Reflection: The Crazy World of World Politics

So the semester is coming to a close and in a month I will have a completely new lineup of classes to dive into. Yet World Politics will stay by my side in the form of a research project. I’m not going to lie and say I’m thrilled about all the research I will have to do, but it will be a good test of the material we learned in class. Speaking of tests, I never imagined a college class without any conventional exams. Having class based solely on discussion and a few essays and simulations was an interesting and unique experience. While I honestly disliked this unorthodox class structure, I’m sure I learned a lot more from this class rather than a one where a professor simply lectures about world politics.

I was surprised by the sheer variety of ideas the class exposed me to. Not only did I have to mind-numbingly read sophisticated books and articles, I had to understand where my classmates were coming from too. The class discussions intrigued me as to how well people can make a coherent argument backed up by evidence. I didn’t realize how different another person could interpret a text than the way I read it. What initially shocked me was how lively and interesting the discussions were. When researching for colleges, I heard that American is a very liberal school, yet I think both sides of the political spectrum were present during discussion. This class truly tested my critical thinking skills unlike any other class. If one class had to represent AU, this World Politics class would definitely take that spot.

Reflection: Thanksgiving and East Asia

This Thanksgiving I was thankful that I have a family that’s there for me. Living such a long time away from home reminded me how I took a loving family for granted. Even though I’m no longer a permanent resident of my house, I didn’t feel any different. I felt exactly the same as I did in high school, just enjoying the break with family and friends. My home computer was taken over, but that’s forgivable when you got a shiny new laptop for college. Besides the good food, I missed the average conversation at the dinner table. I also missed my dog so much. It felt weird saying goodbye to my parents when I’m going to be back in just two weeks. I find it funny that people quickly change their minds as to where they want to be. When you’re at home, you wish you were at college; when you’re in college, you wish you were home.

This Thanksgiving I was thankful of my family, as well as for not living on Yeonpyeong Island. I don’t know what’s scarier, the possibility of a full scale war or living in constant fear of attacks. While I’m pretty sure North Korea doesn’t want a full-on war, I’m not optimistic that the whole situation will end on a happy note. South Korea so far hasn’t taken North Korea’s taunts strongly enough to take it to the next level, but the new President might respond differently. The reluctance of China to condemn North Korea’s actions is too bad. I don’t think it would be in China’s best interest to associate itself with such a country as North Korea. If China wants to grow into a major superpower, it would be beneficial to ally itself with countries that have good reputations. Even though I understand that China doesn’t want to look like its taking orders from the U.S. and South Korea, I think China would gain an improved record for helping tame a problematic neighbor.

Reflection: Native American Museum

Visiting the Native American museum was interesting to say the least. As discussed in class, there is almost no mention whatsoever of the horrible treatment of Native Americans by the “new” Americans. While going through the exhibit and not seeing any harm caused to the Native Americans, I thought the museum must have a section reserved for all the atrocities. I assumed this was the case because the museum wouldn’t want to make the whole place depressing by adding relocation and deaths after many of the tribes’ history. They might as well share the tragic stories in one big swoop. I was shocked to learn that this wasn’t the case at all. They simply left out a gigantic section of Native American history. I’m extremely surprised that Native Americans haven’t spoken up against what I see as the bending of truth. They aren’t telling the truth when they don’t tell the whole story.

To put this in perspective, Congress in 2003 authorized the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture to be built in 2015. Suppose they decide to totally emit the history of slavery. Without a doubt that would spark a major public outcry. I don’t understand why Native Americans as well as the general public aren’t outraged at the museum’s portrayal of history. I know that the passing of time comes with a “relaxing” of past tragedies. It seems that this happened such a long time ago, that it doesn’t really matter anymore. No one alive today was involved in slavery, yet I bet many people would care if museums didn’t mention it at all―even if the United States wants to keep its terrible past to a down-low. I think this is an injustice Native Americans and the country should fight to correct.

