The economic crisis....

I can't remember who, but someone else had mentioned that they wrote a blog post on the financial crisis. After being harassed, as I usually am, that the problem lies soley under evil President Bush and the republicans, I decided to do some research. With what I found I have decided to write a blog post about the crisis from another point of view besides the liberal one that is most often heard in class. So here is a different perspective on the situation-at-large.

Maybe the problem is not capitalism, or a failure of the "free market" economy, but the failure of political interference in a free market economy. Congress passed legislation, signed by Carter, like the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave community activists and organizers the right to stop a banks growth if the bank didn't make loans available to unqualified borrowers. This legislation forced banks to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers, mostly in minority areas. Banks were forced to give loans to people with bad histories of creit because of policies like this, which specifically stipulated that "a banks activities must help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which the banks are chartered," otherwise those banks wouldn't be able to expand lending, add new branches, or merge with other companies. Congress did this to increase homeownership and make credit more available to minorities and the poor. They thought the loans would be paid off when rising home values led borrowers to access their equity through refinancing, while others sold and moved up. However, this didn't happen.

Banks knew that the majority of these loans would fail, but it was the price they had to pay in order for their bank to expand and grow. By doing this, banks did overleverage and take risks they shouldn't have, but you could say it wasn't all from greed or untrustworthy lenders, instead it was also brought about through political pressure. Basically, banks didn't necessarily want to give loans to people who couldn't afford them, but politicans told them to to give the loans to minorities. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 % from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 % and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 %.

The banks who didn't give out more loans to minorities were seen as racist, as evident in the CRA ratings, which measured how diverse a bank's portfolio is. In July 1999, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 % of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. In 1998 alone, 44 % of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups. So loans was given under political pressure and millions of these loans, as predicted, failed. Now we are in the situation we are in today.

It should also be noted that in 1992 President Clinton pushed for more rules requiring lenders to give loans to unqualified borrowers. In 1993, President Clinton's comptroller of the currency, Eugene Ludwig, told the Senate Banking Committee that "We have to use every means at our disposal to end discrimination and to end it as quickly as possible," in response to the administration's suport for this practice. So in the name of diversity, banks made a huge amount of loans that would otherwise not been made. Because of Congress's support, loans increased from $35 billion in loans in 1994, to $1 trillion by 2008.

In 2003 President Bush recomended a significant reglatory overhaul in the housing finance industry, but the democrat controlled Congress stopped him. One democrat, Rep. Baney Frank, with strong ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went so far as to say "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis" and that"the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on the companies, and therefore the less we will see in affordable housing." During this time, Fannie and Freddie grew heavily involved in "community development," giving money to local housing rights groups and trying to avoid groups, such as ACORN, for whom Obama once worked for in Chicago, who went after banks to make these loans.

Since 1989, Fannie Mae and and Freddie Mac have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying in Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient). This is why warnings, such as the 2005 warning by John McCain, and even attempted legislature by Bush have failed in Congress. In 2005, McCain said "If Congress does not act American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole." Too bad no one listened to him.

Reflecting upon reflections

One of my early blog posts this semester questioned the utility of some of the electronic elements of Professor Jackson's class. In the thick of semester (four, five weeks, I'm not even sure how long it's been) many of my questions have been answered, and many of my doubts reassured. I'll see more of my questions resolved in a week and a half, after I'm done with my first video project. But I feel like my questions and doubts are likely to remain with regards to one areas: these weekly blog reflections, which at times I still feel constitutes busywork rather than real, productive scholarship. Tonight is one of those times: I participate freely in class, and blog thoughtfully when given an assignment, but there are occasions which simply don't elicit an extended reflection.

The class's Tuesday blog posts, in which we provide more in-depth answers to specific questions posed by Professor Jackson, are useful, challenging, and productive. Although they aren't universally profound and provocative, many of them are: they demonstrate knowledge acquired in discussion and readings and can serve as a basis for further, in-class discussion. With no real question, with no real assignment, I don't feel the weekend blog reflection serve the same pedagogical value. There are times when something from class or from the assigned readings merits comment, but those times don't occur every class for every person. This weekend, I had several classmates make the comment that they didn't feel they had anything substantive to blog about. Because of the loose nature and fairly rapid pace of these blog entries, they aren't terribly conducive to extended, high-level discourse on a single topic, and in the absence of singular insight the only thing to write is some vapid summary or anemic connection.

I still see some useful purpose to reflective blog entries, as a means for allowing students to make connections, expand on topics mentioned in class, or (as I am doing) analyze the class. However, I think requiring this on a weekly basis cheapens it; students do rote work which occupies their valuable time but has little intellectual payoff. If I were teaching the class, I'd eliminate the weekly blog reflection and instead require students to write a reflective entry during the weeks in which they don't answer the prompt. Naturally, with only one entry a week it would be fair to expect longer, deeper entries and more interaction between the blog participants, but I'd be willing to accept that tradeoff.

p.s. This certainly doesn't mean that I don't enjoy Professor Jackson's class. It's quite possibly my favorite one this semester. I just enjoy criticizing things regardless of how much I actually like them.

SYD!!! STOP OVERANALYZING!!!

Sometime during Friday’s classes PTJ asked something along the line of “is this scenario with aliens parallel to a similar scenario involving other countries?”  Although some said they are somewhat parallel I still do not think they are.  In our class discussion people always began “if the aliens are like this...or if the aliens are like that...” in those phrasing the two scenarios are parallel because when know the characteristics of the aliens, we know their motives, history, and course of action.  If aliens really landed on the White House lawn we could be clueless!  Currently, life outside of Earth is completely unknown, any predictions we make have no reasoning behind them.  

