Victoria Ellington Blog Post #1

Victoria Ellington

Blog Post 1

September 28, 2014

GOV 200 0104

ISIS and Politics of Fear

In the following blog post, I intend to comment on a CNN article by Dana Bash and Ted Barrett titled “Politics of Fear—How the GOP is using ISIS Against Dems”.  The article discusses the recent happenings in Israel and the fact that Senator Scott Brown of New Hampshire has used disturbing images of beheaded Americans in a recent campaign ad.  Though, it may be unfortunate, the reality of the situation, I believe, is that his scare tactics will be effective and I will explain my reasoning with reference to realism, security, and power. 

            A classical realist touts the importance of human nature.  It is human nature to experience fear and any American would be terrified when they see those images.  Ideally, our reaction would be disgust, aimed mostly at Brown for exploiting those people and using manipulative tactics, but realistically he made a smart political move.  Brown is appealing to the Security dilemma because the voter data, which it comes from “signals that security is a rising priority among voters” (Barrett, Bash).  Brown proved to the people that our security is in jeopardy and that will most certainly resonate amongst voters.  The Balance of Power theory does not necessarily apply to the U.S. because, although we are satisfied with our power, there is a constant desire for more at the expense of other nations and we certainly do not want to lose any power through a lack of security.  Moral Theory obviously supports the fact that the violence is wrong, but ethical theory exists and means that the violence is reality.  Brown uses these theories to promote his own foreign policies.

            The type of power Brown claims he can provide is of the military sort.  While economic and cultural powers are obvious concerns for voters, actual physical safety is first priority.  Brown’s military background will help people feel reassurance.  Currently, ISIS has some type of power over the U.S. because they have proven that they are a legitimate threat.  They may not have more power than us, but there is not a healthy balance, which we can be satisfied with at this point in time.

            Violence, terrorism, and war are all struggles that exist because of power: the loss of it, the desire to gain more, and the need to balance.  When Americans see the images of the beheaded, they understand that hard power is what we need.  Then, when Brown advertises his military expertise, it becomes obvious why he is qualified.  Discursive power could be asserted to have these ads go away.  It could be argued that such images have no place in public politics and should be deemed inappropriate, but the beauty of the United States and American journalism is that the people have the right to be made aware and politicians and journalists do their best to educate them, even if the price they pay is not having a sound peace of mind. 

            Ultimately, it may be seen as “dirty” or unethical politics, but I think Scott Brown made a good political move.  I am not positive that it will win the election for him, but I do believe more people will vote for him out of fear now than before. 

           

Source: Bash, Dana, and Ted Barrett. "Politics of Fear -- How the GOP Is Using ISIS against Dems." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 28 Sept. 2014.

post 1 Carlton Klein

Hard and Soft Power:

Teasing out the difference in Ukraine

On the face of it the conflict in Ukraine, from its origins with the EU Association Agreement to Russia’s latest incursions, appears to be cleanly divided between the soft power of Europe and the hard power of Russia but when one looks closer the picture becomes much more mixed. 

There is certainly something to this narrative.  The Association Agreement was, for the most part, a consequence of the EU’s soft power.  It does have elements of hard power in that it begins the long process of integrating Ukraine into the EU and includes assistance for some of the mandated reforms but it is by no means a gift.  The real draw was the Western European lifestyle and liberal government; a powerful piece of soft power that the Kremlin was in no position to match.  Instead Russia used hard power in a desperate attempt to keep its former vassal from moving further into Europe’s orbit.  While the details of what Russia did to keep Yanukovych from signing are hazy, hard power in the form of gas discounts and bond purchases were a large part and it is likely a few threats were thrown in for good measure. 

After the Maidan protests and the over through of Yanukovych the picture became more mixed and Russia, Europe and Ukraine began using hard and soft power in their dealings with one another.  When the Maidan protests succeeded the Kremlin pulled its Georgia playbook.  Here the use of soft and hard power became more mixed.  Just as it did in Georgia, Russia used separatism as pretext for its own military action; exploiting the most powerful tool in its soft power arsenal: state media.  Ukraine, however, had learned from the Georgia war and showed admirable restraint.  Instead of using hard power, as Saakashvili had, Ukraine accepted its limitations while managing some impressive acts of soft power such as the peaceful march by a Ukrainian unit in a very public attempt to reoccupy its air force base. 

