Diplomacy is one of the fields of study that has taken root in the modern international system. It pertains to the efforts that states make in order to achieve national interests both locally and abroad. The US has not used its veto power to block Palestine from becoming a state. This is due to a number of reasons including safeguarding national interests. This paper explains why Obama refused to block Palestinian move and why use of force is dangerous as well as necessary in solving world political problems.
Prevention of building settlements
Rationale
Why it failed
Israeli-Palestine Conflict
Public opinion
Obama’s standpoint
Foreign Policy
Use of force
Use of consultation
Bibliography
Obama assumed power guaranteeing a more dynamic and unbiased approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, beyond some supercilious speeches as regards to Palestinian agony, he has presented no significant policy change or precise plan for taking consultations a notch higher.
Obama’s effort to prevent Israel from building settlements in the seized regions failed when he gave in to Israeli obstinacy. The government then had the courage to sanction a nonbinding U.N. declaration accusing the very settlements Obama himself had criticized. The Israeli premier mocked the president’s exciting proposal that consultations for a two-state resolution be derived from the 1967 boundaries with territory exchange.
Obama’s proposal is not new since every US president has suggested it. The proposal is based on the Oslo treaty. The president’s suggestions to Netanyahu and the Israeli extremists have made the U.S. seem feeble in the international arena. Obama had no other option than to confirm to the globe that the U.S. is not Israel’s fanatic. He had to cut short his plans of preventing Palestine from being a state.
The majority of Americans support Israel in their fight against Palestine. However, research reveals that most Americans think the U.S. must not support one side over the other in the crisis. Leaders from the media industry, armed forces and foreign relations observe that US foreign policy to Israel is rigorously detrimental to America’s welfare and image around the globe. Basing on the 2008 J Street research, 78% of American Jews backed a two-state resolution and 81% would like the U.S. to force both sides to terminate the crisis.
There is one extra rationale to back the Palestinians’ proposal at the United Nations. This is in line with ethical consideration. During his initial presidential crusade, Obama alleged that no one was distressed more than the Palestinian citizens were. Currently, he has the chance to meet his own values and pledges and to offer the Palestinian populace with similar sense of self-respect that Harry Truman offered Israel 60 years back.
The suggestion that force and risk of force is an essential apparatus of peacekeeping and have a responsibility in foreign strategy is part of the conservative perception of statecraft. It is factual that history and modern incidents support the observation that attempts to cope with crises between countries exclusively by way of nonviolent peacekeeping do not forever thrive and may perhaps lead to extensive harm to one’s public welfare.
Alternatively, one locates in history several cases in which risk of war or real employment of force were frequently not only expensive but also unsuccessful. Since historical occurrences support the inevitability of choosing force and risk of force sometimes, but also stress the perils of doing so, we are left with a vital issue in the assumption and practice of overseas strategy.
The issue is, under what situation and how can force and risks of force be utilized successfully to achieve diverse forms of foreign strategy goals at a suitable level of cost and danger[1].
Attempts to tackle the above issue have caused a sharp division among world think tanks, for instance in the American government where there was a divided opinion over the Korean conflict. Following the Korean conflict, several martial and resident strategists claimed that the United States must never once more fight an incomplete or questionable warfare.
Either it must keep away from such crisis in general or if it intrudes, it must employ whatever martial force needed in a decisive military conquest. Individuals who believed in this message rapidly came to be referred to as Never-Again School.
The tactical principle they supported concerning American military intercession was suitably branded all-or-nothing. This meant that either the United States must be ready to do everything needed to prevail or it must not intrude at all. Other overseas strategy consultants depicted a quite diverse example from the Korean War incident. They claimed that the United States would have possibly to engage in incomplete wars.
One had to anticipate that other local clashes would happen in which the United States considered wise to intrude due to vital interests at risk. Relatively, individuals who depicted this particular example from the Korean conflict were referred to as advocates of the Limited War School. The incongruity over policy between advocates of the Never-Again and the Limited War perspectives has been on ever since and has had an effect to American foreign policy in numerous successive conflicts[2].
From the above analysis, it can be noted that use of force has both strengths and limitations. As scholars had observed earlier, it reaches a time when the only language a man understands is violence. Man is brutal and selfish hence peaceful resolution of conflicts is not always possible.
The international system exists according to the Hobbestian state of nature. This means that power is hierarchically arranged that is, without a common power. There is no a leviathan in the international system meaning that we do not have an international government.
For this case, each state is sovereign and no state is more sovereign compared to others but it is true that some states are more powerful in contrast to others. Powerful states have strong influence in the international system and use of force is sometimes justified to bring peace and tranquility. The more powerful states, such as the US, can use force to achieve both national and international interests though national interests are given priority.
Use of force is necessary because the aggressor does not have to give conditions for cooperation. Peaceful negotiations sometimes take time, which can lead to untold sufferings among citizens. Employment of force guarantees compliance as well as conformity to international standards. Aggressive members in the international system are subjected to global regulations the way they are that is, without comprise.
This has seen tyrants charged in the international criminal court of justice at The Hague and democracy has been restored in the shortest time possible. Conversely, use of force has led to several tribulations to both the aggressors and the world powers. To the aggressors, they are not given any chance to express their views pertaining to particular events. They might have carried out a certain actions with reason but they never have time to explain because they are hit without notice.
Use of force taints the image of the superpower and reduces its popularity in the international system. Soldiers are usually accused of violation of human rights. States spend many resources when they opt to intervene militarily[3]. War can only be fought by rich nations hence the weak cannot engage in wars with the strong. Finally, wars have consequences such as loss of lives and deterioration of economies.
Bibliography
Barston, Ronald. Modern diplomacy, Prentice Hall: Pearson Education, 2006.
Berridge, Gilbert. Diplomacy: Theory & Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005.
Nye, Joseph. The Powers to Lead. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008
The healthcare policies were critical in the recent debate between president Obama and Mitt Romney. Presidential contender, Romney, challenged Obama’s policy on healthcare especially the fundamentals of Obamacare. Romney argued during the debate that the president had failed to implement healthcare reforms during his tenure. He further alleged that he is the suitable candidate to reform healthcare in the US by indicating that Americans needed policies that were different from Obama’s healthcare programs.
Cohen (1) indicates that Romney previously called for the removal of Obamacare, a position he affirmed during the debate. Concurrently, the President assumed a defensive position by arguing that the act improves the lives of ordinary Americans. The president cited that uninsured citizens could access healthcare regardless of their economic status. It is fundamental to implement policies that promote the wellbeing of all Americans based on the fundamentals stated in Obamacare.
Contentious issues
President Obama indicated that the recently installed Affordable Care Act has improved the livelihood of middle-income citizens. The president’s plan advocates for affordable healthcare amongst a significant proportion of Americans (O’Reilly 94). Additionally, the president indicated that health care insurers are responsible for their actions.
Concurrently, Romney’s plan is discriminatory because it advocates for the overhaul of the healthcare plan though a significant proportion of Americans support it (O’Reilly 96). The president received the backing from the Supreme Court when implementing the stipulations of the healthcare act.
Romney miscalculated figures on healthcare issues during the debate. There is no substantial proof that healthcare cost is on the rise in America (Thompson 251). His sentiments indicated that most Americans were suffering because of the ill-timed policies by the President. It would have been appropriate for Romney to laud the contributions of president Obama.
This is because Obamacare benefitted several Americans by cushioning them against unwarranted costs in seeking medical care. Instead, Romney chose to misguide the audience by encouraging them to support him repeal the act. It is commendable that Obama recognized that time is needed in the implementation of reforms within the healthcare sector.
The debate was tense because Romney cited the recent increase in number of patients suffering from chronic illnesses as failure by the president. Romney stated that he was going to devise a concrete plan to resolve healthcare issues once elected president (Pipes 47).
However, it is commendable that Romney backed most of his arguments with facts. He appeared to have pinned Obama down when he questioned the interest of the president in defending his policy. Romney’s stint on the healthcare allowed him to identify the needs of Americans in his proposals on healthcare.
Conclusion
Healthcare affects the citizens of a nation. It is imperative for both democrats and republicans to be realistic when devising policies on healthcare. It will be unwise for either the president or Romney (the republican candidate) to reject Obamacare because it benefits Americans.