When dealing with other states, or anything else on earth it is easier and safer to make assumptions.  When we are dealing with any relations between any two world forces there is no such thing as a completely unknown force.  We always know about a group’s or state’s history.  Yes, there is always a possibility for change but we do not ignore what has been done in the past.  Obviously we look at the history to determine if the group or state will most likely be our ally or an opposing force.  A complete unknown that we would encounter with aliens is not something we are familiar with and therefore cannot make predictions about.  

Another question we addressed in class is if the world would unify against the aliens.  I argued that there may be a temporary cooperation but eventually state relations would go back to the way they were before the aliens invasion because states would always eventually go back to having only their own self-interest in mind.  If we compared the aliens scenario to conflicts between states I would say that there could never be unity.  First, because there obviously would be at least one opposing state or group.  Second, because there would always be another state willing to ally itself with the first state thinking it would benefit the state.

I really like Ewoks

Aliens, friends or foe? That is the question. No but seriously that is what we spent Friday's class discussing. When it comes to the US reaction to an alien landing on the White House lawn, we can’t judge until we know the aliens intent, but the principles behind the reactions are already in existence. All the IR theories we have discussed are the base for any reaction of the US government. The realist approach is to blow the aliens to bits; the liberal approach is to react but look at more options other than security. The constructivist approach is that the people of the US would band together and act together in their common interest. The problem with the question, or should I say what makes the question thought provoking is that we don’t know the aliens intentions or thoughts.
I forget who but someone mentioned how a new tribe of people was found in Brazil. That case is similar to the alien situation. The people who discovered them were the aliens and the tribe were the natives. This example is a good real life example of what a group people would do when faced against a group with much more advanced technology. Though I do not know the tribe’s reaction, but I assume they took a more liberal approach. They probably did what they thought would be best for themselves and the tribe.
All this is very technical and involves a lot of thought so I’ll end with a saying from Andrew: “Ewoks are the Vietcong of Star Wars.”

Reflection

This week in class we talked about aliens landing on the White House lawn and we visited the State Department. As a class I think it was decided that we would need to look at the aliens intentions first and then decide whether or not they are trustworthy. If trustworthy, the U.S should use the aliens to our advantage and increase our standing in the world more than it already is and secure our place as the world's superpower. One of the more interesting points brought up in class, was the importance of what the aliens actually looked like. I hadn't thought of this when I wrote my first blog, but after class I think it is one of the most important aspects of this situation. If the aliens looked more human-like then we would probably be more likely to trust them, but if the aliens looked like the aliens we see in scary movies then we would probably shoot at them before they even stepped onto the White House lawn. I think as a country we would come together to defeat or support the aliens depending on this and other factors.

The visit to the State Department was a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. I was surprised how many issues they deal with and how open our speakers were while talking to us. It was also nice to talk to an American Alumnus and see that we can get our dream jobs if we work hard enough.

If aliens landed on the White House lawn...

First, I would like to think that aliens wouldn't be able to land on the White House lawn. If they were I think we have some really big national security issues that need to be taken care of. But if somehow they managed to do this without be shot down, then I think the government would be forced to act with extreme caution. Even though, we would want to know as much about them as we can and learn from them, we would also have to be weary of our security. I think the aliens would be questioned first before being alloweed to meet with any of our government officials.

I'm sure the President would eventually meet with them personally, but only if the aliens were determined to not be a threat. I would also think that, as we have been talking about in class, the government would look first at the situation as a self-interest opportunity. Yes, we should be scared if aliens landed on earth, but the aliens could prove to be useful trading partners, so we would not want to risk alienating them. Instead, we should caustiouslly isten to what they have to say, then decide whether to trust them or not. If anything, the United States could secure its place forever as the world superpower with the new technology and power we could gain.

ALIENS!

            If anything, including a flying saucer, were to travel through the restricted airspace surrounding the White House, it would be shot. It might receive a courtesy warning, but if it disregarded the warning a sizable portion of the United States Air Force would be unleashed upon it. By the time the flying saucer could land on the White House lawn, the president and his staff would be safely situated in an “undisclosed location” deep underground and our extraterrestrial visitors would be received by a 21-gun salute of the distinctly non-ceremonial, live ammunition variety.

            Of course, any flying saucer able to withstand a sustained barrage of anti-air missiles, as the conditions of the question dictate it must, would probably be able to withstand any weaponry brought to bear against it that would not cause widespread collateral damage and loss of innocent life. It seems reasonable to guess that protocol would call for an indefinite barrage of the flying saucer, but after several minutes practicality would prevail and the assault would halt. The military would evacuate and cordon off a five-block radius around the White House, and send in well-protected expeditions to determine the exact nature of the flying saucer. As time passes, the military would eventually find more pressing engagements, leaving a 25-square block camp of NASA and CIA bureaucrats in the center of Washington, DC. Eventually, over the course of centuries, the novelty would even wear off for them, and the flying saucer on the White House lawn would be just another Washington landmark.

            Anything to emerge from the flying saucer in the first few minutes of gunfire would probably be fired upon in an instant, instinctive reaction; the same thing might happen any time in the first few days. But as the guns cool, the reception our visitors would receive would slowly but palpably warm. The aliens would go from being a clear and present danger to a potential threat to a great enigma to a minor curiosity (well, probably not the last one. Space aliens are always very, very cool)

            Although writing science fiction is fun, and the illustrious Professor Jackson has been known on occasion to make use of fun things that only minimally tie into World Politics (see: Nationals game), one gets the sense that aliens landing on the White House lawn should somehow be connected to international relations, probably by explaining how each major theory of international relations would explain and evaluate the likely treatment of aliens. Unfortunately, at least for the sake of simplicity and conciseness, no single theory can claim a singular hold on explaining UFO-White House lawn interactions.