Blame Columbus

It is completely fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he “discovered” the Americas. Columbus essentially decided how the Native Americans were going to be treated the moment he stepped foot onto the “New World.” While he can’t be blamed for bringing diseases like smallpox to the natives, he is at fault for setting the tone for the negative treatment of Native Americans. He promised gold and slaves for the Queen of Spain, even though Queen Isabella didn’t want slaves. Had Columbus looked at the Indians as people of equal stature instead of savages to be exploited, the terms between the Europeans and the Native Americans could’ve been a lot friendlier. As the leader of the settlers who reported back on what he thought was Asia, he set the tone for future interactions between Native Americans and Europeans.

Leaders are what they are because those who listen to them follow them. Because the European crew have never met Native Americans before, they would have looked to Columbus for guidance as to how they should relate with them. While nothing is certain, if Columbus acted courteously for the good of both sides, history could be dramatically different. The treatment of these people as objects may have become the precedent for the future practice of slavery in the United States. Just like how we learned how our parents dealt with a situation we’ve never seen before, they did the same thing. Columbus could have peacefully traded goods instead of winding them up and shipping them off as slaves. Today we often blame our leaders for screwing up and causing problems. We should look at Columbus with the same eyes we do with our present leaders.

Reflection: WBO and fairness

I think the World Bank Organization is a great organization. Lending out money to poor and developing countries helps the betterment of the world. When those countries that got the help develop, they return the money and continue the cycle. At first I wondered why first world countries would be interested in donating to the WBO. Then I figured out that the more a country donates, the more it gets to decide how the money is used. The nations in charge decide which programs and countries are appointed money. While this sounds bad at first glance, this actually means the third-world countries get a big assurance that the programs will succeed. If the program fails, the donators receive no return on their investment. Sure certain countries may be favored over others in development, but the quicker the process the faster the rest of the nations receive aid. Once everything plays out, every single country in the world should at least have a stable government with decent standards of living. Even though this may be too idealistic, I think the WBO has its heart in the right place.

The discussion about fairness is quite complicated and can’t be answered 100% for one side. If you saw someone on the side of the street visibly starving, you would be a heartless monster to let the person starve. However, starvation happens all the time in African countries, yet we don’t really lose sleep over it. We seem to be okay with this unfairness. The kids born to families who can’t provide for them really have no chance at getting anywhere in life or possibly even surviving to reach adulthood. Children born in the U.S. are much more likely to have plenty of food and live to 80 just for having the luck to be born there. I don’t think that’s fair at all, but we didn’t do anything wrong. We can’t immediately change the situation so that all kids have the same opportunities. However, organizations like the WBO help these disadvantaged kids. To put it in a simple, but not so simple terms at the same time, we can’t all agree that fairness is fair. But we can agree that we should do our best so that future generations are born into a world that is fairer. Fairness is confusing.

It's all about perspective

Of course there is an inherent value to analyze world politics from alternative perspectives. The question should rather be how different perspectives make up world politics. In IR theory, realism, liberalism, and constructivism are perspectives that explain how nations act in the international stage. If we view a country’s actions from only one lens, we turn a blind eye to what its real intentions are. If the U.S. saw China’s rise in a purely realist way, we might view China solely as a threat and pursue a relationship more as rivals. If we saw it in a purely liberal way, the U.S. might relax its stance and pursue a friendly relationship. In the first scenario, hostile situations will rise and war could happen. In the second scenario, the U.S. might become too complacent and quickly be overtaken by China. Because both situations are unwelcome, a hybrid of perspectives that strikes a balance is ideal.

The value of foundational or what-it-could’ve-been stories are priceless. Throughout history the strong and the majority have reined over the masses. For example, women throughout history have been silenced and oppressed. Even today in the U.S., women are still being marginalized. I recently read an article that states that for the first time in recent history, there may be fewer women in Congress in 2011 than 2010. Now this wouldn’t be such a big deal if Congress was around 50% female, except women make up about 17% of Congress. Even if Hillary Clinton had a real shot at the presidency, women still have a ways to go to be on equal grounds with men. Suppose women made up half of Congress when the healthcare bill was being pushed. I seriously doubt the bill would have taken so long and withered down the way it was. I remember reading about studies and surveys that show women are more proactive about health issues than men. I’m sure this is debatable, but I think healthcare reform is very proactive. When such a large segment of the population is not being heard, government cannot effectively provide its citizens with what they need. We will never know what would have happened had women had equal footing with men, but we can work to make sure we know what it means with examples in the future.