President Obama was right by supporting the enactment of sound policies that improve healthcare for average Americans (Pipes 8). He reiterated his sentiments on the night of October 3 during a contest with Romney. It will be better to stick with president’s Obama that have been examined in the precedent few years for America to improve its healthcare policy.
Works Cited
Cohen, Tom. Romney takes debate to Obama over economy, health care.CNN.
October 4, 2012. Web.October 9, 2012
O’Reilly, Shawn. Next-to-last American President. Bloomington, IN: Iuniverse Inc, 2011. Print.
Pipes, Sally. The Truth about Obamacare. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub, 2010. Print.
Thompson, Samuel C. J. Obama vs. Romney Debate on Economic Growth: A Citizens Guide to the Issues. Bloomington, IN: Iuniverse Com, 2012. Print.
Health care providers in the United States include individual Medicare workers, healthcare amenities and therapeutic products. The health care system in the United States of America is subordinate to the private sector, the state, and County governments. The government provides medical cover to workers in the public sector. Medical cover in America is delivered through programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans health administration.
A report by the World Health Organization on Health Care Services identified the United States as the country that spends more on Health Care than any other country in the world. The cost of Medical Care in the United States has been on a rise despite numerous reforms to address the issue. Many people view the current Health Care System in the United States as unjust and ineffective. President Obama said:
As you surely experience every day, we are also seeing substantial movement in the emergence of new care models. Everyone understands the limits of our current system, which rewards increases in the quantity of health care, not improvements in the quality….. (Barrack Obama vs. Mitt Romney par 9).
The value of Medicare delivered does not match the money spent. People have often raised questions on the accessibility, cost, variety, quality and justice in the Health Care System. The existing Health Care Structure is characterized by low levels of life expectancy, high mortality rates and high cost of treatment.
The Health Care System
Heated debates on the necessary reforms in the Health Care System have received a priority attention during the United States presidential campaigns. Both candidates, President Barrack Obama and the former Governor Mitt Romney, promote different policies for various provisions in Health Care System.
In a normal setting, these two leaders would compliment each other’s ideas on Health Care depending on what they have championed for in the past. As a governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney necessitated reforms that included a significant mandate to buy Medical Cover (Barrack Obama vs. Mitt Romney par 9). However, things are different now, and the two are trying to pip each other to the Presidency of the United States of America.
The candidates have differed on a number of areas in Health Care Service. Obama’s theme for Health Care is “Securing the Future of American Health Care” while Mitt Romney’s theme is “Replacing Obamacare with Real Health Care Reform”. Mitt Romney said “I would repeal Obamacare, if I were ever in a position to do so. Obamacare is bad law, bad policy, and it is bad for American families” (Barrack Obama vs. Mitt Romney par9)
Medicaid
This issue expressed the views of the two leaders on the health care in an exclusive manner. President Obama proposes the expansion of the Medicaid program in order to cover more people while Mitt Romney seeks to cut down the number of people covered by the program (Feldmann par 13). President Obama opposes the proposal by Mitt Romney to change the Medicaid program into a plan that offers monetary assistance.
However, Obama does not oppose all efforts geared towards Medicaid money saving. Former Governor Mitt Romney proposes radical transformation in the regime prerogative program that offers health cover to poor and disabled persons. Mitt Romney has said that if offered the opportunity to serve the people of America, he would spearhead the development of Medicaid and slow down on spending that would save the country $100 billion in a year (Feldmann par14).
Medicare
This issue cropped up in August 2012 after Mitt Romney resolved to have Paul Ryan as his running mate in the Presidential campaigns (Feldmann par 10). Paul was the chairperson of the House Budget Committee and championed the government to offer permanent payments for beneficiaries (Obama and Romney on the Issues: Health Care par2). President Obama does not support the argument assumed by Mitt Romney on Medicare.
Mitt Romney feels that Medicare should allow aged people to access Health Cover with less impending obstacles like he did as the governor of Massachusetts . This move would transfer Medicare expenses to seniors. The goal of President Obama is to counter the flawed development of the program while avoiding a cut back on benefits to seniors (Feldmann par.12). Mitt Romney proposes that implementing Medicare requires a financially sound process regardless of the time taken in achieving the desired goals.
Romney aspires to transform Medicare into an Insurance Payment Support program. Mitt Romney explains that the program would specially consider people aged above 55. Mitt Romney explained what he would keep the Medicare program within its obligations. Mitt Romney said, “We are going to have higher benefits for low-income people and lower benefits for high-income people…” (Obama and Romney on the Issues: Health Care par 3)
Controlling Health Care Cost
The topic addresses the practicability of the Health Care Law passed by President Obama in 2010 (Feldman par 16). President Obama said that he would be willing to make minor changes to this legislation as well as push for its implementation in the second term. President Obama said, “Many Americans do not get the precautionary health services they need to stay in good physical shape. Many people put off preventive care because the deductibles and copies are too expensive.” (Feldman par 16).
The biggest challenge that Obama will face in seeing this through will be the lack of cooperation from different States. A ruling by the Supreme Court said that federal governments should not reprimand States if they do not wish to spread out their Medical programs (Feldman par 17). Mitt Romney the Republican Presidential candidate is against the Health Care Law (Obama and Romney on the Issues: Health Care par 12).
He is of the opinion that various States need to develop their own Health Care Policies that will serve its people well. He used the example of Massachusetts, the State he once governed in order to explain how states could develop their own successful and effective Health Care Policies. Mitt Romney has made some proposals on Health Care that could improve its efficiency and coverage. One proposal is encouraging individuals to acquire Medical Cover on their own from the classified marketplace.
Conclusion
The two Presidential candidates agree on the need to transform individual Health Cover market for people with no employee cover Medical Care. It is also worth noting that only one candidate shows a real interest to renovate Health Care in America. The current system is ineffective, and President Obama deserves credit for encouraging better models that pay medical practitioners for the right things. The policies championed by Mitt Romney are likely to fail. Indeed, the Health Care System in the United States needs transformation.
Summary on President Obama and Romney’s plans for higher education
President Obama has proposed to spend more on higher education within the next 4 years. He focuses to increase the spending by 2.5% above the current budget. This raises the prospected education spending by 69.8 million dollars. This is a great offer according to the current economic status of the United States.
Obama’s focus is based on establishing new financial incentives that would help in supporting higher education institutions. In addition, he is also asking for billions of dollars to support some of colleges and universities facing financial instability. As a democrat, he would like to boost both the private and public sectors of economy to enhance financial provisions for higher education.
On the other hand, Romney plans to reduce higher education spending rate by applying various policies within the learning institutions. Some of these policies are based on the financial expenditure of the learning institutions.
According to Romney, limiting the federal dollar cost will minimize the budgetary costs of various institutions. Romney’s plans are based on limiting public expenditures while boosting the private sector. He also suggests that the banking policy should be changed so as to allow room for student lending. This can help in boosting institutions of higher learning.
Personal Opinion on the matter
Education is a critical provision for the growth of any country. The two aspirants have considerable plans for higher education systems in the United States despite their political differences. Obama has stronger plans compared to those of Romney. Romney plans to reduce the cost of a dollar in the federal government while boosting the private sectors of the government.
This can be detrimental to the higher educational sector. This can negatively affect the economic status of the United States. On the other hand, Obama plans to balance costs both from the private and public sectors of the government. This will enhance financial stability for higher education advancements.
One of the Romney’s plans seems to favor the higher education sector in the U.S. For instance, students will be offered bank loans to sort out their educational problems. This will create conducive environment for learning since all the learning materials will be availed to students.
Concurrently, Obama’s plans for the next four years will really boost institutions of higher education. Fundamentally, they will not only enjoy the increase in spending but also low cost of learning materials and activities. This is a considerable provision when scrutinized critically in the realms of education. It is important to spend wisely in the education sector. This can be enhanced by setting priorities right.
Research in any learning institution needs a lot of capital and once this is subsidized within the next four years, the quality of education will have been enhanced leading to production of skilled individuals in the society. Such people can perform their task to perfection. Obama is also determined in ensuring that job opportunities are created to intelligent students after completing their higher education.
This will help in curbing/reducing the crime rate in the United States. According to him, crimes are committed by idlers who are frustrated in life after completing their studies and cannot find jobs. Actually, this is the only way of making a living. The plans presented by President Obama are viable since they will advance higher education institutions within the next four years.