            Realists would point to, and applaud, the primacy of security concerns in addressing the potential threat of aliens landing at the White House. They mighr hold on to their guns and then their cattle prods for a bit longer than liberals and constructivists would, but they still wouldn’t hold on to them indefinitely. Realists acknowledge that states have limited resources with which to protect their security, and although that curious saucer north of the national mall would never cease to be a security threat, the magnitude of that threat would decrease gradually in relation to other threats the state faces. Realists probably wouldn’t enter an alliance with the aliens, who are more powerful than they are, but would recognize that fighting the aliens was suicide.

            Liberals would argue self-interest, as they usually do. Although realists, not liberals, usually discuss security, Maslow’s hierarchy would dictate that assuring physical security constitute is part of self-interest. Initially, the aliens would constitute a serious threat to the physical security of the president and his staff, and potentially the entire world. The rational response would be hostility. However, as time passese the aliens would seem to constitute less of a threat, and with immediate physical security protected rational humans could move on to address higher needs, such as the need to have really cool spaceships. Liberals would proceed cautiously in dealing with aliens than in dealing with other humans, because the behavior of aliens is less of a given, but would eventually (unlike the realists) pursuit a strong alliance with the extraterrestrial visitors, exchanging not only resources but cultures and technologies as well.

            Of course, the constructivists would point to our changing definition of the alien “other” as the spaceship continued to sit on the White House lawn…

700 billion might change it all

Assuming aliens landed on the White House lawn (which would be a major accomplishment in itself-- I personally think the government would shoot the UFO down before it landed) I think the government would act with extremely high security measures.  As much as I hate to say it I do not think the poor aliens stand a chance.  I think that the majority of the public would be terrified by the arrival of the aliens and I think to please public opinion the government would take immediate action.  Sure, it is very possible that these aliens will be intelligent, kind aliens but I do not think that the government will be willing to take the time to find that out.  I think a fear of the unknown will take over and immediate action will be what the government chooses to do.

The type of government action?...Well, I do not think the aliens will like it.  Most likely they will be arrested.  I definitely expect a realist reaction from the government.  The main concern will be security, I think the government’s first instinct will be that the aliens are a direct threat to US citizen’s and the White House’s safety-- there will be a fear of invasion.  As we discussed in class sometimes a state that practices a combination of IR theories learns towards one specific theory, I think fear will not only instigate a more realist approach, but civilians will be okay with it.  Fear often comes from the unknown and I think both government and civilian’s number one priority will be to protect themselves from the unknown terror of the aliens.  Despite the fear I doubt the government would do anything more drastic to the aliens than arrest such as killing the aliens or exiling them from Earth because getting rid of the aliens mean they would not be around for additional questioning...I think after the initial shock of their arrival the government would like to learn about them, even if the public and government is still hostile towards them.  

From this point I think the government’s next action depends on how the aliens respond to questioning.  If it appears that the aliens are going to be a threat to the United States or the world I think the government will do all it can to get rid of them.  On the other hand if the aliens do not appear threatening I think the government would continue questioning them until they fully understand what the aliens’ motive are for coming to the United States, overall I think the government would be very skeptical.  Currently I can only think of two ways for the government to embrace the aliens, first, if they come in saying, “we have cheap oil” or second, if they have 700 billion dollars.

If I were to have a pet, it would have to be an Ewok.

If aliens were to land on the front lawn of the White House, I would panic. But that is just me. The government’s response should be a bit better than mine. For starters, what type of aliens are they? If they are the aliens form Alien, then we are in trouble. If aliens like ET landed on the White House lawn, then we might be okay. But to start off I’ll discuss the worst case scenario.

If aliens were to land on the front lawn of the White House and were not the friendly types, the US would be in all out “shoot em up” mode. The realist in everyone will suddenly appear, but so would the identity of being an American. Just like after 9/11, almost all Americans rallied under the same identity. The same would go for an alien invasion. Our main concern would be securing the nation from this new threat. Depending on the magnitude of the invasion, the military would be called in, DC would be in lockdown, nukes might be launched, who knows. All I know is that we would be fighting a war against alien technology as if the movies teach us anything, it is that aliens cannot be defeated until half the population is dead. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has some more time so they can consider more options. The world could try to fight against the aliens with the US under the identity of a citizen of Earth, or they could try to make peace with the attackers of the US and watch us die. The world could take a more liberal approach to the situation since time is on their side. The United States however would not be as fortunate since we would be fighting off an invasion against unknown powers.

Now if the aliens were all cute and cuddly like the Ewoks, we would be better off. If the ewoks wanted to land on the front lawn of the White House, we have two options. We could either make peace and live together, (which would be AMAZING!!!!) or we could kick them off Earth and assert our authority. But the difference from the first, bad scenario is that we have some time to consider our plan of action. The Ewoks, though able to take down the entire Galactic Empire from their own planet (Star Wars Episode VI), would be in an environment unlike Endor, therefore they do not have any sort of attack advantage. The US could take a more liberal approach to finding a solution. The world, meanwhile, would probably watch and sees how this all plays out.

Now to wrap this all up, aliens are crazy. We do not know anything about them so to guess a response of a ship landed is impossible but like PTJ said it is better than discussing the possible end to the entire global economy. So to end on a lighter note, I present...............

