Reflection: Week Six

In class today, we engaged in a fascinating discussion concerning alternative views of power in world politics, focusing specifically on the potential of marginalized groups. After studying IR theories (liberalism, realism, and constructivism) we have to challenge the assumption of the nation-state as the only power actor in world politics. Professor Jackson asked us to examine when exactly the marginalized become a threat to the power of the nation-state. Upon reflecting, I believe a demonstration of ability to organize and growth are the key factors that make a marginalized group powerful enough to upset the national order. We see this best exemplified in the danger posed by terrorist groups, infamous non-state actors, and the new power they hold over the U.S. and other European countries.

In the 21^st century we will see a substantial rise in power from not just new nation-state actors (i.e. developing countries like India) but also the emergence of non-state actors. Are we prepared as an IR scholarly community to adapt and adjust our traditional theories to include these new actors? Or are these theories so fluid that they can incorporate the relations of non-state actors as well?

I am not sure if anyone today noticed that the organization of the class directly mirrored the content of our discussion. At the beginning of class, Professor Jackson walked into the room and “empowered one of the silent” by handing the light saber to Julie and Dayna. By mixing up the old order, the class was now required to listen to the voices and interjections of Julie and Dayna instead of Professor Jackson. The class still functioned efficiently and allowed for a freer exchange of ideas among equals. Constructivists and other scholars could argue that this small class discussion could serve as a microcosm of the interjection of new power into world politics as it stands today.

The Ambassador to Aliens

Personally, I think it's a little strange that the United Nations would appoint such an ambassador.  As far as I've ever heard, there is no sign of intelligent life anywhere in the universe that would come to our planet for any reason.  However, from a realist perspective...

Appointing an ambassador for the extraterrestrials was a smart move by the UN.  In order to increase the world's security, we should have someone ready to conquer the unknown threat to the world.  My only concern is that we don't have an ambassador from every country.  The nation the ambassador is from could, and probably would, use their ties to the aliens to come and take over our country!  If we don't have ties to them as well, we can't protect against that attack.  Nobody knows what kinds of weapons they have or how to fight them.  What if the ambassador thing doesn't work, and they just kill him?  We would have to go to war, and the country where he's from (or where they land) would be going first.

A constructivis view on a UN ambassador to aliens

It is a good thing that the UN has decided to appoint an ambassador to the aliens from any perspective. You can’t just ignore them, they’re here and no one knows what their intentions are but if they aren’t good maybe we could persuade them.
From a constructivist this could be a very good thing or a very bad thing. We may be able trade and learn a lot from each other. What if they could use some medicine and have clean energy technology to trade? This is something we would want to look into. Or they could be here to wage intergalactic war; this is also something we need to look into. Sure we need to be concerned about their military power if they have any, but that can’t be our only concern. This political ad from the Reagan administration puts into perspective the kind of view we should take on the aliens http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA.
Like everything in life we should prepare for the worst and hope for the best. It’s better to be safe than sorry, that line may be cliché but this could lead to great advances in technology, absolutely nothing (a district 9 scenario) or total annihilation.

From Global to Intergalactic Politics

Politics is a game where short-term decisions often take precedence over long-term foresight. Because of this, we are constantly underprepared when confronted with entirely new global challenges. Establishing an ambassador for extraterrestrial diplomacy would be an easy but bold step in the United Nation’s progressive agenda.

So I’ll admit, I feel ridiculous when asserting such a suggestion. I am sure the majority of politicians in the UN shy away from this platform because it can easily be attacked for its absurdity. However, some brave souls in the UN have indeed proposed the election of a “Space Ambassador for Extraterrestrial Contact Affairs” in a recent General Assembly meeting in New York. The UN could easily direct someone from the already functioning “Office for Outer Space Affairs” to this appointment. Because this office would be entirely contingent on future contact, it would not require a budget or personnel yet. The important thing is the gesture. By appointing a specialized contact ambassador, the United Nation’s would send a clear two-fold message. The UN is serious about foreseeing potential global challenges in the 21^st century and the UN does not shy away from potential extraterrestrial contact.

