Reflection 15 :(

College! I can’t believe the first semester of college is over. Everyone wasn’t kidding when they said that these four years will fly by- we’re 1/8 of the way done and it felt like I just got here. I am so grateful for all the experiences and the opportunities that we were given as a UC- to visit great things that really let all of us witness the movers and shakers of Washington. The places we’ve gone are all really amazing collectively; seeing the Pentagon, going into the Newseum and Spy Museum...all just on a regular Wednesday. The discussions have really opened up my eyes to the happenings everywhere that have affected us so greatly on an international scale.

From actually being able to define something so broad as sovereignty to playing Diplomatic Risk and interpreting it as a microcosm for the real world...this has been a great experience overall. The people I’ve met and connected with have also greatly affected my time here- and made it all the more enjoyable. We really have bonded as a floor and I think it is in part due to the hard work of Gunperi and Erin. I have really been surrounded by people who care so much about what happens in the world and are fully capable of discussing world events and politics in a knowledgeable and intelligent manner. This upcoming semester will be even better because of how much we have learned and how strongly we can apply everything to daily life and new classes. Honestly, I cant wait.

Reflection

In light of the recent discussions about Thanksgiving and its rather cruel origins, I found myself looking a little more closely at where we stand in commemorating the actual meaning behind Thanksgiving. The common consensus at our dinner table on Thursday was that Thanksgiving is only celebrated so popularly because it is not tied in anyway to a religion so people have very few qualms about it. I found it odd that people generally agree that it is such a non-controversial holiday now because of political correctness, but it has foundations as one of the most controversial holidays- the essential wipe out of an entire people as a mechanism of racism and greed.

The setting in Horizons is similar to the feeling of newness that I felt when being brought out of the home I had grown up in. The personality changes that I experienced, the evolution of character I saw as I stayed with different people for different amounts of time and left others was clearly visible as circumstances and settings changed for me. The same is true of Horizons, because I essentially saw a struggle in myself to reform what I had previously identified as bad characteristics and traits in myself and keep the good characteristics. What choice did Ahni have in preserving certain characteristics of the previous life that he had known? Do you hand-pick the parts of humanity that you approve of now? Who is to decide the good characteristics (the keep-able ones) of humankind?

Reflection 13

The concept of othering is not new to me. I’ve dealt with othering as a minority, dealt with othering as a woman, and dealt with othering as an individual. Todorov’s concept of “othering” is not surprising to me- it explains the very core of why the Natives were separated completely and treated so poorly. The euro-centric view that plagued Columbus and his men is entirely representative of that era. We discussed in class the concept of political correctness, but I stand by my statement that I made during the discussion. The era of political correctness is relatively new. Stepping on people’s toes because of political incorrectness, and a lack of sensitivity shown towards the differences seen in others is an age-old thing because of how commonly accepted it was to view the white/patriarchal/capitalist society as normal. Any deviation from this norm was automatically regarded with caution and some degree of fear. As a Christian, I acknowledge the fact that there is some sort of hubris associated with historic events tied to the religion itself- a stubbornness to accept that other cultures simply have a different way of worship, and may not understand the concepts of a Savior that many Christians are indoctrinated with since birth. However, I feel as though the only reason I truly understand this is because of how politically correct I was raised to be. My parents would never tolerate any kind of bigoted or prejudiced statements, or excuse any sort of biased behavior because it’s simply the way I feel. Our society has moved almost to the opposite side of the spectrum, approaching political correctness almost as a religious rite and great sensitivity with the utmost care. We’d like to think we’ve progressed so far from the time of the conquistadors that we can write books that show utmost disdain for the actions against the Natives.

