Incompatible Perspectives

There’s nothing we can do about the incompatibility between perspectives. Conflicting viewpoints are inevitable and unavoidable. There can’t be a “right” and “wrong” with respect to IR theories because every theory has its strengths and every theory has its weaknesses. Realism focuses on the defense of a nation backed by pessimistic reasoning. Is it an accurate statement then that no one is trustworthy, or that self-interest is always at the heart of every state’s actions? While there may certainly be times to be particularly cautious of other states’ intentions, this does not apply for every situation. Also, where do human rights fit in to the realist perspective? They seem to be left out…Does this make realism wrong or just ill-equipped to deal with issues regarding human rights? There are always exceptions to ways of addressing issues and to ways of thinking about issues. There can never be a set way to deal with everything because the variables of any given situation are never constant. So, we can’t choose one theory to live by and deem it “the best.” All theories focus on different aspects of the international system – security and power, global cooperation, and social change and intersubjectivity – all of which need to be applied at the appropriate times.

Often states do not act in a “pure” liberal/realist/constructivist fashion but rather adapt their theories to meet the needs of the situation at hand. For example, many argue that the United States acted outside liberal fashion in their quick decision to send troops overseas after 9/11. It doesn’t mean that liberalism suddenly became the wrong way to address a problem. Instead it demonstrates how certain conditions call for certain actions and in said circumstance, the United States had reason to act in a manner some may call "uncharacteristic."

Blog 6—

Just as World Politics is composed of different IR theories attempting to explain how international politics works, or how it should work, so too do these theories attempt to explain an international institution like Bretton Woods. Looking at IR as a whole, it is clear that not every state or individual with tangible influence in the system is in agreement with what philosophy is the best, and therefore each practices a different flavor of theory. The same could be true about how the different theories interact with international institutions. Is it possible that the three different premises could work harmoniously to achieve a general positive outcome? Or when the three IR theories are combined are their diversions simply too sharp to reconcile?

There is proof that they are in some way compatible because few, if any, of the current international institutions are homogenous in their IR views. Separate states enter with undeniably separate identities and many times unique goals and intentions, creating a sort of melting pot of IR thought. In these situations what ends up happening is that there is a majority or general consensus on how the institution is going to be run. The theory the institution operates under is not necessarily strictly one philosophy or another, but it is the ideology best fit for the organization; or at least that is the intention. In order for a state to enter into an international institution and experience any level of success, they are forced to concede some part of their views because these organizations are inherently based on cooperation and frequent compromise. A Hobbesian realist would be hard put to adhere to these standards of institutional involvement, which is one of the reasons why realists have an expressed disdain for these organizations.

Entering into an international institution like Bretton Woods brings radical realists or liberals back from the fringes of IR thought, into a situation that is more conducive to cooperation. Bretton Woods has a more liberal feel to the organization because it has a focus in installing a fair monetary measure for all states involved. However, there is also the realist aspect of states being interested in achieving the best value for their currency. Each institution is a conglomerate of ideas because if it were simply one theory it wouldn’t be a whole. There are gaps in realist, liberal, and constructivist thinking, and international institutions use each to subsidize the shortcomings of the others.

Reflection: America's Image

Seeing the promotional videos of America made me reflect upon the image we, as Americans, present of our country and the way in which it is perceived by outsiders. One of the welcome videos depicted America as the land of the green rolling hills where food is plenty and happiness is known to all. But really, how realistic is this? As Kate pointed out, campaigns deliberately show the best aspects of a given focus and intentionally avoid others…this is expected; it’s just how it works. But then who decided that what was portrayed in the video are the best aspects of America? I think a large part of American life was left out is the freedoms that encourage self expression and creativity.  If our country prides itself on its melting pot of diverse ethnicities, races, and religions, and on the uniqueness of individuals, then why weren’t these pieces present in the video? The only suggestions of diversity consisted of separate snapshots of different races and ethnicities. I don’t recall any reference to the arts and if there was one then it wasn’t memorable. Even a scene of New Orleans would have been testament to the rich culture of music and expression of originality present in the states. Also, I can understand the exclusion of religious elements or references to sexuality in a promotional video, because both are sensitive areas, but what about the handicapped?  Does our video welcome the disabled? Overall I think the video displayed a very bland, homogenized group of people that all seemed pretty superficial to me.