Reflection: The Pentagon and the war on terror

Don’t judge a book by its cover. That’s the theme that came into my head when we toured the Pentagon. From first glance the Pentagon looks like a really scary place. The very first personnel you’re likely to see is a security guard with a serious looking gun. Mind you this isn’t the typical pistol you see police officers carrying all the time. After having to show two IDs, we walked passed another security check point. Eventually what appeared to be an officer called our group in a semi-militaristic tone. That’s when everything changed. The officers giving the tour were very friendly and joked often. The biggest surprise was that there are so many stores and restaurants within the Pentagon. There were even paintings and pictures all along the hallways to keep the place from looking shabby. I felt like I was walking around a mall. Maybe the Pentagon isn’t such a scary place if you work there. I found it interesting that the only actual room we went inside was the 9/11 memorial. When I remember 9/11, I usually only think about the World Trade Center. However, plenty of people died crashing into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania that day too.

Unlike car crashes and diseases, we have universal faces to blame when we talk about terrorism. If we didn’t have figures like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I think U.S. actions would be significantly less justifiable. There are probably terrorists in every corner of the world, so the U.S. needed a compelling target to explain the invasion of Afghanistan. The attempt to capture Osama bin Laden and the capture of Saddam Hussein represent quantifiable goals. The war on terror, as discussed in class, can never be won. Even if we capture Saddam Hussein, there will be other extremists who’ll take his place. Because there will always be people who hate the U.S. and western ideals, we are never truly secure as we might want to be.

Afghanistan, staying there makes us less secure

The fact that the United States has troops deployed in Afghanistan right now makes me feel less secure. For one thing, we don’t even know if Osama Bin Laden is even in Afghanistan. He could be somewhere else plotting his next attack. I think deploying spies and gathering intelligence across the Middle East would be a lot more cost effective. The military spending used to station troops in Afghanistan could be used more efficiently. Secondly, having an American presence there in the form of military presence sends a terrible image to the people of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda persuades the locals to join them by saying America is a major threat to them. When you have American troops walking around with guns in the neighborhood, I doubt Afghans feel a friendly vibe from it. Add in the fact that innocent Afghans are sometimes killed from Drone attacks, and it doesn’t take Al Qaeda much to come up with a convincing argument that America is evil.

Keeping troops in Afghanistan not only makes us less secure from terrorists, but it also makes us more vulnerable to other global threats. There is the obvious fact that the troops in Afghanistan could be stationed somewhere where they could keep us safe better. I think the U.S. showed an imperialistic side to the world when it decided to keep troops there even when the rest of the world withdrew their troops. The other countries saw no need to stay in Afghanistan. While the attacks were definitely more personal for the U.S., Europe has been dealing with terrorist attacks for a long time prior to 9/11. Having other nations, especially allies, question U.S. motives can never be good for U.S. security.

The long-term presence of American troops in Afghanistan also shows the world that the U.S. may not be the all-powerful hegemon the world may thought it was. Had the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, found the criminals, and left swiftly, that would have left a strong impression of U.S. military might. I think if terrorists saw that they would be crushed if they mess with the U.S., they would be considerably less inclined to threaten it. The continued presence of American troops show weakness and inability to accomplish goals. At a time when the U.S. is trying to hold on to its economic power, showing military weakness only worsens its security in the global society.

Reflection: Rally to Restore Sanity

Who knew so many people could fit in the Metro? We started the journey after the rally started, yet the Metro was still packed with many enthusiastic and sane people. We even had to wait for a train several times in order to find one that had space. Speaking about packed, the rally itself was really packed. We walked toward the Capitol until we hit the wall of humans. We found pockets of space and moved ahead whenever we could. While we were close enough to hear and see the screen, it was funny that my mom who was watching the rally on T.V. had a better idea of what’s going on. Still, it was interesting to be a part of a massive blob of people.

