Blog Post #6

Many of the points made in Federalist Papers #10 and 51 remain applicable to our modern system of government with only minor changes made in name and standards. In Madison and Hamilton's day, the conversation of governance was only accessible to white males. This lack of inclusion within the sphere of politics prevented any form of discussion on privilege, race, and gender to come to fruition. During their time, civil liberties were a question of federal vs. state rights, not of minority rights, immigration reform, or the abolishment of slavery and later segregation. 

Social media has brought more complex issues to the forefront of our discussions in daily life and politics. Contributing to these critical conversations has become more commonplace with the advancement of social media. Apps such as Twitter and Reddit allow individuals to advocate for their beliefs and often debate with those of differing opinions. Social media enables individuals from all racial, sexual, and socioeconomic backgrounds to voice their opinions. In terms of political engagement, social media has created a more intimate relationship between politicians and their constituents. Updates are given in real-time, allowing politicians to publicize their work and more often in today's political climate, come to odds with those they don't agree with. This instant connection to political figures and ideas often offers authority figures the opportunity to manipulate mass numbers of people within seconds. Trump, for example, can whip his fanbase into a frenzy a minute after something critical is said of him on CNN or MSNBC. These deceptive qualities of social media often play to the corrupt system that is warned against in the Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton argued the necessity of checks and balances to ensure a legitimate government, as they recognized that man is inherently greedy and corrupt. This system they advocated for hundreds of years ago remains intact today, but the growth of social media has more often damaged it then helped it. A lot of my argument stems from political issues of the past three years as a particular administration has taken full advantage of social media to push policy. Trump's use of Twitter often breaks the boundaries set by the checks and balances system. His tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has consisted of using social media to pressure fellow Republicans to fall in with the party line. Polarization of partisan politics (or factions) has become commonplace, and the corruption so advocated against in the Federalist Papers is the new norm. For example, during the Kavanaugh hearings, Trump made use of his social media platform and power over delegates to ensure that popular opinion remained on his side. Using social media to manipulate the balance of power in politics is one of Trump's main tactics, as he knows how to appeal to his voter base. Public perception within social media is a significant determinant in today's political climate. In doing so, Trump is able to further his agenda through this now corrupt system and place a frankly disgusting candidate on the Supreme Court roster. 

Obviously, Madison and Hamilton could not have predicted or accounted for the rise of technology and the later creation of social media. They were raised in the age of newspapers and bar debates being the main form of political and social discussions. Participation required that you be a white male, and any other individual's opinion was disregarded. When discussing the applicability of the Federalist Papers today, it is essential to bring into the context with which it was written. During that time, African Americans were considered a piece of property, and women were primarily relegated to housemaids. In today's society,  members of minority groups can voice their opinion and work to better our political systems. The federalist papers are, for the most part, applicable to today's society, but would need to be re-evaluated in the context of factionalism. Factions still exist today, but they do not follow the same rules of early American history. While they follow the polarization pattern set by the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, they are based on entirely different sets of issues and participants. 

so I am tired, I think you are too

This week has been the most tiresome period of my life. I feel like a zombie trudging to class, back to my dorm then back out to babysit and finally back to my dorm to complete the mountain of assignments I always seem to have. I have become a lot more efficient and have begun to understand what certain professors require of me as far as the knowledge I bring to class. I have found a routine and am beginning to feel more at home here. I love feeling so independent, obviously I don’t have to pay utility bills so I do not have the same level of independence as a real adult, but it is still a weird feeling. I love managing my own time and being able to walk everywhere. Don’t get me wrong I miss driving with a passion! However, having the possibility to walk a lot is unexpectedly enjoyable. I love walking along the tree filled sidewalks while rushing to get to my different babysitting jobs, it is something different that I am in the midst of experiencing. Perhaps this feeling I have towards walking will dissipate as the newness of it disappears, but I hope not.