Reflection 5

I do believe reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is a controversial and important topic. I have discussed this in classes in the past, and it seems to me like most people have the same opinion in that it doesn't seem to be a big issue. The reason I think it is is that from the time children are 4 or 5 years old, they are taught the words of the pledge of allegiance and are told that they have to say it every day. The idea that children have to pledge their allegiance to a country is frankly, in my opinion frightening. It is almost as if by not pledging allegiance to the country, they might grow up to not be proud of the country, or believe that a different form of government is suitable. When I started elementary school in New York in 3rd grade after just moving there from England, what the pledge of allegiance actually meant never occurred to me. it wasn't until 9th grade that I realized what I was actually saying when I recited the pledge of allegiance, and also that I was pledging allegiance to a country that wasn't my country. So I stopped saying the pledge. Every day, for a year and a half, I was bullied because I didn't say the pledge of allegiance. Two guys who were in my homeroom would shout at me to say the pledge every day and call attention to it. People would stop me in the hallway to ask me why I didn't say the pledge every morning. In the end, I was forced to say the pledge every day because it became a huge problem. I was being bullied for not participating in something which was not relevant to me. I do not have a problem with the action of reciting the pledge; I have a problem with being forced to recite it like I was.

I also was very surprised by the "This is Alabama, we speak English" ad. To a certain extent, I did believe there were still people in this country who were anti-immigration and to some extent, prejudiced against foreigners, but I didn't realize that an ad like this could represent a significant amount of people.

Reflection 5—

The pledge of allegiance has garnered a bad reputation; it has become an enormously controversial institution in the United States. The fact of the matter is that it is not that controversial and not that important. There is the “under God” portion of the pledge, which is understandably divisive, but how much does that actually matter? If you don’t believe in God then don’t say “under God.” The pledge of allegiance by its nature is a personal pledge to your country, and if you don’t think that your country is omnisciently governed then omit that part; the words still flow quite nicely. The day that your government starts installing camera’s in every elementary school to see if each child is mouthing the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, is the day where you can be upset about it.

However, the crux of the dilemma with the pledge is that if people are upset with their government they refuse to say it. Where are the words “congress, president, government, vice president, cabinet, governor,” or any other word relating to contemporary government officials in the pledge? Hint: there aren’t any, so stop complaining about the pledge because you have a problem with George Bush or think a democratic majority in congress “sucks.” If every morning in your first period in high school you’re exhausted from staying up until 2am the night before playing Modern Warfare 2 and you don’t feel like standing up because you’re having trouble keeping your eyes open, then by all means stay seated. But if you stay in your seat as a pitiful act of ignorant protest against a pledge that promotes the ideals of “liberty and justice for all,” then maybe you should move to Canada.

Blog post 5

About the question of wether there are things states can and can't do based on social norms and expectations, Of course their are certain things states cannot do. Every state is subject to the judgements of other states, and not to mention international law, on every action they take at both an international and domestic level. If a state believes that another state is doing wrong by another state, or by it's people, it has been common in the past for that state to intervene when the situation proved to be unresolvable in any other way.

One good example is with genocide. Starting with the Nazi genocide on Jews, Homosexuals, and other minorities during world war II, there have been several other genocides in the past sixty years. Genocide is such an international outrage because the state itself, rather than protecting it's people, is killing off the people it deems undesirable. Even so, Genocide is a really tricky issue. It is really tricky to tell if Genocide is actually going on. One example is the controversial Turkish-Armenian genocide. According to Armenians, the Turks commited genocide against them in the World War 1 period. It is believed that there were 25 concentration camps, and that the death toll was somewhere near 1.5 million. Armenians are constantly fighting to have the genocide recognized by other countries. But the Turks insist that a Genocide never took place, there is nothing in the governmental archives about it, and in fact even accusing Turkey of genocide is against the law in Turkey. So when hearing two very different stories from both sides, it is very hard to tell wether or not something actually happened, thus making Genocide a really tricky topic.

