived the aliens’ identity. If the decision-makers saw the aliens as peaceful and diplomatic, the hope is that the creatures would not feel threatened. However, one does not want to be without defenses in case something happened.

Gunperi mentioned at the end of the class that no one had discussed the possibility that the shuttle coming down to Earth was empty, or filled with things that were not aliens. I think that this is a very interesting possibility. We tended to make our decisions in class partly because of all of the alien invasion movies we had seen. The shuttle being empty would have really confused us, and it would have sent the world into a panic, maybe more so than if the shuttle had been filled with little green martians. I think the lack of knowledge of what was manning the shuttle and, foremost, why it had come to Earth, would have driven everyone crazy with curiosity and fear. We would have been forced to reevaluate the past decisions and possibly keep the world’s defenses on very high alert.

Reflection #5

Our visit this week to the EU delegation struck a particular chord with me because Dr. Deak's remarks seemed so at odds with our discussions in class recently. I hope it is safe to claim that we all recognize the world as an interdependent system of nations and peoples. Our dialogues in world politics increasingly mention the economic, political, and cultural ties that inherently bind all parts of the world. This change in dynamic is due to numerous factors: globalization, technology, public policy, war, etc. However, during Dr. Deak's presentation on Wednesday, he continually referred to the EU as a separate, superior, optimal-functioning collection of European nations, which it arguably is. However, it was his lacking mention of the EU within the global community that upset me. Naturally, Dr. Deak exhibited a certain level of pride in the European Union and its various accomplishments, tenets, and appendages. Yet it seemed to me that our conversation perpetually stayed within the bounds of the EU as a physical entity. Dr. Deak discussed how the various member nations of the European Union interact with one another, particularly in terms of additions (Turkey). While I was interested in learning about the internal dynamic of the EU, I would have been even more fascinated to hear how the EU functions within the international sector, especially compared to the roles of individual nation-states. My problem with Dr. Deak's presentation was his inability to address the EU's influence outside the confines of Europe (because it does play an intrinsic part). His incapacity to articulate the European Union's international impact parallels the uncertainty that is felt throughout the world system because of the EU's presence. As Chris mentions in his reflection, nowhere in the world is there an overarching assemblage of an entire region, except in Europe. It is my belief that the United States, the rest of the world, and perhaps the European Union itself, are still unsure of how to incorporate and utilize this organization in the global forum.

EU Reflection

I found it interesting that that Dr. Deak, an employee of the European Union- a collective of nations, said that there is no such thing as a "European Identity". Meaning that each nation is to be recognized separately rather then together, in any circumstance. However, if one were to look back in history they would easily realize that Europe definitely does have unitary identity. This identity being one of teamwork and collective effort.

For instance, both World War I and World War II. Though Europe was technically pitted against each other, the continent did so in teams of allied forces. Allied vs Central Powers andAxis Powers vs Allied Powers respectively. The present structure of Europe itself was formed through the process of unity and consolidation, such as the Italian states which formed much later into Italy and Germanic states which eventually became Germany.

In writing on this subject I find it difficult to avoid using "it" when referring to Europe. Which I believe stems from my subconscious recognizing my social studies and the involvement of Europe as a whole in global efforts, such as the War on Terrorism and relief efforts such as AIDS. The idea of the European Union alone shows the continent's pattern of collectivity. There is no such organization in existence today. There isn't a North American Union, and Asian Union, an African Union, or a South African Union. Arguable the United Nations is like the European Union, however, the U.N.'s power could be argued to be less substantial. My point in this recognition of the "European identity" is the eventual recognition of a "Human identity", where we may all come together in a more unified effort to fight the terrors and vices of everyday life.

