Class round three

I thought it was interesting that despite the previous class where the majority was arguing against Machiavellian ideology, we all came to a consensus that his themes are still relevant in modern society. I think class is a little boring when we all agree. I'd assume we are all content with realism; we think it gets the job done, but once we start exploring other theories we'll start to shift our own ideas some more. We're going to find the we're actually liberalists or perhaps a hybrid of ideas. Maybe we all were just sleepy and having a lazy Friday. We should engage a little bit more. Let's be contrary in order to open each others minds. Let's all throw ideas out there that challenge our own beliefs. When someone offers a counterpoint let's not try and defend our side to the death, but rather take it in and try to keep our minds out there and open. Our ideologies should grow with us. If they don't how can we ever truly learn?

Prioritizing One's Nationality

I was originally going to post this as a comment on another blog, but I decided that it was not so much a critique as an explanation of my own views. Therefore, I feel this is a more appropriate place for it.

Many of us have brought up recently, especially in the wake of Newt Gingrich's speech, how we tend to consider ourselves "Americans" before all else. Here’s the one problem I’ve always had with the “American citizen over global citizen” position: Imagine, for a moment, that conditions in the United States suddenly deteriorated. Take, for example, today’s news about Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch. Suppose the financial infrastructure of the United States broke down, and our way of life suddenly became much harder. Think food shortages, unemployment, and high crime rates. How many of us would choose to stay in America, and how many would leave for a more viable economy? Though I’m sure the vast majority of the country would go down with the ship, either due to national pride or simply because they cannot leave, I wonder how many of those with the means to relocate would do so. I know this is an extreme example, but for one to declare him or herself first and foremost a citizen of America means, in my view, to throw all your money behind one horse. While being an American is very important to me, I would say that first and foremost, I am an agent of my own interests. If world events dictate that I leave America, I would do so, albeit reluctantly. In that sense, I must consider myself more of a global citizen, simply because I do not irrevocably tie myself to one country in particular.

I am aware that others might have different definitions for what "being American first" means, since mine is exceedingly Draconian. I'm curious as to what those might be.

In Machiavelli We Trust

I’m going to be blunt – it’s almost two in the morning, I’ve got classes starting at 8:30 tomorrow, I’ve just finished my five-page Macroeconomics paper, and Subway was out of chicken breasts and bacon. I’m in no mood to start blogging now, so this time I’ll try to refrain from the usual lengthy diatribe.

The one thing that struck me about Friday’s class was how many people seemed to agree with Machiavelli’s principles and the idea that territorial integrity is a foremost concern. I know for a fact that our group consists of a diverse bunch of people with differing political views, so I found it out-of-place that we were all agreeing with the same basic premise. If I had to attribute this to something, I would say it was a result of group mentality; many people were placed in that state of mind by the blog question, and either didn’t think or didn’t comprehend that it was their right to disagree with the idea. Now, I have always considered myself a political realist, and my views on certain subjects have been characterized by some more pacifistic people as on the “militarist” or “Machiavellian” side, though this is not always the case. I would venture a guess that we have more idealists, or more differentiating opinions, in this group than we have been led to believe. Once we look into other theories, we’ll see who still stands by realism, and who migrates towards other theories.

The subject of territorial integrity was the main topic of discussion on Friday, and we seem to have re-characterized the question into “What is the purpose of territorial integrity?” Why do leaders care so much? What makes land so important? Several answers were put forward, some of which merit some thought. For one, land serves a military advantage; as Machiavelli stated, a prince should repeatedly patrol his country’s borders, wary of places where the enemy could invade from. Owning large tracts of land allows more time to prepare defenses to deflect invading forces away from the capital. Also, we discussed how defending land can be a means of defending ideals and ways of life, too. I brought up how Rhodesians were unwilling to cede power to the black majority not due to racism, but due to African countries’ track record of chaos and war. The same principle of defending ideas by defending land can be seen in various other scenarios, from the Peloponnesian War to the American Revolutionary and Civil wars. Then again, these ideas can even be as simple as national pride, which can drive countrymen to defend every inch of their land simply for the sake of keeping it. In the end, a war over land is really a war of ideas.

It's all relative.

I found myself very taken with the pragmatic and goal-oriented strategies laid out in The Prince. I am a practical person and I see Machiavelli as being along the same lines. I appreciated that he didn’t beat around the bush in explaining that leaders rule through the manipulation of human foibles. And it is by this reasoning that I would say that yes, Machiavelli’s arguments remain essentially usable. As we seemed to conclude in each of our weekly question posts, there is no hard yes or no to an issue, but rather” yes/no, however in this area… “. The same applies to Machiavelli, some of his arguments no longer apply to modern politics but so many of them do.
I am very much a believer in the interconnectedness of all things, it’s all relative. That realists choose to name their primary goal as territorial integrity is great and sounds very simple. However, territorial integrity as we discussed in class extends beyond material borders to culture, economy, people, etc. And so on in turn do these overarching categories hold their own host of issues which must be addressed in order to have “territorial integrity”. Through this connection I find realism to be a very appealing political theory, easy to explain and on the surface very cut and dry with its single-minded goal. But looked at deeper, realism does have a human element, one it seeks to protect and secure.