Last year, the United States and other major world powers arrived at a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran over its contentious nuclear plan (Global issues 205). The deal is referred to as The Interim Iranian Nuclear Pact.
The deal allows the Islamic Republic of Iran to enhance uranium to a maximum of 5%, discontinue increasing its enrichment ability, and to permit more IAEA checkups. During the signing of the deal, Obama asserted that through the agreement the world began a journey on a new trail to a safer future where everyone will be certain that Iran’s nuclear plan is nonviolent.
The Iranian leaders were pleased with the deal. The country’s president Hassan Rouhani asserted that the agreement confirmed his country’s right to enrichment (Global issues 205). During the talks, Rouhani acknowledged that his country in the past had never made any intentions to acquire nuclear weapons.
He asserted that those who had been spreading the allegations were historical jokers. Through this, he praised the negotiators for the deal. Ever since Obama’s administrations began seeking peace with the Iranian government in the year 2009, critics have always termed the move a step towards the wrong direction. This article seeks to confirm on the critics’ assertion that indeed the US administration is committing an error by seeking peace with Iran.
Obama’s administration and the other governments who participated in the deal believe that the Iranian President Hasan Rouhani has offered appropriate evidence to prove that he is a modest leader aiming at advancing his country’s relationship with the West. I believe that those who participated in the agreement assume that the deal would address global anxiety about the Iranian nuclear plan. In contrast, I believe that the initiative was ill advised.
Based on Rouhani’s statements and acts after the signing of the deal, I believe that Obama’s administration should have been more vigilant with the Iranian government before seeking their friendship. In my opinion, Rouhani’s administration is not different from his predecessor’s administration. Equally, I believe that the Iranian government does not intend to stop its plans to acquire nuclear weapons. In this regard, I believe that Obama’s administration has made crucial mistakes.
When compared to the past Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rouhani is definitely very unusual. Unlike Ahmadinejad, the new president identifies himself with the West and is well acquainted with social media. His records indicate that he undertook his undergraduate course in Scotland and talks in fluent English.
His speech to the U.N. General Assembly was concise and appealing. The speech appealed for lenience, promised that his country will in no way try to acquire nuclear weapons, and assured everyone that his country posed no threat to the world peace (Sofaer & George 45).
I would have upheld Obama’s administration diplomatic moves if it would have held Iran answerable for its plans. Currently, the initiatives aimed at making peace with the Islamic nation have proved that the US and its allies are finding the middle ground for their principles. In my opinion, every country should be viewed as a moral agent. Through this, they should be held responsible for their acts rather than compromising on global principles.
For decades, the US and Iran have not had a good diplomatic ties (Global issues 187). Their ties were broken after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. After the plot, Iranians complained of the US meddling in their dealings and America’s responsibility in ousting their government.
Alternatively, Americans have also perceived Iranian governments as a threat to regional and global peace. Obama’s administration has always acknowledged and apologizes for these differences and asserts that measures have to be put in place to end the differences. I find it wrong for Obama’s administration to apologize for the differences. I believe that Obama’s administration has nothing to ask for forgiveness from the Iranians.
Similarly, I believe that the Cold War course of actions does not validate the Islamic state’s support for terror campaigns and nuclear arms. I believe that the difference between the two states arises from their religious differences. Therefore, Obama’s administration should not have apologized for the differences. Instead, the administration should have condemned religious extremists for their acts.
Equally, I believe that Obama’s administration made a mistake by seeking peace with Iran because to date the country is still a supporter of terror. For instance, last year Canadian law enforcers thwarted a terrorist plan to bomb a train on route to the US from Canada (Sofaer & George 65).
The Canadian authorities claimed that terrorist group in Iran had organized the plot. Similarly, in the year 2011 the US authorities made known that they had foiled an Iranian-sponsored terrorist plan to murder a Saudi Arabian diplomat to the US by bombing a café in Washington. Equally, on mid 2011, Obama’s administration blamed a Syrian citizen for her role in facilitating terrorist operations under the accord flanked by al-Qaida and the Iranian administration (Sofaer & George 66).
Globally, a number of Iranian plans to assassinate western diplomats and to sabotage western businesses have been reported. Similarly, there are claims that blame Iranian administration for aiding the Assad regime in Syria with weapons of war. It has also been alleged that the Iranian government is joining forces with North Korean government in coming up with weapons of mass destructions. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that Obama’s administration made a mistake by seeking peace with Iran.
Despite the fact that Iranians have voted in a new president, it should be noted that the dreaded Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is still a powerful individual in the Iranian government. The leader has always conflicted direct talks with Obama’s administration and shows no signs of compromising his stands in the near future (Sofaer & George 84).
In this regard, Khamenei is likely to influence the Iranian administration to disobey the agreement and forge ahead with its nuclear and terror ambitions in the future. I believe that if it were crucial for Obama’s administration to make peace with the Iranian government, it should have ensured that all the conflicting parties in the Islamic state reach to a consensus on the issue.
The US administration should not have made peace with the Iranian administration because I believe the Iranian officials diplomatic talks do not appear genuine. I believe that these officials believe that Obama’s administration is weaker than the George Bush’s administration.
They feared Bush’s administration for his invasion into Islamic countries. Given that Obama’s administration is different from the previous regime, I believe that the Iranians officials presume that the current US regime is weaker and want to take advantage of the situation. Rouhani recognizes that Obama is desperate to hold diplomatic meetings with his officials. What Obama has not recognized is that Rouhani is a smart delegate.
For instance, he influenced diplomatic meetings with a number of EU nations in the year 2003 (Global issues 204). The meetings were aimed at buying time for the country’s nuclear plan. To me the current talks are not different with the above talks. Equally, the above illustrations imply that the Iranian administration’s perception of the US has not changed. In this regard, I believe that the US administration should have made peace with the nation after it has confirmed that its intentions are genuine.
Obama’s administration seems to be supporting a risky initiative that would enable Iran to carry on enriching uranium for a hypothetically nonviolent nuclear project, which may rapidly be transformed into an arm-grade nuclear fuel.
Similarly, it is not appropriate for US government to trust the Iranian government in totality because the Islamic state has undertaken a number of underground nuclear actions and continually declines to oblige with IAEA nuclear supervisors in the past. I believe that Obama’s administration should come up with elevated regulations for a probable deal with Iran.
The regulations should include zero enrichment of uranium, zero reprocessing of uranium, and full conformity and intelligibility in satisfying Iran’s international requirements. Equally, I believe that Obama’s administration should push Iran to stop supporting terrorism and stop its nuclear partnership with North Korea.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Obama’s Administration committed a mistake by seeking peace with Iran for a number of reasons. I believe that Rouhani’s administration is not different from his predecessor’s administration. Equally, I believe that the Iranian government does not intend to stop its plans to acquire nuclear weapons.
Works Cited
Global issues: selections from CQ researcher. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2013. Print.
Sofaer, Abraham D., and George Pratt Shultz. Taking on Iran strength, diplomacy and the Iranian threat. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2013. Print.
Introduction: In Search for the Graphic Illustrations of Fallacies
In the ideal world where the laws of human nature are inapplicable to political leaders, debates can probably run without any observable instances of fallacies; however, in the world of the present-day reality, winning over a political opponent in a debate presupposes using a number of tactics of logical fallacies, which will obviously represent the rival in the least favorable light possible.
Taking the recent presidential debates as a source material for all sorts of logical fallacies that can occur during a conversation, one can easily figure out how certain logical fallacies can be applied to practice. Analyzing the conversation which Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had during the October debates, one can see distinctly that the outcomes of the above-mentioned debates depend considerable on the public’s opinion of each of the candidates, which, in its turn, is shaped greatly by the use of the logical fallacies in the rivals’ speeches.
Romney’s Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization
One of the first fallacies to mention is the fallacy of accident, or sweeping generalization. According to the existing definition, sweeping generalization is “referred to as the fallacy of accident, to emphasize the irregularity of particular cases to which generalizations do not apply” (Engel 72). The aforementioned means that the fallacy of accident stretches a concrete example to the scale of a common truth.
When taking a closer look at the arguments which Romney offers in his speech, one can easily notice that he actually makes a generalization of what Obama said earlier, thus, turning the entire argument upside down:
And the answer is, yes, we can help, but it’s going to take a different path. Not the one we’ve been on, not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That’s not what I’m going to do. (TheNewYorkTimes)
Compared to this statement, Obama’s idea was expressed in the following way:
I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, that we change our tax code to make sure that we’re helping small businesses and companies that are investing here in the United States. (TheNewYorkTimes)
Romney substituted “small businesses and companies” with “the rich”. Hence, the generalization with a fallacy turning the tables on the opponent can be spotted.