Fall is here! The colorful leaves have begun filling the streets and sidewalks. I am excited. I have never experienced an East Coast fall. Everyone says it is the best time in DC, and I cannot wait to fill my time completing my fall bucket list. I have to go to a cider mill, an apple orchard, try a Pumpkin Spice Latte, and take pictures with pumpkins. Halloween is probably one of my favorite holidays; I love dressing up, being someone completely different and no one even bats an eye. My main question in regards to fall right now is why is it so hot?! We went to the baseball game today and I was sweating profusely, it was disgusting. I have to take two showers a day in order to get rid of the icky, sticky that clings to me and feel clean.

On a better note I had my first radio show on Wednesday! I have never done anything similar to the radio in my life. I decided to step out and try something new because I love music. Shameless plug, my show is called Driving with the Windows Down and it is every Wednesday from 10-11 pm on wvau.org so tune in. My first show was a bit rocky, but I loved it. I had so much fun playing music I love for people and speaking about the different songs. 17 people were listening to my first show and that was amazing! I was so happy and filled with adrenaline afterwards, trying out to be a DJ has been the most rewarding experience at AU so far.

Side note I washed all my laundry including my sheets, then remade my bed. I also cooked all the frozen chicken from my freezer.

#5 Reflection (ym)

     It was my first time reading the Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke. For the reflection post this week, I want to analyze both Machiavelli and Locke to find out an ideal structure of a government. I think that an ideal government will have a base of Locke, but also has an applied philosophy of Machiavelli which has some significant concept in a government.

     Firstly, I will distinguish the different views by Machiavelli and Locke. "Revolt is the right of the people". John Locke espoused something known as intrinsic human rights − life, liberty, and property. He believed that these were inalienable from the notion of a rational human being. He said that the basis of modern democracy, is from the consent of the governed. This is diametrically opposed to the divine right of king's absolutism. Locke interpreted that the state is only legitimate and capable of wielding power so long as it has the people's approval. The people would rule the government through democratic approval, and would have the ability to remove an unpopular regime. Basically, Locke gave right to the people more than the government. Locke's idea is seen in the Bills of Rights, and we can say that he was the key figure in the development of rights: focusing on preserving the man sustaining the ideal government.
     Machiavelli, on the other hand, agreed that a stable government required the approval of the people, but disagreed on the methods. "Government rules the people" was his perspective, and he argued that human rights should be respected insofar as a free populace would have more trust in their government. However, he argued, that freedom of speech, especially the freedom of press, would be incompatible with his methods as dissent against would threaten the stability of the government's power. Especially, Machiavelli's time period was the peak of hierarchies. When the public is uneducated, the power a prince had was influential. Also, there was an underlying premise in Machiavelli that it is impossible to be a good ruler while being a decent person; "... he who seemed to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived". Therefore, the ruler's benevolent behavior was more the ruler's political stability in Machiavelli's time, and his view on citizens as subjects solidifies his ideology as absolutist.

     I would also like to use this space to answer the question from my recent blog post. "Is the world fated to always remain divided up into independent sovereign polities? Is there a world power that has no aspiration of becoming a state?"
     I think that the world is fated to have states with their own independent sovereign politics. I view sovereignty important from the aspect of 1. power/authority and 2. respect. Firstly, without sovereignty, a nation-state's law and morality will be corrupted, because the nation could potentially turn anarchic in nature. Secondly, I think if a nation-state lacks its sovereignty, it will not be viewed seriously from the other nation-states (which is an exception for the IS). For an example, North Korea has power/sovereignty to inflict damages to other countries by using nuclear weapons etc....

Refection #5

For this week's reflection, I'd like to talk about some religion based thoughts I had while we discussed Locke in our class. I realized, that people do not know a lot about religions in this day and age, they only know about the basics of other religions and their own religion. Of course, there are the exceptions, as there is in anything, but for the most the part, religious knowledge is limited. When Locke talked about the Jews conquering lands, he mentioned the fact that the Jews let the people live as they were, and only forced people who were Jewish or converted to follow their specific rules. What many people don't realize nowadays, is that Judaism is a religion where they don't force convert, unlike others where it's in their laws. Knowledge like this was known to people in Locke's time, yet nowadays, that's a surprising fact, including the fact that there used to be a Jewish kingdom. In a survey done of the different religions, it was found that Jewish people and other minorities, knew much more than the other religions about other religions, even atheists barely knew anything.
I think one reason that this story about the Jews wasn't mentioned, other than religion being a difficult topic for people, is that people in our class didn't fully understand the history and references that Locke made, unless it was about a major religion like Catholicism. I believe, that to properly read old texts one has to have more than a basic idea of religion, since as was seen, Locke quoted the bible multiple times.