THE CHEWBACCA DEFENSE

all credit for the video goes to YouTube and the user MySelfRevolution

On Self-Interest

In class this past week (I am inclined to say it was Friday), I argued that people are not always capable of effectively pursuing their own best interests. This claim was met with some resistance by Tori, but at the time we were unable to debate the subject in the vigorous and spirited manner deserving of it.

Tori’s line of argument, as I understand it, holds that self-interest comes from meeting one’s personal goals and ideals. Goals and ideals stem from personal value sets, which vary widely from one individual to another; as such, it is impossible for one to follow self-interest when operating under another’s set of values. This line of reasoning is true. However, with all due respect to Tori (who is the best), her conclusion does not necessarily logically follow from it. By asserting that people are not always capable of effectively following their own best interests, I am not asserting the superiority of my own value system or arguing that people should or can derive happiness from an externally imposed set of values. Rather, I am questioning the rational nature of humans and the extent to which they make decisions on the basis of sufficient information.

People are not always capable of comprehending how to best achieve their own, internally determined, goals and ideals. They often subvert their long-term goals to short-term satisfaction: the student who procrastinates on an important term paper probably does not believe that doing so is in his or her best interest, but simply fails to follow self-interest. They often fail to realize the true consequences of their actions: ideal examples of this can be found in complex political questions, such as monetary policy, where voters often do not understand the full impact of policies they support. A lower interest rate is rarely (probably never) a core personal value. Although some political questions may raise legitimate issues of core values, such as economic growth versus environmental protection, others can be seen only as instruments in fulfilling goals.

same thoughts on the nats, new thoughts on the stadium

Years ago at a LI Islanders game I noticed there was a lot of free stuff being given away.  When I asked my mom why she told me “the worse the team, the more going on in the stadium”.  As someone pointed out at dinner tonight a lot was going on at the Nats game, watching baseball wasn’t your only option.  To me it wasn’t like going to a baseball game but going out to a place where watching a baseball game was one of your many options.  The stadium owners clearly did a lot of planning when they designed the stadium.  When we toured the stadium during Welcome Week I wasn’t sure if all the vendors and activities would draw in that many additional people but after walking around and seeing the stadium with people in it I see I was wrong.  I walked around a bit during the game to find food and I saw plenty of people swarming into places such as Build-A-Bear, the Playstation room, and batting cages.  The fact that the fans were interested in other things made the game seem strange to me.  They seemed to lack pride, sure they were interested in the game and wanted the Nats to win but it was nothing like the intense pride I feel in the stands at a Yankees game.

Okay, maybe the Yankees are a bad comparison, fans go wild simple because there are the Yankees, a lot has to happen before their fans loose their enthusiasm.  I figured the absence of enthusiasm was from the Nats being a loosing team.  But as PTJ said at dinner tonight sometimes loosing is a teams legacy.  Another reason to justify the fan-base was mentioned by someone (I think Seamus McGregor) at dinner-- he brought up the fact that most of the people living in DC are not from DC.  I think that makes a lot of sense as a factor in the Nats’ fan-base.  People have a lot of pride in there home team, it takes a lot for people to change their loyalty, especially when the new team isn’t doing well.  Whatever the reasons and despite them I now think National’s Stadiums has the potential to be successful.  Before Friday’s game I never realized the amount of people that could be enticed into going to a baseball game for reasons other than baseball.  Even if the Nat’s continue be a loosing team as long as there is something for the fans to do it seems to me both the team and stadium can survive.  They may be a long way from becoming a legendary team, but I no longer think they are going wind up disastrous and in debt as I thought during welcome week.

Mama Dustin has something to say

So the Nationals lost after 14 innings of playing the Padres. So now the Nats are the 2nd worst team in the entire MLB. Seattle is still worse than the Nats so it could be worse. BUT ON A LIGHTER NOTE...the pageantry before the game was interesting. I don’t know if they planned to have us go to the game on veterans' appreciation day, but it added to the amount of patriotism and pageantry. When the line of veterans was introduced the whole stadium was cheering. Then the flags were presented and the entire stadium stopped. The lines stopped at the food stands, everyone entering the stadium froze, and the big screen displayed all the flags and the musician first class. All the electronic banners were filled with waving American flags. The pre-game was a display of nationalism and pride. The stadium was full of national pride and excitement.
Okay now onto class. Self-interest is key to every idea. Even if someone does something nice for someone else, self-interest is involved. So the only idea that could truly work close to its literal definition is liberalism. So on Friday we talked about the collapse of the modern system. That’s a downer. This event in history will probably be as bad if not worse than the Great Depression. Since most of the economy is service based, we can’t escape depression with a war like in the 1940s. So in the end, our generation is screwed. We can’t just push all this debt off for our kids like our parents and grandparents have, we will have to face this soon. But I’ll leave it at that. I’m done, and to all my children, if you don't behave i will put you in timeout.

*Reflection

This week in class we talked about whether liberalism or realism is more interesting and which is the better US foreign policy in international relations. I still agree with my original statement that there needs to be a balance between the two. This is because while I support realism’s desire for military and economic power and security, I also believe that in order to even hope to live in a peaceful world we also need to rule with ideals and ethics.

In some ways I think we already have a balance between the two. I also think economic liberalism, as the US practices today, is also very realist. Liberal-sounding policies are practiced in their own national interest. Economic liberalism enhances the power of the rich and industrialized states. If it did not, these nations would not pursue liberal policies. The US, as the world superpower, provides multiple states (mostly European and Asian nations) with security, and access to trade in exchange for their support. These nations accept America’s role as a superpower. In exchange the US binds itself to these countries, which makes the US appear as a safer threat because of its shared interests with them. As a result, these countries agree to the US system of international relations, because it is in their self-interest to do so. I think this is an example of a smart liberalistic policy because it doesn’t rely unrealistically on the goodwill of people, but leaves open the possibility of purely self-interested motives. This economic policy also fosters mutual relationships between nations that promote diplomacy if an international incident were to occur. For example, trade and the idea of a liberalistic economy make war less likely if your adversary is your customer or supplier. Promoting liberal ideals like this one will make the world a safer place. Countries will be less likely to use power politics and will instead be forced to use diplomacy.