Time to Reflect...

Okay so first off….

There were so many layers to what was discussed in class on Thursday. In fact, there were so many layers that I am actually having a bit of a difficult time connecting and making sense of it all. Come to think of it, that’s actually one of my favorite aspects of our World Politics class. Each class I walk in knowing, for sure, that the discussion will begin with debating a specific question or idea that Professor Jackson presents. However, where the class ends is always at a completely different spot from where it began. Our class has the wonderful ability to look at the entire spectrum of the discussion topic, steering our focus away from the obvious and delving deeper into the nitty-gritty details while still keeping the overlying topic in mind. In Thursday’s class, I frequently found myself listening to others and thinking, “Wow, I honestly would have never thought of that… that makes so much sense!” Basically, I think everyone in the class is exceptionally brilliant.

Okay so secondly….

            I actually feel as though I was able to speak quite a bit in our last class and say most of what was on my mind (this was a very satisfying and new feeling), thus I do not have too much more to say other than noting a couple of my interesting observations. I am still firm in my opinion that territorial integrity should not be the leader’s foremost concern. Adam made a good point that, although most of the class shared my same opinion, our discussion would always end up relating back to the security of the state. However I do not feel this proves territorial integrity’s importance above all else. Rather, I feel that it proves something I had stated in my first blog post, that everything is interconnected and that no matter how hard we try to delegate importance to all of these various world politics issues, everything is relative and intertwined.

            Okay so lastly,

            Professor Jackson threw out this question in the concluding moments of class: “What was Machiavelli’s idea of the perfect leader?” I’m pretty sure that Machiavelli didn’t even have a solid answer to this question, for, frequently, his suggestions were just not plausible. Like Professor Jackson said in class, the only leader that Machiavelli does not criticize and who does not mess up in the end is Moses. Doesn’t that speak for itself? Furthermore, many of Machiavelli’s ideas contradict each other! He offers so many different ways to succeed and states that each way is the best way – but no leader could possible encompass all of these traits or practice all of these values in his or her lifespan, and if her or she tried, I would put money down that “the populace” would think the leader is mentally ill. 

p.s. Sorry my thoughts are so scattered tonight! I couldn't decide what to write about and, therefore, wrote a little teeny tiny bit about everything.

Excellent Friday Discussion

I was ecstatic that within class; we cited our blogs, literature we’ve read for class, and the podcast lecture and synthesized it into several strong arguments. I felt the class discussion over whether or not territorial integrity was the greatest concern to the leader of a nation-state was very thought-provoking. The more we talked, the more I realized territorial integrity meant far more than simple defense of borders from marauding nation-states. In fact, my previous post claiming civil institutions were the most vital concerns to a state’s interest ended up having a role in the security situation of a country. Culture, alliances, subservience, military strength, geography, and economic power were all ideas proposed for how various states secure their borders and continue to exist and flourish.
Coming into this class, I thought the nation-state was a slowly dying institution, outdated but readily adapted because the world is comfortable with it. When I left class, I see that statehood is a factor that should not be overlooked. United States domestic and foreign policy creates an image and a sense of identity that we all share. In the past, after Europe became a powerful trade bloc, blurring the lines of statehood, I thought this was a sign of things to come, and considered it progress. But after Friday’s discussion I have come to the conclusion that the nation-state is alive and well, and it will remain that way for quite some time. The entire point of a nation-state is to unify the populace behind one government and a single identity. Looking at all the things we discussed as security matters; I realize that I’ve gone to several years of public school, been to American hospitals, watched American television programs, and watched firefighters attempt to save a house. These little occurrences foster a sense of unity and pride that is not unique to any one nation-state, although America seems to have the whole self-promotion aspect down. What other nation openly tells people it’s the best in the world? In other words, I believe the nation-state will remain alive because of our shared identity and I now believe that conglomerates of states will continue to grow, but this does not signify the beginning of the end for the nation-state.

Seh-curr-tee

Bluntly, no.

In the modern day soft power is more important than hard power. To the half of you in gateway, I don't know if you sided with cowels or bosco, but I definitely think whoever has the money has the power. A large army holds a lot of power, but it's also very expensive. If a country can keep their economy out of recession whilst growing and maintaining a large army, then all power to them. When issues arise in the economy, the government should cut back on military spending. In a day of globalization, military conflict is illogical. In the long run, everyone will benefit more if two sovereigns resolve their conflict without going to war. Although, a few will see short term economic stimuli if the two sovereigns go to war, a long term unbalance in those economies may occur when the two sovereigns resolve.

Basically, a leader's biggest concern should be the economy.

Buddha