Another issue, which seems to give everyone the chills when it comes up, is the production of Nuclear Weapons. The Cold War left the world forever fearful of the power of Nuclear weapons, after the Cuban missile crisis had everyone fearing for the end of the world. And according to the Center for Defence Information (http://www.cdi.org/) the US alone could possibly have enough Nuclear weapons to destroy the world, and they have since reduced their Nuclear Arsenal greatly. So it is natural that when you hear of another country developing a Nuclear Weapon, for example the current situation with North Korea, The rest of the world goes crazy over it. Right now even the US is highly concerned with the possibility of North Korea developing a Nuclear weapon, and are intervening to try to put an end to it. This has also happened with Iraq and Iran in the past; President George W. Bush was even suspected of falsely giving information of WMD's in Iraq to convince the Senate to invade. The development of nuclear weapons is almost prohibited on the world stage.

State Actions and Social Standards

With regards to the international system, there are most definitely actions that states should not take because they would be deemed unacceptable by social standards.

States should not attack or declare war on countries without reason. If one state were to invade another state and steal resources or kill their people without any justification, this would be unacceptable among social norms. Our social norms and expectations are based on morals and ethics; we expect states to act with honesty and integrity, to be fair and act rationally, and to work diplomatically with one another.    

In addition, states should not violate human rights. Violations would include genocide, torture, slavery, and rape, among other things. Certain basic rights apply universally and social expectations say that human rights must be upheld by justice, tolerance, and human dignity.

Blog 5—

On the international playground there are certain things that you just don’t do. You don’t throw woodchips at a girl, you don’t push you’re friend off the slide, you don’t hang on the monkey bars so long that nobody else gets a turn. Constructivists are correct in their assertion that there are certain unalienable social norms, inherent to the theatre of International Relations. These norms simply are more developed than what we consider to be social norms today. Instead of covering your mouth when you cough, there is International Law. Instead of holding the door open for people, there is the idea of War Crimes. When these generally accepted rules are broken, instead of awkward laugher, there are sanctions, indictments, and sometimes wars. The idea of humanitarianism is a widely recognized ideal throughout the world; it is something that states are expected to adhere to. However, just like social norms, international norms are not followed by everyone, but there is a strong incentive for states to follow them because, lets face it, nobody wants to be the guy who sneezes in his girlfriends face.

The reality of social norms can hardly be taken in a realist perspective as an agent of self-interest or furtherance of power. By the nature of a social norm, it is something that is restrictive. Norms or rules disallow or discourage people and states to act in their natural ways. A state has an instinctive drive to both expand and protect itself, and many times these social norms prevent states from becoming aggressive and taking measures to ensure their safety. For example, England or France do not set up military bases all over the U.S. because they are our ally, and it is a indisputable norm to trust your friends. Those European countries would certainly benefit both offensively and defensively by having bases in America, but their presence is limited because distrusting an ally could be considered “bad form.” International Law is not necessarily arbitrated throughout the world in as severe of a way as a set of laws would generally be adhered to, and that is because it is based on a general acceptance of what is right and wrong throughout the international community.

These norms are a function of our human commonality and serve an important purpose in the preservation of world order. Norms are constantly subject to change depending on the circumstances and hen these norms are violated there can be consequences. When penalties are imposed they redefine the limits and boundaries of what is acceptable in IR.

Reflection 4- In the comparison between realism and liberalism that we have been exploring in the last two weeks, I have found myself conflicted by the rationality of both arguments, however, there is one commonality that both theories recognize which is indicative as to which theory is superior. The assertion by realists that the primary obligation of a state, in terms of international relations, is to uphold their sovereignty or survival is undeniably true. Liberalists attempt to refute this, but the immutable certainty is that if a state has no power or any other aspects of sovereignty within their borders, they cease to be a state and all other parts of IR are essentially moot. However, in the realist haste to “over-preserve” the state, and their preoccupation with the balance of power, they overlook some key characteristics of a state that make autonomy worthwhile. By interacting with other nations as hostile entities, simply bargaining for economic and military dominance, realists lose sight of the rationality behind having a co-dependant relationship. Realists completely discount the idea of trade as mutually beneficial and instead depend on the idea of comparative trade benefits. Liberals are of the mind that trade that stimulates two states’ economies doesn’t only benefit the internal workings of each state, but also works to foster a positive reliance between the two that is conducive to peace. Each theory has some of the greater picture of IR, but when they are put together, a more sophisticated and complete philosophy begins to emerge.