While the hard power of Russia’s military successfully took control of Crimea and its soft power provided political cover it failed to destabilize Ukraine in a way that would ensure that it would not enter either the EU or NATO.  Determined to succeed Putin chose to use both forms of power in Eastern Ukraine as well.  He used state controlled media to inflame a separatist Russian minority in the East of the country and filled its ranks with Russian advisors and soldiers.  The West was also tentatively using hard power as the US and, to a lesser extent, Europe began imposing sanctions on Putin’s inner circle. 

While most of the power exerted in the Ukrainian crisis has been used deliberately there are two important cases in which Russia has unintentionally weakened its soft power while boosting that of the West.  The most glaring of these is the shooting down of Malaysian airlines flight 17 by separatists near Donetsk.  This was a soft power coup for those in the west who wanted stronger action against Russia.  The second case is more subtle. It is a shift in how the world views Russia, from a state that might be brought closer in to the post WWII order to one that will flout that order in the pursuit of its own interests. 

The simplistic narrative is of Europe using its soft power to draw Ukraine into its orbit but being unwilling to use hard power against an aggressive Russia, and of Russia reactively using hard power because it lacks effective soft power.  There is certainly some truth in this account but the reality is more nuanced.  Both sides have used a variety of hard and soft power to advance their own goals. 

 

Carolina Parra blog post #1

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has become the mark of the leading U.S. military function in Iraq. In recent news, members of the ISIS fighting force are retaliating against the U.S. and posing major threats to President Obama and America as a whole. In addition, an American journalist and video reporter, James Foley was abducted by the ISIS fighting force and addressed President Obama stating that Foley’s abduction and death was retaliation for the U.S. air strikes. President Obama has taken principles such as use of rationality and reason, importance of mutual benefit, and entitlement of natural rights from the school of liberalism and applied them to today’s issues.

Obama wants to stop all potential harm from actually reaching our country, as he believes the threats from ISIS pose a threat on our nation and our allies. Liberalism puts an emphasis on the use of reason and the Natural Rights of human beings so Obama is taking action as well as taking consideration to the well being of our nation.

ISIS made verbal threats to another journalist via Skype and stated, “the lives of Americans are in Obama’s hands.” Obama is not only trying to protect the people of America by maintaining a balance in this situation, but he is also taking action for the benefit of the United States since the school of Liberalism aims for a mutual benefit. Action is being taken by trying to make an air coalition with the Arab Countries and other countries that want to join him in fighting ISIS. In addition, he is trying to create an army to arm the rebels in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq to fight back on Syrian and Iraqi ground.

Obama believes that our country’s actions will wither away the ISIS fighting force and hopefully stop extremists from traveling and join the ISIS fighting force since most of their fighters are foreign. These beliefs can be applied to the final concept of liberalism, optimism.

Obama follows a liberalist way of thinking by the aspects of his solution and plan to fight back ISIS all while using the main goals in the school of Liberalism.

Aubri Paredes: Blog Post #1

Aubri Paredes

Professor Mark Shirk

09/26/2014

Constructivism in the College Admission Process

Many of us can recall the time in our lives when we were high school students contemplating on where we would receive a higher education. Deciding on where we would spend the next “best four years of our lives”, and where we would grow and progress as young adults. While on social media, I came across an article discussing new approaches that universities around the nation are taking in order to make themselves more appealing to prospective students. This innovative method of offering what some might refer to as, gifts to students, very much resembles a concept of constructivism. Like constructivists, these universities like to think outside the box and embrace the idea of being creative.