- Eli

Week #5 Reflection

I have genuinely enjoyed the discussions we've had in the past week. Although I need to work on my public speaking skills more, I felt that I was able to add valuable points to each conversation and learn from my peers. As each week progresses, I slowly become more confident in my ability to work through the problems presented to us and find the contradictions or agreements in our readings. Despite loving playing Diplomatic Risk, this past week of classes has been my favorite. When discussing our texts, it is interesting to see how they have aged throughout the centuries and their applicability to situations that their authors could have never predicted. 

During both classes this week, we were able to tie these political theories to real-life issues and discuss frameworks in which they could be solved. While I missed out on the climate strike because of my homework load, it still made for an exciting blog post.  Climate change, having no obvious solution, was a bit tricky to consider from a realist perspective because of the lack of initiative on politicians' side. With the way our government is operating currently, realism has taken the forefront of the discussion on combatting climate change.  It is quite disheartening to admit that our world is dying due to our actions, and know that nothing short of a miracle could save it. 

This week's readings have allowed me to reflect on my own actions when considering Kelanic's argument.  The Petroleum Paradox and the discussion on climate change brought up what we value the most. Whether that be access to clean water, oil, natural resources, etc., every human imposes their footprint upon the environment based upon their priorities. The climate strike and the blog post regarding it made me reflect on how I have impacted my surroundings and furthered environmental problems. I often buy from fast-fashion brands who don't implement sustainable practices, nor do I recycle as much as I should. But acknowledging my mistakes and attempting to rectify them is all a part of positive change. I know that corporations, polluting on a global scale, play a more substantial role in the creation of climate change. However, I still believe that everyone should remain accountable for their actions. If the government isn't capable or willing to combat climate change, it is up to us to right their wrongs. Realistically, we cannot achieve as much as we could with the support of the government, but every bit of support helps. Although our discussions surrounding John Locke focused on the separation of political and religious spheres in his Letter on Toleration, I feel that his point on Magistrates applies to our current state. Politicians (or Magistrates) who refuse to address the issue of climate change put the safety and well-being of the public into jeopardy. Instead of advocating for more reform and preserving the environment, they put our futures at risk and invalidate our rights to life, liberty, and property. 

#5 Realism (ym)

     Watching the video clip of Greta Thunberg, was thought-provoking. Her speech was impactful and I was happy that the young generation have power to make voice to the international society. However, I am ashamed to say that I did not know a lot about climate strikes until some of my classmates were not showing up to classes on Friday. After learning and researching a little about realism made me think deeper about climate strikes, as well as the idea of realism itself.

     "Today's allies can be tomorrow's enemies." Realism emphasizes the role of nation-state & make a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by their national interests. Realists may claim that politics are constrained as a result from human nature, and the absence of a central authority above the state. From a realist perspective, you cannot trust anyone in the world, and therefore you cannot be interdependent among nations or states. One of the most important views as a realist, is that democracy does not work in the society since people have to live with diversity.

     What I realized is that in realism, there is no one who is responsible internationally, because all of their stories are in the nation-state scales. It is obvious that when all the nations and states do whatever they want to do for their national interest, there will be conflicts. However, when those conflicts happen (might be resulting in a war), there is no one responsible for the situation. Connecting this fact to the actions for climate strikes, I think realists will not see the actions as effective. From their perspective, using resources is important to develop their nations and earn greater economical benefits. Even if they end up running out from all the resources, they might claim that it is not their fault. However, at the same time, I want to believe that even the realists have changed ther mind a little bilt from the climate strikes 2019. I was surprised by all the people when I saw the pictures from social media.