However, because America is all about being on one side or the other, there is a clear victor in the debate of Realism vs. Liberalism. The Prisoner’s Dilemma Model demonstrates this. The fact that if two states both practice realism they end up as a 3,3 which is not beneficial for either, that indicates that it is the lesser theory. With Liberalism, the two states would land on 2,2 which is the best option possible if you take both of the states’ bests interests into consideration. Therefore liberalism is the stronger of the two IR theories that we have addressed thus far.

Reflection 4

This week was a very interesting week for me, especially our discussion on friday about wether or not uninformed or misinformed people should be allowed to vote. I discussed this in my very first blog post, because I do consider the power of the voter to be a major issue in world politics, in the way that uninformed or misinformed people can misrepresent the voices of the people by possibly not being able to represent themselves based on true facts. This is particularly important in the United States, because the people in this country are voting on things that effect the entire world. It is also something I feel very strongly about, as I feel like I am a pretty well informed person, but as I am not an american citizen, my opinion doesn't count, but someone who is uninformed's opinion does. But I gained a little more insight into the issue on friday and the opinions of my peers, which I found interesting.

I do admit that at first, I wasn't sure where the discussion was going, because we were talking about the issue, but not exactly how to fix it. I was surprised to find that some people believed that uninformed and misinformed people should be kept separate from the rest of the population. Although I respect their opinions, I strongly believe that as opposed to keeping these people separate from the rest of the voting population, we should do what we can to transform uninformed and misinformed people into informed people, thus fixing the problem and further representing the masses. If we attempt to separate the informed and the not informed, we begin to draw lines that aren't necessarily very clear. You need to start thinking about what an informed person is, and how you are going to determine wether someone is informed or uninformed. In the end the entire process becomes costly and detrimental to the system, and even possibly could create social divides between the informed and uninformed, which is very dangerous. For this, it would probably be a better idea to educate rather that separate, or rather segregate as it might eventually become.

Ignorance vs. Apathy

Although this question is academic, what it really boils down to is the choice of whether it is better to have citizens who are ignorant or citizens who are apathetic.

Ignorant voters may not be aware of the candidates’ campaigns in detail, or of the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s arguments, but at least they have some desire to take an active role in their government. If they didn’t, then they wouldn’t be going out to vote. To put it simply, apathetic citizens just don’t care at all and doing nothing about the affairs of our nation is a waste of the freedoms we are granted in the United States. I would most definitely favor having voters who may lack formal knowledge in the political arena but show an interest in the business of our state, than citizens who demonstrate no desire to be involved whatsoever.   

In addition, I value the importance of citizens contributing to the society in which they live. Even if they are voting ignorantly, they are nevertheless engaging themselves in the democratic process. Citizens need to feel that their voice is being heard and know they have a vote.

Lastly, it is highly unrealistic for anyone to be completely uninformed; everyone has some knowledge of something. Even if they are voting based on shallow reasons, (which happens with voters, ignorant or not) at least they are participating in the democratic system our country prides itself on. Thus, they are fulfilling the role of an active citizen, which is the core of our democracy. 

Therefore, the question whether it is “better to have an uninformed vote than no vote at all” cannot be answered in such terms. Rather, it comes down to whether we want our citizens to be active participants, regardless of their potential lack of knowledge, or completely uninterested in the business of our government.

Democracy is the strength of our nation and my vote is that everyone needs to be a part of it.  

Reflection on Liberalism Discussion

I would like to respond to a question brought up in today’s discussion.

“Would a liberalist state be more effective in dealing with issues of national sovereignty than a realist one?”

Liberalists tend to be optimistic. They strive for cooperation among nations, aim for negotiation instead of war, and look for mutual benefits.

Realists tend to be pessimistic. They view the global community as a constant power competition. As Machiavelli emphasized repeatedly, maintaining security is of the upmost importance because the international system is, according to him, dangerous. And as Machiavelli points out, you can’t trust anyone. These realist principles create an environment of tension and paranoia.