The article: How Do Schools Market Themselves to Attract Students by Doug Podolsky, gives us an overview of universities offering gadgets and services to incoming students. The article adamantly makes it clear that the Universities’ desire is not to merely entice a student into attending their college, but more so to enhance their student’s college experience, happiness, and success. There is one specific case in where Long Island University (LIU) gives out iPad minis to full-time freshmen and transfer students. This specific case strongly correlates to the concept of social construction in constructivism. With this perception, constructivists heartily believe in changing the world the way you want it to be, in which creativity plays a huge role. Constructivists also strongly embrace creativity, and the fact that these universities, more specifically LIU, were profoundly inventive with the way they wanted to play a role in their new students’ success, portrays a small part of a constructivist’s point of view.

Unlike realists who believe in a set of rules and that things merely are the way they are, constructivists believe in modification and that history is contingent. They believe that history can be made and remade, therefore what happened in the past is not inevitable. This believe of contingency derives from the fact that people’s ideas and mindsets are subject to change. Once again, LIU’s inventive way of thinking acts as a great example to this believe. By coming up with this incentive, LIU holds the power to set precedents for other universities in the future. With this mere act LIU has also proven that sometimes things aren’t just the way they are and it might take a small move to make a huge difference.

Overall, Long Island University’s innovative way of approaching the college admission process very much resembles the believes of a constructivist. Under the concept of social construction, constructivist’s embrace creativity. Long Island University’s method of offering iPad minis to incoming students adequately depicts this perception. LIU also highlights a constructivist’s belief that history is contingent and an individual’s idea is subject to change. With this move LIU will be able to set precedents in the future for other universities as well.   

Blog Post #1 Bryan Pfeffer

Bryan Pfeffer

Prof. Shirk

Blog Post 1

            Imagine a world where the states we had today ceased to exist completely. Instead, taking their place, the teams of the National Football League became the states. It stands to logic, then, that the biggest story nationally would be one of the many scandals that have taken place in the recent past involving physical violence against women and children. I’m choosing to focus on Ray Rice, and his domestic violence case. I will take a brief look into three schools of thought, and how they would choose to handle the Baltimore Ravens’ situation.

            First, the realist. Given his constructs about relative power rather than absolute power, a realist would argue that the Baltimore Ravens cannot punish their running back severely as they play in a very tough and competitive AFC North division. Therefore, their relative power is going to be very affected by the absence of Rice. Second, the realist would say that the opinions and actions of groups outside the state have no affect on the decision. If anti-domestic violence groups were to protest to the Raven’s lack of punishment upon Rice, the realist would not consider that a factor in decision making, because actors besides the state are not relevant. Finally, the realist may be concerned that other states may not comply with a similar punishment for players in similar situations. If they severely punish their player, and a player in another state commits a similar offense, there is no way of knowing that the state will punish that player accordingly. This is a condition of anarchy and leads to acting in the state’s best self-interest. For these reasons, the realist is pushing to see Ray Rice back out on the field.

            Next, the liberal. The liberal is less concerned with relative power and instead more concerned with absolute power. While the relative power of the area is great, the absolute power (the AFC, and NFL as a whole) is not as competitive, and thus the punishment of Rice diminishes their absolute power less than their relative. Also, the liberal sees interstate relations as motivated by actors rather than just states alone, and may feel the pressure of groups against domestic violence or international governance (the commissioner) to impose a penalty upon Rice. Interdependence is another key to liberalism, and the Ravens may not be able to maintain good relations with other states (for trades) if they let Rice walk away unpunished. Despite these things, as mentioned earlier, absolute power is important, and thus the liberal knows they will need Rice especially come playoff time. The liberal may suggest a lengthy, but not indefinite, suspension.

            Finally, the constructivist. Since the National Football League (our hypothetical international system) is in the USA, we will assume that its constructs stem from here. Receiving serious punishment for domestic violence is an important ideal of the United States, and that social construct would lead to a demand for a serious punishment for Rice. The community, a key player in international politics in the mind of a constructivist, would opt for a heavy punishment to mitigate future domestic violence. An indefinite suspension from the Baltimore Ravens would be an adequate punishment in the eyes of the constructivist (using American social norms and constructs).

            Alas, international relations did not come into play in the decision to suspend Ray Rice indefinitely, as the decision belonged to commissioner Roger Goodell. In our hypothetical world, though, there would be some intriguing debate amongst IR theorists in the state of the Baltimore Ravens on how to handle the Ray Rice controversy.