The idea of states pursuing national interest can be the source of many problems. In America, this idea is the subject of debate by various groups and organizations.
Currently, there are several scholarly materials that theorize the concept of national interest. Most of the theories that are forwarded on the subject of national interest tend to have similarities. The paper summarizes the subject of national interest, its theories, and the schools of thought behind this subject.
Realists agree that it is impossible to separate self-interest issues from national interest issues. According to realists, people always act by their interests and their levels of power. Realism argues that there is no difference between the interests of the individuals and those of states because states are made up of individuals.
This means that when politicians are pursuing the national interest, they will tend to ignore all ideological and theoretical interests of other countries. Realists point to the problem of individuals who are charged with the responsibility of pursuing national interest. These individuals can, at times, mistake their biased opinions with the reality of national interest.
An example of this conflict is the Vietnam War, where a policy maker’s interest was mistaken for the national interest. Realists also find the idea of applying moral principals when pursuing national interest unfeasible. According to realists, applying public emotions in matters of national interest is likely to be the source of problems.
The leading realist scholars are Hans Morgenthau and George Kennan. Morgenthau’s school of thought argues that it is possible to predict the behavior of nations in their pursuit of national interest. On the other hand, Kennan’s school of thought argues that a legal and moral approach when pursuing national interest is unyielding. However, the two scholars agree on the fundamental principles of realism.
The idealist school of thought presents ideas that oppose those of realists. Idealists dispute most of the assumptions that are made by realists concerning human nature.
For instance, idealists argue that human beings are fundamentally good and that it is possible to apply morality issues when pursuing national interest. Another fundamental principle of idealism is that it is possible to achieve international peace. Also, matters of national interest should be fused with ethics and democracy, according to idealists.
Idealists oppose the concept that global politics are dominated by anarchy. Idealists are of the view that it is possible to achieve peaceful co-existence among states.
Also, the ethical and emotional needs of the public should be considered as part of national interest issues. The principles of idealists are used by special interest groups all over the world. Groups that aim to promote peace, fight for human rights, eliminate hunger, and harmonize trade tend to favor idealists.
Neoconservatives are the third school of thought that aims at defining the best way of handling national interest. Neoconservatives are a blend of both idealist and realist schools of thought. The distinctive feature of neoconservatives is that they are against reliance on international organizations. Neoconservatives’ policies are aimed at fostering democracy but only within the boundaries of a particular state.
Some of the leading neoconservative scholars include Robert Kagan and William Kristol. For instance, Kagan is of the view that the country’s moral purposes are in harmony with its national interests. These ideas were bought into by President George W. Bush. Kagan’s main argument is that states should lead the way in formulating a ‘model world.’
The neoconservative’s ideology is often criticized because of its ‘unrealistic nature.’ Neoconservatives seek to lead the world and at the same time, adhere to the idealist principles. This means that sometimes the national interest would be ignored with the assumption that the arising problems would be fixed later. In overall, the neoconservative school of thought attracts the most criticism out of the three leading schools of thought, including idealism and realism.
One of the principles that are perpetuated by the three schools of thought is that national interest mostly applies to military power and economic security. A nation’s interest in its military and economical wellbeing is likely to put it in conflict with other states and organizations. Moreover, national interest is likely to be shaped by a state’s economic and military interests.
It is argued that America’s national interest is a product of several historical events that affected the country’s military and economical interests. This argument disputes the totality of ‘national’ interest. Another argument is that national interest is just a product of politics. Therefore, the national interest is likely to change as the political environments change.
The ‘unnational’ nature of the national interest is also disputed using the argument that the economic needs of the country are the ones that shape national interest. The media, politicians, and scholars argue that the national interest is unchanging.
This argument is wanting because throughout history, several economic and military developments have contributed to major changes in the national interest. It is concluded that national interest is a concept that has two faces. One of these faces is the one that is theorized, and the other one is the one that is seen through government actions.
This is a research article on the decentralization of power by the U.S federal government founded on the case studies on specific policies of the government. The investigation done on policymaking for the period of 1947-1998 presented enough information on the subject of national government to decentralize its power to state government. The data obtained was utilized in assessment of the delegation of powers among governmental levels. Conversely, the gathered material indicates that neither Reagan nor Nixon’s national plans purposed to delegate policymaking powers to subnational government have achieved systematic and relentless delegation in America federalism. However there has been argument over which mode of government to be adopted with some centralizer proposing national government with more power and authority via localities and states. On the other hand, (de)centralizers support change in authority in favor of subnational government.
To begin with, the article points out that there have been political debates relating to the kind of American federalism and concerned development. The division of power advances became an effective and popular way for political scientists to examine ascendancy originating from fresh institutionalism point of view. The case study tried to understand the extent of America government policy consolidation which can be determined by actions of the executive orders and federal statutes. From this study, the degree of actual changes in policymaking power among levels of America government is in charge of the law. Therefore, the dealings demonstrate federal government’s concrete devotion to policy decentralization and centralization.
Discussion
Data collection and the objectives
The research focused its attention on the policymaking power within specified levels of the government particularly between the legislature and the chief executive. However this kind of approach undermined the likewise significant vertical separation of authorities that takes place between levels of government as centralized government and subnational matching parties vie for supremacy which is of elementary importance to the understanding of federalism. The comprehensive case study on the federal system entailed examination on specific commands issued by presidents or sections of the legislature. This gave insight into America federal system and how it operates on organized level.
First, appropriate step was taken by building up a yearly time series evaluation of policy federal based on combination of important executive orders and U.S public law from 1947 to 1998. This approach gave a clear understanding of the balance of America policymaking power inside a federal system of governance. The data was obtained from the yearly compendia of executive orders and U.S public laws originating from the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large. Respectively. Each appropriate executive order and law was substantiated on condition of substance and capacity to gauge its value. This approach explores the extent to which federal government has sought to consolidate its power against its intergovernmental laws and programs. It gives a leeway for analyzing the degree of federal government handing over policymaking rights to local governments and state.