Liberalists would most definitely be effective in dealing with issues of national sovereignty because their goal is to reach an agreement through negotiation and to avoid fighting when possible. Liberalists also approach everything with rationality. Because of interdependence, sovereign states often choose to cooperate and recognize the importance of inter-state relations.  Liberalists would much rather address a conflict with the intentions of a positive outcome because they wouldn’t want to lose a neighbor who provides valuable resources.

Another question that was brought up in class was, “Can the United States be considered a liberal state when only 9 days after the 9/11 attacks President Bush announced plans to send troops overseas?”

Some people argued that liberalists are generally slow to make decisions and that this was a rather speedy action on part of the United States. People also voiced their opinions that what drove the decision to send troops overseas was ignited emotion and that a large part of the fear, shock, and anger among Americans was stirred by the media.  Was this U.S. action driven by emotion as opposed to rational thought? Although the media may have contributed to public sentiment, I do not believe it was the sole factor in support for the war.  

We must consider the basis for this decision. Liberals advocate cooperation and open dialogue among international actors. However, cooperation is a two way street. In an extreme case where our nation suffered a direct attack on its people, the necessity to act more quickly became greater.  Therefore, I maintain that the government’s relatively quick decision to send troops overseas was not a shift away from liberalist policy, but rather a power that has been consented to by the people through a constitution.

Blog 4-

Judging whether an uninformed vote is superior to not voting is dependant on the situation in which the vote is cast. Routinely, an uninformed voter is not completely ignorant of all the aspects of the issue or person they are voting on. Also with every election there are multiple things that are decided, some of which a voter could have an opinion on. For instance, a voter may have no knowledge or attitude towards a senatorial race, but still has an informed vote to cast on a proposition or initiative. Therefore if that voter were to be considered “uninformed” and fail to vote, their opinion wouldn’t be considered. An argument can be made that if a voter doesn’t know about an issue they should just skip that section, which is completely acceptable, but there is something about having a completed ballot that is satisfying to many people, regardless if it a fully informed ballot, which explains why citizens continue to have input into issues that they don't know about. There are also two other circumstances where an uniformed vote is better than no vote. Generally if there are uninformed votes cast, they are not in proliferation because if voters don’t know anything about an issue, driving, waiting, and voting aren’t worth their time. Many times if a large amount of uninformed votes are cast, they tend to cancel each other out through chance, which makes these votes harmless but conversely could spark interest in politics for the uninformed, or shed some light on a candidate or issue for the voter.

However, uninformed voting is detrimental when large amounts of voters do things like vote for the first person listed in a given section, because then the election is partially determined by the alphabet, rather than the qualifications of the candidate. This is why the debate over uninformed voting is circumstantial, because it is difficult to determine which situations are conducive to a mere increase in political participation, and which results are skewed based on irrelevant factors.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum... and Beyond

The cyber war deals with information that can be stolen through the electromagnetic spectrum which surrounds us everywhere. This includes mobile communication and broadcasting through the radio and television, both of which are occurring at every moment. The more connected we are, the more powerful terrorists become. Our increased global power, wealth, and improved technology are contributing to our rising vulnerability and making us the ideal target.



Even though we have impressive military forces, dynamite aircraft carriers, destructive tanks, and other heavy weapons, the opposing forces we are facing are attacking with a new kind of power- one that consists of breaking into security codes and hijacking what we thought were secure sources of information.


This exhibit at the International Spy Museum raised my awareness of the threats of cyber attacks and made me question what our government is doing to help protect us against such attacks. As emphasized in the video, the central aim of intelligence is to be prepared. Even President Obama recognizes that we are not as prepared as we should be, and if this is the case, then how will we address this issue in the 21st century?

Reflection 3

Learning about the concept of Hegemony this week helped me to see the US global position as it is. I had never actually put thought into the fact that the US is the modern Hegemon, though I cannot understand why. The US, economically and politically, is the most important and influential country in the world. People in Romania may not be able to tell you who the current President of South Africa is, but they can tell you who the president of the United States is, how long he has been in office, and probably the last important political action that took place in the US. The US economic determines the economic status of the entire world. As the US fell into deep recession in the fall of 2008, eventually the whole of Europe fell into an even deeper recession.