Lady Gaga: Blog 5

At the risk of distancing myself from all things that seem to praise Lady Gaga in all her eccentricity, I find her to be an artist worthy of dutiful respect for her catchy songs and empowering lyrics, but far too manufactured in all her wildness. Camille Paglia writes a scathing report on Lady Gaga and the storm that has seem to have swept itself in her favor and her new claim of revolutionizing style in every industry possible. Paglia calls Lady Gaga the “diva of déjà vu”, “trying to be hip and avant-garde and yet popular and universal, a practitioner of gung-ho show biz”. Although Paglia’s assessment of what she deems theft on Gaga’s part (Paglia thinks the artist seems to have borrowed “too heavily” from influences like Madonna and Gwen Stefani) is too harsh, it can offer a viewpoint that can be used to asses what kind of “global system” Lady Gaga, as a state, would command. After all, the purpose of Lady Gaga is to entertain, and that is purely what she does. Her audiences do not revere her for her intense musical talent or her resonating voice, but for her star quality that skyrocketed her into the persona she has become today. This outlandish persona can apply itself to an infant nation. The fact that everything is encouraged, and nothing is explicitly discouraged (except for normalcy) under Lady Gaga would insinuate that her state would be one of intense free thinking and zero social norms. The fact that everything is abnormal, in essence, would be normal. This presents a distinct challenge when asked about governance. Because there is no form of normalcy, it would be assumed that standards of law are abhorred because of the homogeneity they can encourage. Self-governance is a dangerous road to take a nation down, but if the intense bond that Gaga perpetuates towards her “monsters”, which creates a relationship and society so integrated with love and passion, there would really be no need for heavy-handed social laws to dictate what is appropriate. Ideally, everyone would do what was best for each other. Self-expression would be encouraged to an extreme, because everything that Gaga represents herself is to embody her personality, her sense of self, and her own sense of style. Regardless of what Paglia asserts, Gaga does have a trademark, and that is to do the unexpected. Although this may not be a new trademark, and the Gaga generation may indeed have blinded itself by following anyone who dares to be as bold and different, the nation that Gaga would preside over, or exist as, would reach a social crossroads as undoubtedly, conflicts arise as these forms of “self-expression” start crossing boundaries. The crux of the matter is this: there would be no social norms in a society governed by Lady Gaga. She speaks to the Beatnik 2.0 generation, to disillusioned teenage angst and to the few (ha) who need to hear a song or two about love and heartbreak. And the very fact that she can culminate as many audiences as she does says that her nation would be diverse, culturally unrestricted to any category, and free-thinking to a very strong degree.

PS. How do you wake up Lady Gaga? Poker face.

If Lady Gaga were a state, then what would the global system be like?

It seems to me like our world politics class could have an endless discussion about the organization, implementation, and repercussions of the Lady Gaga nation-state. However, I would like to note that though I adore Lady Gaga and am a devoted little monster, I honestly have no idea what she is ever thinking, and therefore love her all the more. I cannot imagine what a nation under her "rule" would be like; simply imagining the form of government it would adopt poses problems. Lady Gaga is not the kind of person to admire dictatorships, yet no one can embody Gaga like herself; would she govern as an absolute ruler? Or would she incorporate the Haus of Gaga into her governmental circle? She is an extremely outspoken individual who prizes originality and unconventionality. Would this equate to an entirely open immigration policy? Or would a future citizen of the Gaga nation-state need to meet a certain standard of creativity, tolerance, and insanity (in the best possible sense)? What would Lady Gaga require of her citizens (i.e. taxes, economic activity, social norms) or would there purposefully be no requirements at all? As an individual, both in the artistic sense of the word and in daily life, Lady Gaga embodies freedom to choose how one behaves and is perceived. Naturally she aims to please her fans, yet she began by remaining true to her personal artistic intentions, no matter how they were received by the global audience at first. This makes me wonder if she would enact that philosophy onto a nation-state and its populace, and if that implementation is wise in modern society. If we acted without any preconceived notion of social normalcy, what would the effect be? Would the world descend into chaos because of competing personalities (after all, there is only one Lady Gaga, for now), or would it rise to an elevated state of thought and awareness, where every little monster could behave without fear of reproach? I don't think we can genuinely anticipate what the result would be if Lady Gaga transferred her Gaga-ness to an entire geographic region and population, simply because she never acts in a way that is expected.

The United States of Gaga

If Lady Gaga was embodied as a state, it might be a closer form of the nations the "american dream" shoots for. Gaga is known for her outspoken nature, flaunting of individuality, acceptance for all (including the slimmest minorities) and vast amount of passion and love. If a state were to hold these qualities, I believe it would put the citizens at the true forefront of government, with the true purpose of government being to improve the daily lives of the citizens.

Presently, the United States (as well as other nations) neglect to speak out on various atrocities in the world simply because of economic or other diplomatic concerns. For instance, the United States refused to stop known genocide in Turkey in order to preserve the U.S.'s neutrality in World War I. However, the United States of Gaga would let it be known that the state will not stand for an atrocity such as genocide and would not be afraid to act upon such a claim. The United States of Gaga wouldn't worry if it was with other nations in the effort or standing alone, it would "stick to it's guns" and live the dogma it preaches. The citizens within the state would see to it that they could be whoever they wished, filling a role they were suited for and choose to fill. This wouldn't be simply a social improvement but an economic one as well. Individuals would be more comfortable with themselves, appreciative of others, and ultimately happier because of the lack of stress in society. The greatest influence of all Gaga values would be her love and passion. Every song she has ever written deals with a form of love, whether it be an infatuation or a truly meaningful bond. The spread of love would result in a rise in social capital. The increase in bonds and the bolstering of the strength of these bonds would lead to a more productive nation, with more secure borders. Citizens would feel a greater sense of pride than ever experienced and thus remain rallied around the flag.