“Gifts” by emerson and “becoming american is a constant cultural collision” by t.T. Nhuthe stylized facts of postwar american federalism: Evidence from “small n” qualitative research.
Political scientists are concerned about the centre of authority and the intergovernmental delegation of power. For example, the writers of this article scrutinize the distribution of policymaking power from Congress to administrative branch agencies. Notably, federalism theory talks about the delegation of power in reaction to critical circumstances as the core value of federalism. “Small N” qualitative practical investigation on the issue of federalism gave forth to two major stylized information concerning advancement of American federal for the period of postwar era. First, the material on the American centralized system indicates that the model of power has been on rise of centralization with irregular decentralization programs. Consolidation of power has numerous causes namely the establishment of federal grant-in-aid system, supportive accommodating judgment of the U.S Supreme Court structure and congressional eagerness for preventive regulatory statutes organization.
On the positive side dating back to Eisenhower administration, modest attempts were carried out to offset the centralization brought forth by the New Deal policies (plans) and plans of the Roosevelt and Truman governance. During Kennedy-Johnson era, the earlier efforts to decentralize were weighed down by their consolidation acts, but apparently decentralization again gained momentum under Reagan-Bush and Nixon years of administration. Based on these historical events that unfolded, we are left with a big question whether there has been any decentralization by the federal government?
A second subject in the text is that, federal allocation of policymaking power to subnational administration has turned out to be the custom as from the Nixon presidency. For example, research on the welfare policy, asserts that the government is in the process of “devolution revolution”. Based on specific sections of legislation and exact U.S Supreme Court judgments, scholars have hypothesized a modern era in which a shift in emphasis from consolidated to unconsolidated government has occurred. Conversely, do such assumptions remain applicable when investigating broader realism of intergovernmental policymaking power?
Ways of assessing policy consolidation in a federal government system
To evaluate policy (decentralization) entails numerous factors namely the subject matter to be assessed, time period and measurement plan. The extent of federal government policy unification can be determined through executive and legislative branches’ actions precisely executive orders and federal statutes. The action between stages of the government that is the actual moves in policymaking power explains the federal government’s genuine commitment to policy delegation. It is important to examine such moves over a satisfactory period of time (in this case 1947-1998).
Finally, this paper will examine the measure used in the study. To begin with, every executive order and U.S public rule instituted between 1947 and 1998 was evaluated to gauge whether it had intergovernmental component. Those that had intergovernmental applications were further investigated and content coded depending on the subject matter and the range of the article. During this case study it is important to note that the legislation that only extended previous public was for example P.L. 94-222, which “extend[ed] through September 12,1976 the current prohibition against certain types of state and local taxes being levied on out-of-state financial institutions” (Bowman and Krause 307) were left out. In addition, reconciliation acts, appropriations, land transactions and omnibus budget were excluded.
Examples of De (centralization) by the Federal Government
Free centralizing (= +2) entails the federal government centralizing power away from local governments and States allocating them only insignificant discretion as they follow central government requirements. Therefore, unrestrained centralizing legislation sets specific procedures to be followed by the states and forbids diversions from the instructions. Two well-known examples of this are P.L. 88-201 that launched homogeneous national standards for vehicles seat belts and P.L. 88-352, the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Controlled centralizing (= +1) implies the central government consolidating authority away from local governments and state however giving them a number of substantive discretion. An illustration of controlled centralization can be established in the Children’s Justice and Assistance Act of 1986 which formed a centralized program but granted states some leeway in achieving the federal government set standards.
We also have neutral (coded as = 0) implies authority shift in both bearings, with net outcome of zero that is executive orders and neutral statutes and contain equal weight. For example The Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 is contained both Decentralizing Act and a Centralizing act. Guarded decentralizing (= –1) is where the central government delegates power to the local governments and state with substantive limitations (subject to guidelines set by the central government. For example Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, that certified states to come up with state plans and function their own agendas, at the discretion of federal review.
Graphical and univariate analysis of U.S. Federal policy centralization measures
In early 1960s indicates steady increase in policy consolidation during Kennedy administration and as Congress embarked on revising the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. However gathering of power by the federal government and went down in1963 and 1964. Between 1960 and 1968, the government had centralized power with a greater number of unrestrained centralizing. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The peak of decentralization is exhibited in the years 1953, 1955, 1972, and 1981 which are characterized by Republican presidents. Based on executive orders and public laws shown, it is observed that 1947-1998 can be described as period of shift in policymaking power towards the federal level. In general the policies that were the focus for de(centralization) include education, health, natural resources acts and energy related actions. From the graphs, averagely, transfer of power to the federal level been persistent but irregular, in spite of policy type. The data points out that the decentralization actions of the state government in past 51 years have been not real, even though there have been declarations to the contrary.
Conclusion
Even though there has been substantial research on American federalism, Comprising of intergovernmental policies and their power, modest systematic empirical investigation has occurred. Furthermore, a small number of the population has understood this idea of vertical division of powers relating to the sharing of power across governmental ranks. The issue of de(centralization) has been tackled by generating measures of policy consolidation that takes into account the degree to which the centralized government is ready to entrust policymaking authority to subnational equivalent.
Predictably, regardless of occasional hard work by leaders to decentralize power, for example or the congressional Republicans “Contract with America,” initiative or Reagan’s New Federalism, consolidation of power triumphs in the end. The pattern, on the other hand, does not show evidence of monotonic boost in policy centralization (Bowman and Krause 320). The data obtained was utilized in assessment of the delegation of powers among governmental levels. Conversely, the gathered material indicates that neither Reagan nor Nixon’s national plans purposed to delegate policymaking powers to subnational government have achieved systematic and relentless delegation in America federalism. There are irregular intervals in which centralization decreases and decentralizing gains momentum. Across definite policy areas, the tendency of federal voted representatives to hunt for the centralization of power at the state level is unmistakable, even though it does not progressively go up with time. From the gathered material indicates that neither Reagan nor Nixon’s national plans purposed to delegate policymaking powers to subnational government have achieved systematic and relentless delegation in America federalism.