When developments have not occurred yet, people laugh off progressive proposals such as this one as absurd and wasteful. When these developments do in fact occur, people are then left unprepared and blame each other for lack of foresight. If extraterrestrials do contact the Earth, we need the world to have a system in place to support the historic ambassador that will lead the way into a new era of “intergalactic” politics.

Reflection - Week Five

The class on Thursday about the alien landing was helpful for me.  Sometimes when we talk about the concepts of IR theory in a broad sense in class, it is hard for me to be involved because I just don't do well thinking that way.  It was interesting to see the different ideas on how to handle the aliens, the press, and the public.

The Nationals game was fantastic.  I had forgotten over the years how much I absolutely adore baseball.  I've heard it said that baseball is "10 minutes of excitement packed into 2 hours" but I disagree.  As I was explaining to Ari, the excitement of a game of baseball is in the anticipation.  It's in not knowing how the batter is going to do, who is going to steal, the pitch, the catch... everything is tension.  The stadium keeps up that excitement, and even if the people sitting down the row from you are supporting the Braves, you all have the unity of being American.  And on that note, the seats aren't divided like in football between the teams.  You can sit next to the "enemy" and be perfectly fine!  I like that the stadium is arranged in a circle.  It emphasizes the unity of being American and America's sport.

Reflection of week 5

Our class Thursday taught me how to use the constructivist theory in real life situations when it comes to dealing with other countries or in this case, aliens. Another thing it taught me is that no matter what, constructivism is always an open ended theory. Thursday’s class also made me realize how much we use the constructivist theory in a social setting almost every day. Let’s say you’re at a party and you start talking to someone you’ve never heard of or seen before. You don’t know this persons likes, interest or personality. You don’t necessarily wait for them to make the first move in a conversation because if everyone did that where would we be today? Instead you introduce yourself and start with small talk questions because you don’t know what their reaction and you don’t want to offend them with the harsh topic of politics. This is what we wanted to do with the aliens, start with small talk and not necessarily wait for them to make the first move in case they think our first move would be hostile. We would go ahead and try to establish some sort of outside communication with them by sending up some mixed radio signals. Those first mixed radio signals would be the “Hey, how’s it going? We’re the people of Earth, we’re pretty diverse and our favorite sport is soccer. What’s up with you?
I was thinking about this parallel in class and thought it was cool because I actually thought about it that day at lunch when I met someone for the first time.

Reflection: Week Five

One of the important themes discussed in constructivist theory is this notion of internal v. external identity. This is an issue that I have happened to discuss in both World Politics and Cross Cultural Communication this week. Identity development is complex in that it depends not just on internal perception but the perception of “the other.” This tension between the two images is best exemplified by the concept of Lady Gaga as a nation-state mentioned in class on Monday. In my most recent blog post, I stretched this notion to apply to so-called antagonistic states, North Korea and Iran. It’s up to you guys to tell me whether I justified that parallel or not.

We often hear the phrase “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” I think this notion is extremely applicable to the identity struggle mentioned in constructivist theory. When we develop our own identity as an individual, community, or entire nation, we must define ourselves internally but be conscious of the way we are perceived through out the world. This idea was debated in my Cross Cultural Communication class in a discussion over American culture this week. If the world views us as a largely Christian nation, can we really pat ourselves on the back for being religiously tolerant and diverse? Is this a misperception on their part or ours?

This identity struggle is what truly complicates international relations on a large scale. Constructivism discusses how nations assume certain reactions from another nation based on their perceived identity in the global order. But can we accurately predict reactions from a state if their own identity is inconsistent with the caricature we have developed for them? It is interesting to see the similarities when this identity struggle is applied to individuals on the micro level and entire nations on the macro level.

North Korea and Iran: Lady Gaga Nation-States?

This week is the first time I have been legitimately stumped by a blog question. If Lady Gaga was a nation-state, what would the international system look like? Perhaps the difficulty of this question lies in its abstract nature. It leaves quasi-pragmatists like myself at a loss. So in keeping with the true form of a pragmatist, I am going to apply this notion to reality and audaciously suggest that Lady Gaga states actually exist in the world order today.