The United States of Gaga is something modern democracies might want to emulate. After all the persona that is Gaga is simply the values democratic nations attempt to project; a voice for the minority, acceptance, connected citizens, and defense of democracy.

Suppose that Lady Gaga were a state.

The idea of Lady Gaga being a state in an international system is certainly a fascinating one. The first thing that came to mind when I thought of Lady Gaga was how open she was – she actively tries to make all of her fans, her “Little Monsters”, feel included and like they belong. Because of this, her state would probably have very open immigration, and it would thus be very easy to enter and leave the Lady Gaga state. Other states might criticize this about the Lady Gaga state, the lack of rules regarding immigration. For many states, this is seen as a security risk and an economic liability.

Obviously, one of the defining characteristics about Lady Gaga is her willingness and even desire to buck social conventions and be outrageous. It has gotten to the point where her image – that of someone who deliberately goes against societal norms – is turning into a norm in itself. Because of this, when the Lady Gaga state is first establishes it would probably incite many different reactions. While some might appreciate the openness of the state, many other states would be offended. The state would most likely receive many threats and that has the possibility in erupting in violence.

The Lady Gaga state would ultimately fail. Its economy would not be able to handle the immigration and it would receive threats from many different countries for blatantly ignoring international norms.

Reflection 4

In class we discussed the responsibility of government, to either ensure the status quo or to be a catalyst for social betterment for the citizens. However, I believe another conversation is in order, one of the responsibility of citizens to their government. In my opinion, individuals have a responsibility to their government- to be the most productive citizens they can be. This means filling the role they are best suited for, voting in all elections to ensure that politicians truly hear the voice of America and not the voice of an interest group or elitists, and abiding by the laws that our government creates. Furthermore, citizens should have the responsibility to continually analyze the standing of the nation. This means that when the general public views an general practice, action, law, or imminent movements immoral or somehow unjust, to voice their opinion in an acceptable and peaceful way.

Under founding American principles, when the general public decides that government is not living up to its expectation, citizens reserve the right to abolish it. However, our vote is the first step to avoiding an ineffective government. Citizens are able to change the face of government in such a way that people could be satisfied. With that said, citizens need to understand that unforeseen consequences of certain elections are going to arise, but understand that they can counteract these consequences. The counteracting forces again are voting in the next election, communication with an incumbent, or peaceful protest. Civil activity is key under a democratic republic. Without such activity people can only expect their governments to do “wrong”, because these governments won't truly know what is “right” by their people- unless the people speak up.

We can assume that going to school in D.C., going to a socially aware university, and most likely majoring in a field related to the political realm, that our class is and will always be civilly active. However, our education and place in society means we have a deeper rooted responsibility. We have the responsibility to stand as shining examples; voting, voicing our opinions, organizing our community, staying informed and attempting to inform others, being the voices for those who might not presently have a voice. We have been blessed to exist in this nation, and should see to it we give back more then what we receive, for when we do this it will lead to our generation and those to come receiving extraordinary benefits.

Reflection #4

Although we discussed this topic at length in Thursday’s class, I would like to revisit the question of America’s freedom to impose democracy on nations that seemingly lack our commitment to representation, free speech, frequent elections, and other democratic principles. When we consider the United States’ efforts to support democratization in other parts of the world, we must also understand our own motivation. The American perspective is a unique one, especially when it comes to acts of rebellion, revolution, and free expression. American citizens have an insatiable need to express their beliefs and opinions, especially when those opinions are at odds with those of the government’s. Political rebellion is a deep-running thread of the American social fabric, and we asserted our right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” even before those words were penned and we declared our independence from Britain. Perhaps it is our own personal success story, our own revolution which lead to the greatest modern democracy in the world, that blinds us from the realization that some people do not think as we do. Some nations have not been successful when fighting a war against an established superpower. Some nations do not allow thousands or millions of citizens to gather in one place at one time and fight for a cause or criticize the government, without being met with teargas, tanks, guns, even death. Americans cannot understand these acts of suppression, which are completely at odds with our own definition of stability, and our methods for attaining it. When the government performs in a way we as a society cannot respect or condone, we seek to change it, because that is our right. Other countries cannot imagine how stability could ever result from such freedom, and so they govern in the way they deem proper (suppressing dangerous shifts in opinion, controversial movements, etc). Political rebellion in the United States has frequently resulted in victory; our obtainment and cultivation of democracy has been an indubitable success. Our history provides us with a tangible example of how things are “supposed” to happen, yet by focusing solely on our history, we forget those of other nations and peoples whose efforts for democracy or freedom were not so perfectly met. American democratization is not as simple for the rest of the world, simply because its ideals contradict forms of rule that have been established for centuries, and because some current foreign governments cannot dream of granting citizens that kind of freedom. 