An Appeal to Emotion: Mitt Romney’s Teary-Eye Stories
When guided by emotions, people make hasty choices, which the next fallacy makes use of. An appeal to emotion can be described as “a red herring fallacy in which a speaker attempts to persuade an audience through emotional manipulation” (Shabo 96). In the presidential debates, Mitt Romney appeals to the audience’s compassion by showing how he sympathizes with the American folk:
Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, “Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He’s lost his most recent job and we’ve now just lost our home. Can you help us?” (TheNewYorkTimes)
An obvious appeal to the audience’s emotions, this element of Romney’s speech does not bear any significance as from the rest of his argument. Used only to make the audience feel that Romney has the common touch, this part was inserted to stir people’s emotions.
Obama Attacks the Opponent Personally: Touché, Mr. Romney
However, Obama also used a couple of tricks which can be recognized as logical fallacies. He uses the tactics known as “personal attack.” According to the definition offered by Walton, personal attack is a type of fallacy which occurs “whenever we attack a person instead of his or her argument” (Walton93). Personal attack aims to point at the weaknesses of the opponent instead of the opponent’s reasoning.
Indeed, at certain point Obama tends to judge Romney’s personal features basing on the decisions which Romney makes: “The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them” (TheNewYorkTimes). Questioning Romney’s competence, the given sentence makes it clear that Obama wants to make Romney look silly in the eye of the public and, therefore, reduce his impact on the public’s opinion.
The Power of Fear: Obama’s Terrifying Supposition
In addition to the logical fallacy mentioned above, Obama also uses another tactics of fallacy that helps him control the audience and at the same time make the opponent look bad. There is no secret that the sense of fear is registered among one of the strongest driving forces period, which means that fear is the most efficient method of controlling the audience.
Defined as the representation of ability to protect people against the threats mentioned by the speaker (Paul and Elder 21), an appeal to fear is very efficient. Making good use of people’s sense of fear, Obama depicts the most dreadful consequences possible that can follow Romney’s politics:
The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. (TheNewYorkTimes)
Needless to mention, the years of Great Depression still remain one of the darkest times in the history of the USA, triggering complicated economical, financial and social issues. Hence, Obama’s remark makes a truly great impression and serves as a means to make Romney look incompetent.
An Appeal to Ridicule: Romney’s Final Attempt at Winning
As it has been mentioned above, fear has a great power over people; hence, to reduce the effect which the opponent has on the public, making fun of the former and, therefore, making him less significant and, thus, less threatening, is a reasonable, though not quite fair, practice.
An appeal to ridicule is defined as an attempt “to show an utter incapacity for understanding” (Cox, Nicoll and Moffatt 402). Romney uses the above-mentioned tactics in his performance, though not efficiently enough. Trying to make the rival look silly, he pokes fun at the choices which Obama makes:
But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? (TheNewYorkTimes)
Creating a comedic effect, Romney also attempts at tarnish Obama’s reputation by assuming that the latter makes wrong choices and is highly likely to fail. Still, this attack is too obvious to be effective; instead of damaging Obama’s reputation, it harms Romney, since the audience can sense now his spite towards Obama.
Conclusion: Constructive Arguments without Dirty Tricks Are Possible
As it can be seen in the examples mentioned above, even the fairest and the most transparent debates in the world of politics are meant to incorporate all sorts of logical fallacies, which helps the opponents represent their own arguments in the best way possible, while showing the vis-à-vis to his utmost disadvantage.
However, it is important to mention that in the given case, the opponents do not abuse these methods in order to take over each other. Even though each of them resorts to a certain fallacy now and then, there is no common thread of resorting to false accusations and ridiculing of the opponent. It goes without saying that both Obama and Romney aimed at impressing the audience to win the elections rather to come to a certain conclusion in their debates.
However, taking into account that the above-mentioned was actually the purpose of the debates, it is quite forgivable that both Obama and Romney resorted to using logical fallacies. Hopefully, further on debates are going to be taken to a different level, on which the opponents will represent their ideas without actually trying to get on each other’s throats, which will lead to a better representation of the future leaders’ goals and actions which are going to be undertaken after the elections.
Works Cited
Cox, Nicoll and Moffatt. The Expositor. Hachette, UK: Hodder & Stoughton, 1894. Print.
Engel, Morris S. Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications, 1994. Print.
Paul, Richard and Linda Elder. Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery. Berkeley, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2006. Print.
Shabo, Magedah. Rhetoric, Logic, and Argumentation: A Guide for Student Writers. Clayton, DE: Prestwick House, 2010. Print.
TheNewYorkTimes. “Complete Second Presidential Town Hall Debate 2012: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney – Oct 16, 2012.” YouTube. YouTube, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpCrcMF5Ps>.
Walton, Douglas N. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1998. Print.
Higher education in the United States of America has been dwindling for the last few years. This may be the major reason as to why President Barack Obama has turned his focus on improving education sector. He has been reinstating that economy of the United States of America relies heavily on education.
His education goal of producing 8 million more graduates by 2020 is because America is currently experiencing shortage of skilled labor in the manufacturing sector which forms the basis for economic growth. Speaking at the University of Texas at Austin, he stated: “Education is an economic issue when nearly 8 of 10 new jobs will require workforce training or a higher education by the end of this decade” (Lee, 2010).
He openly admitted that education standards in the United States of America have been declining over the past years. This has been proven by a drastic fall from position one to the current 12th position world wide over a short period of time. He remarked: “I want you to know we have been slipping. In a single generation, we’ve fallen from first place to 12th place in college graduation rates for young adults” (Lee, 2010).
He, therefore, expressed his fears that countries with well streamlined education systems may become more prosperous than the United States of America. He claimed: “Education is an economic issue when we know beyond a shadow of doubt that countries that out-educate us today, they will out-compete us tomorrow” (Lee, 2010).
However, President Obama’s goal of producing 8 million more college graduates by 2020 may not be achieved due to economic constrains. For instance, the current impact of inflation has led to negative effects on the U.S economy. This situation has been worsened by fluctuations of oil prices which have also affected global economic status.
Unemployment of young adults in the United States of America has also added its impact on the economy of the United States of America. As a result, the U.S Government has reduced its educational funding. Consequently, inadequate educational funding has led to a very great shortage of learning resources in educational centers.
Almost all the States of America are experiencing challenges in the education sector (Cramer & Elliot III, 2012). Therefore, educational standards in the U.S have been compromised. Some States have made remarkable efforts to generate extra revenue for supplementing National educational funding through increase of taxes.
However, very few improvements have been achieved. The K-12 education has been adversely affected by the shortage of funds because it receives the least share of funds from the States’ budget allocations (Cramer & Elliot III, 2012).
It is, therefore, true to assert that the President’s brilliant educational objective will not be achieved unless educational funding is increased. Increase in educational funding remains a great challenge in virtually all States, thus this challenge has to be dealt with first.
Though the President talked of designing effective strategies so as to ensure that students receive educational grants and loans, lack of enough learning resources in educational centers may impede developments in the education sector (Cramer & Elliot III).
President Obama’s Higher Education agenda may be made more difficult to be achieved by the current shortage of renewable energy resources. Nevertheless, President Obama believes that renewable energy sustainability holds the key to a stable economy (Lee, 2010).
How Has President Obama Changed the Nature of US Foreign Policy?
Most achievements of Obama’s foreign policy originate from assuming several policies from Bush. Also, other achievements of Obama originate from assuming a number of the strategic doctrines from the Bush government. Some strategic values by Bush government, which became either overlooked or belittled during campaigns, have currently been held by Obama.
Some of the values that Bush held closely include the defensive use of force, discriminatory unilateralism, powerful executive authority, democracy support and enormous power associations (Inboden 2011).
First, the defensive use of force is the planned doctrine at the rear of the government’s campaign of deterrent whine strikes in opposition to terrorists in regions, such as, Yemen and Pakistan, which cold be scheming against America. Second, discriminatory unilateralism became utilized to define the Obama government’s actions in opposition to Osama, with much of the structure leading the drone actions.