If we define a Lady Gaga nation-state as a government that deliberately flaunts conventions to provoke reaction, we could consider North Korea and Iran as manifestations of this distinct way of relating to the international community. Out of protest against certain “Western” practices and ideals, both Iran and North Korea refuse to fully participate in the accepted global order. Their outrageous behavior transforms them into larger-than-life icons for their respective ideologies. In many ways, this gets at the complicated issue of identity. Does it really matter how you define your identity, if other persons or entities don’t recognize this? Take the microcosm of Lady Gaga in popular culture. Lady Gaga views herself as a calculated activist for the GBLT community and thus deliberately produces material that grabs attention and flaunts convention. While Lady Gaga has a substantial fan base, many Americans see her material as outrageous and automatically dismiss it. Many people don’t even recognize her as a GLBT activist. While she may hold popular power, no one in the government would ask her to come to the negotiation table. Now, apply this to the macrocosm of world politics. If you simplify the identity of North Korea and Iran, you essentially get this same identity struggle. While North Korea and Iran view themselves internally as championing resistance to the Western capitalistic status quo, what do we view them as? Crazy. Unpredictable. Not worth consulting.

It is interesting, however, to examine how North Korea and Iran still hold so much weight in an international system that they refuse to fully participate in. Just like the popular power Lady Gaga holds with her following of “Little Monsters,” Iran and North Korea still have their bargaining chips, most importantly nuclear weapons. When this type of power enters the equation, the struggle between internal identity and external identity becomes largely inconsequential. Nevertheless, it makes for a tantalizing debate when a Lady Gaga metaphor is invoked!

Reflection - Week Four

Might I say I just love living in DC?


The trip to the State Department was really interesting and opened up a new possibility for a career path for me.  I like taking these trips because I'm one of those people who really isn't sure what she wants to do yet, and this is like "career day" in high school but BETTER.  The speaker was really interesting and I could see myself in that position in the future, maybe.


As cool as going to the State Department was, it wasn't the coolest part of my week.  As you probably know, my boyfriend is Jewish and this weekend was Yom Kippur.  We went to Kol Nidrei services (for those of you who, like I was, are unfamiliar - Kol Nidrei services are the services the night beginning Yom Kippur.) and at the end of the fascinating service in a beautiful synagogue, we walk to the front to talk to the rabbi.  As we are in line, we see a guy with an earpiece who is clearly armed.  Ari asked aloud who he was protecting and this lady comes up behind us and says "that's the bodyguard."


"The bodyguard for who?" Ari asked.


"That's the ambassador." the woman replies.


We jump out of line.  We walk over and introduce ourselves to Michael Orrin himself, the ambassador of Israel.  He said it's great we're at American, and said to stay in international relations.  "It's a great field with so many exciting possibilities," he said.  Finally, Ari asked him to sign something for us so we could prove for our leadership gateway class that we met him and he explained (to Ari's embarrassment and my great interest) that he can't sign on the holiday but why don't we come down to his embassy sometime this week to get it signed?  We were two starstruck kids just about then, and said we would make the arrangements.  We are going sometime this week for the signature and probably a tour of the embassy. 


If I haven't already said it enough, I love living here.

Reflection on week 4

International relations has always been one of my top career field choices, but after our trip to the state department I know, as of now it is my top career choice now. The trip also showed me who I would like to work for, the United States foreign service and I found out I would be able to work anywhere in the world.
Hearing David’s story about helping negotiate the release of the US POWs in the first Gulf and how he had already did something great for America and the American people by the age of twenty four really inspired me. I have always wanted to help my country, and want to do it as best as I can and as soon as I can. I feel that I would be able to do that at the state department.
Also in class we were talking about people not being able to vote because they have work or the polling stations are far away or a combination of both. I wanted to mention absentee ballots and early voting, but I soon found out that these are run separately by states because most elections are for local and state officials, but wouldn’t be great if we could have an absentee system that was run by the federal government, I know some people have doubts about if they are really counted, but I’m sure they are counted.

Reflection: Week Four

In our debate over the benefits and drawbacks of the election process this week, I couldn’t help coming back to an interesting debate demo round I watched one of the first days of Debate Society at AU. I had wanted to bring it up in class but it never quite fit into the trajectory of our conversation. The theoretical proposition related directly to this notion of populism vs. elitism, or more easily understood as the “people are dumb” debate.