Reflection 4

“Is not spreading democracy to other countries racist? Are we saying that the societies are too primitive to have democracy?”

Prof. Jackson said something to this effect in class, and it really stuck with me. Is it a form of racism to not even try to spread democracy? Is it a form of elitism? This assertion implies that democracy is the best government and is what all countries should strive for – yet, we have seen that many countries are working quite well without a democratic system of government, namely China. The belief also implies that democracy will not spread without precise action from the United States, and that the US merely acting as the “golden standard” for other countries to look toward and emulate is not enough. Intervention would be required.

However, the most important thing that statement implies is that it would NOT be racist to go in and perhaps, force a regime change. Most of the time, it is ultimately so much more racist to try and spread democracy by force to other countries. By forcing another government to change their ways, it strips that country of its sovereignty and makes the case that the state is too “primitive” to make decisions on their own.

Imposing one’s will on other states defeats the purpose of sovereignty. It creates a colonialism-type environment that will not end well for anyone. While liberalism may say that the best foreign policy option for the US would be to have as many democratic states as possible, forcing states to do anything hardly ever ends well.

Reflection 4

After taking a look at many blogs, it is apparent that very few people, or none, support a world without elections. As discussed in class, it was important to a pro-democratic world to promote ideals of representation, public accountability, public good, and control. The most important question became what the ultimate point of the government’s function would be: to promote stability or to work for the public good? It struck me that the discussion was leading into something very similar to the discussion of sovereignty, and where democracy should or shouldn’t be promoted.

The fundamental argument of pushing society to be everything productive, and having an authoritarian government to help be productive can eventually segue accountability. However, because of our semi-ethnocentric views, we tend to view democracy as the only way that a truly modern society can function. Because of cultural prerequisites, elections may not happen in particular places in terms of a traditional or cultural argument.

Relating these concepts to the Federalist 10 by James Madison strengthens the real question of the purpose of government, as he talked about the fact that factions can bring new ideas to the political landscape. The purpose of government can be a middle ground for the sake of betterment or ensuring stability. Mediocre happiness is not usually the goal of many modern societies. Societies that succeed exponentially bypass mediocrity.

Question 4

Justice Louis D. Brandeis once said, “The most important political office is that of the private citizen.” In my opinion this statement is completely true, I think a government in which the people do not elect government officials and thus do not have direct representation should be deemed invalid. The purpose of all government, even if the bureaucracy holds the power, is meant to serve its people. States are created, militias are formed, laws are put in place, and order is established to ensure some sort of peace and tranquility for the citizens.

Under systems of government, the people are meant to be protected. When an individual loses their right to vote, or was never given that right to begin with, they are put in danger. Without the ability to have some pull in government, to have some influence, citizens are completely under the control of a completely depersonalized, out of contact government. Without the protection that the right to vote gives an individual, to deter government from wrongful action or to alter the face of government completely, the concept of a governmental body is irrelevant.

Why would an individual or groups of people want a government if no safety or benefits came as a part of the bargain? Humans might as well take their chances and live an anarchic world. A world of anarchy would give individuals the same ensured security or privileges. Without voting government of any kind would be worse than anarchy because there is a force which can direct an individuals life. Something that American basic principle go against- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Would you rather live in a society without elections?

I can say with all honesty that such a society would frighten me beyond reason, and that this proposed system would lead to chaos in American democracy. Elections, because of what they represent, are as American as apple pie and Norman Rockwell paintings. It seems to me that modern voting embodies more than just support for candidate A or candidate B; physically stepping into the voting booth reassures common citizens that they have some right to think and act as individuals, and therefore that they have a measure of control within an ever-expanding world. The best example I can provide of this phenomenon is the recent election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate seat in Congress. Being a native of the state (and, not surprisingly, a Democrat), the race for the Senate seat that took place this year impacted me particularly. (I still cannot stop shaking my head at Martha Coakley). Yet it also alerted the rest of the country to the rising popularity of dissent in American politics. For years, I listened to my father (a Republican, NASCAR-loving NRA member) grumble at the polls because his vote "didn't matter" amongst an overwhelming sea of tree-huggers, pro-choicers, and gay rights activists. Massachusetts is arguably, after all, the most liberal state in the union. However, his vote, along with thousands more, was among the majority that elected a Republican candidate to represent Massachusetts in the US Senate. This evolution of political thought within my own state is fascinating in itself, and while it may not coincide with my personal ideology, it is a comfort for all Americans to recognize that we have an accessible conduit through which change can be ushered. The election process is not alway foolproof or fair, yet it is still the most efficient way for American voices to be publicized and put to use.

Election-less society?

The foundation of having a voting population drives political change and motivates leaders to campaign for change that the public is in favor of. Because of this, the entire legislative system is mutable and constantly shifting itself to adjust to the voting population’s likes and dislikes.