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear tied perfectly into the class discussion of national security. If we label all Muslims as terrorists, that just increases the number of people who hate the U.S. Basically, if we expand the circle of hate, only more hate will come back to bite us. Hate stems from fear; fear often stems from lack of rationality. Stewart represented sanity and Colbert symbolized fear. I think they did a great job of proving that the world doesn’t have to be such a scary place if we think things out more. When we put things in perspective, we have a lot more friends than enemies.

Stewart’s speech at the end of the rally had some really valid points. I especially liked the part about not being able to tell who the real racists and bigots are. We all like it or not have bias against people who aren’t like us. A rational person would recognize this and try not to act on the bias. The people who act based on irrational fears are the real racists and bigots. If we call people racists and bigots the instant they say something questionable, we take attention away from the racists and bigots who earned their titles.

Lets hope sanity spreads across the U.S. and the world.

Reflection: Risk, how would you conquer the world?

Who knew that 3 teams could simultaneously win the game of Risk? Having played Risk numerously times before, I was under the assumption that there would only be one team laughing in the end. Risk is a game full of emotions. Despair, triumph, anger, and joy are some of the emotions players experience in a game of Risk. Often times only the world conqueror ends up not having to deal with the negative emotions.

Maybe I’m looking too much into it, but I think I saw glimpses of sadism when Green was about to be wiped off the map. Players in the Green team, who were obviously hurt by the betrayal, asked for mercy in a situation where it couldn’t do anything. I have no idea if the 3 teams could have won with Green on the map, but no mercy was shown. Because we all knew each other, betrayals feel more personal even in a game. Now I would be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy the wipe out of Red. The joy we get when exercising power is just in human nature.

The game reinforced the idea that liberalism works in a weird way. The teams who negotiated least with the rest were the ones who got wiped out. Even though countries don’t get wiped out for not talking in the real world, the ones who make the most ties clearly do better economically. Black who was the hegemon managed to negotiate with teams to ally with it. Red built up armies around China, which triggered an alert on the other teams to deal with it. Yellow got a pass for their massive army in the Middle East by the good work of their diplomat. Blue made an error early in the game, but laid low for a while and built alliances. Green spread themselves out in order to it’s achieve its goal, making them an easy picking for a 3 v 1. The teams who were off doing their own thing fell, and those who negotiated succeeded. Overall this was a very interesting game.

Risk applied to the real world

Some aspects of the game are similar to actual world politics. For example, the situation in the battlefield changes quickly. Every single action by a team is monitored closely by all of the other teams. When Red attacked Green, Black immediately responded by attacking Red. Similar to the real life hegemon, the United States, Black appears to want to keep peace in the world. In order to stay in power, both the U.S. and Black want to act friendly so the other teams don’t see them as a large threat. Just like in real life, war is costly. Every skirmish costs lives for both sides involved. Because war weakens both sides, nations don’t go to war for fun. Diplomats make deals with other teams in order to benefit both sides. Nations send diplomats around the world to increase ties and form treaties.

Unlike actual world politics, the only way a nation can acquire more resources is to take it away from another nation. In actuality, this would be a very bad move, when there are plenty of ways to increase economic strength without incurring the wrath of other countries. The game is made for alliances to form and to break, because there can only be one winner. Risk forces conflict, when in world politics conflict is the last thing a nation wants. Alliances and war status do not change so rapidly in the real world. During the course of the game, alliances and declaration of war between teams have been occurring so fast that they have become essentially meaningless. Green could be allied with Black one turn, and then 2 turns later could be at full-blown war with them. Because such instability would be unfavorable to countries in the real world, modern alliances tend to be more permanent, or at least long lasting.

Reflection: Risk!

Watching Salome and playing Risk made up for an interesting week. I really liked one and not the other. I became extremely sleepy watching Salome to say the least. Risk on the other hand was really exciting and I can’t wait for the next class. PTJ’s way of Risk made the game quite unpredictable. As opposed to everyone trying to kill each other and conquer the world, each team was given a unique goal to achieve in order to win. Diplomatic talks and official alliance/war status made the game more representative of real life. Having resource and city bonuses instead of territorial bonuses was an interesting twist. I wander if and how much the plague is going to spread from Western United States.