In the debate round, parliamentary team proposed the existence of a magical machine that could read a person’s reasoning capabilities, knowledge of current events, and basic political intelligence. The team proposed that every American citizen should have to pass this magical intelligence screening in order to vote in elections. Benefits of this would include more informed election results, less pandering and smear campaigns by political candidates, and more healthy debate come election time. The opposition argued that this violated the values of democracy and disproportionately affected the nation’s poor. They argued that the common low-income citizen who is barely holding together two jobs and a family does not have time to keep up on current events and may be less educated. Both sides presented enormously valid points and by the end of the debate my head was spinning.

While this proposition of a magical screening machine seems silly at first, the resulting debate is a very basic dispute over the very essential ideals of democracy. The populist v. elitist debate continues to pull me in opposite directions intellectually. After all, the average citizen simply does not have the time or knowledge base to understand the complexities of tax structure, history of foreign countries in the Middle East, or economic recovery theories. And in this country, we don’t expect them too. The politicians and their staff are the ones with experience, education, and time to study and sift through these complicated decisions. Because of this, what tends to happen is politicians make the informed decisions and then try to sell it to the public as if it was their idea.

Throughout the week, I will be continuing to grapple with this debate that really gets at the core of the purpose of elections in our democratic system.

Would you rather live where there are no elections?

When I turned eighteen, I was excited for only one thing: the right to vote in a general election.  While I knew the debate over the actual effect my vote would have in the grand scheme of things as far as a presidential election, voting is still important to me.  What people fail to recall is that the President does not hold supreme power in the nation.  Yes, it is true that the President is the de facto leader of the free world, but he (or she) does not hold all power.  Many people who are opposed to elections forget the "smaller" elections.

I worked for a congressional reelection campaign in the summer of 2008 for Republican Tim Walberg.  Many people I talked to at the time about voting stated they were only voting for President and not for anything else.   It made campaigning a delicate thing and one to be studied.  I wield my voting power not just for President, not just for Congress, but for state elections too.  For example, I will cast my absentee vote for Governor of my state (Michigan) this year.

To conclude, I believe voting is so important, I would not want to live in a place where there are not elections.  While your voice may not necessarily be heard in Presidential elections, you can still have your say in smaller elections and in your state.

The Value of Elections Lies in Potential

In class on Monday, we expended a lot of energy discussing the negative ways elections function in a managerial liberal state. We debated over whether elections make us more active or more passive in our political participation. We criticized the illusion of the citizen’s power while money and bureaucrats truly make the decisions. Through following politics over the years, it has become increasingly evident that all of this is true. However, the election system in the United States is by far the best political participation system seen in large nation-states today. With this in mind, I would find it difficult to live under a different form of government without the election process.

As discussed in The Nation State, the election system was developed in response to other not so effective outlets for political participation. For example, in European states popular sovereignty or the “general will” of the people was expressed through riots, demonstrations, and other equally volatile manifestations. While the passion of these citizens has been romanticized over the years, events like the French Revolution show us that excessive political organizing can lead to chaos in the state. In order to ensure more stability, the election system developed as a ritual or routine way for each citizen to chose who they want to represent their interests in government. While this might not be considered a “hands on” approach, it certainly gives our country a unique sense of consistency in our political activities.

Voting in elections is a gift we often take for granted as a society. While admittedly our participation is limited, citizens still have the responsibility to be well-informed before stepping into the voting booth. If we can generate a more active voting culture in America, I believe many of these issues with the election system will improve. While the system is by no means perfect, the value of the election system lies in its potential. Democracies with regular elections leave room for change, progress, and a constant opportunity for citizens to collectively influence their government when they so chose.