     When I was researching about realism, I found out the relationship between realism and the Islamic State (IS) interesting. Obviously, it is true that the actions of Islamic State is such a global issue although they are not a nation nor a state. The overall goal of the IS is to build "Caliph" which is a new country, and block the intervention by the western countries from the geographical, cultural, and political aspects. As mentioned before, IS (still) has a relative power as one of the nations, because they were able to occupy territories from Iraq and the Syrian Republic. The way they maintained this, is by bombings. The bombings by the IS not only exposed menace to the western countries, but a wider area of countries. I think we can conclude, that although the tactics are up to date, the other nation-states are relying on the old strategies which keep a balance with realism. In order for the realists to manage the unstable situation, they view "balance of power" and "prevention" as their priorities. In the case of IS, they are clear with these priorities. In terms of balance of power, countries which attacked the IS (i.e. United States, Russia, France...) only rely on alliances with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran when they are convenient and favorable. For the IS, preventing their enemies by menace (such as bombing for human trafficking) is their fastest way to get their territories back from countries. I think I can conclude, that from a realist perspective, the actions of IS are rational. Because they are strengthening their own power by using the fear of terrorisms, as well as offset the influence of western nations in Iraq and the Syrian Republic. Firstly, the revenge attacks from the western countries will strengthen the emotion of middle-east citizens to support the IS. Secondly, it is creating voluntary actions in order to achieve the group (IS)'s aim, not even being afraid of death.

     I need people's opinions! Thank you!

The World as a Realist

Realists have many ideals to their name such as believing in the importance of history and how it pertains to politics, national self interest, and how different actions can effect their politics. Morality may not always play a part in their decision making, so different realists may have a different look on the climate strike and Greta Thunberg's speech at the UN. On one hand, many people see this as a moral movement, since this a stance against what is happening in and to the world. 

One way to look at it, is where morality may not always play a part in the thoughts of realists and instead self - interest. If a realist were to believe in national self - interest, they may not side with the strike, since it goes against what would be good for them politically. The strike was also against putting pipe lines through native lands, however those pipes bring in oil that the military uses, and going against the military is not in a country's self interest. If you go by that chain of thought, then realists would not be for the strike. 

Another way to see how realists were to react, is through history and their morality. These realists could have seen the rise of people believing in climate change and all the destruction that this change is causing in the world. Their political view would support Greta Thunberg and the climate strike, since they wouldn't necessarily see it through a corporation's eyes and instead see what is being done to the world and act on it. 

Either way a realist acts, is based on their morality and the levels of it. 

- Eli 

Blog Post #5

Our discussion on realism in class today lends itself to the proposed question on climate strikes and their effectiveness. One of the topics brought up in our discussion questioned the continual trade of oil or natural resources between China and the US despite their strained relations. I immediately thought about the minute details that could explain this confusing set of policies and how it could apply to discussions surrounding climate change. While US and China relations are strained, private corporations within these countries are not bound by the same rules as those of the state. CEOs are not motivated by patriotism, but by selling to the highest bidder. Nationality does not always equal loyalty, especially when seen in the context of the Petroleum Paradox. While British and French companies owned 70% of the Romanian oil production market, Germany was still able to buy large amounts of oil to reduce their petroleum deficit. Parallel to this idea, CEOs are not bound by a state authority or by international treaties to protect the environment. Like those previously mentioned, they are not motivated by nationalism or a love for the planet, but by making the highest profit. Realists would understand that companies who contribute to industrial waste and pollution are too preoccupied with the potential wealth at their hands to implement any sustainable practices in production and waste management. Along with this, many corporate leaders are well above the age of impact and will face little to no effects of climate change. If they will not be hurt, why should they shell out their fortune to help billions of strangers? Realism recognizes the unlikely probability that CEOs will ever act out of the kindness of their heart and choose the morally correct option.

Regulations often come with high fees and overhauling much of the production system, which major companies can not afford, leading to further pollution. Countries like China, in particular face significant challenges to environmental growth as orders from high officials are rarely if ever implemented on a regional level. Developing countries with weakened centralized governments often regress in terms of sustainability as corporations can bribe local officials. Deep-seated corruption and a lack of trust in the fair application of environmental law are significant obstacles that stand in the way of environmentalism. 