If elections did not exist, it would certainly segue a new way of placing authority figures in power. I don’t think that removing elections entirely would benefit society. Reforming the entire process is a continual job, and the bureaucratic red tape that infamously mars some of the most historic elections is always under scrutiny.
Removing elections would erase the basis of the democratic processes that maintain leaders of the people, essentially putting a person in power who is capable of catering to the needs and wants of the people. Candidates who have demonstrated capability usually win elections and show ample care in the arena of domestic policy and understanding what the people in his/her jurisdiction especially need or want at the time they were elected.

If the people did not have a significant role in voting or offering a say in who is in power, those in power have no motivation to cater to the needs of those constituents and may eventually stop caring about the good of the people, or the stability of the nation. This corruption could send an election-less nation on a slippery slope.

Would you rather live in a society that did not have governmental elections?

Some arguments could certainly be made about the purposes of elections. Yes, they offer citizens a chance to democratically elect their representatives and leaders. But they also have a hand in quelling political protest – when citizens vote, they feel as if they have played their role in the political process and nothing else needs to be done, especially in places like America, where free speech and protest, as well as voting rights, have been guaranteed for as long as anyone alive can remember. Despite the possible de-politicizing of the populace, I am unequivocally in support of governmental elections.

There are very few alternatives to the election system. Elections are, fundamentally, positive to American society and society in general. Governmental elections – when conducted correctly – are a just way of conducting government. To live in a society without elections would be simply unimaginable for many Americans. That type of society would also imply a lack of free speech, which would mean a lack of dissenting voice against the government.

Despite all of the good elections do, the general apathy of the populace is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Voter turnout has stayed consistently between 50-60% for the last 50 years, which is not exceedingly low. But it is definitely not something to be desired. If America were to make changes to the voting process, it could encourage more people to go and vote. These changes could include holding elections on the weekend (which would especially help people of lower socioeconomic groups, because it would conflict with less jobs), as well as simplifying the voter registration processes. But making elections more convenient for the populace would not help with the political apathy plaguing the nation. Is it truly a result of the elections? Or is it merely a function of not having to fight for our rights, as so many citizens do in countries around the world, so we take our rights for granted? It is definitely a complicated problem without easy solutions.

Reflection 3

I have had countless amounts of people tell me how extraordinary the Newseum is. So going into the Metro Station this past Wednesday, I had high expectation. As expected, the Newseum blew me away. In my eyes, one of the most powerful exhibits was the Katrina exhibit. In high school I had studied the disaster in both AP Government & Politics, as well as Civics & Economics. The main focus was the concept of federalism and the discussion of how it failed during this particular time in history. I can remember the discussion always turned to a blame game as to who's fault it was that things got to the horrible extent they reached. Many blamed President Bush, others blamed Michael Brown who stepped down from his positon in FEMA following the ordeal, and others say the blame rested with the Louisiana governor, Kathleen Blanco.

However, the Hurricane Katrina exhibit enlightened me on a new side to the story. There is a substantial argument that the media played a role in poor handling of the crisis. Reports falsely reported several rumors they had heard which riled up the citizens into a state of panic and slowed the process of help by striking fear into the minds of potential heroes. Other reporters simply reported personal accounts without researching the information. The Katrina exhibit displayed quotes and descriptions of the media's role in this disaster and ,even if they weren't the largest contributor to the chaos, how the media impeded the help from government, private, and nonprofit organizations.

Too often does society neglect to fully think the situation through. We fail to realize all the players in a game and look to demonize a specific character. If we were to step out, focus on the situation as a whole (without bias) we might have a chance in truly learning from it and working to ensure the same mistakes aren't repeated.

Reflection #3

Our discussion in class on Thursday solidified my belief that culture is topical when it comes to realism. A nation’s culture encompasses its distinct identity in terms of language, custom, art, and social institutions. If a nation chooses, the preservation of a distinct culture can equate to the survival of the state; it is just as strategically promising as the strengthening of a national military when developed correctly. I would like to briefly mention two modern examples of cultural protection. The first is France, an infamously proud nation, so proud that it actively relies upon the Academie Francaise to monitor and protect its language from foreign contaminants (usually English terminology relating to technology, such as “email”, “blog”, etc.) In this way, France militantly defends its culture to reinforce its image as a strong, independent nation-state that participates in a globalized world, but certainly is not consumed by it. From another perspective, Germany has become the main destination in Europe for refugees and those seeking asylum. In 2005, the German Federal Minister of the Interior Otto Schilly remarked, “Because of its history, Germany has a special obligation to accept political refugees. We are grateful that thousands of those persecuted during the Nazi regime on the basis of their race and political convictions were able to find refuge in other countries. Germany takes its responsibility seriously to grant asylum to victims of political persecution and to provide a new home for Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe.” (http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5280.html) Germany now faces a myriad of issues regarding immigration, especially tensions between the native population and Turkish families. German culture is now inherently tied to Turkish influences, and only time will reveal the effect of this transformation on the nation. From a realist point of view, Germany’s loose immigration policy and willingness to accept foreigners as a form of redemption for past mistakes represents a weakness in political strategy that could eventually lead to the destruction of former Germany.