Observing each team’s moves, I noticed that teams knew better than to randomly attack others. In the entire class time there was only one attack. The phrase “War is costly.” must have really been ingrained in peoples’ minds. It was tough to decipher each team’s goals. I was immediately suspicious of the hegemon when they suggested peace with everyone. Because they gain the most troops each turn, it is to their advantage for the game to take longer without anything happening. Many of the team diplomats suggested peace, which made it quite confusing as to which team would actually win by peace. I’m really curious as to what goal ends up as the winner’s goal. Is it going to be global domination, peace, or something entirely different?

Reflection: Simulation, Auto Workers

The simulation was a nice deviance from the normal class discussions. Though it was unfortunate that the President decided to stick with the status quo, I did think there were compelling arguments on both sides. I was surprised that GM was for the removal of the tariff. I’m sure the removal of the tariff would hurt GM in the short run, though in the long run the increased competition may help them get up to speed with their competitors’ technology. I was also intrigued that the Sierra Club was for the tariff. I disagree that repealing the tariff would increase pollution more than keeping the tariff. Increased competition resulting from removal of the tariff would speed up the trend towards fuel efficient and alternative energy source vehicles. This would offset any increase in the number of drivers because the cars are more affordable. The sooner consumers can get their hands on hybrid and electric cars the better it is for the environment.

Outsourcing is an inevitable part of globalization. The auto workers have had plenty of time to see that the auto industry is shrinking, so it is not like the government is suddenly setting them off on their own. Not to sound mean, but they already saw a form of “outsourcing” when machines advanced and took positions that once were held by humans. Now I know it is a lot tougher to be in the position of an autoworker or to have a family member who is one. It’s difficult to go back to school or have the time to learn new skills when one is working. However, one must learn that technology and globalization has significantly increased the pace in which new jobs are created and destroyed. It’s tough for the auto workers, but they must learn to acquire the skills needed to keep up in today’s global market.

Reflection: Marginalization and U.S. Foreign Policy

It was nice not having to dress up and walk around in the heat this week. I thought government workers are all serious and solemn, but yet again my stereotypical view was broken. Then I realized that only the officials who are cheery and outgoing would want to speak to college kids.

The discussion we had about marginalization was very interesting. Throughout it I got the impression that many think being marginalized is always a bad thing. However, I think it is important that some people choose to be “marginalized.” Relating somewhat to the uninformed vs. not voting topic, it can be said that many people don’t vote simply because they don’t care. Those who don’t vote are marginalized because their voices weren’t heard, yet many of them chose to not vote. Everyone has an opinion. If all of us wanted to let the government know what we thought, massive traffic jams in D.C. the likes of which would make Beijing’s recent traffic jam look smooth would be the least of the capitol’s problems. There would be so many protests on all the issues you can think of that people would just stop caring about what each was doing. Because people are marginalized, the voices of the few are heard and change happens.

I chuckled in my mind when Dr. Peter Howard said that the IR theories are not really used in the Department’s day to day tasks. However, I did wander if as an official of the U.S. government that he wanted to keep U.S. intentions masked. Had he said that they mainly use realism, I would get the image of the U.S. not being benevolent and trying to assert power over the world as an imperialistic state. Had he said the U.S. uses liberalism, I would think the U.S. is out “saving the world” just for its economic benefit. I think it’s simpler to think the U.S. as a person as with all countries. People are naturally selfish and will look out for their own well-being before others. The U.S. asserts dominance both militarily and economically to hold onto its power. This is just like how most people would not want to be demoted in a job and make less money. The U.S. is like a C.E.O. who is facing competition from younger workers who are eyeing the top spot.

3 IR Theories, Compatible?

I don’t think we should do anything about the “incompatibility” between perspectives. Just like in politics, each side asserts that they are right. There is no clarity at all as to which side is really right, that is if either is right. The action that makes the most sense to make is to compromise that both sides can be correct. In international relations, countries can be said to utilize realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Because most countries’ actions aren’t controlled by one person, it is extremely difficult to appoint a single theory to a country’s actions.