Based on data collected, of the 460 public laws contained in the data set, 20 (4.35%) involved unrestrained decentralizing actions, 24 (5.22%) neutral proceedings, 173 (37.61%) controlled consolidating actions, and finally 141 (30.65%) unconstrained consolidation actions. the case study was carried out on 95 executive orders. We can confidently that 6 (6.32%) involved free decentralizing actions, 5(5.26%) neutral deeds, 21 (22.11%) controlled decentralizing deeds and 32 (33.68%) constrained consolidating actions,
During research efforts to reduce the likelihood of miscoding were achieved implying results obtained can be were reliable conclusion and recommendations can be made. Apart from substance and scope, each executive order and public law were treated similarly Introduction of differential weights on subjects that are “more important” compared to others under the equivalent geographic range (scope) is extremely subjective and potentially deceptive. For instance, in this study, the Model Cities Act, was exceedingly outstanding and noticeable Bill, but P.L. 90-576, which revises the Vocational Education Act of 1963 was of same impact or perhaps superior intergovernmental significance albeit its less prominence. This bill represented change in the equilibrium of national-state power. Therefore, the determination errs on the conformist part by weighting individual executive order and public law an indistinguishable fashion. In essence more need to be done so that decentralization plans by the government can be realized. The elected governmental representatives need focus on the realization this dream devolution of power from the central government.
References
Bowman, Ann and Krause, George. Power Shift: Measuring Policy Centralization in US Intergovernmental Relations, 1947-1998. American Politics Research. 2003, 31(3): 301-325
American Theocracy is a treatise against the political order inspire by Philips. He faces disillusionments on America’s leadership class including the present political status. Phillips’ has offered a sequence of interlocking criticisms as regards trends by the party of Republican. American Theocracy broadly analyses his previous arguments into a coherent whole and mixes historical analysis with political polemic. Phillips identifies tri-central, unifying planks in the Republican coalition- oil, radical religion and the unprecedented levels of national and consumer debt.
Rules for Radicals by community organizer -Saul D. Alinsky-attempting to impart his theory and organization methods to the existing generation of youthful activists, squarely based on self experiences. He urges that the generation should change the world from what it is to what it should be. The Prince, by Machiavelli, was written for the Haves on how to stick to power.
The Changing American Electorate brief overview
Based on reputable statistic –in 1980, 32 % of the electorate was white Democrats. In 2008, 32 % were white Obama voters. However in 1980, approximately 9 % of the electorate were nonwhite Carter voters, 21% of the electorate are noted to be nonwhite Obama voters, 2008. Hence Carter defeated widely, while Obama defeated John McCain by a strong margin, Nate Silver. The American electorate is viewed as two contrasting electorates; one partisan (Democrats vs. Republicans), the other non-partisan. The former are extremely politically attentive/ involved, and have progressive voting behavior as compared to nonpartisans. Observers have suggested the polarization of the American electorate, a fact denied by others.
Introduction to Economic and Political Class warfare
The working masses which include the working class and working peasants are producers of all social wealth- intellectual and manual labor forming the crown of all societies. Political class of the products is being controlled by ownership of the minority, by supervisory strata, renowned military politician’s officials of the state. The other side of this domineering and/or exploitative rule of the bosses bears the misery and suppression of the laborers. Most people suffer various degrees as regards denial whilst the small minority enjoys all the pleasures and treasures of this world.
Class struggle and what it implies
Capitalism and the State rely on the exploitation of the majority of humanity. The class exploitation creates class warfare between the exploiters and those exploited. It occurs both at work and in the community, and may have resulted from ideological differences including nationalist, religious, feminist ideologies of which have a substantial variation from Anarchism. To terminate the class system, Anarchist/Syndicalists rely on the working class revolution.
Revolution would take place either for black or white, intransigent or progressive despite of the ruling class which the citizens belongs to. The revolutions have been done through training which was done in a class system where citizens were being trained about their rights. The revolution will help to destroy capitalism, the State and other forms of oppression, generating a new self- managed society relying on worker and community councils and needs assessment distribution (Phillips, 2006). The coercive authority, exploitation, and oppression entrenches political and economic class warfare and should be avoided.
Consequently, it will most likely disintegrate before and during the revolution of those in support of the bosses against those in support of the working class. Despite this, it is crucial to lay emphasis on the middle class people joining the workers’ movement to join as comrades with their abilities and interests at the mercy of the masses, instead of pausing as experts and leaders who give the orders.
Capitalism and the modern State generate various other oppressive relationships including imperialism, homophobia, sexism, racism and environmental degradation which are believed to be responsible for super-exploitation of socially weaker sections of the working class by the capitalists creating divisions of the working masses through ideological manipulation with evident inequality of rights. They are core to class struggle which does not ignore sexism, racism among others as far as most of people affected by them are working class, so long as these oppressions are evident in the capitalist system, and also if the working class can be united and mobilized with regards to opposing all oppression, these issues remain class issues. Mobilization of a working class calls on dealing with all the issues affect them. Hence an economic and political class struggle succeeds where it is anti-racist, anti-sexist etc.
Non- united, disintegrated, non- internationalist class struggle politics will be another cause of class warfare. None of the sections of the working classes can attain freedom on their own; it calls for unity and internationalism-because no revolution can suffice a success in an individual country.
The fight against racism will soon generate class warfare. The fight against racism is seen that against capitalism and the State. Because these structures are beaten through class struggle where no careful handling is shown, it creates political and economic warfare. Most of the citizens of different groupings felt that they are marginalized because the law was not protecting them like other groups have been protected by the law. This has necessitated the parliament to explore opportunities in which groups which felt that they are marginalized like women, less privilege of black Americans and homosexual’s privileges are addressed by legislation of law.