We need elections

I would never want to live in a society with no elections. Rarely does someone who is not really wealthy ever run for a public office position in our country, but it at least we have the chance of bringing in different people each time. Also throughout history countries that don’t have elections a lot of times seem to go through violent revolution; The French revolution, the fall of The Soviet Union and the American revolution.
Free elections may seem managerial, because only a select few can ever really afford the time or the costs to run for office, but what free elections do is let people have a say in how they are governed. A lot of people already don’t like being told what to do by their leaders, but no one likes being told what to do by someone who inherited or was given the position. When power is passed on to a family member, if they aren’t qualified and even if they are the people will still resist this change, they want a say in how they are ruled. When power changes in this form and not an election there is a much higher chance of conflict whether it is rioting in the streets or the people actually, physically standing up to the government. When a country doesn’t hold elections the government usually runs everything in the state which could create huge feelings of nationalism which as history has shown us not good for example Nazi Germany.
If you want to have a stable state with little risk of conflict from the people then you need to hold some sort of election whether it is straight majority or you split the decision proportionate to the vote.

Reflection - Week Three

The Newseum lab, I think, was more important to our class than I had first thought.  As I had been there twice before, I stayed away from the 9/11 exhibit (I had been there two weeks ago so I was still fresh on it... and that's not an easy thing to look at and focus on!) and tried to get to everything that I hadn't seen!  I went to the ethics exhibit, the first amendment exhibit, and the "freedom" international exhibit.

The ethics exhibit I honestly think I remember because it had one of those really cool tables that's a touch screen (essentially).  It was interesting to see what they deemed ethical in the journalism world and what isn't.  I learned, among other things, that reporters shouldn't applaud when a speaker is finished speaking! 

The first amendment exhibit was cool because each right protected by the first amendment was set up as sort of a timeline of the struggle to keep that right.  But the exhibit that really struck me was the "freedom" international exhibit.  On the wall was a big world map with the countries in three colors.  Green represents free states - the U.S., Canada, and surprisingly less of Europe than I originally thought!  Yellow represents "partially free" states - Italy, few Asian countries, and some African countries.  Finally, Red represents not free states - more of the world than I had ever wanted to think.  The exhibit also showed a news truck shot up by militants in a less-than-free state.  I had been questioning recently why I am in international affairs, and this exhibit reminded me why.

Reflection of Week Three:

This week’s lab to the “newseum” was very emotionally powerful to me because of the 9/11 exhibit. That exhibit made me realize how much the media can influence American politics indirectly by influencing the American people. The news still does have this effect on us and always will.
When 9/11 happened I was only nine, but when I look back it seems like that the media riled up the American people by showing the planes crashing in to the buildings for weeks straight. When the American people had a sudden surge of patriotism after 9/11, the surge seemed to be fueled by the media with the constant showing of the planes crashing. September 11th is arguably the day the world changed forever and you could see this in the headlines of newspapers from places like Argentina, Russia, Israel and Korea, all the headlines that I read said “Americas new war” and “TERROR”.
9/11 put us into a war, a war on terror. On September 11th I was watching the news and there were people debating whether the media should still air the planes crashing. I think we should be because it brings emotions back to people. It reminds them of what happening and seeing that we as a country have A.D.D we need reminding. If we leave Afghanistan now we will let Al-Qaeda build back up and we may have another 9/11 on our hands, we need to keep Al-Qaeda on their heels and to do that we need to keep on the offensive.

Reflection: Week Three

This week’s lab at the Newseum on Wednesday reminded me of the powerful ways media and journalism shape political and social life in America. Since I live in Maryland, this was my fifth visit to my favorite museum. I remain in awe each time.

The September 11^th exhibit at the Newseum gives an interesting perspective on how media reacted to the terrorist attacks. The most poignant component of the exhibit is the wall of 9/12 headlines. Newspapers exclaimed everything from “Apocalypse”, “Terror”, to the particularly strange San Francisco Chronicle headline “Bastards!” These headlines serve as an excellent snapshot into the emotionally volatile time directly after the attacks. Now, on the nine year anniversary of 9/11, tensions still run high over what these terrorist attacks mean for our national community. The so-called “Ground Zero mosque” and “Burn the Quran Day” have dominated headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times. These controversies demonstrate that the bitterness and anger over 9/11 is still present and often misdirected at the entire religion of Islam instead of the Al Qaeda terrorists. In his national address today, President Obama reiterated to the country that the U.S. is not at war with Islam but Al Qaeda, a group that perverts the Muslim religion.