Reflection 3

Realism as a concept is about state survival and security. During our discussion, it became clear that the role of a nation acting as a leader on the international forum brings to light the question of image: does a nation’s image really impact a realist’s point of view? A few keywords that we came up with were real politik, security, polarity, self-interest, state survival, and a few more. Smaller states don’t necessarily represent players in a national realm, but the prime motivator for certain aspects and how the national plan is set apart from culture. Whenever culture was brought up, a huge controversy arose by trying to define culture- and what American culture was. Gunperi brought up the interesting question of if the physical land of America were to disappear, culture may or may not disappear with it.

The bold statement of globalization being the antagonist to realism segued an interesting discussion of realism as a universal doctrine. I thought it was interesting how that discussion just circled back around to the question of a positive image for a nation in international respects. The United States may aggrandize its own power, but it won’t expect other states to do the same. Alliances aren’t expected to be used to one nation’s benefit, and the realist perspective according to Lam states that securing global interests are held at all costs to all international relationships. The United States having a challenger in the global arena could completely alter the international structure that currently exists, and this could either serve to be the detriment or be beneficial to the overall global health.

Reflection

I very much enjoyed our trip to the Newseum. It’s a really fantastic museum and I wish we’d had more time to spend exploring the exhibits. The Hurricane Katrina exhibit really stayed with me, though, mainly because it brought about strong feelings of anger and sadness.

But one particular part of the exhibit caught my eye. It noted that many people who were staying in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina were being referred to by the media as “refugees”. The main people being called refugees were African American. (After people began to speak out about the harms in calling citizens in their own country “refugees”, many news corporations banned the word from being used.) There were similar inconsistencies in other areas, too. A photo with a white couple carrying groceries through the flood water was published with a caption that said they “found” the food in a grocery store. A similar photo with a young African American boy had a caption that used the word “looted” instead.

It is almost sickening that a supposedly unbiased media still looks at different races in America in completely different lights. Following the election of President Obama, many referred to our country as post-racial. That is an incredibly naïve statement for anyone to make. Nothing is post-racial. It was incredibly disheartening to see that even news reporters -- perhaps unconsciously -- treated the victims of the hurricane so differently.

Machiavelli Blog

It has become a commonly accepted doctrine that the shy do not make history. The bold, the powerful, and the initiators of social and progressive change incite a new course of history that happens for the better or for the worse. The decisiveness of a leader often provides the public with a foundational source of confidence and creates a figure that the political audience can look to as a marker of confidence and firmness. Because of how incredibly mutable the political system can be, the status of the political strength of a nation will always be facing many changes compressed into a short amount of time. Machiavelli’s decisiveness would serve a nation well in the face of all the conflict and indecision. The heart of a stern ruler will change based on his interactions with the people, because “love attaches men by ties of obligation, which, since men are wicked, they break when their interests are at stake” (52). His point coheres well with his statements never wanting to be friends with a strong ally, because you, as a leader will fall to the background as your strong political ally takes precedent. Stability is the first order of priority (30), and picking a side is mostly an issue of being pragmatic, because modern politics are not benefitted by a moderate viewpoint. In essence, the prosperity of the leader is directly correlated to the prosperity of the state, and the stability of the nation cannot reconcile with modern day democracy because of its mutable nature.

Is it always better to take the initiative in political life and political struggle? Does it cohere with Machiavelli's advice throughout the book?

In my personal opinion, to take chances is always good advice. However, to just go out and make a daring political decision is simple ignorance, rather one should take bold action after thoroughly thinking out their course of action. For instance, a person hoping to become a politician in the American system shouldn't (and can't) go out and mindlessly campaign; buying expensive time slots in a market that isn't truly one's target audience, make boundary pushing remarks about another candidate or the state of the constituency. To do this would be a waste of time, money, and opportunity. Instead, a well thought out course of action might bring about great results for both the individual running for office, or already in office, as well as the constituency. If a potential politician were to recognize a target audience and their needs, figure out a potential solution to these needs, and readily address the issues and communicating the potential politician’s message effectively, there may be a chance at victory. This victory may lead to a change of the entire realm of politics or even society as a whole- for the better. Taking chances can be an extraordinary thing for a political individual to do, it can lead to their rise in power, a benefit for society, and a change in the world for future generations.