In a sense, realism is still needed to protect liberal ideals. I don’t think the US can survive the way it has without securing its borders and preserving its economic and military freedom, but the US can also not survive without progressing to meet the new threats of the 21st century. My biggest problem with the theory of liberalism is that its ideals tend to be defensive. I think a state’s primary goal should be to preserve itself and that requires a nation to be ready to fight. I believe strongly in individual rights, but also appreciate the value of government in our everyday lives. In doing so, I am willing to follow the laws of this country. Also, because I have been given the privilege of citizenship and have chosen by free will to live here, I am willing to give up some rights for the good of everyone. For example, I am willing to support the Patriot Act as long as it protects me from planes flying into buildings. Liberalism gives us the goal of not having to worry about being attacked again, but realism gives us the means to protect ourselves in case it does happen again.

I would like to end by stating that I think whether we want to or not we live in a world where a liberalistic approach is the most logical for our country’s current situation. Perhaps realism was needed to get us to where we are today, and now liberalism is needed to deal with the problems of today. For example, in a post September 11th world, our foreign policy needs to take into account threats like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, instead of just traditional powers of government. Because liberal democracies are increasing, the world is becoming more globalized and nations are becoming more dependent on each other.

I like liberalism, BUT...

The United Nations cannot be classified under any one group. With that said, to answer this question is difficult. But since I have to answer the question, my answer is that the United Nations is an organization that attempts to balance realism and liberalism. From here let me explain.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 after World War II by the Allied Nations in order to “maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” (UN Charter, Chapter 1) This is a pretty realist idea. To have a group of nations work on maintaining world security. This is the first purpose of the United Nation as stated in the charter. But the charter continues with “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;” (UN Charter, Chapter 1) This is a very liberal idea. The UN wants to help create “friendly relations” based off equality in the people. Realists don’t really care about the people. Liberals do.
The UN tries to protect the entire world, but that is difficult with conflicting world interests. To be a realist, the UN would have to overlook the self interests of the nations involved and just look over security. For the UN to be a liberal, it would have to not put security as its number one. The UN does however make it a top priority since it is the first purpose of the UN. But the UN also helps more in humanitarian efforts. To define the UN as either one or the other is very hard since the UN can’t even make up its mind on what issues it wants to tackle and how.

my thoughts on the UN

As we discussed in Tuesday’s class it is no longer common for a state to be defined as only liberal or realist.  I feel the United Nations is no different.  Since the establishment of the United Nations it can be argued that the organization has evolved from being more realist to more liberal.  When the United Nations was first established its purpose was security and helping nations to maintain their borders.  The original states emphasized peace, but, peace was their was of saying keeping themselves safe.  It was in everyones best interest to join.  By joining the UN states were not only agreeing to peace but ensuring themselves of many allies throughout the world.

As alliances were formed and states’ security became less of a threat the United Nations began to emphasize and endorse more liberal values.  In some ways promoting peace became less about border security and more about the welfare of individuals.  Although today the United Nations still aims to keep states’ borders safe and secure the organization has a large emphasis on social issues.  For instance, a large focus right now for the UN are the Millennium Development Goals (on September 25th leaders plan to renew commitments for the goals)- all eight of the goals are different social issues.  

If you go to the United Nation’s homepage it is proof that there is still both a realist and liberal component to it.  It contains main links to both social and security issues.  Like a state the United Nations contains both realist and liberal issue because it must fulfill the needs of all its members which have both liberal and realist characteristic.

Link to UN homepage http://www.un.org/english/ 

Reflection

I decided not to respond to this weeks blog because I hadn't made up my mind yet whether security should be the leader's first priority of their country. After talking about The Prince in class and listening to everyone's views I think that while it's important, the people you are protecting are equally important. I thought the most interesting part of the discussion friday was the debate of whether you need security first, or a group of loyal citizens before you have a new nation. After listening to everyone speak on this issue I think they are equally important to each other and the success of that nation. We talked about Iraq and the violence that continues to occur there, which discourages investers from building up the Iraq economy. But just as Iraq needs to be stabalized, it also needs a national identity to fight for in the first place. A leader needs to protect their state's border's from invasion and that should be a top priority of any leader. However, a leader should also make it their priority to do the will of the people who elected them.

A leader does not need to be loved or always liked, but they do need to be respected to be relevent. The biggest thing I think I learned this week is that there is not always one answer to a problem, instead, sometimes there are many different solutions that are all important. Machavelli's points are still relevant because we are dealing with some of the same situations as before. Realism still exists and continues to influence public policy decisions today.

If your happy and you know it...

As I look back to Friday's class, I realize how tame and civilized that discussion truly was. We were able to look at Machiavelli without any nerf guns or people imposing a thought embargo. But while I listened to our discussions I realized how much I don’t know compared to most of these people. Compared to the points other people made, mine look like those of a five year old. I noticed how geography helps a nation prioritizes security over civil institutions, but that was the only argument I made. When people started to give examples of Ghana and they knew the military strength of it, I kinda felt like my point was nothing in comparison. But all of this is besides the point.