The working masses are powerful and carry society on their shoulders through their labor. They therefore have real power, which can be harnessed to halt and defeat the class enemy. Strikes in excesses will generate economic and political class warfare as they can injure the boss class. The ruling class which is mainly in parliament during revolutionary period did important concessions by being pressurized of mass action which was demonstrated by the citizens who needed change. The citizens experienced warfare which was as a result of control over resources such as mines, land and factories to be controlled by workers associations instead of bosses. This is in deed a crunch to the economy and political stability of a nation.
Elections should not be seen as a form of class struggle. America categorically is in support and defense of the right to vote, inclusive of the other civil and political rights that accompany it in a democracy that is bourgeois and capitalistic (Alinsky, 1998). However, these rights were only won and defended by working class struggle. Use of neutrality by the state was used for the disposal of the majority which is used by bosses as weapons which controls operations of the boardrooms and decisions being made by the companies, military and state bureaucracy and not in the parliament. It was decided that 400 people will be elected in parliament to represent the entire population of 40 million citizens and make decisions on their behalf. This generates warfare since all power must be exercised by the working class wholesomely through grassroots worker and community councils with the unions and the civic associations as reliance of these councils.
Concerning how it will spread to the south, Philip argues insinuates the American South successfully repositioning itself at the forefront of culture in U.S. society just the country faces a number of deep-rooted energy, geopolitical, and financial crises. United stated devised the most appropriate means of governance during the period of revolution. They therefore opted to have American electorate who were empowered to control the economy and activity of the state in religion, oil sectors and other sectors of the economy.
Conclusion
Phillips says that fundamentalism experienced an upsurge in audience and played a vibrant role in shaping the parameters of public discourse. In the southern there was decline of cultural issues, social polarizations as it had been realized in Britain and Spain when it was undergoing revolution. Christianity played a major role in revolution as it provides the guidelines to the ruling community and provided boundaries which the state manifested on and improved to prepare their laws which governed the operations of the government and addressed the social problems of American.
The dilemma of concern in America, as asserted by Philips, doesn’t underlie moral ramifications of sexual norms and/or abortion practices, but on the mushrooming financialization as regards the national economy. With a focus on decline of American manufacturing sector and later expansions of national liability, concluded that United States is rapidly treading towards economic wreck which will spread even to the south.
References
Alinsky, S. (1998). Rules for Radicals. Lincolnshire: Vintage.
Phillips, K. (2006). American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury. New York: Viking Adult.
The aspects of the presidency, interest groups, democracy, public opinion, bureaucracy, and elections are discussed widely in the NY Times. Since the actual importance of these aspects for the American citizens is essential, it is hard to overestimate the significance of the information published in this periodical. Therefore, the analyzed articles will be regarded from the perspective of the stated aspects.
The promise and performance of American democracy in the articles are emphasized by the very existence of these articles, as the authors are free to discuss and analyze any event associated with political life in the USA. All three articles perform in depth analysis of the events, or offer all the necessary information for such an analysis, hence, whether these are discussion of a public opinion, description of the governor’s actions, or analysis of the judicial system authorization, the democracy provides the necessary framework for the mass media freedom, and the following public discussion of these aspects and events.
Public opinion is one of the most important aspects among the six regarded, and all three articles pay specific attention to it. Therefore, Ryan, Pushing Budget, Resists Talk of Higher Office article is slightly focused on the matters of the possible results of the elections, considering the public opinion of the audience. However, the most important aspects of the article are democracy, the presidency of Obama, his position associated with democracy in the USA, as well as a bureaucratic system of the federal government. These aspects are mainly intended to identify the nature of the relations within the higher office, and the attitude of the interest groups towards these relations.
Governor of Mississippi Won’t Run for President article is deeply invoved into the assessment of the public opinion (by discussing the attitude of the public towards Haley Barbour’s abandoning of the attempt to join the presidential race), as well as the aspects of presidency and bureaucracy. These factors of the political life and analysis are needed to create the framework for assessing the democratic opportunities that were used by gov. Barbour, hence, formed a pleasant public opinion background among his potential electors. The interest groups are not discussed widely in this article; however, it is evident that the audience took his efforts seriously. In the light of this fact it should be emphasized that democracy will take its effect, and the governor will not have enough chances to become a second-term governor.
Justices Skeptical on Role of Courts in Setting Emissions Standards may be regarded as the assessment of the judicial system within the democratic framework, and with the bureaucratic background. Considering the fact that the case regarded in the article is not seriously associated with the matters of public opinion or interest groups, the interests of the public are touched upon with the aspects of the case, as reduction of the greenhouse effect is one of the most important problems for the public. The emission standards are the instance of bureaucracy, while the presidency aspect is touched upon by mentioning the government system and political forces that are involved in the regulation process.
The aspects associated with the democratic structure of the political system and government of the USA are discussed and analyzed jointly in the regarded aspects, and these are included into various frameworks for the proper analysis.
The differences between the concepts of nation, country, state, government, and nation-state
A nation is a group of people more extensive than a tribe or an ethnic community and shares a common language, culture, history, and religion. Several nations may exist in one geographical or administrative area. For example, in Canada, several nations, together with Québécois, identify with as nationals. There can be two nations that exist in one state, or also there can be one nation that exists in more than one state (Guy 75).
A country is understood as the entire characteristics of a geographical entity: its geographical entity and material and social-economic components of a state. A state in the international system is defined as an entity with the following characteristics; territory, government, population, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. It is this legal entity that makes states to qualify as an international legal person. The capacity of any state to enter into relations with other states gives it a leeway in the signing of treaties, forming alliances and entering into diplomatic relations with other states, and gaining membership to international organizations.
On the other hand, a government is an institutionalized process of allocating and distributing values that are the binding decision of the people. Nation-state describes two phenomena: first is used when one nation inhabits one state. A nation-state may also be used when one nation occupies a similar boundary as the state. Examples of a nation-state are Germany and France. It is estimated that 211 nation-states in the international system host 1400 nationalities in the whole world.