Reflecting on the meaning of 9/11 on the national anniversary, I couldn’t help but consider how this event affects the U.S.’s role as the major hegemony in the world. What are the consequences of this growing anti-Muslim sentiment or “Islamophobia” in our nation? Doesn’t this seem to diminish our reputation as a benevolent world power in the world? While 9/11 is first and foremost a day of remembrance for the lives lost in this tragedy, it is also a day to reflect on what our values are as a nation and how we can work together to protect them.

Machiavelli: Bold or Stupid?

Even though for the most part I didn’t agree with what Machiavelli had to say in “The Prince”, I definitely agree with this statement and think that it is good advice. This statement holds true in all of life not just political life. It is always best to take the initiative in everything in life.
Machiavelli is a pretty bold guy he tells anyone reading the book that when you are taking over a country that is ruled by a family that you should kill them, this seems a bit like taking advantage of the situation but if you are seeking fortune then this is the path to take. It’s what leaders like Hitler did. Germany was going through political struggle with the fall of the Weimer Republic, and when the going was good he had plenty of fortune.
This seems to go along with his previous advice because he seems to give “bold” advice like when you take over another state to kill its ruling family if it has one and to disarm its citizens. This is a pretty “bold” move. Also he is advising leaders how to stay in power and if they want to stay in power during “political strife and struggle” then they have to be bold especially because the strife and struggle is happening on their watch.

Is it better to take the initiative in political life and political struggle?

For starters, I do believe that Machiavelli's suggestion that it is always better to take the initiative in political life and political struggle coheres with the rest of his advice.  He is always saying it is better for you as the ruler to do things yourself, live in the regions you conquer yourself, and don't depend on foreign nations.  He definitely maintains the same idea with this piece of advice.


Now the question: is it good advice?  I think as a ruler and a citizen it is good advice to take your own initiative politically.  For a ruler this means making laws, negotiating (or not) with other countries, and deciding what your country should be involved in on a global scale.  As a regular citizen, it means getting involved in your government.  Obviously the first thing you do is vote but you can do other things as well, especially in America.  Work on a campaign.  Protest.  Write to your congressperson.   Write letters to the editor.  Volunteer with your political party.  Anything you can do to be active, do it.  Finally, you can buy products made in your country to stimulate its economy.  In short, I do think Machiavelli's advice is good advice, even today.

Voting in November: "To those whom much is given, much is expected"

So it is that time of year again! The time when political signs start popping up and the Washington Post starts furiously calculating electoral math. I know I don’t have to remind any of the people on my World Politics floor how pivotal this general election season will be for our country. So why am I posted this reminder on our world politics blog?

Well if the study of international affairs and politics teaches us anything, it is that the world contains a vast array of government structures with varying levels of democratic participation. I am risking a cliché here when I say that as U.S. citizens we have been given the incredible gift of a stable and functioning democracy. The beauty of the U.S. democracy lies in that after a general or national election, we can go to bed knowing that the next day our neighbors won’t be running through the streets rioting against the winning party. Because of our privilege, we take this for granted.

I know many people consider local politics a waste of time and not worth the burden of absentee voting, but there is an important principle behind it. Even if you don’t particularly care about traffic congestion on your interstate or where to build a trash incinerator, you have been asked to participate in these decisions. Don’t waste this. People around the world have died to gain this right to self-determination.

So I want to challenge every one on our floor to vote not just in the general but the primaries as well. I know Maryland’s primaries have voting these two weeks. I actually did early voting in my hometown this morning. Come November the SPA kids will be actively encouraging students on campus to vote absentee for their state’s elections. “Lett’s” show them that SIS students, especially Jackson’s World Politics UC, take our responsibilities seriously!

I know it’s a burden to navigate the absentee voting process, so I posted some links that might make it a bit easier.

For dates of primaries and generals by state (of course the general is NOVEMBER 2^nd):

http://www.evoter.com/2010-national-election-calendar-by-state-evoter

Voting absentee is made easy for you, go on your states website:

i.e. http://www.elections.state.md.us/voting/absentee.html

for all those Maryland voters!