Let's say some of the most respected politicians in history never took chances, what would have been the resulting world? For example, what if Obama decided in his own mind that he was too young to win the presidency or that his skin color would impede his progress in the political world? Had Obama not run for office, the current political landscape could be drastically different. There might not be the public option, a completion of an auto bailout that has helped some of those companies keep and create jobs, no rethought on Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc.

However, I believe that this section of Machiavelli's The Prince is in some ways a parachute for the entirety of his book. If one were to argue against any notion Machiavelli made, using an example of certain leader in a certain nation he could say that they only succeeded because of good fortune. Furthermore, I think he included this part in an effort to flatter Lorenzo de' Medici, by alluding to Medici that he has good fortune and is thus destined to succeed.

Is "fortune favors the bold" good advice? Does it cohere with Machiavelli's other pieces of advice throughout the book?

Machiavelli makes many broad, generalized statements that he claims are keys to political success. The importance of stability, the difficulty in trying to manage compassion and cruelty for the ruler’s subjects, and the impact of choosing allies are talked about frequently in “The Prince”. He also suggests that fortune favors the bold. While this may be true to an extent, it is NEVER intelligent to continually make the same decisions without taking the context of the situation into account. What is very wise one moment can be incredibly foolish the next, depending on the setting.

Machiavelli acknowledges this in his work. “… if one knew how to change one’s character as time and circumstances change, one’s luck would never change” (76) he writes. Machiavelli brought lots of concrete advice forward in the book, then advocated evaluating the situation to decide the next step forward.

It seems a little strange that Machiavelli continually brings up the idea of fortune and luck in his writing. Much of his advice is concrete and pragmatic, yet he writes, “I do think, however, that 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. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than those who proceed in a calculating fashion” (76-77). It does seem a little incongruous he puts so much stock in superstition, when the rest of the book is almost hyper-pragmatic and rational.

Near the end of The Prince, Machiavelli suggests that since fortune favors the bold, it is always better to take the initiative in political life and political struggle. Is this good advice? Does it cohere with Machiavelli's other pieces of advice throughout the book?

As I’ve stated in our blog before, I think it is far better for a politician or any similar public figure to avoid neutrality, and instead articulate opinions that the average member of the public can neatly file as liberal, conservative, or moderate. Voters prefer to see the concrete lines of peoples’ beliefs, for it allows them to recognize how closely their own views match those of candidates. For this reason, I believe Machiavelli offers reasonable and beneficial advice by advising a ruler to be bold in action and “resist fortune” to an extent. He states, “…I think it may be true that fortune determines one half of our actions, but that, even so, she leaves us to control the other half…” (74) Our own free will is not to be tampered with, according to Machiavelli. However, how we utilize our free will is up to debate. Machiavelli encourages future rulers to adopt firm stances, which demands boldness. Yet he also emphasizes the necessity to adapt, which requires an even greater measure of confidence.  Machiavelli comments, “…if one knew how to change one’s character as times and circumstances change, one’s luck would never change.” (76) It is this constant, chameleon-like change of character that concerns me; I certainly could not place faith in such a leader. In modern society, this kind of behavior would represent a red flag to voters. Of course, Machiavelli’s ruler lived in a different time, when subjects were expected to blindly follow rather than scrutinize a ruler’s every move and motive. I respect Machiavelli’s tribute to boldness, yet I believe that courage is better placed in solid, lasting conviction than in a litany of contradictory natures. 

Reflection 2

One of the most interesting parts of my week was seeing the cyber security exhibit in the Spy Museum. The issue of cyber security is an ever evolving issue that my generation will undoubtedly be forced to try to resolve.

What makes this entire issue so fascinating is the new definition of the enemy. No longer are we able to fight or track people, with technology we are fighting ideologies. How are security forces to go about tracking a moving thought? If people learned nothing from Inception they should at least take away the lesson that an idea is the most infectious thing. Viewpoints or orthodox dogmas might be able to spread at an astronomical rate, one that no technological invention can stop. The spread of dogma isn't necessarily a negative thing, it only becomes a bad thing when that dogma includes the hatred of a group of people. Some groups choose to act upon this hatred in extremely forceful ways (biological weapons, bombs, hijacking's, mass murders, etc).

The idea that these groups can grab hold of technology that could tear apart the infrastructure of a nation is frightening. With able minds, and an access to a capable computer or weapon, entire states could go without power. This could lead to a lack of water, electricity, heat, air conditioning, and communications. At the point of crumbling infrastructure government could no longer intervene because the ability to communicate is gone. Several questions thus arrive: how do we define our enemy? How do we go about protecting ourselves from the enemy? Do we have the ability to defend ourselves? Our government in the US and the world entirely need to realize the importance of this issue and its complexity. Governments should put cyber security at the front of their agenda, and citizens should be cautious as the the sites they visit online and what they do while on the internet.