Superpower and its role in the international system
Superpower is s term that is used to describe a dominant state in a unipolar international system. Since the collapse of the USSR after the Cold War, the United States of America has remained the only superpower. In the international system, a superpower performs the role of world policeman. It can also exercise leverage over other states since it ranks high in all power components, or rather its power capability is high.
Middle power is that state with power capabilities slightly below that of the superpower and can demonstrate its ability to challenge the superpower. Their role in the international system is to check on and challenge the superpower. Middle powers provide competition in the polarity regime.
The difficulties of measuring power among the states comprising the international system
There have been several difficulties in measuring power and power potential among states. This is because of the dynamism of the variables. The emergence of sophisticated weapons, advanced information technology, and other agents of globalization rendered some instruments of power capability obsolete. For example, geography, which was considered a blessing, is the worst affected by these developments. The military is no longer an essential indicator of measuring power among states. This is because states have opted for soft power, and hard power has been overtaken by events. Also, unlike the 20th century, the military is no longer a measure of might because states have considered war as unfashionable.
Factors that comprise soft power: Soft power is defined as the ability of a state to achieve its objectives through attraction and not coercion. This may be achieved through culture, ideals, and policies.
Among the factors that comprise soft power are propaganda, international travel, diplomacy, and cultural exchange. Propaganda is a current mode of soft power. Several wars have been fought without the sound of the bullet or the tanks. Propaganda involves winning as many friends as possible. The Cold War was the most protracted than any other war, yet there was no spilling of blood or property destruction like the first and the Second World War.
Another form of soft power is diplomacy. Diplomacy has been at the core of international relations. It is actualized by establishing diplomatic relations with a particular state and then sending a representative. Ambassadors or high commissioners are the individuals tasked by their states to take care of the home state’s affairs in a foreign state.
Another form of soft power is cultural exchange. This is achieved through a particular state, establishing a cultural center in a foreign country, or through mass media. During the Cold War, America had Radio Europe that helped propagate its ideals to the European community.
The advantages and disadvantages of the various types of economic systems employed among the world’s states
The two forms of economic system employed by states are capitalism and communism or socialism. Communism is an economic system in that society wholly owns and controls production factors, while capitalism, on the other hand, is where ownership and factors of production are in the hands of a single individual or rather a private owner. Among the features of communism are communal production, profits are appropriated equally, unlike the self-regulated economy of capitalism, communism is a government economy. Capitalism is driven by the dynamics of the invisible hand of the market.
Capitalism is exploitative. Capitalism is driven by the desire of private owners to accumulate a lot of profit. On the other side, communism is like a government project aimed at enhancing social welfare.
I’m afraid I have to disagree that the GDP should be used as an instrument for measuring economic growth. This is because GDP only considers the monetary aspect of the economy, hence ignoring essential factors like the environment. GDP also ignores household productions that are the primary responsibility of women in developing countries. GDP heavily relies on the US dollar as a standard currency, too; it ignores the monetary policies of different states and treats other currencies as devalued.
Thinking About Government
Differentiation of politics from government in relation to accountability, constitutionalism, popular sovereignty, and rule of law
Politics is understood as influential behavior that leads to making public decisions, whether within or without the institutional framework of government. On the other hand, a government is an institutionalized process of allocating and distributing values as per the binding decision of the people (Guy 100).
Accountability: accountability is a characteristic of a democratic form of government where the leaders are held responsible for their actions of commission or omission
Constitutionalism: constitutionalism is a form of government where the constitution is the supreme law
Popular sovereignty: this implies popular participation by the general public in state matters. It is also used in reference to liberal democracy, where the popular will of the people prevails in the conduct of state affairs. In this case, the minority have their say while the majorities have their way.
Rule of law: this implies that no one is superior to the law, and it is the law that guides the conduct of national affairs.
Attributes of democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian governments
Democratic state
A democratic state has the following characteristics.
Popular participation
In a democratic institution, decisions are always taken to vote. The majority rule over the minority; consequently, there is no dissent in a democratic, and always consensus is the order of the day.
Rule of law
In a democratic state, the law is always esteemed. Every individual is equal before the law, and in case one violates the law, one will be according to the law, and the due process of the law is followed. The supreme law in a democratic state is the constitution.
Transparency and accountability
There exists a greater degree of transparency in a democratic state. Leaders are held accountable for their actions. In liberal democracies, corruption is often prohibited by the law, and any citizen involving in corruption is held accountable.
Political parties
Democratic states are characterized by the presence of political parties who often compete for political power. It is this plurality of democratic states that competition for power is highly regarded.
Periodic elections
Democratic states also practice elections. These elections are often considered competitive and are held after a particular period like after four years in the United States of America and five years in the case of Britain.
Canada is regarded as democratic because it has the above characteristics as opposed to China, which does not value democracy, and they practice personal rule. Canada can allow open competitiveness, and the due process of the rule of law is upheld are stronger in Canada exhibit the basic tenets of democracy, which include majority rule and minority rights.
Authoritarian rule
The following are essential characteristics of totalitarian rule.
First is limited pluralism; in a totalitarian government system, political contests are only allowed to a greater extent. They practice elections, but the elections which are not free and fair. The suppression of opposition characterizes most of their elections. Authoritarian regimes only allow elections as a matter of formality and a public relation exercise. In this type of government, the activities of civil society and other interest groups are not tolerated. Term limits are not upheld.
Low level of popular participation, authoritarian governments have what is referred to as a parochial political culture where there are a dominant leader and subjects who don’t have a say in running state affairs.
The personalized rule is also a feature of authoritarian governments. Authoritarian regimes have lifetime president who rules by suppressing any dissent from the citizens. A totalitarian government is characterized by an umbrella social and political organization. They have a women league, youth league, which are directly linked to the single party. This type of government often experiences high vote turnout during elections since only one candidate presents himself for election. Totalitarian governments also have a monolithic and absolute ideology maintained and propagated through repressive and violent state apparatus.
The main characteristics of parliamentary and presidential governments.
