The Pope's Liberal Speech to the UN

Article

On Friday, September 25 the Pope spoke to the United Nations in New York. Throughout the Pope’s speech there were many examples of Liberal ideals. The Pope goes into many specific examples of how the UN can be most influential in the best way, with a liberal tone throughout the speech. Liberals believe that states can work together in order to have be mutually beneficial, the economy of states has much importance, and that international institutions can maintain peace and cooperation. All of these beliefs were included in the Pope’s speech and therefore it is reasonable to say that the Pope is a Liberal. When the Pope spoke it was also the seventieth anniversary of the United Nations. The Pope acknowledged this and stated that it is one of the most “important common achievements”. The Pope then goes on to state that he believes without international intervention mankind would not be able to survive. The belief that an international institution that can maintain peace and cause good is a very Liberal belief.

After recognizing the importance of maintaining peace, the Pope moves on to talk about the importance of the economy of the states. He asks that The International Financial Agencies to work hard to ensure positive economic growth of developing countries. He also asked that they work to stop the lending systems that only cause more poverty in countries. This interest in economic well-being is another examples of the Pope’s liberal beliefs.

Finally, the Pope addresses the importance of all states working together in order to create a better world for anyone. He states that no country or individual should believe that they have the right to take away the rights of anyone else. Even if a country has absolute power this does not give them the right to take away the rights of a country with less power. He stresses that the “distribution of power”, which includes all political, economic, and technological actions, is necessary in order to maintain peace and a judicial system that can hold all people accountable of their actions.

The Pope’s Liberal international policy makes sense with the zeitgeist of today. As the world becomes more globalized it is necessary for there to be an institution that can govern international affairs. These international affairs include all economic issues and justice in general, which makes it liberal. Even the idea of states working together at all is a very liberal concept and the fact that it is being taken so seriously and is being spoken about by such an influential person really shows that the world is moving in a very liberal direction.

Peaceful Power

The ideals of realism and constructivism are vastly different from one another, and as a result, there is only one side that I can identify with: Constructivism. Realism believes that states are static and that states’ only interests are power and security. While this ideology existed in the past, it does not exist today because countries have other goals, such as social and economic ones. Constructivism says that states change over time not because of power shifts but because of changes in states’ interests and identities. State identities can form relationships between states where states work together to achieve world prosperity and peace. Constructivism also gives the people a voice to determine the social construct. With many issues going on in the world today, more and more countries are working together to eliminate the issues and establish global prosperity, and citizens have a say in that.

Even though a state may seek an abundance of power, states do not focus on how their power compares to other states unless there is an extreme situation. If another state becomes powerful, and perhaps more powerful than the former, then so be it. The former will not plot an attack on the latter because it feels weaker. Conflict will only emerge if needs to; that is, if one country makes a “gesture,” then the former will respond accordingly. If Canada grows incredibly powerful for whatever reason, we (the U.S.) understand that we have diplomatic relations with them; thus, they won’t attack us. Therefore, we will not build up our national security simply because of Canada’s power. We will only act to react; acting out of fear that Canada is powerful does not correlate to our political beliefs and our goals. We have made self-help mistakes in the past, such as during the Rwandan Genocide, but we have learned from our mistakes and we understand our duty as the most powerful nation on earth. Our duty is to utilize our power in the most selfless way possible. Realism suggests that if we did become a global hegemon, we’d wipe out all of the other states and sit in our comfy throne. If realism still existed, we’d be at World War X (10) by now.

Constructivism also makes more sense from a theoretical point of view. In constructivism, the people determine the validity of things; they essentially determine what exists, what doesn’t exist, what’s right, what’s wrong, and more. People determine the social construct, not the government. If the government were making every decision in society today, then society would have the makings of a dictatorship or a totality. If the government makes a certain decision, people have the power and the voice to protest it (except in certain countries). Realism says that the only piece of the puzzle is the government and it denies the voice of the people. Let’s think of an example of constructivism in action. If people were to say the word “chair” doesn’t exist anymore, then according to constructivism, the word “chair” would no longer exist. While this example is incredibly microscopic, it is essentially in taking a stance on realism vs. constructivism. Realism states that the “chair” will always exist and the people do not have the power to change the meaning or the existence of it. In the world today, with the exception of a few states, the people govern the ideology and beliefs of the state. They determine the social construct and have a say in the states' actions.