In class, I mentioned that democracy was a major change that makes some of Machiavelli's arguments not valid. This is true, but democratic society has also only reenforced some of his ideas. To be feared, not hated is one of Machiavelli’s most brought up points in class because it is still practiced today, even in democracies. Though fear and hate can go side to side, if a president needs to get something done, he will do what it takes to get the job through, i.e Iraq. Though not as radical as Machiavelli is talking about, the principle is still in practice today.

So to sum it all this past week, I was a member of a gang that would probably hurt me if they ever saw those pictures, talked about the change in Machiavelli’s arguments and avoided getting shot by the Vulcan. Over all, pretty good week.

UCWP Might Be Better For Me Than I Thought, But Not In The Way I Thought

As I think everyone in the class knows I was supposed to be in Explorations but when the class was canceled and I was given the chance to be in WP I jumped at the opportunity.  I knew I would be out of my element but was okay with it- it creates the best learning environment.  I love the class both academically and socially...but still I feel somewhat out of place.  Last week we talked about Machiavelli and security issues I sat listening, genuinely intrigued but with little to contribute and it hit me- this is not what I want to be doing for the rest of my life!  I always loved studying about different countries and their interactions.  Naturally I thought International Relations was what I wanted to learn, but, the more we discuss defense, government, and state leaders the more I realize what really interests me about global studies is culture and the people within the culture.  As I glance back on my past blogs I realize my main concern is usually with a state’s people.  I care more about the citizens of a state rather than the laws or leaderships.  

I know this blog sounds pessimistic but I don’t mean to be.  Its better to recognize  WP might not be for me now then senior year.  Then again, half way through the semester I may change my mind.  I have plenty of time.  

Reflection

After Friday's class, my views on the primacy of territorial integrity changed a little, or at least deepened. I suppose that's a good thing, as it means that I'm learning or growing or something to that effect. So I'll briefly expand, modify, or contradict the ideas reflected in my September 10th post.

Security (defined as territorial integrity) should not and can not be the aim to which leaders strive. It is merely a useful  instrument in meeting leaders' self-interests by providing them with power (whether as an end itself or a means to realize other ends). Security increases power, yet it does so with variable and typically diminishing marginal returns. Once a certain level of security is reached, further expenditures are no longer the most efficient way to increase power; the point at which this occurs depends on the resources, technology, geography, culture, and political structure of a state and its neighbors.

I would thus argue that nothing fundamental has changed since Machiavelli wrote the Prince. The same underlying principles should guide the behavior of states and leaders. It is only circumstances that have changed, but when implementing policy circumstances make all the difference: in the context of renaissance Italy, increasing territorial security was almost universally the best way to increase power, and Machiavelli was wise to advocate it based on observable politico-militay realities. In the context of the contemporary world, however, the same advice may not hold true.

Blogging Makes Me Realize My Lack of Faith in Society

As I have expressed in other blogs, again I do not feel the response to this question can be given its own answer- each situation is unique.  Ideally, no, the territorial integrity should not be the primary, concern of a state leader.  Rather than worry about the boundaries and borders of his or her state a state leader’s number one concern should be of the people of the state.  If the welfare of the state’s people is to protect boundaries in an instance such as preventing invasion then concern about territory is necessary.  On the other hand if the people in the state wanted to separate from the state or join with another state the most just action for a state leader would be allowing the people of the state to achieve what they are looking for.

As we look at instances such as the current situation in Georgia, we see this “just” leadership may not be realistic.  A state is frequently judged by its success and stability- factors that can be judged by the territorial integrity (especially if it changes) of the state.  A leader may become preoccupied by foreign opinion of his or her state and forget his or her responsibility to people of the state.  This makes sense because often the status of a state is linked to the leader.  However, a leader’s job is not to be well liked by individuals outside of his state and be concerned with the reputation of the state.  A leader’s responsibility is to please the people of his or her state.

Should the security of a state be the first concern of a leader?

I love equivocating.

As such, I would assert that whether the security of a state (defined as territorial integrity) should be the greatest concern of a state's leader depends on how one defines territorial integrity. I'm not sure whether or not there is a formal, codified definition of territorial integrity (knowing political scientists, there may well be), but I see several ways in which the concept can be construed. Ignorance is bliss: I will happily fail to look up formal definitions of territorial integrity and joyfully equivocate.

In a broad sense, "territorial integrity" could refer to the state's monopoly on the use of legitimate force within a given territory. This monopoly on the use of force is the basis of the state, according to Max Weber, and the state fundamentally cannot exist without it. A ruler without a state to rule lacks power, and a people without a state to rule lack peace and order. As such, regardless of whether rulers should act out of altruism or self-interest, preserving territorial integrity should clearly be their first concern (with the possible exception of the transfer of authority from national governments to international bodies, which I view as in the best interests of a populace but no a leader - but I'll discuss that in further detail at some other point. There's no point in wasting a perfectly good blog topic now).

However, I don't feel that incursion by foreign armies represents the greatest threat to a state's ability to exercise a monopoly of force in most contemporary circumstances. War is certainly still a part of the contemporary world, but in many or most cases it is precipitated by, rather than followed by, a decay in the institutions of government and the rule of law; in other words, wars tend to begin not with conflict between states, but between a state and an internal non-state actor, as clearly evident in the well-publicized Russian invasion of Georgia. The most effective way to ensure external security is often providing internal stability.

Leaders should be more concerned with the strength of civil institutions than military ones: in the long run, both are necessary, but for the majority of the world's population, poverty, crime, and disease represent a far greater threat than marauding foreign armies. Domestic institutions - schools, police, and so forth - exercise their power on a daily basis, while armies may not need to exercise theirs for years or decades; the absence or weakness of domestic institutions leads to problems almost instantaneously, while the absence of military ones may not be consequential in the short term. Furthermore, a strong military is largely (albeit not entirely) contingent upon a strong economic base to purchase and produce weapons, while economic and social conditions depend benefit only marginally from a strong military. 