In all honesty, it is quite scary that a single country could have such a big influence on the world. In the past, as stated by Christopher Layne in "The Unipolar Illusion Revisited," other states have challenged a Hegemonic state and tried to balance out the power. These attempts have always succeeded, but it has been twenty years since the end of the Cold War, when the two dominant powers were the US and the USSR, and no one has challenged the US yet. An interesting point was brought up in class the other day, that maybe China is stepping up and challenging the US's power. I believe that this is very possible, but that China will not pose a huge threat until it can fix some of its internal problems, like population growth.

Reflection 3

The idea of U.S. hegemony is a surprisingly terrifying topic. The United States has extended its influence to the corners of the globe, which although that promotes high levels of prosperity at home, it also creates many tangible dangers. By intervening in such a large number of international affairs, many times uninvited, the U.S. makes enemies. The realist theory of basically every state for itself brings into question the idea of a successful hegemony. Although it is undeniable that the U.S. promotes peace and democracy as a catch phrase around the world, when it engages in mediation, inevitably one side of the argument leaves with a bad taste in their mouth. Therefore one side of the negotiations has negative U.S. sentiments. In regards to the side that was most assisted, despite the fact that the U.S. helped them in a conflict, if we adhere to realist theory, eventually that state will owe nothing to America and once again view its own interests as paramount.

Hegemony promotes economic wealth and national security, but only for a certain amount of time. Regardless of how benevolent the hegemony is or seems to be, eventually it becomes overbearing on friendly states, and those states begin to rally for repossession of their full sovereignty. The fact is that empires fall. In the history of humanity there has not been any empire that has endured from its convocation until today, therefore none has been able to withstand the test of time. For the United States it is only a matter of time before world politics reverts to a more natural bipolar or multipolar state of being, and we as Americans have no way of knowing how or when that will happen, and that is why last Friday scared the crap out of me.

Blog Post #3

Machiavelli's The Prince was essentially the guide to ruling a country for the Renaissance age sovereign. In my opinion, the methods suggested in The Prince were brilliant for the time that they were created. In the 16th century, Absolutism was on the rise and the majority of european states were in a constant struggle for land and power. The methods suggested by Machiavelli, as immoral as they may seem sometimes (on pg. 17 Machiavelli explains that the only certain way to hold power over a newly acquired territory is to kill all the citizens and destroy it, then start from scratch), were the best ways to rule a country for the time period.

But we are no longer in the 16th century, we are in the 21st, and it is obvious that the world and its governments don't rule the same way as before. Absolutism is no longer the predominant form of government, and modern european monarchies have little power in comparison to their countries parliaments. Today, the predominant political structure of the main powers of the world are Democratic or Socialist, and Machiavelli clearly states that The Prince is on ruling Principalities, not Democracies. And frankly, if President Obama or Prime Minister Cameron went around taking over countries and killing its inhabitants to establish their power, the UN and the world would be in an uproar. Also, today the political and territorial structure of Europe and the US is a lot more stable, and the threat of a sudden change of government or invasion is minimal. This makes many of the ideologies present in The Prince redundant.

However, there might be one or two pieces of advice that could be useful to heads of state today. For example, the latter portion of The Prince talks about how a ruler has to find balance between two qualities in order to be a good ruler, for example, generosity and parsimony. A head of state today would not be able to tax heavily without a huge uproar, but they would also not be able to give huge tax cuts as well, because if tax cuts were given equally, the citizens would not like having to pay more taxes again. Even so, overall The Prince is a little to outdated to todays political structure.