Be informed on the national impact of your choices:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html

Reflection - Week Two

This Thursday we awoke to find our floor divided into a green and orange "sector."  The bathrooms were both located in the "green sector," but the sinks were again divided into orange and green.  Elevators, couches in the lounge, even machines in the laundry room... everything was divided.  So, what did our floor do about it?

At first we just kind of ignored our duct tape boundaries and went about our business.  After all, some of us had been up very late doing homework and were not about to let that sort of thing get in our way on a very tired morning.  After going to class, however, all that changed.  People tore down or switched around the boundaries, as people will do, but I think the coolest thing people have done is creating our own little nation-states within our floor.

We are now divided into a Blue State, a group the Blue State is trying to conquer, and Christian's room (can't remember the name of that one but it's on the wall by his door.)  My room is allied to the Blue State and I figure once we conquer the entire floor we will set our rules and post them on all access points into the country (i.e. the sky lounge, the elevators, the door to Anderson, etc.)  I'm really hoping we can play this up because it's such a fun concept!!

Reflection of Week two:

This past Saturday we went to the D.C United game. I was really looking forward to this because I’ve played soccer my whole life, it’s one of my favorite sports, I have never been to a professional soccer/football game in America or the rest of the world and we’ve just finished reading Foers book “How soccer Explains the World”. Even though I’ve heard that American professional soccer is nowhere near as exciting as European or South American I was looking forward to experience the atmosphere of the sport. From across the stadium the atmosphere looked just like the games in Europe, with the people waving the teams flags, singing songs that if you don’t know what they’re singing it’s impossible to understand and the jumping up in down in unison.

I was glad to see that there weren’t any Allen Garrisons running through the crowd beating Columbus fans or fans shouting ethnic slurs to people of Ohio (which would be pretty hard to come up with). It was easy to see that most people at the game were treating it as any other sporting event in America, just sitting back watching the game, standing up when we had a chance to score or yelling at the referee rather than shouting racial slurs to the other fans or team. I guess it’s hard to shout those at each other because of what makes this country great, our diversity. I saw all different kinds of people who I’m sure support many kinds of religions wearing D.C United shirts, who were all United under their team rather than a race, religion or region.

Reflection: Week Two

Machiavelli’s The Prince is a great starting point for lively debate over the complex issues of national leadership, sovereignty, and international relations as a whole. Machiavelli is perhaps one of the most controversial and misunderstood scholars in political history. The term “Machiavellian” is thrown around a lot, mostly by over-zealous high school (or yes even college) students wanting to impress teachers. “The ends justify the means.” “It is better to be feared than loved.” These are commonly quoted mottos for a Machiavellian character. However, it is hard to truly grasp the spirit of Machiavelli’s theory without thoroughly examining The Prince as an entire work of political art.

In class, we were cleverly tricked into representing the antithesis of our original opinion on Machiavelli’s political theory. This is an effective exercise when trying to really dig into the core of Machiavelli’s thoughts and ideas. While I was originally standing up to defend Machiavelli’s pragmatism, this nagging emotional feeling quickly drew me to the other side of the room. In truth, the reason I wanted to defend Machiavelli’s arguments was because it was too difficult to articulate my moral apprehension. This drew me into an even deeper analysis of the foundational basis surrounding Machiavellian theory: does regard for morality and ethics as a leader make you weak? Is there a way for what is smart and what is right to go hand in hand?

It is very easy for scholars and politicians to academically isolate areas of thought. For example, some say politics is a strictly legal and pragmatic concern. Morality is not relevant. You cannot be both smart and righteous. Truly, Machiavelli stands out in history as the first popular advocate of this way of thinking. Every time I hear this, I have this persistent need to disagree. But I bite my tongue because if I seem emotional or compassionate, clearly I must not be pragmatic or intelligent. This is an assumption I hope is changing in the world of politics. In reading and following politics and government, the leaders I admire most are the ones that have managed to be both ethical and effective. While I cannot hope to fully explain how this compromise can be carried out in this one reflection, you can expect me to be pondering this ultimate goal in every topic we discuss this year. My hope is that in studying other leaders in history, I can develop and justify my own political opinion on the issue. What is right and what is smart can and should go hand in hand.