Reflection

Fridays class showed the problem of competing interests between countries first-hand. The group who got to go into the room first to set up the room had to decide whether to be fair or to only look out for themselves. But even though they tried to be fair they were still viewed as being selfish. This proved that people in power are never easily trusted. This is a huge problem when dealing with what the question was last week in class: whether powerful countries should help out less powerful countries.

I think from readings and our class discussion that they should, but only to a certain extent. I also think that it is better for countries to share the responsibility of looking out for less powerful countries together. This is because a powerful country will never be trusted enough by a weak one to do something only for the good of the country they are trying to help and not for their own. This is what has caused us trouble in Iraq. While most people didn't like Saddam Hussein and think of us as liberators, most people also don't trust us being there. They may like our help, but not the fact that they are now dependent on us. This is how I felt in class before my group was let into the room. I wanted to think that group 1 would do the honorable thing and be fair. However, I couldn't help but wonder even if they do, why they are doing it and if they are really only doing it for themselves. Because countries can't trust each other, it is hard for countries to accept another countries help or to even offer to help another country. Powerful nations should still help out less powerful nations, but not at the cost of their own country or without being able to prove they are doing it for the right reasons.

Nerf Guns role in World Politics

Nerf was the theme of this week’s classes. When I heard that we had to make flags, I thought we were back in middle school. Little did I now at that point we would actually regress back to middle school antics. I am not saying that the nerf war was stupid, it was just a bit unnecessary. Though unnecessary, it did add to the lesson. The nerf conflict showed the conflict between states. Although there was already conflict with the number of chairs, the nerf guns just added. We were able to see how resources affect the way a nation reacts. We see through a simulation like this that a nation with resources will try to share its wealth, but it shared the wealth to help itself. Self-interest was a major player in all this week’s discussions.

Self Interest drives the actions of a nation. In our class, self interest was in play because no one really wanted to hurt anyone else’s feelings. Since we all live with each other, getting someone upset could disrupt the feel on the floor and make for awkward confrontations in the hall. When it came to selecting the process of who enters the room first, we all wanted to get inside and sit so we just agreed to go through with the random choosing of numbers. Self interest made our decision on how to get and how to distribute the wealth. Overall, its all self interest.

To speak or not to speak? When to use you words.

I won’t lie, when informed on how each group in the class would be seated I glanced around and realized I was closest to the door.  I could have darted into the room, jumped into a comfortable chair and claimed the rest of the “good table” for my fellow members of The A Team.  I chose not to, it would have been selfish of me.  How would a superpower act in this situation?  Would the state choose itself or worry about how other states saw it?

As a class there were countless possibilities for dividing up the chairs.  Still, with a plethora of choices we ended up using one that clearly favored some groups over the others.  After everyone was settled in their place Professor Jackson asked why the class did not choose BA Baracus’ suggestion of one representative from each group arranging the room.  Clearly, his idea appeared fair and would distribute the furniture more evenly throughout the room.  A few people heard Baracus’ idea and seemed to agree.  Why then was his idea ignored?  Some campaigned for his idea amongst the chaos and outburst of possible solutions.  Suddenly, the numbered papers were taken out- the possibility of an immediate solution was presented- the campaigning of Baracus’ and all other ideas put to an end.  Is this sudden desperation for a solution and example of world politics or human nature?

I think I understand the metaphor in relating our blog groups to states.  Despite the similarities, we cannot ignore that no matter what scenario the class is set up for we cannot ignore reality.  We all get along, we all listen to Jackson, and the scenarios put in front of us are not that important- if we are chair-less we will survive.  Baracus’ (and other’s) ideas were ignored not because they were wrong or bad but because all of us in the class were eager to find a solution, we wanted to enter the classroom to begin the next part of the lesson.  In the reality of World Politics I wonder if states would stop standing up for themselves for the sake of solving a problem.  I think not, states would have too much at risk.  Whether the problem is over an economic, social, political, or security issue I would assume more is at stake than a comfy chair.

Reflection 2

To be quite honest, I'm not feeling particularly inspired tonight. Some people seem to think that the arms race in class Friday detracted from the discussion; I'm not so certain. I found class quite interesting: examining how groups are prone to competition, how they do (or do not) act altruistically, and how states can be organized to a common end (the thought embargo). Just because the discussion wasn't entirely verbal didn't mean it didn't occur. It's just that I already wrote (in my last entry) about my view of so-called "altruism" and the role it should play in politics, and arguments over morality rarely get anywhere; people tend to hold very deeply entrenched views on the subject, everyone has already heard what everyone else has to say, and when one continues to talk after making a point it merely becomes belligerence.

I guess what intrigued me the most about class Friday was the way in which we decided to distribute resources. We ended up using a system that was, I feel, inarguably worse than the one I designed. The lottery system that was used had no potential benefits and severe potential drawbacks. Namely, it relied on people's good will to effectively distribute resources. Most groups would initially begin with a deficit of resources: there was a greater chance that any one group would have a deficit than that they would have a surplus. Charity is never dependable, so it was not in any group's best interests to utilize the lottery system. By somehow redistributing the resources before assigning territories to groups, all groups could have increased their chances of having enough resources. Yet, for some reason, we did not do this. We did not act rationally, simply because we were too lazy to work out an effective and elegant solution to the problem of resource distribution and just sit down. Public servants and politicians typically don't have to worry about sitting down. Real international systems don't form in 15 minutes, and states have extensive foreign policy bureaucracies that promote efficient, disciplined, professional decision-making. But I still have to wonder: has the course of world ever been dictated by a leader who just wanted to go home?