Macchiavelli in the Contemporary World

The belief that rulers must do whatever it takes in order to maintain power will not always ensure the success of a ruler. With regards to President Barack Obama, his power is secured through the political form of government, democracy. In a democracy, power is derived from the people. In Machiavelli’s world, power is to be gained and utilized solely by the ruler. In Machiavelli’s world, the people essentially have no power. In fact, they are supposed to live in fear of their ruler (hopefully love and respect will accompany this fear, but is not guaranteed) and know their place in society. In a democratic system, like that of the United States, there is a certain expectation among citizens for their rulers to do what is in the best interest of the nation. This concept greatly conflicts with Machiavelli’s principles. Machiavelli is not always concerned with what is best for his state, but rather, his prime concern is what is best for his power, for his rule, for his legacy. His advice repeatedly emphasizes a ruler’s authority, a ruler’s necessity to be secure in power, and a ruler’s reputation. For example, “A wise ruler will seek to ensure that his citizens always, no matter what the circumstances, have an interest in preserving both him and his authority.” (34), “No ruler is secure unless…,” “So a ruler must not have all the positive qualities, but he must seem to have them.” (55), “Ensure that whatever he does it gains him a reputation as a great man, a person who excels.” (68). Clearly, the interests of Machiavelli’s ideal ruler contrast significantly with those of a democratic leader.
There are certain aspects of Machiavelli’s advice that would be beneficial for rulers to follow. To begin with, it is important to maintain support of your subjects for many reasons. Loyalty and respect will lessen the likelihood of an uprising against you. Most importantly, cooperation between subjects and ruler will enable efficiency when working towards a common goal. Another aspect of Machiavelli’s advice that I believe should be followed by rulers is to avoid being hated by your subjects. Hatred breeds tension, disunity, discord, and fighting- all of which should be avoided.


There are also aspects of Machiavelli’s advice that I do not believe rulers should follow under contemporary conditions. Machiavelli states, “People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge, but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.” (9). He also advises, “If you take control of a state, you should make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once. That way you will not have to commit new atrocities every day, and you will be able, by not repeating your evil deeds, to reassure your subjects and to win their support by treating them well.” Rulers should not be planning how to “injure” their subjects, nor should they commit “evil deeds,” regardless of how they will compensate in the future.

Blog 3-- Machiavelli paints a portrait of a ruler who must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his (and for Machiavelli, it's always "his") power. Is this an accurate portrayal of contemporary ruling elites? Should rulers follow Machiavelli's advice, even under contemporary conditions?

Within the constraints and ideals of a democratic world, the Machiavellian style of rule is neither conducive to peace nor social justice. Conversely, governmental systems that are oppressive tend to be more representative of Machiavellian ideals, particularly concerning the more violent aspects of his ideology. The side of Machiavelli’s theory that remains prevalent in politics throughout the world is the cultivation of a both noble and intelligent image.

In the U.S. it is undeniable that an important part of any politicians campaign is promoting a public image that citizens will either respect or relate to. Americans look to the President as a good representation of maintaining a public image in a way that Machiavelli would condone; in the case of President Obama, it is accurate to say that he has established a perception of himself as a remarkable human being, much like a prince would have to do. However, in a democratic society there is not the promotion of a leader as a deity, or a being of superior moral construction. Unfortunately in some cases this thesis doesn’t hold true, for example Glenn Beck’s self-promotion as a savior of American freedoms and all of the people who believe that to be true. Despite this, like Machiavellian theory, the idea of a strong public image is very important.

The prime example in modern politics of a ruler who typifies Machiavellian principles is Kim Jong Il. He has power and glory, he is a lion and a fox, he is feared and loved, and he is almost a medical midget, but in the eyes of his people he has become a Machiavellian Prince. The basic premise of Machiavelli’s theory is one of dictatorship, in modern terms. Kim Jong Il has complete sovereignty over his people. Through methods of cruelty and an odd sort of charisma, he commands a nation of obedient and docile followers. He does this in a way that violates an innumerable number of modern day human rights, but is that not what Machiavelli suggests as effective? Morality aside, it is difficult to argue that Kim Jong Il is not an ideal ruler. When one considers the ability to simply have both power and glory in a nation-state, he certainly possesses it. However in the world today, the virtue of individualism and freedom can simply not be overlooked.

This is why a Machiavellian ruler is unacceptable in international society. Certainly the method of ruling still can prove efficient and beneficial to the ruler, but it disregards contemporary thoughts on humanitarianism, and therefore does not have a place in modern governance.

Reflection: Newseum Unleashes Emotions

I was unprepared for the rush of emotions I was about to encounter as I walked towards the 9/11 exhibit. I remember the day clearly. I was in fourth grade, Mrs. Offner’s class. There was a lot of commotion in the halls. Teachers coming and going from our classroom. Whispers and serious faces. Classmates being pulled out of school, taken home by their parents. As we walked towards the cafeteria there was something different about the usual lunchtime chatter. There was talk of something bad that had happened that very morning. Planes crashing, bombs, buildings in the city… fire, panic… Someone was spreading rumors. “The city was just bombed! We’re being attacked!” My friend looked at me, worried. I responded assertively, “No…it can’t be. They don’t know what they’re talking about.”