For instance, the Obama government made some resolutions regarding Afghanistan devoid of synchronization with aggravated NATO followers. Third, Obama has a powerful executive authority, which typified the government’s insolence of the legislature for the Libya battle, in addition to, much of the governments’ counterterrorism lawful framework.
Fourth, President Obama encourages democracy rather than autocratic strength. Lastly, Obama has vast power dealings founded on shared principles, which aids in elucidating why subsequent to its first grip of Russia and China, the government finally switched.
Thus, Obama is merely continuing Bush’s third phase. He still practices Bush’s reckless foreign policy, pursues the bailout ideas that Bush sustained, and a large, wild government similar to that of Bush.
How fundamentally has President Obama Changed US Foreign Policy? Is Afghanistan a ‘Sensible’ War?
Firstly, Bush and his Neocon partners took America through two expensive wars (Creamer 2011). Obama is getting USA out of those two wars. When Barack became president, America had 180,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq (Creamer 2011). We now have 150,000 soldiers in those nations. By the end of the year, that number will fall to 100,000 and to 70,000 by next summer.
Before the following year ends, the entire troop may have departed from Iraq. Barack has pointed out that all USA troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, with the hope that their warfare operation will end before that date.
There can be slight query that Bush’s combat in Iraq was among the costliest U.S. overseas policy disasters of recent times. Its direct costs are now impending $800 billion. However, an article by Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist, disputes that the real cost of the conflict in Iraq will eventually surpass $3 trillion if we take into account both regime operating expense and the war’s broader impact on the U.S. economy.
Since the warfare did not get paid for with increased returns, we will keep on paying interest on its cost for years. It pushed up the value of oil, to levels that have shattered the economy of hundreds of billions of dollars, and facilitated swift the financial collapse that outplayed eight million Americans their employments.
The Iraq conflict abstracted billions from significant needs in the US
It abstracted interest from the war in Afghanistan and possibly extended that war by years. In 2003, the year we attacked Iraq, the U.S. slashed expenditure on the Afghan war from $20 billion to $14.3 billion whilst adding $53 billion into the Iraq war.
Also, taxpayers will be paying to care for and revitalize injured troops from Iraq for decades. The conflict in Iraq had impact to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and dislocated millions.
As we go away from Iraq, there is entirely no proof that the conflict benefited America one jot much to the opposing. It made stronger the chief opponent in the area, Iran. Also, it fomented abhorrence for the U.S.A and served as a recruiting placard for terrorists universally.
George started the Iraq conflict to discover new arms, as well as, to put on trial the “War on Terror” though there was totally no link between the leaders of Iraq and the 9/11 assaults.
Obama vied for office as an adversary of that conflict, and he will complete it, together with, the assignment in Afghanistan that — but for the ignorance of the George Administration — should have ended years ago. Despite his “War on Terror” audacity, Bush and his Neocons failed despondently to debase Al Qaeda and terrorist groups globally. Obama has destroyed Al Qaeda and brought Osama Bin Laden to fair dealing.
At the moment, there are predictable to be fewer than 100 Al Qaeda left over in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Its dominion and power organization has become ripped apart, and its headship killed.
Barrack pledged to focus like a laser on Al Qaeda, and he just did that
Instead of focusing on America’s true terrorist adversaries, George and company concentrated on Iraq and downplayed the significance of osama Bin Laden — who at the moment turns out was still hugely in charge of the Al Qaeda set-up up to the time of his demise.
Also, let us keep in mind that the overconfident but unfortunate Bush Neocon mass lead over the most awful attack on the American, native soil since Pearl Harbor; ignoring intellect warnings of an imminent attack. Lastly, George’s unilateralist approach, down casted America’s repute in the globe to record lows (Zakaria 2008). Barrack Obama has reinstated America’s status in the world.
According to a BBC opinion poll, in 2007 — just before the end of the George Bush days U.S.A had down casted to become one of the nations with the down casted ratings. Half of those appraised in its 27-country poll had negative analysis of the United States, and barely 28% had positive analysis (Creamer 2008). Ever since, Barrack Obama came to office, observations of the U.S. have constantly enhanced.
Now the numbers have become overturned. Forty-nine percent of the populace has affirmative opinion of the U.S., and only 31 percent has off-putting opinions. For a sovereign world, the observations of human beings shape the capability of Americans to be triumphant in the prospect globe.
In particular, views of the United States unswervingly influence quite a number of youthful persons who sign up to be terrorists and assault the United States. Several have argued that; U.S. support of armed forces involvement in Libya stands in inconsistency to the opinion that his foreign procedure is qualitatively diverse from the policies of the past government.
In verity, the tactic that America have brought to Libya is an exemplar of that disparity. In Libya, the United States is an element of a true multinational attempt to defend the Libyan populace from a head that had declared to kill numerous people.
In his campaign for presidency, Obama alleged to stop the War in Iraq, redeploy America’s wealth on Al Qaeda, take the argument in Afghanistan to an end, and re-establish America’s position internationally.
The military condition in Afghanistan is susceptible, requiring solid executive U.S. direction regarding what the Middle Eastern society desires and requires. Bush’s foreign policy choices became rather haughty, with objectives to build states, in the Middle East, acting as posts of democracy (Cooper & Schmitt 2009).
As an internationalist, Bush persuaded the state to take a moral position in opposition to terrorism through intervening in Afghani dealings (Cox 2007). A number of people may say his that way of thinking was quite neo-imperialist, implying the methods his government took to tried to eradicate terrorism and reconstruct nations became parallel to colonial extension.
In addition, others may deem Bush’s position on Afghanistan as isolationist, as initially, Bush conflicted introducing peacekeeping groups in the state. He just visited the state once during his government, and he was a bit abstracted from actions in Afghanistan owing to his Iraq interests.
Conversely, President Obama and his government intend to broaden the participation of America in Afghanistan, while all at once contracting its plan on Al Qaeda instead of pursuing Bush’s open approach at building the state (Cooper & Schmitt 2009).
It appears like Obama is just abiding by the internationalist effort, which Bush began in his reign as it would be imprudent to remove all troops from Afghanistan devoid of follow-up. Nevertheless, Obama could be employing new isolationist logic, trying to maintain America from the war with the state (Cooper & Schmitt 2009).
He, as well, point, out that his main concern in Afghanistan’s foreign policy is to guard US citizens from terrorist assaults resembling that of 11th September 2001 (Cooper & Schmitt 2009; Drezner 2011). The approach of Obama’s foreign policy, appreciates that this circumstance is not to adore himself or the state, but defend as many inhabitants as possible from risk.
Thus, Obama’s tactics to foreign policy in Afghanistan appear to be well designed. Obama intends to send a prominent figure of civilian experts and diplomats in the country, and his policy is a bit focused (Cooper & Schmitt 2009). Moreover, Obama’s policies intend to keep the state secure, and thus, hoard money for the taxpayers (Belasco 2009).
It is apparent that the media became critical of the foreign policy of Bush in Afghanistan, more than that of Obama. The foreign policy of Bush gets placed in a dire light, even as news springs grieve that the Afghanistan policy of Obama is parallel to that of Bush (Cooper 2009).
There appears to be a shortage of information regarding the foreign policy of Bush in Afghanistan, with small lengths of accounts on the subject. Furthermore, the springs of the articles appear markedly one-sided, with several remarks from political figures condemning the Afghanistan policies of Bush (Cooper 2009). The kinds and tones of tales support Obama.
Early Ideas about How the Post Cold War World Would Develop
The 1990s get considered as the elongated decade in international affairs, because, in theory, it started with the disintegration of communism and the conclusion of the Cold War during late 1989(Hinds & Windt 1991), and came to an end following the United States terrorist attacks on 11th September, 2001.
All through this phase, United States foreign policy experienced basic modifications as the bi-polar globe order grew to a new, tentative, multipolar order.
The key change was the conclusion of the once powerful Soviet Union, and, consequently, the US association with the Federation of Russia and the neighboring area had to change to something totally different, with novel states recoiling as sovereign bodies in Eastern Europe, and the association with Russia as a developing democracy.
This section shall examine early ideas about how the Post-Cold war era would develop, and explain the reasons for American intervention and non intervention, in international affairs.
Europe security had been a chief foreign policy concern of the US before the end of Cold War convictions (Drinnon 1990). For 40 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) acted as a vital element of foreign policy machinery in the US. NATO became made from the skeleton of the post-Second World War in Europe, a phase whereby the Europe got debauched of military and financial resources.