When discussing how realists would react to the speech Greta Thunberg gave at the UN and the climate strikes of the past weekend, I believe they would see it as ineffective and useless. Realism itself is inherently pessimistic as it requires the acceptance of the circumstances at hand and being able to deal with it accordingly. As we have seen in the past year alone, strikes have done little to force any effective change within the US on matters of sexual assault, gun violence, racism, etc. Radical change has been absent in our current political discussions, so why would it change now? I seriously want to re-state the fact that most of the time I am an extreme optimist, but when it comes to climate change, we’re screwed. Major overhauls in the industry have yet to been made, and honestly, the time for these actions is long past. Even if we had time to scrape together a plan that could potentially save us, our government is too consumed by chaos to be able to focus on this issue alone. Divisions within the US’s political sphere have shut down any legislative attempts to reduce our carbon footprint. Those who see world affairs from a realist perspective would see Greta Thunberg’s speech at the United Nations as a desperate appeal that will lead nowhere. Even if the US government could come together to form a comprehensive plan to combat climate change, there would still need to be unilateral support from hundreds of other countries. Realism reflects the constant state of conflict that exists within world politics, where states act purely out of self-preservation rather than to abide by ethical norms. This idea of realism would suggest that this unanimous support is nearly impossible to accomplish as every country has objectives that might contradict another’s. 

A Peak into my Life Outside the Classroom

This week has been a whirlwind! I feel like it has been the shortest week ever, because my days are passing by so quickly. Obviously weeks cannot actually be shorter or longer, but how we each perceive our week based on schedules and other factors influences how “long” it is. Fatigue has been my constant companion this week. I have been really tired and I think it is due to my brain being used every day. I know that sounds silly but truly my brain has not had a day off this week. I am always remembering what is on my schedule, checking/updating my calendars, going to class, doing homework, buying groceries, eating, along with trying to hang out with friends and develop a workout routine that fits this new lifestyle has been mentally and physically exhausting. I am still enjoying all my classes and there is not a professor I do not like. I am becoming more attuned to how to be more involved on campus, I am now a DJ for the WVAU which I am super excited about! I have never done anything like this, I have only ever seen a college DJ in the movie Pitch Perfect- which is an amazing movie. Participating in something new has me really looking forward to what is to come as far as learning new things. I am DJ-ing from 10-11pm on Wednesdays if you want to hear my show tune in by going to the WVAU website! This week I also decided to apply for an internship at the French Embassy. I would be involved with their social media, nothing to demanding, but I believe it will be a fun opportunity where I can learn more about France as well as how an embassy functions. If I do not receive the internship I am 100% ok with that, everything happens for a reason and I can move on to trying something else. I am babysitting on Wednesdays for a family in Cleveland Park, I have to pick up the child from the bus stop and then walk home, make a snack, and hang out with him until his parents return. However, this time the mother asked if I could take him to soccer practice as well. I love walking around because I always learn more about the beautiful residential area, little shops or restaurants that I would not have known of. While I was with the little boy at soccer practice I watched his team which was made up of 8-year-old boys run around like wild animals. I had a headache within 30 minutes and I was just watching from the sidelines; the little boys had no discipline and never sat still or listened. I was instantly thankful I only had one younger sister because I do not think I could handle being related to multiple young boys. I also babysat on Saturday night and the little 2-year-old girl was the cutest human I have ever seen! She was so sweet and fun, I did not stop laughing until she finally went to sleep. My time with her really made my week because she was so joyous it infected me and I cannot wait to see her next week. I was also able to attend the H street festival which was fabulous! I absolutely loved the vibes which were made by the music, food, the crowd and who I went with. Siena invited me to go with her as well as two other friends and it was one of the highlights of my weekend.

I would just like to end this reflection by looking at our World Politics class this week. We have been starting off the class by practicing not thinking of anything, which has been difficult for me since in the morning my brain is slowly waking up and thinking of all the things I need to accomplish that day. I am working on my ability to think of nothing. During class we discussed Machiavelli, the conversation topics which were brought up have truly made me think and change my position multiple times. I have come to the conclusion that I agree with a Machiavellian framework, but the world has changed so much any specifics he uses do not apply to today. Machiavelli also has the hindsight to say that circumstances will change so I believe he knew that what he was writing would not always apply, but I do not believe he had the capability of knowing to what extent the world would change.