Blog 11

1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them. -Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

“Many Indians were running along the shore with two banners whih they raised and lowered, signaling us to approach; but the captain did not wish to....The Indians sent one of the canoes ahead to find out what we wanted. The interpreter told them we were looking for gold...The captain told them we did not want anything but gold.” Todorov goes on to say that the first interpreters were Indians, and the interpreter ay or may not have been accurately transmitting what he was told- because an issue of trust was undoubtedly a pivotal issue between two completely foreign entities. The Aztecs were not expected to know how to speak or answer, and the shouts by the Spaniards as orders or exclamations would later become a means of subjugation and colonization. Cortes was an incredibly smart conquistador- successfully manipulating the “caciques” and asking them questions about the state of Mexico and the conduct of war. Because of all these questions and extracted information, he was able to get an intimate understanding of the internal dissensions, and was then able to successfully act as conquistador.

The lasting impact of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is a source of great heated debate- the methods by which the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs was surely brutal and unwarranted. The welcoming nature with which the Aztecs greeted the Spaniards was purely religious- Queztalcoatl was supposedly a light-skinned god and the Aztecs believed that the visiting Spaniards could be a possible manifestation of this god. I agree with Todorov’s answer to the question of how the Aztecs were conquered by means of signs, because it was essentially through the manipulation of communication that the Spaniards were capable of robbing, cheating, and killing. The lack of communication between the Aztecs and Spaniards may not have been the issue- because they were in constant contact. Leaders of tribes were used as a means of representation for the entire people, but the Spaniards, painted in a negative light, undoubtedly used the miscommunication that happened between the Aztecan people and the Spaniards to their advantage. Unfortunately, the only way that they could effectively communicate with each other was through simple methods of sign language and using almost infant-like means of telling each other what they wanted and needed.

Reflection 12

The World Bank speaker brought up some interesting talking points to discuss in terms of world necessity and impoverished nations. I think the point that she hit on a lot was the fact that nations who have been brought out of economic depressions by the World Bank funds hopefully circle back and become a donator for other nations in the same situation, kind of a “pay-it-forward” deal. This discussion involving the financial resources comparatively and internationally fit neatly into our class discussion of poverty on a grander scale. The donations to charity that are made from relatively wealthier nations sometimes stem from a feeling of guilt and shame for having better fortune than others, for no real reason. From a personal point of view, there is no real reason as to why I was born into a family that will never (presumably) have the same fears as a family struggling in a third world country.

Unfortunately, the common American ideal is one of equality and justice for all- but how does that coexist peacefully with the image of a starving child in a nation across the globe? How do we, as those who are privileged, explain the discrepancy between income and opportunity gaps and still promote the same concepts of equality and justice? This is where the question of equality of opportunity. I think the better explanation for why we allow this to continue is because we believe in equality of opportunity- the misguided notion that we are all blessed with the same amounts of opportunity if you really, really try (hard enough, and if it doesn’t work, try harder). The reality is, sometimes you can’t work hard enough to pull yourself out of the societal rut that has plagued generations. The discussion of poverty in third-world countries is often accompanied by the discussion of development and the best course of action to remedy the situation that is often connected to (a lack of) infrastructure. Poverty is not an issue that can be remedied by simple guilt, but rather an entirely new perspective on charity and how giving should not be necessarily associated with guilt.

Blog 10

Inayatullah’s statements are based on the fact that some states are not adequately prepared for the burden of globalism and globalization, and others who have been through an exceptional period of state building and economic recovery are secure enough to be major players in the global arena and acquire wealth. The use of the word fair is subjective, because regardless of if this scenario is fair (presumably unfair for the nations who find themselves without the “upper hand”), the societal system that exists will most likely continue. There are certain instances, surely, when one nation is blessed with an abundance of resources and cannot help but rise to economic high standing because of exceptional exploitation of those resources. However, when deliberate choices are made not to exploit those resources and assist the economy in substantial ways, it becomes time to examine what is fundamentally wrong that prevented a nation from becoming a major player.