It is with these reasons that I identify much more closely with constructivism than realism. While realism most certainly existed in the past, such as during World War II, its ideals have faded away. Instead, state identity has come into play. State identities have formed relationships, and those relationships have resulted in cooperation towards working to achieve world success and peace. While states can be selfish at times, they are for the most part interested in helping other countries achieve prosperity and are willing to listen to the people.

GOP Debate

Will Chandler

As John Kasich stated in the second GOP debate last Wednesday night, it is imperative that the USA begins to incorporate its natural allies into its plans for peace, or it will continue to be the thing it is trying to destroy: a threat to world peace.

As I watched the GOP debate Wednesday night, I was both horrified and intrigued by the participants. As a registered independent, I cannot vote in the primaries, however, this simply makes my vote in the final election seem that much more important to me ergo I want to make an informed decision. While I was mostly looking forward to the candidates making even bigger fools of themselves then they already have, I came away feeling much more partial to a few of the candidates. However the most intriguing aspect to me came when the candidates were asked about the Iran deal. Their response to foreign policy opened up an opportunity to explore what we had been learning in class, and many aspects quickly came into fruition.

Ted Cruz was first asked about the current Iranian deal. He quickly took a stance that had some realist concepts. His biggest concern was military might and how to keep it away from others. His agenda’s goals were made into manifest when he stated, “the single biggest national security threat facing America right now is the threat of a nuclear Iran…this deal will only accelerate Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons… If I am elected president, on the very first day in office, I will rip to shreds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal” (Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated).  Cruz is concerned about relative power. If Iran gets nuclear power, that weakens America’s grip proportionally, because there will suddenly be another player in this nuclear game. This idea about relative power and military might being paramount is a fundamentally realist one. On top of that, Cruz mocks the UN. Cruz believes that the US should move in here, by itself if it has to in order to preserve its dominance at all cost. This response may play to the Republican crowd, but there is a much better and more realistic option.

John Kasich takes a much different response to the current Iran deal. His views are much more practical and would promote America’s reputation as well as increase safety and strength. He admits that he does not agree with the Iran deal and his explanation as to why reveals his constructivist leanings. This is exposed when he states, “a lot of our problems in the world today is that we don't have the relationship with our allies. If we want to go everywhere alone, we will not have the strength as (ph) if we could rebuild with our allies” (Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated). He continues on this thought when he builds on this by saying, “We are stronger when we work with the Western civilization, our friends in Europe, and just doing it on our own I don't think is the right policy” (Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated). Kasich takes a much more cooperative view here. This follows the view of a security community, where due to cultural similarities and other bonds, war is not an option between states. He wants the US to work with her allies. Kasich believes that America will be stronger when she works with others. His belief in cooperation over competition is both very strategic and promotes America abroad, possible alleviating future conflicts instead of spawning them like this we have for years.

America’s biggest problem right now, is that she creates new enemies when she puts down her old ones. Her insistence to go where no other country will to protect herself has painted a target on her back. Since her inception in 1776, America has been at war in 222 out of 239 years, about 93% of the time! (America Has Been At War 93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776)This long history of wars, mostly fought alone, has created many enemies and made other countries uneasy. In a world poll, it was declared that the US is the number one threat to peace (America Has Been At War 93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776). It is time for America to stop initiating wars, and instead start building allies. Taking a more constructionist approach and working together with other Western states will not only help American’s financially, but will also save American lives. Current American policy is so focused on over stepping our boundaries and putting down our enemies that we immediately create new ones to the point that the rest of the world views us as a threat to peace. It’s time we stepped back and looked in the mirror because right now we are a living contradiction. Taking a more constructionist view like Kasich’s will not only be beneficial to America, but it will also allow us to be seen as a nation of liberty, not violence again.