Should powerful nations help less powerful nations?

In an ideal world, yes, the more powerful countries should help the less powerful nations. But countries should be careful not to make themselves less powerful by doing so. Each government has the responsibility to take care of their own people first. They shouldn't over extend their resources or military and put their own country at risk. While I think to a certain extent powerful nations should help out, I think the decision whether to do so depends on the situation and countries involved. I also don't think powerful countries are necessarily obligated to do so. However, I think Morally they should, especially with humanitarian causes and human rights.

I think we all have an obligation to defend and promote tolerance, peace, equality, and freedom, for everyone, no matter where they were born. But besides countries helping other countries, we should push private organizations and charities to help out too. I also think it's better to have the majoriy of nations helping out, instead of placing the burden on just the world's biggest superpowers. We can all do things to help, and the responsibility of helping out poorer and less powerful nations should be a shared one.

should???

As BA Baracus points out “should” removes this question from the real world.  In reality the question can be broken down into two separate components.  First, do powerful states have the obligation to look after lesser states?  The answer is no.  Powerful states have internal problems, just as lesser states do.  Take the United States for example, we are trillions of dollars in debt, we are in the midst of a mortgage crisis, the US dollar is weaker than ever, we are in the middle of a war, and our education system is horrible in comparison to other well developed nations- just to name a few of the problems.

Despite the fact that powerful states are not obligated to help lesser states I cannot ignore the fact that responsibility comes with power.  Being a powerful nation means other nations will follow the nation’s example.  If a powerful nation aids a lesser known nation it is more likely that other nations will follow.  In many cases the global community cannot (or will not) progress until powerful nation(s) encourage the process.  One argument for powerful states to look out for lesser states is the question if lesser nations cannot take care of themselves who will care for them?  No one is not an acceptable answer- when it comes to an extreme issue such as this the concern is not usually for the state itself, but for the people in the state.

Yes, I am contradicting myself- the ideal situation of a powerful state looking after its own interest and the interest of less powerful states is not always possible.  The question becomes an issue of morality.  No different from an individual’s question of should I help myself or those in need?  We all know what is the right answers is- but what is right is not always the easiest.  As bad as that sounds- its human nature.

Should Powerful States Look After the Well-Being of Less Powerful States?

 "Should" is an interesting question, because it discards reality and enables the respondent to reorder the world according to a flight of fancy. In this case, it is also an exceedingly easy question to answer: the exclusive aim of all states, weak and strong, should be to please me. As I reside in the US, in most cases powerful states should not look after less powerful. Unfortunately for me, this reordering of the world will probably never occur. States are controlled by people, and people act in attempts to fulfill their own physical and emotional needs rather than mine. This is inevitable. The more important is question is whether, given human nature, it is rational for the population of a powerful state to support policies that look after the well-being of less powerful states. It often is, insofar as global stability, prosperity, and liberalization can fulfill the needs of the populace.

Foreign policy should not be guided by altruism, by compassion, or by concerns for "right" and "wrong". There are no widely accepted and algorithmic definitions of "good" or "evil", nor is there an empirical or rational basis for behaving in accordance with those standards. An effective foreign policy must be protected from the erratic and sometimes errant influences of unjustifiable instinct.

Self-interest should be the guiding principle of policy, but self-interest does not mean the myopic pursuit of pleasure and personal power. Personal wealth and power tend to have diminishing marginal returns; in other words, with each additional unit the additional benefit decreases. To make an example of a recurring World Politics theme, the difference between a hole in the ground and a $300 toilet is far greater than the difference between a $300 toilet and a $600 toilet. In fact, I may derive more benefit from buying a $300 toilet for myself and another one for my neighbor. Not only do I reduce my risk of catching an illness due to poor sanitation and improve the environment in which I live, I also receive a measure of personal satisfaction, decrease the chance that my neighbor will steal from me, and gain standing in my community. “No man is an island unto himself”, as John Donne duly noted.

The same principle functions on a global scale. More so than ever, the world does not end at the border checkpoint. Development generally benefit nearly the entire international community: potential product markets are larger, natural resources are cheaper and more easily accessible, human talent pools are larger, wars and international crimes are rarer, and epidemics are fewer and easier to contain; malaria nets are far cheaper than missiles. Furthermore, by advocating policies that strengthen the international community, citizens may also create an implicit check on the power of their own government. And when the interests of a state and its citizens do diverge from those of the international community, it always helps to be able to call in a few favors. 

"In politics, absurdity is not a handicap."-Napolean

This week's question goes back to the idea of Social Darwinism. To answer this question one must decided whether they will take the moral road or the objective road. I would rather take a helicopter ride over the question and try to address both sides but I can’t. I do believe that every human is equal but if we lived by that ideal then we wouldn’t be able to buy stuff at the prices we do. I believe that powerful countries should help provide the basic needs for humanity to survive, but the powerful countries should not be carrying the weaker countries.
Every country has their own problems. That includes the powerful countries. Though those problems may not be as bad as the less powerful countries, each country needs to take care of its own people. And that idea is key. If the government of a country is not caring for the needs and welfare of its citizens then another, more powerful country might want to take interest in said country. I’m not saying that the powerful country should invade the weaker country but that the powerful country should push for change. The more powerful country should use its influence to help push for change. Although this might seem like the negative response to the question, powerful countries have enough on their plates so trying to get involved in other countries affairs can lead to more problems if not addressed properly. In other words, the powerful countries have to selectively chose which interests they want to get involved.