Take, for instance, the much debated Middle East. The region is rich in certain resources and allows for definite manipulation of prices in order to further economic pursuits. However, an authoritarian government and a consistently stagnant economy begs the question of if it is fair that a nation that should technically be what we’d consider wealthy because of how highly demanded their resource is, is a nation that is struggling significantly in the global arena. Seen from this point of view, economic success, in some cases, is actually the responsibility of the proprietor nation. Failure to capitalize on certain resources and allot a certain amount of attention to building a stable economy can only be regarded as a failure on the state’s part, and this will unfortunately work to the benefit of the other nations involved in international trade. The notion that a nation is not “adequately prepared” for a transition into a position of power and international recognition is a fair assessment. There are some nations who have not had important historical events that can prepare them for working globally, such as a large industrial boom or a series of stable economic policies that allow for some period of fiscal dominance or erasure of extreme fragility. Those nations who have not had this opportunity are automatically at a disadvantage and cannot be as economically viable.

Life isn’t fair. It’s just fairer than death, that’s all. ~William Goldman.

Reflection 11

I think the question of wealth is entirely relative. Circumstance, situation, and the surrounding people are entirely responsible for determining whether or not someone can classify himself as “wealthy” or “not wealthy”. Personally, I think that location is the most important factor of relativity. Internationally, surely incomes and definitions are subject to change to extreme degrees, but even domestically, the same thing fares true. The fact that there are so many Americans living below what we consider “the poverty line”, contrasts the issue of what we constitute poverty to be and what it may mean to someone who has grown up without any possibility of an education (public or otherwise) or has extremely limited prospects.

I recently began my new job of teaching with a company based out of Sacramento called Foundations for Education. When I got my handbook, the first rule they talked about revolved around incentives. It was really difficult to determine where the line was in terms of bribing kids and rewarding them for learning, but the first rule was to never, under any circumstances, reward the kids with any candy or food. However, the acceptable incentives that are legitimately allowed by my handbook revolve around tangible items like pencils and stickers. If that doesn’t speak of the materialism used to promote methods of education, I don’t know what will. Because I joined the program later, I became the unfortunate teacher who also doubles as Santa Claus. My kids rarely do any of the worksheets I assign if they don’t receive the promise of some amount of stickers or more break time during recess. Our kids are raised on a mantra of materialism, and a constant obsession with having more of anything, or more than the guy next door- without ever realizing that the wealth we’ve acquired is entirely dependent on the status of everyone around us.

Reflection 10

Why do we fear the culture of fear? The notion that our country is safer, that security is tighter...is overshadowed by the concept of a growing paternal government. The rights of state versus the rights of men can be an argument that lasts for ages, but when talking about terrorism and natural state conditions, the prioritization of the rights of state is second nature. I always go back to the same definition of terrorism and the intention of terrorizing a nation: kill few, harm more, scare thousands. I wanted to discuss a question that was brought up in class...what is the difference between terrorism and homicide? The recent death of Professor Marcum didn’t stop me from feeling safe walking around Tenleytown at night or making a late night CVS run alone. However, the metro terrorism threat did make me think twice (but didn’t stop me) when I went to the Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive. I was more aware of the surrounding atmosphere that was relatively fresh, and I did bear in mind that such a large gathering of people could be an ideal place for a terroristic act to take place.

I can’t believe that the difference in attitudes just stems from intention of the two, but I do think that it is a large part of the reason why we don’t feel threatened by the same things. However, I think that the main reason we don’t equate the two is primarily because of the priority we give it- we “know” it won’t happen to us. But wait- did those passengers on September 11^th ever think they would be the victims of one of the most historic terrorist attacks? We can’t know it won’t happen to us...and that is why a culture of fear is our greatest asset. Aware people, aware security, better and more thorough checks...there’s no reason to not feel safe (because it’ll never happen to you...).

Reflection 9

The work we did in the groups was really insightful and useful for application to the documents we had read on American national security. One of the largest problems that we faced in the 1950’s was the concept of the “rising tide”, or an uncontrollable communist rage that would eventually overtake the heroic democratic society. Francis Fukuyama wrote about “The End of History”, which follows the question and concept of liberal triumph and it was common for nations who had been successful to think that they have the greatest ability. Power, in essence, entails a subordination of others that is not self-critical or openly reflective. Russia was the source of the Cold War, so when FDR died and Truman entered, Russia could then have spheres of influence and create : a demand for friendships/trade, foreign policy support, no alliances with enemies. NSC invokes the concept of George Kennan’s “containment” and a very realist application of the containment doctrine (which differed from the Truman doctrine- talked about the need to scare US people and not wanting to spend money on foreign affairs).