In addition to, the economic improvement of the area, NATO was crucial in the re-growth of Europe, where the United States became the main player. NATO became designed to guarantee that Western Europe got wholly secured against a possible Soviet surge, also, ascertain that American interests remained preserved in the area. Moreover, it had to ensure that Europe did not become lured, nor attacked by the Soviet rule.
Following the decline of the Soviet Union, American foreign policy concerning NATO started to become unstable, and it stayed in that condition in the whole 1990s as the coalition endeavored to find a fresh identity. Nevertheless, the group did not collapse, since, during the Cold War, Europe had assumed a back bench regarding security concerns (Kagan 2004).
The United States did not consider ending the organization, because Europe lacked the machinery to operate as a sole entity. All through the Cold War and after, America desired a further sovereign Europe that was strong enough to be sovereign (Kagan 2004).
However, this did not take place. There was a high expectation on European measures, in the Balkans, but they did not thrive. Americans support became ordered, and operation of NATO deployed.
The changing of nuclear stability, which described the Cold War amid the USSR and USA, was one concern that would change the American, foreign policy. In the last three years of Bush administration, “five main nuclear arms control initiatives became accomplished” (Dobson & Marsh 2006 p. 155).
The support that America offered in the elimination of nuclear weapons from Russia aimed at making sure that the nuclear arms race ended. Nevertheless, this reasonable shift by the Russians became prepared in countering the verity that America had broken the promise not to incorporate previous Communist nations in the NATO alliance (Kramer 2009).
In 1990s, all that the United States foreign policy attained was a shift from the notion of a Russian region of control in Eastern Europe, via the insertion of countries, such as, Poland in NATO. The dedication to eliminating nuclear weapons entirely from Ukraine became finished at an instance of lack of apparent solidity amid Russia and the US.
The short of a sovereign defense plan during the Cold War enabled Europe to center on the economic face of recuperation, which implied that ahead of the phase leading to decline of the Soviet Union, Europe was just not prepared to react to the altering activities in the continent.
From 1989 to 2001, American, foreign policy went through extension of support towards the early Soviet Union, together with Russia and successor nations (Ikenberry 2001).
Furthermore, the unification of previous Soviet satellites to the NATO coalition, American participation in Europe was a little bit diverse in 2001 compared to 1989. Even as the European Union scheme built-in superior foreign policy machinery, much of it depended, on the utilization of NATO design, to execute its Berlin preparations.
The US longing for a new sovereign Europe, in regards to defense, swiftly unraveled thoughts on both areas of the Atlantic subsequent to the decline of Europe to act resolutely in Bosnia. The US guaranteed further participation with NATO airstrikes in the next Balkan crisis, during 1999, in Kosovo (Kagan 2004).
The extension of NATO came as a result of the decline of Europe to provide for its personal defense, whilst corresponding in the organization to alienate Russia with the addition of earlier Soviet allies in the coalition.
Nevertheless, this ignores one key topic – nuclear disarmament in the first phase of the decade functioned well, with significant American co-operation to guarantee the safe elimination of weapons from Ukraine and Russia.
The association between the US and Russia would change following 9/11; even as the American association with Europe in relation to the NATO coalition would persist to muddle along, with no decisiveness over the expectations of the union. We can thus say that the 1990s led to a phase in which the US tried to handle the reservations, which the new world order presented.
Actions and Policies of President Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
Clinton had accepted that America would experience a different threat atmosphere from that of his antecedents. To deal with this threat atmosphere, Clinton extended the rhetorical alternatives available for portraying an opponent. The following analysis, in Somalia and Haiti, shows that Clinton utilized images of both colonial and modern savagery to typify America’s adversaries.
Somalia: Building the Primitive Savage
Clinton took over the Somalia condition from the preceding Bush government. The Somalia crisis commenced, in 1988, as the national administration under Siad Barre, became conquered in a coup d’état. The defeat of Siad left a power void that soon outcome in the civil war and a humanitarian catastrophe (Butler 2002; Edelman 1988).
Ahead of the 1992 fall, over 500, 000 Somalis passed on because of hunger or armed clash. The United Nations (UN) tried a relief operation for Somalia. However, it did not succeed because of the fighting that existed within the nation.
The failure to accomplish its humanitarian task made the UN Security Council, through the backing of America, to organize a fresh humanitarian operation, where America would offer the lead in making security for the state (Hirsh & Oakley 1996).
In 1992, December, Bush dispensed 25,000 martial workers to aid accomplish the relief task. Initially, the process seemed to carry on so well, that when Clinton received American forces home, in May the following year, he affirmed the intervention in Somalia as a “mission accomplished” (Hirsh & Oakley 1996).
Nevertheless, in the following three months, UN and American forces experienced violent attacks by Somalis, under the headship of General Mohammed Aided of Somali. The chief attack on American military happened on 4th October, 1993, leading to the death of 18 army men, many injuries and the confinement of an Army helicopter pilot (Hirsh & Oakley 1996).
Americans became astonished by the images of American militia that became hauled through the avenues of Mogadishu and anxiety mounted, upon the government, to remove American ground military. On 7th October, 1993, Clinton declared a scheme, to maintain, the Somalia action to stabilize the state, but pointed out that America would take away its forces ahead of March, the following year (Dauber 2001; Edwards 2005).
All through the disagreement in Somalia, Clinton described America’s opponent as a prehistoric savage in two manners. First, his opponent construction became created through ambiguous labels and unstructured terms. For instance, he typified the Somalia opponents as “warlords,” the “people who caused much of this problem,” a “small minority of Somalis” and “armed gangs” (Clinton 1993 p. 840).
As of this rhetoric, three things are evident. Firstly, using these expressions invited the listeners to see that no perceptible mark of civilization could be established in Somali community. Vague and amorphous expressions like armed gangs, warlords and, just a people, depicted an image of a state overwhelmed with chaos and disorder.
Clinton described Somalia as a pre–modern society incompetent to lead in the belligerents and attain independence without support from the United States and the worldwide society.
Furthermore, as turmoil reigned utmost within Somalia, the issues originating from this African state could be seen as a microcosm of the superior dangers the United States experienced in the post-Cold War era. By Clinton describing Somalis as ancient savages, he created the notion that the African state could not endure with out international intervention.
A different thing to note is that Clinton’s opponent construction was qualitatively dissimilar to that of his Cold War antecedents. In the Cold War, presidents centered their rhetorical concentration upon a middle opponent agent, classically the Soviet Union, which emerged the central point of American acts (Hargrove 1998).
Although Clinton did not charge one definite agent for Somalia’s issues, his representation of the Somali opponent was comparable to the Filipino predecessor. At one instance, American rhetoric portrayed Filipinos as a group that is unable to sustain a democratic shape of regime.
Americans, who lived in Philippines, fought a battle that lacked centralized control. President McKinley and Senator Beveridge regarded the Philippines as a “premodern” society, who could not rule themselves.
Therefore, they required the aid of America to support their development (Butler 2002). Clinton instigated this adversary portrayal into the presidential dictionary. Clinton held that the opponent in Somalia was not a federal agent, but a whole “premodern” society. By insinuation, the Somalis required American support to enable them become civilized.
In addition, reintroducing this grand predecessor into presidential foreign policy conversation widened the rhetorical alternatives Clinton and his successors had presented to describe enemies in the post-Cold War world.
Lastly, Clinton’s vague words made it further hard for the public to identify who was to blame for the day by day threats to UN and US military, rhetorically undercutting the capacity to unite public backing for an intervention.
The starvation and demise created by the civil war offered a primary validation for preserving an American intervention. The explanation of Clinton’s rhetoric was that the turmoil in Somalia had to be controlled and abridged, lest it broaden to other areas and threatens US interests.
Defining the Modern Savage: Haiti
Clinton succeeded an unsettled condition in Haiti from the Bush government. In 1990, December, Haiti held its initial democratic election, whereby Jean-Bertrand Aristide emerged the voted president (Kuypers 1997). Nevertheless, on September 30, the same year, Haiti’s martial leaders conquered Aristide and imposed a martial authoritarianism.