  “He who seeks revenge should dig two graves.”

Works Cited:

"Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated." Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

"America Has Been At War 93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776." Washingtons Blog. N.p., 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

Looking At The Growing American Inequality Gap Through a Feminist Lens

The growing inequality gap and loss of social mobility in America is a multi-faceted issue that if left to run its course could crumble the foundational beliefs that the United States came together on. Today we live in an America where one’s success, at least economically, has become heavily tied to what socioeconomic class you were born into. This issue if left alone will continue to push the bottom half of the economic echelon down, giving them little to no chance to make a better life, which will continue to lower their life expectancy, standard of living, and educational level. I think feminism would be the most effective lens to examine solutions to this problem through. It is our moral duty to our friends, communities, and nation to ensure that everyone can live a safe, healthy, educated life.

The Cultural Revolution following the 1950s had both a great positive changes in the roles that men and women could play, but also drastically changed the family structure in the United States. Society had now opened up its doors to many newfound freedoms that hadn’t previously been the norm. Women entered the workplace, inspired by the prospects of financial independence and stability. In many ways society was moving towards a more balanced and equal standard. This was a huge step in the right direction for our culture, society, and economy. But on the other side of this movement was the deterioration of families, communities, and a cultural shift in how we treat and view one another.

The biggest cultural aspects that have led to this disparity are the change in how we see the people who surround us. Family became a looser term, and we started sheltering ourselves away from the communities we live in.  It used to be that in most places everyone in the community looked out for one another, working towards everyone making it out of adolescence alive, educated, and a good citizen. In about the last 50 years though, America made a shift to focusing only on the individual’s success. The most potent solution that feminism brings to this issue is looking at the people around us as part of our community, and treating them as such. We as a country pay the economic, social, and moral toll for others being left unable to provide a livable income to their families.

            Lack of social mobility in the United States cannot be solved with punishment, competition, or harsh laws for those who are struggling. We have to make it an overarching priority in both the political policies put into effect, and in cultural dynamics we promote. Leaving those who are in poverty to struggle alone is only driving people further away from wanting to work collectively towards a better country. Helping boost families by helping advance peoples integrity, livelihood, and finding ways people can be a productive member of society would be a constructive approach. By thinking in terms of feminism, and changing the social norms within the nation to reflect a better society we can insight change.

           

Breaking the Rules: Constructivism's Liberation from the Constraints of Scientific Knowledge

Breaking the Rules:

Constructivism's Liberation from the Constraints of Scientific Knowledge

In class, we talked about how constructivism rejects, or at least questions a grounding of scientific knowledge.  This aspect of constructivism is often used as a critique of the approach, but I believe that it is actually one of its strengths.  I came to this conviction while I was reading an article by Sandra Lipsitz Bem for my Psychology of Women and Gender class. 

In this article, Bem points out how the current debate over sexual inequality often rests on the biological difference between the sexes.  In other words, many people argue that our biological makeup makes sexual equality impossible. For instance, since painful and cumbersome periods are a scientific fact of life for a woman and not for a man, some would say that women are less able than men to consistently perform in combat zones and consequently should not be allowed to fight in combat.  The proponents of this stance would say that they are inarguably correct, that no matter what alternative is offered, the fact remains that women are simply biologically inferiorly equipped to be good soldiers.  They would herald proven scientific knowledge as their unbreakable foundation.  Upon reading the article filled with similar examples, however, I saw Bem’s main point: scientific knowledge can be a limitation just as much or more than it is a foundation.

In the argument above, and in many other instances of sexual inequality, science takes on the role of insurmountable obstacle, blocking from the get go all argument or action for change.  I think that the situation is similar with constructivism in international politics.  Many people would say that constructivism is limited in value as a political theory because it lacks a scientific basis.  It is argued that constructivism doesn’t work in the real world because it doesn’t take into account the facts of what the world is or the rules for how it works.  This argument, however, is inherently flawed because the facts of the world and its governing rules change constantly and, most importantly, humans are capable of finding ways around the rules, so to hold onto one version of the world and its rules is to hold oneself back.  