In a parliamentary system of government, the prime minister is the head of government, and the overall responsibility in the management of the affairs of the state is a parliament. The parliament is allowed to scrutinize and to attack the government publicly. Also, in a parliamentary system, political parties guarantee an opposition that performs the watchdog functions of parliament and is conducted by the opposition parties. A perfect example of a parliament system of government is that of Great Britain.
On the other hand, the presidential system of government upholds the principle of the separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Also, in a presidential system, the general audit function is the product of political competition between the legislature and the executive, especially in the formulation of the law.
Both the presidential and parliamentary system of government has strict measures of checks and balances.
Executives
Capabilities of the executive branch in formulating public policy
In Canada, the cabinet exercises one of the decisive roles in the political system. It is also regarded as the most powerful institution in Canada because I get support from the prime minister’s office and the together Privy Council office, and the treasury board.
For example, a parliamentary government system might be a strong watchdog that will check against the executive’s excesses. For instance, in the United States, the president only exercises the executive powers through a presidential decree, which grants it leeway in making decisions. Congress is too strong that it can prevent the president from discharging its duties.
Parliament has asserted itself as the dominant entity in checking against the misuse of power by the executive.
The functions of the executive branch of government in the United States and Canada
The Canadian executive is a mixture of the legislative process and the entire bureaucracy. This is as opposed to the US congress, which is an independent government body. Also, in the United States of America, an executive decision can not go unquestioned, unlike in Canada, where cabinet decision is final and often legitimate and can not be questioned.
In discharging its duties, the president of America must first convince Congress; hence failure to do this may make Congress render his agenda ineffective. The united states of America have term limits, which are available to the prime minister of Canada. The USA’s massive resources provide the president with economic abilities that are not available to the prime minister of Canada.
In Canada, the executive consists of the prime minister and the cabinet. The prime minister of Canada has the authority to appoint the Privy Council and the senate. It is also him who chose members of his cabinet without consulting any party. The prime minister can hire and fire any state officer. Members of parliament who oppose the prime minister will be faced with the responsibility of their nomination papers not being signed in the next federal election.
Comparing the executive in Canada and the USA, the Canadian executive is more powerful. This is because there are minimal checks against Canada’s prime minister, and the prime minister can make a unilateral decision. This is opposed to the executive in the USA, where a strong congress checks their actions.
Works Cited
Guy, James. People, Politics and Government: A Canadian perspective. Scarborough: Pearson Education, 2001. Print.
Politics in America took shape between 1820 and 1850, when many groups were allowed to participate in elections as voters. However, some scholars are of the view that politics at the time were more restrictive, partisan, and controlled by the national parties. From 1790 onwards, many states in America expelled a law that allowed only men with property to engage in elections. This means that some white men without property could also be involved in the voting process. Before the adjustment of the voting laws, only owners of the means of production could qualify as voters. However, Africans were still discriminated, even though white men were allowed to vote.
By 1840, only three states, including Rhodes Island, Virginia, and Louisiana, denied poor white men an opportunity to vote. In the same period, Africans could be involved in the voting process in only five states. Surprisingly, women were never allowed to take part in electing their preferred leaders in all states. The dominance of parties was revived since only two parties could compete in elections. This was the same as the struggles in the Jeffersonian times whereby federalists and republics competed for state power. In 1828, party conflicts were rampant since the president supported a group that backed his presidency. Since then, the US has always been guided by the principles of the two major parties, including Democrats and Republicans.
A close analysis reveals that awarding white men the right to take part in elections was a guided democracy since it did not allow the society to participate freely in the selection of its leaders. This was an attempt to sideline one race, which was depended upon in economic development. Blacks were still sidelined in the making of major governmental policies since they did not have representatives at any level. During Jackson’s leadership, party politics was the order of the day since each political party fought fiercely to land a seat at any level. Parties spent too much time selling their ideas and principles to the electorate, with the Democrats claiming that they would provide an enabling environment for individual fulfillment. The losers in the system were slaves who were relegated to the periphery in terms of economic and social development. Constitutionally, they did not have any right regarding voting and conducting business.
All owners of the means of production and whites were the great winners since they used the opportunity to impose leaders to innocent locals and blacks who were never represented at any level. After the revolution, some reforms were instituted, which gave the poor an opportunity to engage in socio-political and economic development. They could participate in voting, as well as presenting their candidature during elections.
An interest group is characterized as a collective of people with common concerns who strive to promote the interests of its members in the government. Examples of such groups include labor unions, professional associations, and the representatives of the business community. It is a widely known fact that the interests of non-governmental members have a significant influence on American politics. The current paper reckons that interest group politics should be regulated and describes some reasons for this opinion.
Thinking about the consequences of unregulated factions politics, the first idea that comes to mind is that the weaker groups will always be outsiders that are unable to promote their interests. According to Cigler et al., pressure groups naturally evolve in democratic regimes, and it is expected that individuals unite for the sake of the promotion of their interests (2). Still, political equality is one of the principles of a democratic regime. This principle implies the impossibility of disparity among the citizens. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the absence of regulation in interest group politics leads to the discrimination of the minority. Wealthy organized interests possess more resources that could be used to lobby their concerns in the government. Therefore, the minority groups become deprived of a chance to be treated in the same manner as bigger ones. This point of view could be proven by Cigler et al., who claim that the control over organized interests helps to elaborate on the system of checks and balances (4). Consequently, this reduces the power of a single strong group.
It is essential to note that in American politics, there already exist some regulations on factions’ activities. For instance, the state government proscribes such actions as gifting lawmakers and receiving compensations for voting in a manner that a group wants. These regulations signify that the government realizes the value of limitations of interest groups in the process of taking policy decisions. Regulations are aimed at the promotion of transparency in lobbying activity. From my point of view, it is necessary to be sure that the promotion of the interests of some faction is honest and happens behind locked doors. This, in turn, helps to increase the responsiveness of politicians to the public and minimizes the possibility of corruption. At the same time, one could claim that regulations violate the freedom of interest organizations’ actions. Nevertheless, I assume that these limitations are an imprescriptible part of an efficient policymaking process.