Bush disapproved the coup, instantly, and issued an administrative order proclaiming a trade embargo. At the same time, Bush took a careful pose regarding intervention in the Caribbean state. He bargained with Haiti’s army via the Organization of American States (OAS) in anticipation that the society could put stress on the military junta to depart the island and reinstate Aristide calmly.
In the subsequent months, Bush maintained his policy of trade sanctions. However, he also obtained pressure from a range of interest societies and nations to take further action, due to the enormous refugee evacuation from the island. Over 50,000 inhabitants left the island state in the subsequent year.
When Clinton assumed presidency, he pursued the policies of his antecedent. In 1993, July, General Cédras, the Haitian martial junta head, and Aristide arrived at an account that became called the Governors Island Agreement (Hyland 1999). In this agreement, the martial pledged to resign from authority by the ending of October 1993 and let Aristide assume power.
The America’s role in the accord was to assist, with a gigantic support package, to reconstruct the state, and coach a Haitian national police force that would offer security for the state. That idea became postponed on October 11, 1993, after the USS Harlan County, shipping Canadian and American martial trainers, got denied landing in Port-au-Prince.
Fortified junta cohorts’ surrounded the docks of Port-au-Prince objecting the American docking (Hyland 1999). The Canadian and American martial workforce had become lightly equipped, and because of the looming danger created by junta followers, the Harlan County reverted to America.
Clinton held the Haitian marshal responsible for breaking the accord. From Clinton’s viewpoint, Haiti’s martial leaders sought to cling to supremacy for a while. Therefore, the trainers got unauthorized to land in Haiti, the Harlan County catastrophe left the Governors Island Agreement dead.
In the following year, Clinton stayed devoted to re-establishing Haiti’s democracy, rhetorically. In 1994, July, America convinced the UN Security Council to permit a decree authorizing the utilization of force to induce the come back of Aristide (Kuypers 1997). The next month Clinton decided to organize an attack of Haiti to reinstate Aristide to supremacy.
Again, on 15th September, Clinton used a public address to declare his intentions for Haiti. He affirmed that America had exhausted all diplomatic endeavors, yet the circumstance had not been solved. Consequently, Clinton cautioned Haiti’s martial leaders that they had to depart the country or be ready for an American attack.
Furthermore, Clinton’s portrayal of the adversary made Cédras a federal pollutant in America’s symbolic world. Burke (1961) explains that all persons arrange their existence via a symbolic order and certain chain of command. In case, anything, which opposes that order, happens, then it grows to be polluted and requires purification.
Cédras was responsible for the mayhem in Haiti, according to Clinton (Ivie, 1994; Ivie 1997). Clinton said that Cédras desecrated US symbolic order through ordering violence that became consigned in America’s square, ensuing in the killing of guiltless civilians, in addition to, a migration of thousands of expatriates, which put the America’s coastline at danger.
Through putting the blame for Haiti’s predicament on Cédras, Clinton set the foundation to obliterate the “pollutant” from US foreign policy ladder (Hyland 1999). Using martial intervention, America could entirely eliminate the pollution and restore solidity to its symbolic world.
Clinton’s utilization of contemporary savage imagery in Haiti sustained ancient tradition of presidents employing parallel lines of argument. His speech maintained connection with the symbolic past.
Certainly, upcoming American presidents will undertake the use of force and possibly need the accessibility of both opponent constructs in their metaphoric arsenal (Edwards 2006). Bush’s rhetoric on Iraq is similar to Clinton’s description of enemies in various manners.
For instance, at the onset, President Bush described Saddam Hussein as the critical modern savage, a federal agent who can use the executive of his government organizations to create chaos for America and its associates.
Conversely, the moment Saddam Hussein became eliminated from authority Bush description of the enemy transformed. Bush sustained to lay the fault upon the customary suspects like Al-Qaeda in Iraq. However, the president turned to describing the Iraqi enemy in diffuse expressions, similar to how Clinton acted in Somalia (Butler 2002).
Thus, we have Bush portraying America’s opponents in both modern and prehistoric terms to control the conflict (Ivie 1990). Bearing in mind that the threats facing America are not likely to end shortly, one may get upcoming presidents construct opponents in both prehistoric and contemporary terms.
Has there been a Significant Change of Foreign Policy Direction under President Obama?
Four years, since Obama’s appointment, little has transformed d in America’s national and foreign security policy (Parmar 2011). Drastic transformation or even considerable policy reform is usually unlikely because of ingrained political forces and policies.
Again, hereditary legacies from the Bush epoch, Obama’s personal attitudes, designations to high office and longer-term propensity and mindsets have all restricted the latent for policy change. In 1941, following Japan’s assail on Pearl Harbor, a strong and clearly exclusive east coast foreign policy institution surfaced in America.
This institution has held control from that time (). Its structure changes quite slowly and functions irrespective of the political party in authority – which is responsible for continuity of foreign policy amid governments of both key parties.
Once more, in case Obama was stern about transformations, he would have chosen, to high administration, individuals who did not become drawn in the preceding policies or in the attitudes of America foreign policy organization, which largely maintains the policies of Bush.
However, regardless of his anti-Iraq war determination record, Obama has done the contrary, employing chief militarists allied to the Bush government and John McCain, his Republican adversary (Parmar 2011). Besides, Obama has, as well, pursued Bush into Afghanistan war, considering that the nation, and its boundary with Pakistan, is the actual vanguard of the soi-disant battle on terror.
The anticipated military surge in Afghanistan, a policy sketched by McChrystal, will take US troop number from 35, 000, during the reign of Bush, to 100,000 (Parmar 2011). An early beginning of departure date implies that the fighting has joined a further lethal stage. At present, it is the war of Obama as he spent days trying to establish his ideal policy and pick military intensification.
Briefly, Obama has principally elected persons who backed Bush’s policies, but thought that they could be executed in an enhanced way. Thus, change of a significant kind is improbable, regardless of popular hope and goals.
Obama and Bush governments both share an interest in increasing American supremacy through firm democracy endorsement. The growing function of the NATO van best explains this. Obama has selected Daalder, Ivo as US envoy to NATO. Ivo, a famous advocate of democracy from the top believe that NATO ought to become an international coalition for democracy.
In conclusion, some strategic values by Bush government, which became either overlooked or belittled during campaigns, have currently been held by Obama. Some of the values that Bush held closely include the defensive use of force, discriminatory unilateralism, powerful executive authority, democracy support and enormous power associations.
Instead of focusing on America’s true terrorist adversaries, George and company concentrated on Iraq and downplayed the significance of osama Bin Laden — who at the moment turns out was still hugely in charge of the Al Qaeda set-up up to the time of his demise. As an internationalist, Bush persuaded the state to take a moral position in opposition to terrorism through intervening in Afghani dealings.
A number of people may say his that way of thinking was quite neo-imperialist, implying the methods his government took to tried to eradicate terrorism and reconstruct nations became parallel to colonial extension.
In addition, others may deem Bush’s position on Afghanistan as isolationist, as initially, Bush conflicted introducing peacekeeping groups in the state. He just visited the state once during his government, and he was a bit abstracted from actions in Afghanistan owing to his Iraq interests.
Conversely, President Obama and his government intend to broaden the participation of America in Afghanistan, while all at once contracting its plan on Al Qaeda instead of pursuing Bush’s open approach at building the state. It appears like Obama is just abiding by the internationalist effort, which Bush began in his reign as it would be imprudent to remove all troops from Afghanistan devoid of follow-up.
Nevertheless, Obama could be employing new isolationist logic, trying to maintain America from the war with the state. He, as well, point, out that his main concern in Afghanistan’s foreign policy is to guard US citizens from terrorist assaults resembling that of 11th September 2001.
The approach of Obama’s foreign policy, appreciates that this circumstance is not to adore himself or the state, but defend as many inhabitants as possible from risk. Thus, Obama’s tactics to foreign policy in Afghanistan appear to be well designed. Obama intends to send a prominent figure of civilian experts and diplomats in the country, and his policy is a bit focused.
Moreover, Obama’s policies intend to keep the state secure, and thus, hoard money for the taxpayers. It is apparent that the media became critical of the foreign policy of Bush in Afghanistan, more than that of Obama. The foreign policy of Bush gets placed in a dire light, even as news springs grieve that the Afghanistan policy of Obama is parallel to that of Bush.
However, drastic transformation or even considerable policy reform is usually unlikely because of ingrained political forces and policies. Again, hereditary legacies from the Bush epoch, Obama’s personal attitudes, designations to high office and longer-term propensity and mindsets have all restricted the latent for policy change.