The difference between the Truman and containment doctrine comes with the question of how humanitarian it was...but that’s a whole other discussion. When the document that is surrounded by such a large controversy is held up in comparison to the Obama document, there are issues raised in the latter (education, green technology) that aren’t mentioned in the first. One of the group discussion questions asked about the concept of “others”. Essentially, the “others” changed to any nation anti-war, anti-American. The War on Terror was far too broad of a topic to create any specific other, but the enemy definitely changed. The comparison of these documents was something that I needed to ground me in the middle of the furor raised by the midterm elections and all the different historical comparisons that happen during campaigns. It was important for me to remember the hysteria raised and remember that it was bred out of hysteria, and apply this knowledge to my voting in the upcoming elections.

What constitutes winning?

What does it mean for a nation to win? Life isn’t a board game, but it can be indicative of the challenges that the international community faces when several nations try to “win”. International recognition is important to most nations, as the way a country is portrayed in the global arena and the standing a nation has with others can be telling of how much a country has won. Economically, having a stable and functioning system that allows for competition and free markets can be beneficial and opening trade can create a surplus that can mandate “winning”. I think the basis of any nation being able to claim that they have “won” revolves around the concept of having a solid foundation and balance throughout all aspects of the social, political, and economic areas. There is no substantive way to measure if a nation has won, but numbers and figures like GDPs and growth rates create a numerical calculation to determine the degree to which an economy is thriving.

I find it hard to say anything definitively in terms of a nation winning because whether or not a nation wants to be received well in the international community is entirely their prerogative. The most ironic thing is if a nation feels as though it is “winning”, sometimes that is the highest peak of a nation’s “winning streak”.

What else, except ignorant bliss, does a nation need to believe in except itself? The nation I’m thinking of here is North Korea..who I’m sure understands the weaknesses it has and surely the little international recognition it receives. However, the way they function is truly indicative of a nation that believes that they are doing the best thing possible for itself, and accepts little to no criticism. Surely they don’t consider themselves a losing nation, but does the fact that few nations agree with that premise matter to them? Or is it just a matter of how confident a nation is within itself to pursue international goals? Influence surely plays a part in the role of a nation “winning”, because there is no way a nation can be forceful internationally without having some sway over the decisions of others, and the capability to back itself up if it decides to go against what other nations feel. So my definition of winning has clauses sucha s this: a nation has “won” so long as it believes in full faith that it can have some form of persuasion and respectable opinion in the eyes of the global arena.

Reflection 8

Diplomatic Risk was an excellent “lab experience”. I think that the strategy involved apt use of several theories and collaborative work with other Heads of State, and the transfers of power showed realistic negotiations that would have taken place had it been an actual coup. I was on the red team, and we were really thrown off by the creation of the brown state and the transfers of land and forces that happened when the yellow state was kicked to the lonely island of Papua New Guinea. Because we’ve been learning about all these theories involved in International Relations and the way that a constructivist/realist/liberal would act in certain situations, it was interesting to see that no country really follows any theory to the letter. Often times what I saw was a blend of all three theories and no real general disregard for other nations. The movement from alliance to neutrality to war was very realistic as it was precipitated when the blue state hegemon waged war. Although wars are surely determined by much more than the roll of dice, I believe that so many factors in war are actually left to chance that certainly impact the outcome of a war and how troops are affected.

Salome was also a great experience for me. It’s a little known fact that I’ve sang opera for about 8 years and have performed, so going to the opera and being in the audience was one of the coolest things for a change in perspective. I thought that the story line was a little weird and kind of crazy, because Salome herself seemed to be a little troubled, but other than that, but from a performance perspective- I thought that the entire thing was executed fabulously. The talented actors and actresses were convincing and had beautiful voices, and I stayed engaged the entire time. I was thankful for the great seats we got, right in the orchestra section, because that definitely allowed me to see things that seats further back couldn’t (like the actual blood like substance that kept being flung around from the prophet’s head). Some of the German jokes were lost on me, because I didn’t understand until later the pun between Tetrarch and Tetrarsh...but the dramatic aspects of the opera made it an experience that I never will forget. The Kennedy Center is certainly a gorgeous venue and I will always love attending swank functions that allow me to get really dressed up and join members of society who do this kind of thing on just a regular Tuesday night. I hope to do it again sometime!