Reflection 2

The best way to learn about a subject is always to study every viewpoint. Of course, everyone pretty much knew where they stood in terms of Machiavelli- emotions ranged from undying love to ambivalence to disgust at an “amoral culture”. The side I (unknowingly) ended up on dictated that Machiavelli was correct in his political dealings, and he was accurate in his methodology. Our strongest point came from his infamous idea: if people believe that you have their best interest in mind, you can deceive them for a set amount of time. The strongest point of conflict arose when the issue of pragmatism was brought up- is choosing sides truly pragmatic? Those in favor of Machiavelli argued that it was, but the argument that arose was strongly in favor of remaining on the fence brought up the question of political stagnation, and the cultivation of new ideas primarily arises from the emergence of ingenuity and innovation.
The concluding point of our discussion was possibly the strongest, and made me think the hardest about Machiavelli in today’s times. Because of how much the world has changed since the time of The Prince, the world and the politico-economic systems are forced to change along with it. If there is media attention that is forcing a political leader to act a certain way, and there is international scrutiny- I see Machiavelli accounting for all of those factors in his writing, and assuming that a leader will become something of a chameleon, and change along with the world around him or her. In Machiavelli’s eyes, as long as the end justifies the means, everything is in order. In other words, stability plays a vital role in determining how and in which way a leader should act, and by the end of class, the main new idea I left with revolved around the Machiavellian leader changing his or her policies accordingly to maintain stability.

Reflection #2

During our discussion of Machiavelli this week in class, I noticed how we consistently imagined the author in both his own time period and that of the modern world. There were pieces of advice that would be relevant to a contemporary politician, such as the recommendation to display conviction, and others that would best be ignored (killing off every last descendant of a former leader). However, chapter 18 caught my particular attention because of the way it depicts both rulers and “subjects.” Machiavelli advises a future ruler: “So you should seem to be compassionate, trustworthy, sympathetic, honest, religious, and, indeed, be all these things; but at the same time you should be constantly prepared, so that, if these become liabilities, you are trained and ready to become their opposites.” (54) To me, not only does this suggestion contradict Machiavelli’s denouncement of neutrality, it also guarantees political suicide. The individual described above by Machiavelli is today’s version of a flip-flopper, a politician who acts as a canvas to be painted upon rather than a mindful, opinionated person capable of defending original stances.

It seems to me that in Machiavelli’s time, the general populace did not hold rulers accountable, or perhaps feared to do so; as the author states, a true ruler of any merit would simply quell such opposition. However, in nations throughout the world today, citizens are expected to constantly question their leaders and the actions they take while in office. As I read Machiavelli, especially during the passage above, I couldn’t help but feel insulted. The author refers to his fellow citizens as a sort of deaf-and-dumb collection of dispensable peasants. They certainly aren’t citizens with the right to freedom of expression. Of course, the ruler in Machiavelli’s text has absolute power; his featured form of government is exceedingly different than American democracy, or any current form of leadership. Still, as a man who evidently cherishes his own voice in the political arena, he’s quick to deem the public voiceless and essentially useless to the state. 

Reflection

When I read Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” I found a lot of it really hard to like, but I also had to concede that he had a lot of practical, realistic advice, even though the text dates back to over 500 years ago. I liked that he continually talked about the “stability” of the nation, because that leads to the safety of many of his citizens, but I had serious issues with the fact that Machiavelli continually looked down upon his citizens and refused to give them any amount of respect.

One of the more fascinating topics in the book, for me, was Machiavelli’s compassion vs. cruelty argument. He writes, “… a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being called cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law-abiding, for it is more compassionate to impose harsh punishments on a few than, out of excessive compassion, to allow disorder to spread, which leads to murders or looting” (Machiavelli 51). In essence, he is arguing that too much compassion turns into cruelty because it leads to instability, while the right amount of cruelty keeps the citizens in line.

So where does this fit in with America? Do we impose “cruelty” on a select few in order to keep the general populace in line? Or are we too compassionate? On news programs every morning, there is a great deal of horrible, shocking crimes. Does the prevalence of these crimes imply too much so-called “compassion?” The murder rate in Washington DC stood at 186 people in 2008. The forcible rape statistic was the same – 186 people. On the flip side, the death penalty seems to be the ultimate act of “cruelty” that would keep the general populace in order.

Ultimately, I think Machiavelli’s lack of faith in fellow humans is the downfall in his argument. He constantly brings up the fact that the citizens cannot be trusted, because they are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (52). He truly believes that he has to condition behavior into his subjects through fear, and that this is the only way the nation will succeed. But he never takes into account the fact that most people crave stability and consistency, and the majority of people are not sociopaths who steal and kill. Machiavelli was certainly not someone who would ever believe this, but I’m glad that leaders in America are aware of this.