Take the establishment of the U.S. currency as the de-facto world’s currency for example. The U.S. decided that the world should use the dollar as “international” currency. A realist could say the U.S. did this so other countries couldn’t just come in and say the world is using their currency, thereby asserting dominance. A liberal could say the U.S. did this so it could have an edge in trade and establish economic stability. A constructivist could say this happened because many countries wanted a common currency to make trade easier, and the U.S. currency was at the time the most prevalent. In actuality all three of these theories are probably true in some way. The U.S. interest and the world’s interest simply aligned. One theory can’t be said to be right and another to be wrong.

Reflection: French Embassy and Ads

It sure felt like its still summer when we visited the French Embassy. I took the Metro Bus for the first time that day. Compared to the subway it’s cheaper, but apparently unreliable.

I actually didn’t know that the land an embassy is situated on is under the jurisdiction of the embassy’s country. That made me wonder what would happen if someone wearing a burqa visited the French Embassy. The reasoning behind the recent French law banning burqas is that they want these Muslim women to assimilate into French society. While I don’t know if the law is justifiable, I do understand the logic that it is awkward to interact with others when they can only see your eyes. As the French ambassador stated, France doesn’t categorize people into racial or ethnic groups. I find this contrast with the U.S. very interesting. Here the Constitution mandates a census every 10 years, and people are asked what race(s) they identify themselves as. The one big statistic he told us was that France has the highest interracial marriage rate in the world. You would think the U.S. has the highest rate considering the sheer number of different groups of people and its status as the “melting pot.” France appears to be assimilating its immigrants better than the U.S.

The videos we watched in class about the portrayal of America surprised me. The video that immigrants see when they are entering the U.S. was more diverse in its inclusion of people that I thought it might be. The only major group I noticed lacking was plus-size Americans. The ad by the Republican candidate from Alabama shocked me. I would have thought that directly saying that the state should use only English would turn-off many voters. Apparently enough voters share that sentiment that marketers thought they should air it. Enforcing an English-only rule only creates tension between immigrants and those whose ancestors are immigrants. Immigrants to the U.S. are going to learn English whether or not the country forces them to. Knowing English is basically a requirement in moving up the social ladder. Immigrants will learn English to achieve the higher standard of living they moved here for.

States and their power today

Once upon a time a state could invade another state and suffer no negative consequences. Now that the eye of the world is over every single action a state takes, a state is much more restricted in what it can do, at least at first glance. Formal international laws are set mainly by the U.N. and informal ones by the first world countries. States are basically set to certain standards depending on how economically developed they are. Some of the rules that apply to all states are: not invading another state unless legitimately threatened, respecting other states’ rights, and basically staying out of other states’ affairs unless asked to intervene.

Countries must observe other nations’ air space, fish in their own waters or on international waters, and not hunt animals considered endangered. There are largely two ways a state can stay on the sidelines of some of these laws (in other words cheat). For instance the U.S., as the largest economic powerhouse of the world, can largely ignore environmental treaties while promoting environmentalism in the world at the same time. The U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto Treaty in 1997 and 2001 because the treaty would hurt the U.S. the most economically. The biggest polluter at the time deciding to not sign on to an effort that looks to prevent an international issue is not something a powerless country could do.

Tradition or precedent also gives countries leeway in how they conduct their business. Suppose someone in a democratically governed country somehow overthrows the government and establishes a dictatorship. I doubt the international community would allow that dictator to keep control. The Korean War was over 50 years ago. North Korea seems to be doing fine. Japan continues to hunt whales in the name of research despite commercial whale hunting being illegal. Their reason for whaling is that it is part of their culture. The point here is that these countries can continue to do these things because it’s just part of their history.

States today still have plenty of loop holes to exploit to serve their self-interests.