Reflection 7

The simulation was not what I expected it to be. In all of our preparation and talking and brainstorming, I did not anticipate the stressful situation that followed having someone try to break down the basic tenets of our proposition. As part of the Sierra Club, we took a little different approach than what would have normally been expected, because we had a focus on preserving American jobs and preserving the environment at the same time. We were able to back up our claims with actual facts, which adds credibility, but extemporaneously speaking has never been my forte, and probably never will be. The preparation that went into my concluding speech seemed a little lost on me it was pointed out that we took the most unconventional approach possible for the Sierra Club.

However, I enjoyed having the opportunity to apply theory and fact together and come up with a solution to a problem that could actually present itself to the US government. Learning about the diesel and hybrid models out there and comparing/contrasting the two offered insight I didn’t know would be so useful, but I discussed it with my dad (who candidly already knew everything I thought I could teach him) and it was nice to learn about something that I never really took the time to explore before. The president made an interesting comment about “multi-modal literacy”, and how in 2050, if we’d want to know how to present our ideas...we’d have to become completely fluent in multi-modal literacy. I thought this was a really eloquent way of putting something that talks about a constantly mutable and changing society that is garnering different techniques to reach new audiences in different ways. This speaks to our World Politics class, as Skyping via classroom is actually a viable option. All in all, I think that the minor simulation taught me several things; how camera shy I am, what kind of adrenaline rush you get from having exactly 2 minutes to talk about something you know you can ramble on for hours about, and putting yourself in a pressurized situation and coming out just fine. :)

Reflection 6

Time management: a concept lost upon this nap-obsessed college student. I make list upon list upon list, but the actual act of starting and finishing work within a set period of time is absolutely abstract to me. This week’s lab, and actually seeing my days mapped out (or lack of mapping) showed me how plentiful my naptime is, and how I work in short spurts of time. I really needed a session like this because of how eye opening it was. I rarely find time to just reflect on what my work ethic is and how focused I am in terms of dealing with work and handling my different activities. I also have been to the library a lot since I got there, and I am sort of ashamed to admit that I also thought that they only had research materials so it was fantastic news to hear that they have a fiction section so I can have downtime reading in the library.

As for class, I wanted to comment on the fact that the entire discussion revolved around the points that were made and clarified by students alone. Usually there is some part of the question that is expounded upon Professor Jackson, and that ends up driving most of the discussion because the statements become more controversial as they are more detailed. The fact that the discussion kept going, and everything that was said spurred another comment reflects for itself- we can really discuss anything. The question of why we named hurricanes created so much different schools of thought from pure classification purposes to driving the pathos and ethos associated with donations for relief funds. I thought that the summarization of the theories was helpful because it forced me to think from different points of view, and I needed the opportunity to compare and contrast all the IR theories against each other on the same issue.

The student-run discussion created some really interesting points about the people who are disenfranchised or feel like they have no real say in the government- often times they go to extreme measures to be a recognized entity by the world, and to be viewed as an actual viable threat. Through the end of the class, I was thinking about why this is; how many times does the international community need to be hit with bricks to understand how serious terroristic threats are? The answer would be too complex: thousands of terrorist groups have risen over the years, but only a few can actually become organized and be so intricately woven into a society it becomes a social norm of sorts, and if every threat was taken seriously, no real work would ever be accomplished. I just find it incredibly sad that so many wake-up calls need to happen in order for a terrorist organization to be taken seriously, and more terrorists feel like this “rite of passage” is now an expectation in order to prove themselves as actual threats. I remember the quote from the Spy Museum: What’s the purpose of terrorism? To kill hundreds, injure thousands, scare millions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.