Briefly, Obama has principally elected persons who backed Bush’s policies, but thought that they could be executed in an enhanced way. Thus, change of a significant kind is improbable, regardless of popular hope and goals. Obama and Bush governments both share an interest in increasing American supremacy through firm democracy endorsement. , Obama is merely continuing Bush’s third phase.
Burke, K. 1961, The rhetoric of religion, Berkeley, CA. University of California Press. Print.
Butler, J. R. 2002, “Somalia and the imperial savage: Continuities in the rhetoric of war”, Western Journal of Communication, vol. 66, pp.1-24.Print.
Clinton, W. J. 993, The president’s radio address: the public papers of the president. Washington, D.C, United States Government Printing Office. Print
Dauber, C. 2001, “The shot seen around the world: the impact of the images of Mogadishu on American military operations”, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 4, pp. 653-687. Print.
Dobson, A. P. & Marsh, S. 2006, US foreign policy since 1945, London, Routledge. Print.
Drinnon, R. 1990, Facing the west: the metaphysics of Indian-hating and empire building. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Print.
Edwards, J. A. 2005, Foreign policy rhetoric for the post-Cold War world: Bill Clinton and America’s foreign policy vocabulary, Atlanta, GA, Georgia State University. Print.
Edwards, J. A. 2006, The peacekeeping mission: Bill Clinton and Bosnia, Philadelphia, Eastern Communication Association. Print.
Edelman, M 1988, Constructing the political spectacle, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Print.
Hargrove, E. 1998, The president as leader: appealing to the better angels of our nature, Lawrence, KS, University of Kansas Press. Print.
Hinds, L. B., & Windt, Jr 1991, The Cold War as rhetoric: the beginnings, 1945-1950, Westport, CT, Praeger. Print.
Hirsh, J. L. & Oakley R. 1996, Somalia and operation restore hope: reflections on peacemaking and peacekeeping. Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace.Print.
Hyland, W. G. 1999, Clinton’s world: the remaking of American foreign policy, Westport, CT, Praeger. Print.
Hyller, W. H. 2000, American foreign policy. London, Thomson Learning. Print.
Inboden, Will.2011, Obama as Bush, foreign policy. Web.
Ikenberry, G. J. 2001, After victory: institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Print.
Ivie, R. L. 1990, “Images of savagery in American justifications for war”, Communication Monographs, vol. 47, p. 279-290. Print.
Ivie, R. L. 1994, “Presidential motives for war”, The Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 60, pp. 337-345. Print.
Ivie, R. L. 1997, “The metaphor of force in prowar discourse: The case of 1812”, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol.68, p. 240-253.Print.
Kagan, R. 2004, Paradise and power Atlantic books, London, Sage. Print.
Kramer, M. 2009, “The myth of the no-NATO enlargement pledge”, The Washington Quarterly, vol. 32, p. 2. Print
Kuypers, J. A. 1997, Presidential crisis rhetoric and the press in the post-cold war world. Westport, CT, Praeger. Print.
Parmar, I. 2011, Plus ça change? American foreign policy under Obama, political insight.
President Obama has been getting both criticism and praise in equal measure. He has done a couple of good things but some issues are pulling his ratings down. The aforementioned issues could have a great effect on his entire Presidency.
One of these issues is that the President has substantially abandoned the Democratic Party’s agenda of economic recovery. Secondly, Americans have accused the President of being distant from them. Finally, some pundits and political commentators have complained about his government’s spending. This paper seeks to advise the President on these three issues.
President Obama has indubitably worked hard to improve the economy. Some of the commendable things he has done are his success in persuading Congress to accept the economic stimulus bill and financial regulation. However, the President has been more preoccupied with other concerns like deficit reduction and healthcare reform than economic recovery.
He had embarked on deficit reduction after the mid-term elections during his first term, and healthcare reform was after his election into office. The President has arguably neglected the economic recovery agenda that was the priority of the Democratic Party during his first term in office. President Obama should employ a more nuanced approach towards the economic recovery agenda in order to ensure that the populace benefits maximally from his two terms in office.
Many Americans have accused the President of telling lies and being distant from the people. Unlike most of his predecessors, the President does not sufficiently show empathy towards suffering Americans. One of the incidences that contributed to this opinion is the bombing in Oklahoma.
Many of the victims felt that the President did not do enough to help them. Despite being an exemplary orator, the President has not been sufficiently talking to the American public. Americans struggling because of difficult economic times feel that the President does not sufficiently connect with them. The President should forge connections with the populace through speeches, which will improve his public rating.
One of the issues that have attracted considerable controversy about Obama’s Presidency is his spending. Pundits have argued that the President is spending too much and that he should focus on implementing austerity measures.
These are misguided arguments because austerity measures will indubitably hurt the economy and make the Democratic Party’s dream of economic recovery difficult to realize. President Obama should spend in areas that will rejuvenate the economy and decrease unemployment, a challenge facing many Americans. If the President has to implement austerity measures, they should target budget items that do not have substantial effect on the country’s economy.
As evidenced in the discussion above, there are a couple of things that the President can do to improve the performance of his administration. Firstly, he should refocus on the economic recovery agenda, which will lead to more businesses, better trading environment, more jobs and higher economic growth.
Secondly, he should use his great oratory skills to connect with the populace, who feel that he has been distant during his presidency. Connecting with the public will improve his approval ratings and have a positive effect on his Presidency. Lastly, the President should ignore political commentators on the issue of public spending because strict austerity measures will affect the economy. He should invest in economic recovery and ensure that austerity measures do not affect the country’s economy.
The movie, The Obama Deception, and the readings from Dyer-Witheford’s the New Combination have become a popular narration of the reality of who the new president of the USA, Barrack Obama, really is.
They have been used by their authors to represent the facts they have collected about the life of the then newly elected president and all the evidence they had about any reasons that may have motivated citizens of his country into voting for him and allowing him to become the leader of the number one super power in the world.
These authors also try to give evidence related to the fact that president Obama was actually on the way to breaking his promises to his country and to the whole world (Dyer-Witheford 1).
There is a lot of evidence that relates to the fact that the president is not in power as an individual, talented ruler but rather as a representative of several powerful individuals, organizations and groups. Of more concern is the fact that all these powerful set-ups are behind the power and fame that Obama gained and that led to his election as the president. In fact, there seems to have been little real effects of the public to the election of then president than there was in the forces behind him.
One main group that was viewed as being key to the election of Obama as the president of his country was the group popularly known a ‘the elites’, which was a combination of different groups and individuals who held both power and financial control in the country. The group consisted of the council on foreign relations (CFR) and the Tri-Lateral Commission among other groups.
There was a relationship between the main leadership of the country and the group, the elites. This was the same case that led to the election of the president since the group had already shown interest in Obama as their candidate and representative in the government. The group was immensely involved in financing of the main campaigns for the president as well as offering a lot of advice and support for the president.
When Obama became the president of USA, therefore, there was a lot that he could do in line with the requirements of the organizations that were behind his success and consecutively the president was already submitting to a higher authority at his duties and overall as a president. Obama could not be able to fully become independent and self-sufficient in a manner that he could be able to carry out his normal duties at his expense and also make decisions on his own.
On the other side, though Obama had a strong and admirable personality, he had to bow to a higher authority that dictated much of his principles, goals, objectives and strategies. For example, there was a need for Obama to make very many promises during his campaigns.
This was a strategy that helped him to capture the attention of all the citizens so they could vote for him. However, the implementations of all the strategic plans as he had promised were hampered by the organizations that were above him. He had to be directed on the course that he could take as a representative of those groups and hence performed duties as one under some force or power (Dyer-Witheford 17).
One of the main reasons that led to the failed delivery of the promises Obama made to the citizens was the main mission of the elites group that required him to aid them in achieving their mission which was summarized into a global agenda. The agenda involved strategizing for new and more effective ways of delivering globalization to the citizens of the country and all the other countries hence leading to a point where all the involved countries could be placed under one ruler and a similar order.
There is hence a lot of evidence that supports the fact that Obama is not just a world figure and a leader but rather a representative of greater and more powerful forces behind him.
Work Cited
Dyer-Witheford, Nick. The New Combinations: Revolt of the Global Value-Subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 1951. Print.