Reflection: State Department and Voting

Who knew that a State Department Public Affairs official could be such a funny man? Visiting the State Department was pretty interesting. Compared to the DIA, the building was a lot more modest and the staff seemed a bit more relaxed. Negotiating with rather than spying on other countries must change the work atmosphere. It was really cool to learn that he himself saved lives over a decision he made when he was in the Middle East. He really seemed to know a lot about some countries and not so much about others. It must be tough and at the same time satisfying to have a job that impacts so many lives around the world.

The talk about whether or not voting uninformed is better or not than not voting was intriguing. People argued that voting uninformed may harm the society. Yet there should be no requirements to make sure that the voters are informed enough. A better question would be whether or not to lower the voting age from 18. I think by the time kids enter high school many have some idea of what their political views are. Those who care enough to vote probably have enough information and maturity to make an “informed” vote. If we let kids get behind the wheel when they turn 16, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to vote. Looking at history the voting age may eventually be lowered. Many people see high school students as not informed enough to be able to vote. Throughout history people thought African Americans and women were not informed enough to vote when they were. The U.S. has always been expanding the right to vote to include more of its citizens. However these groups fought hard for this right, and I just don’t see this happening with this demographic.

A Vote…Better than Nothing

An uninformed vote is better than not voting at all. “Uninformed” could mean a wide range of things. You can call a voter who votes based solely on party lines uninformed because he may know nothing about the candidate other than the candidate’s party. An uninformed voter could also be someone who just didn’t do enough homework on the candidates than the voter in the next booth. However, there is no fair way to label a voter as informed or uninformed. A person who watches all the debates, rallies, and speeches may be just as informed as a person who read about the candidate on Wikipedia. We can never know the true reason why a voter voted the way he did. Because we have no way of judging and knowing whether a vote was “uninformed” or not, we should take any vote as a positive.

Take for example the 2008 presidential election. To some voters, Obama’s skin color mattered in their decisions. Whether or not votes went for or against him because of it, I think a vast majority would agree that a person’s skin color is not a legitimate factor in deciding whether or not a candidate should be elected. But for these voters it did matter subconsciously or not, and in a true liberal state their vote has just as much legitimacy as voters who voted on a candidate’s policies.

While we can’t judge a vote to be higher or lower value based on the voter’s knowledge, “uninformed” votes still contribute towards a liberal society. Not voting contributes nothing. Just the fact that you bothered to show up at the polling station or sent in that absentee ballot shows that you care enough about the government. The reason the voter decided on his vote should not matter for a liberal state to truly function the way it was supposed to be. Voting uninformed is better than not voting because you contributed towards the overall opinion of the people-the basis of the liberal state.

Reflection: Spying, Realism, Hegemony

The Spy Museum showed me that spy gadgets and tactics are not just for movies. It must be such an exhilarating feeling to infiltrate a place and sneak back with valuable intelligence. It was amusing to read a post saying that the stories of truly good spies cannot be described here because they were too sneaky to be caught holding information. The most memorable exhibit was the modern cyber spying. I did not know that hacking into the U.S. grid system and taking away electricity from the country was such a legitimate threat. It was scary to read theories on what could happen if the power went out for a vast region of the U.S. for a long time. Instead of taking shelter from bombings or being sent off to war, you could come in conflict with your next door neighbor because he stands between you and the food you need to survive.

I think realism is a pretty grim but accurate way of looking at the world. The “real” part of realism is true in the sense that human beings are naturally selfish. This translates to a global scale in that leaders push for legislation and treaties that favors their own countries. Selfishness is deemed by society to be a bad quality. However, realism forgets about human empathy. When a disaster strikes, many countries pour aid into the victim state, even though the well-being of that state does not immediately help out the donors.

I believe that the U.S. is a benevolent hegemon compared to previous empires. We do not necessarily have better morals, but through globalization it makes little sense to invade another country. If the U.S. wants to simply take over another state to acquire its resources, the world would likely stand up to the U.S. in the form of economic sanctions as punishment. I do not think U.S. hegemony will last very long. The world looks to be headed toward a multi-polar hegemony. China’s strong economic growth even in the face of a world in recession shows that it has the soft power it needs to eventually exert dominance similar to the U.S. As third-world countries continue to industrialize and gain power, the balance of power should shift more evenly among states.