That day when my mom picked me up from school she told me what had happened. I remember being quiet on the car ride home, trying to put the pieces together. My naive self had been in such disbelief the entire day but now it seemed real. I wasn’t exactly sure what it meant, how this would alter the course of future events forever, and I certainly did not understand the gravity of the situation, but I knew it was bad.

In the days following the pieces began to come together. My parents explained what they could of the situation. I understood the aftermath of the occurrence, but could not fathom any reason as to why anyone would do this…

I remember going to the site of the World Trade Center with my family. I walked through the nearby streets that were masked in rubble and dust, days after the attack. To put it simply, it was unsettling.


The September 11th exhibit at the Newseum brought me back to that chilling day. At the time I had not understood the huge impact 9/11 would have on our nation. Now, I am extremely appreciative that the museum offers a place to display newspapers surrounding the event, as well as the “Running Toward Danger” video. From the exhibit I realized the profound effect that news reporters have on the public. Headlines such as “Our Nation Saw Evil,” “Attacks Shatter Nation,” and the striking“Bastards!” inspired immense support among Americans. Fear and despair, stimulated by the media, brought our nation together in unity and strength. There was one front page in particular that captured my attention. The headline read, “An inferno engulfs the World Trade Center.” A photograph underneath depicted the twin towers being eaten alive by burning red flames.


I knew I needed to see this video. Watching the film and hearing the accounts from eye witnesses rendered me speechless. I cannot imagine how it must have felt for reporters who witnessed this calamity firsthand. As the video showed footage of the plane hitting the tower, tears formed in my eyes. When I was reminded that it wasn’t debris falling, but people, those tears started streaming down my face.


The Newseum exhibit allowed me to revisit the day of infamy from a different perspective. I learned about the reporters who, unlike most people that day, ran toward the towers, not away from them. The first-person accounts from journalists serve as a reminder of the horrific events that took place on September 11, 2001. Most importantly, the Newseum successfully portrays the power the media has to affect one’s beliefs, opinions, and deepest of emotions.

Reflection-2

The Newseum is quite the experience in American nationalist sentiment. The purpose of the museum is to instill a sense of American commonality that doesn’t necessarily provoke a citizen to praise or condone the actions of the government, but instead to reinforce our shared humanity and shared beliefs. Each exhibit has a sense of American triumph. In the case of both highlighted exhibits, the 9/11 and Katrina ones, this idea is certainly veiled and certainly more difficult to understand. First the Berlin Wall is a straight forward tribute to American superiority, which is flaunted by the fact that pieces of a wall that was so significant to Germany resides in Washington D.C. The sports exhibit also highlights the spectacular feats of American athletes, and although there are other athletes hailed such as Pele, the basic feeling of the display is camaraderie in physical success.

Moving up to the 9/11 exhibit is where the most potent national sentiment certainly is. The unity inspired by the events on that fateful day is tangible as you walk around the antenna that had been on top of one of our nations greatest buildings. However, the cinematic experience is the most emotionally jarring. Being from the west coast, never before had I experienced the kind of corporeal mourning that people on the east coast, particularly in New York, had and continue to experience. Despite the sadness related to the attack, the point of the exhibit and the underlying sense of the event in general is a cleansing of the American spirit and the solidarity found in the grief of a nation.

Similarly in regards to Hurricane Katrina, although America experienced one of its most devastating natural disasters and failure of governmental response, there was still a national outcry for help and justice in New Orleans. This pattern of grief routinely brings the nation together. Although tragedy should ultimately be undesired and avoided, there is a certain backwards joy that should be observed in the celebration or at least realization of our common humanity.

America tends to be divided into factions. Republicans and Democrats, black people and white people, rich and poor, powerful and weak, Letts 6 and everyone else…It seems as if Americans are a people who simply want to be “down with the gang,” and this is both depressing and worrisome. Plurality is indicative of maturity, and the delight that I personally found in the Newseum is the antithesis of American division, and therefore is indicative of both idealism and intelligence, two noble constructs which are a valuable rarity in our society.