I agree with Wolfers points on national security and interest, they are vague, especially in American politics. In class, as we saw from all the groups, national identity and security are similar in name. While they had the same concept assigned to it, it is the meaning that is malleable - especially as time goes by. Safekeeping America and democracy and freedom is the main subject of security and interest, but time changes the focus of it.
During the Cold War, national security meant keeping American democracy and freedom protected against the Soviets and national interest meant bringing the mentioned to those who need and want it. Going forward in time, the focus has shifted from the Cold War to the War on Terror, but only the focus has shifted, the main theme of American democracy and freedom hasn't changed. Now, it is promoting and safekeeping democracy and freedom in the middle east against the terrorists, and helping countries and people escape it.
Based on the papers read, it seems that there should be a broad view projected to the people such as American democracy and freedom, but that defining it should be narrow and focussed on what is happening currently. Operating this way, makes it easier for the US, and other countries, have a clear and non-fluctuating idea of security. And it is the intricacies that should be malleable.
National Interest, in this view, should also only be malleable when looking at the ideals closer. It is easier to rally people behind a view they know, than a new one that many people may not even lookup. This gives the people a name they recognize to get behind, and a name for the government to work with.
- Eli
No comments:
Post a Comment