Finally, I do believe that the government should make decisions thinking, foremost, of the interests of the citizens, not any interest group. This assumption drives the contradiction because these groups are comprised of individuals, concerns of which the government should take into consideration. However, politics could not be entirely based on the attempt to please only a particular union. I suppose that policymakers should make decisions depending on the outcomes of the whole community.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that interest group politics should be restricted. The major reasons for governmental regulation lie in the government’s obligation not to be corrupted and to be concerned with the interests of all unions and citizens in the same manner. The existing regulations are non-violent and leave significant space for factions to influence politics. In addition, rules and restrictions are essential because they discipline and equate the competing interest groups.
Work Cited
Cigler, Allan, et al. Interest group politics. 9th ed., CQ Press, 2015.
The US government has been designed to have three branches of power that have separate but related capabilities in terms of maintaining the country running. The government’s Executive Branch is governed by the President of the United States who should implement and enforce the laws developed by Congress. The President is also responsible for appointing heads of federal agencies, including the Cabinet, for ensuring the execution of the legislation. The Legislative Branch is governed by the Congress, which is divided into the Senate and the House of Representatives, each of which is made up of members that have been elected from each state. Despite the fact that the structure of the Congress was widely debated, the intention behind its development was associated with the need to ensure that each state had a say in making federal decisions. The Judicial Branch is represented by the Supreme Court of the United States and includes nine members, each of whom is assigned by the President with approval from the Senate, which has to provide a majority vote.
It is imperative to understand that each participant of the US government can affect the changes in decisions made by other branches. For example, the President can veto the laws that are being passed by Congress. The latter, in turn, can confirm and reject the appointments made the President as well as remove the elected President from office in the case of exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Court Justices are also capable of overturning unconstitutional laws passed by Congress. Therefore, the interactions between the branches of the American government represent the framework on which the country was developed.
The structure of the government in the Russian Federation differs from the framework developed in the United States. The executive branch of the country represents the set of the most authoritative officials, the President of Russia, who is the Head of the State and the Prime Minister, who is the Head of Government. The executives have complete authority over overseeing administrative affairs in the country and are also responsible for law enforcement as per the constitution of Russia. The Legislative Assembly of the Russian Federation is the legislative body of the government and is made up of two divisions, both of which are located in the country’s capital, Moscow. The State Duma is the Federal Assembly’s lower house that considers all proposals and bills and includes 450 members. The Federal Council id the upper house of the Assembly and has 168 members-senators. The main political party in the country is United Russia, while the communist party is the key opposition to the ruling party.
It is also important to mention the role of the Constitutional Court of Russia, which is responsible for solving any issues that may take place between the executive and legislative branches. The Court is made up of nineteen judges who are assigned by the country’s President, which means that he has a certain degree of influence over the judges. Noting the transformation from the Russian government from the Soviet era is also essential because in the past, the Communist Party ruled the country and was all-powerful, dominating all parts of human life. Today, Russia is a democracy, with the leader of the country being selected by its without pressure.
As a democracy, the United States government promotes the participation of citizens into the politics of the country. The right of the population to engage in decision-making and ensuring that governments implement those las that would be interesting and beneficial to people is an important principle of a representative government (“Engagement in a democracy,” 2019). Thus, the aim of voting and other forms of civic engagement is ensuring that the government serves people and not vice versa. The vote of informed citizens is expected to benefit the internal affairs of a country in which democracy is promoted and celebrated. Being informed is a fundamental way in which citizens can engage in governmental affairs, which means that people should make themselves familiar with the most important issues confronting their country as well as plans different political players have when dealing with the problems identified.
Voting, however, represents the main way in which citizens engage in political affairs. From members of city councils to Congressmen, important governmental players are chosen by popular vote. Despite the fact that the US President is not selected by popular vote, the decisions of the Electoral College are primarily based on how the general public has voted. Low rates of turnout on elections are therefore essential, and the lack of knowledge of the need to participate in elections represents the critical limitation of poor engagement in American politics. Citizens who are interested in participating in the political matters of the United States will inform themselves on the latest matters and will be dedicated to showing up at recent elections. In the latest Presidential election, 58.1% of voting-eligible citizens turned out based on the findings of the United States Election Project (2018).
In Russia, civic engagement and education represent a part of public politics. The modern society of the country is facing a challenge of determining what type of citizen is suitable for sustaining the political development of Russia. Because the country has a history of the totalitarian rule as well as the dominance of the Communist party, there was a tendency of citizens obeying the opinions and demands of ruling bodies. Today, the engagement of Russians into the political affairs of the population is characterized by the rising self-esteem of citizens and the increase of personal responsibility and autonomy. The increasing interest in the recent political issues in shown predominantly by young people, both by well-educated ones as well as individuals with high levels of material security. Social networking plays a vital role in increasing civic engagement in Russia because of its convenience and the ability to connect with citizens residing in distant parts of the country.
It is noteworthy that 26% of Russians believe that their participation in public and political life would not change anything while 31% of surveyed individuals cannot explain the reasons for them being politically passive (“Civic engagement in Russia,” 2017). Also, 43% of respondents mentioned that they have never participated in public activities and would not participate in the future. Being a post-Communist country, it is imperative for the population to be more active in educating themselves as well as turning out to vote (“Civic engagement in Russia,” 2017). According to the latest reports, the turnout at the latest Presidential elections was unprecedented; however, there are some doubt regarding the accuracy of governmental estimations because population surveys showed a significant extent of disinterest (Hille, Foy, & Seddon, 2018).