If scientific knowledge is allowed to control international politics, then whatever problems arise must either have a solution within the scientific knowledge framework or, if no such solution exists, the problems will remain unsolved. This is the way of political theories that are grounded in fact.  These theories claim their scientific validity as their strength, but through Bem’s interpretation of scientific knowledge as a restriction, I clearly see that clinging to science and fact is actually often those theories’ weakness, limiting what they are able to accomplish.   Not all political situations have solutions within the preexistence of scientific knowledge, so if solutions are to be found at all, scientific knowledge has to be recognized as a possible constraint and then put aside (as it is in constructivism) when it does indeed become constraining.   

If scientific fact was allowed to dictate the world of sexual equality, then women would only be allowed to be sexual partners and mothers, because scientifically speaking, their bodies are made for that.  In the same way, if scientific fact is allowed to dictate the world of international politics, then a vicious cycle of conflict is all we are left with, because humans are hardwired to survive and the security dilemma of realism reigns.  We do not have to resign ourselves to either of those situations, however, if we follow constructivism’s example and break free from the binds of scientific knowledge.  My argument that the lack of a factual foundation is constructivism’s strength can be summed up with the idea: if you can’t win the game playing by the rules, you have to break the rules. 

 

Source

Bem, Lipsitz Sandra. “Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality: From Biological Difference to Institutionalized Androcentrism.” Excerpt adapted from Lenses of Gender. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1993.

Women in Politics

How do Women in Politics Survive? 

The socially constructed ideas of femininity often greatly limit how we as citizens view the role of women and what they are, and are not capable of. Biologically, men and women are constructed to carry out the same, basic tasks (go to school, go to work, have the ability to think critically). However, it is the history of unequal treatment of women that has greatly impacted society’s views on what women are capable of doing. For example, Tickner brings up Pat Schroeder’s crying incident as a question of whether or not women are able to handle the responsibility of pressing “the nuclear button” if necessary. Why is this question even being asked? This socially constructed idea that femininity causes people to be more emotional does not have anything to do with our genetic make up and thus should not be considered when deciding on, for example, a presidential candidate.

When Patricia Schroeder announced that she would not be running for the democratic nomination during the 1988 presidential campaign, she started to cry. The media immediately went into attack, and some even went so far as to say that women would not be able to run for President in Schroeder’s lifetime.  In stark contrast to Schroeder, who even today is largely remembered for her tearful address, during Hilary Clinton’s campaign for the democratic nomination in 2008, the public criticized her for her hard demeanor, which some may characterize as un-feminine. In April 2008, Clinton knew she needed to appeal to women in order to gain their support so while on a campaign stop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, she spoke to a small group of undecided voters (mostly women) in a café. Clinton got teary-eyed as she spoke about how she “doesn’t want to see us (the country) fall backwards.” The moment Hillary got choked up in the café was the exact bit of emotion she needed to stay in the race, and more importantly, this was her way of appealing to those voters who found her to be “too masculine.”

So I must ask the question: how do women in politics survive? On the one hand, women are attacked for being too emotional, which society views as an overtly feminine quality that has a negative connotation and is often seen as a sign of weakness. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s lack of emotion, and the criticism of her “masculine traits” during her 2008 campaign were viewed negatively by the public. So I ask again, how can women in politics win this battle of being scrutinized for being “overly-emotional” or being “emotion-less?” I do not believe there is a clear-cut answer to this question. I think that it is going to take a long time for society to come to terms with the fact that just because a person is a woman, does not mean that she has all the qualities that would characterize her as feminine; and this is ok. It is also ok for women to have qualities that are considered “masculine,” this doesn’t make her any less of a woman. In order to accept women as leaders in politics, it’s important that we stray away from the socially constructed limitations that we have inadvertently put on women based on there sex. It is important to take a holistic view of who the political candidate is as a potential world leader, and not view them as fitting into stereotypical gender norms.