When comparing American and Russian politics, it essential to mention that the US is a constitutional federal republic while Russia is a semi-presidential federation (Central Intelligence Agency, n.d.). The Prime Minister governs the executive branch of the Russia while in the United States, it is led by the President and Vice President. While both countries promote the pluralist theory of government, democracy, there are some vital differences in the political frameworks of the states (“Who governs? Elitism, pluralism, and tradeoffs,” 2019). Given the fact that Russia had had the same President for full four terms and has had his authority for the most extended period of time (not including the term serving as Prime Minister when Dmitry Medvedev was the President between 2008 and 2012), Russia can be considered predominantly authoritarian. In addition, the President has gained intense support from rich businesspeople, thus promoting the oligarchical rule. According to Martin’s (2018) article, Russia’s democracy can be characterized as “managed” or “fake,” especially given the considerable pressure that the government put on the press and private businesses (para. 4).
While the leaders of the United States can also be accused of actions pertaining to the control of the population and the media, which is inherent to oligarchy, the country has more characteristics of a democracy compared to Russia. Because of a unique distribution of power between Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches that interact and affect the decisions made by each other, the United States can maintain a degree of fairness and transparency that Russia has not been able to reach yet.
References
Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). Central Asia: Russia. Web.
When watching the debate, it seems to be one between two strong candidates and three others who fade into the background due to being relatively unknown and the fact that they cannot directly compete with Clinton and Sanders when it comes to sheer public popularity. For instance, in this fracas of different opinions comes Jim Webb, who is a pretty surprising candidate due to the fact that he is even there in the first place. He is a relative unknown among the different candidates and it is unlikely that he will drum up sufficient support from the democratic party to gain even a sliver of a chance for candidacy.
Domination by Sanders and Clinton
This debate, and the likely representatives for the Democratic Party, are Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both of which have considerable support. One of the reasons behind this is due to the fact that their opponents don’t seem to take into consideration the implementation of relevant policies that are at the heart of many contested issues among the American public. For instance, candidate Martin O’Malley explained that he was the only candidate on stage that had plans to implement a cleaner electric grid for the country by the year 2050. He even mentioned that he would be making it his first priority should he assume office.
The main issue with this sort of proposition is the fact renewable energy technology is still in its infancy and is lacking in sufficient reliability (ex: no sun and no wind equates to no power). When taking into consideration the fact that less than 10 percent of the power generated in the U.S. comes from clean energy sources, it is unlikely that this plan can come to fruition by 2100 let alone 2050. On the other end of the spectrum is another candidate that you cannot help but scratch your head and wonder why he is there in the first place. Lincoln Chafee had the shortest speaking time at roughly 9 minutes and was barely able to make any points across regarding implementing the necessary changes to help safeguard the economy and territory of the U.S. from external threat.
Same Goal, Different Methodologies
The two true opponents in the debate (i.e. Sanders and Clinton) had opposing issues when it comes to both gun control, economic policy and foreign policy directives. In the case of Clinton, her experiences as Secretary of State definitely shows through as evidenced by her stance of having America have a greater role in international affairs as opposed to that of Sanders who advocated for a more reserved approach. On the other hand, one common theme that can be seen in the case of Clinton and Sanders is that they do agree on a vast majority of points regarding the need for changes to be implemented; however, they disagree on the methods in which such changes are to be brought about.
For instance, in the case of 2008 financial crisis and its subsequent impact on the American people, Sanders advocated for greater levels of separation between investment and commercial banks via the re-implementation of the Glass-Steagall Act while Clinton advocated more on implementing more fees for overly large banks, breaking them up into smaller enterprises and addressing issues related to unregulated banking. What these policies show is that while Sanders and Clinton both believe in the need for particular changes to occur, the way in which either candidate will accomplish this would be far different.
George W. Bush was an avid patriot and demonstrated an aggressive stance after the September 11th terrorist attacks, pledging to find those responsible. It began a significant shift in US foreign policy which would define its path for more than a decade. The ideology of patriotism and national defense was prevalent in the US society, offering support for Bush and the Republican leadership.
After the attacks, Bush obtained a UN resolution and founded an alliance of major countries in the world in support of an attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. After military assaults by Britain and the US, the Taliban-led government collapsed and a gruesome guerilla war began in combination with a civil war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the US abandoned its dedication to the Geneva Convention and began to use torture on captured terrorists in the attempt to find actionable intelligence on Bin Laden.
As the war in Afghanistan went on, Bush sought to expand the national policy to include his doctrine of preemption which sought to identify other countries that were supporting terrorist groups that targeted the United States. This national security strategy was utilized to justify the invasion of Iraq, which the Bush administration believed was developing weapons of mass destruction along with strongly supporting terrorist organizations such as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (Moss and Thomas 2012, 324).
The preemptive policy adopted by George Bush significantly redefined US foreign policy as pushed the first-strike doctrine as a mechanism to both deterrence of terrorist attacks and elimination of US enemies.
Bush believed the US had the right to get involved in places such as the Middle East if it felt necessary that its direct national security interests could be protected abroad. This is based on actionable intelligence of threats, both direct and indirect against the US. The US began to be perceived as militaristic throughout the world. With this doctrine, came drastic changes in both internal and external security apparatus (Stanton 173). It is also important that this national security approach affected American politics and way of life as extreme oversight was criticized in later years.
George W. Bush’s view of America’s place in the world was unprecedented. It is referred to as “Cowboy Liberalism”, a foreign policy that is based on ideological beliefs and gut instinct. There are also elements of unilateral nationalism and universalism in his approach, as he focused on competition and held an almost certain belief that he was correct (Genovese 2016). His description of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the Axis of Evil was naively simplistic and failed to represent the complexity of global politics.
Bibliography
Genovese, Michael A. 2016. “The Gulf: The Bush Presidencies and the Middle East.” President Studies Quarterly 46, no. 2: 480-481.
Moss, George D., and Evan A. Thomas. 2012. Moving on: The American People Since 1945 (5th ed.). London: Pearson.
Stanton, Martin N. 2016. “’Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game?’ America’s Post-Cold War Leadership and the Bush Doctrine After 9/11.” In The Bush Leadership, the Power of Ideas, and the War on Terror, edited by David B. Mcdonald, Dirk Nabers, and Robert G. Patman, 173-192. London: Routledge.