That is a really cool article you found. I personally do not like politics at all and need to start doing more research before the election but from what the article said, a great point is made that we have to have a president who adapts to the current world. With Romney, you can use traditional theories as guides but our world today is way different than it was even as little as 20 years ago. You have to adjust to the current day and age to do what's best for the country at that time, which is probably going to be different that in was in the 90s. Obama does seem to have the upper hand in foreign policy and having the past 4 years as experience would help him out as well knowing exactly what is going and what what our current situation is with various situations.
The author brings up some very good points. Hard to argue with him on any topic he brought up. I think the most important thing to take away from the article is how complex the world really has become. Every country, its citizens and their economies are intertwined in such a spiderweb of interdependencies, answers that were once simple are no longer an option. I don't believe that our county is incapable of stepping up to the challenge, in fact I think we have more so than it would seem. Politicians are always going to be playing smoke and mirror games and what they say is not always what they do. The significant fact that we have not experienced another terrorist attack like 9/11 (even though there have been many reported attempts) shows we are capable of being a world superpower and behaving like we are in charge. Unfortunately it will always be our failures that get the most attention rather than our triumphs.
I also liked the article and it think it's writer is in agreement with Tanzi when he says that implementing a plan based on traditional theories is not helpful if it means that current real life results are being over looked. Not only does world news travels instantly, but people are also being updated instantly via smartphones. The world as a whole is much different than it was even several years ago and this needs to be taken into account when discussing foreign policy.
I agree with the author of this article as well. You can only puff out your chest so much before someone else rises to the challenge and surprises you. The last thing I want to see as an American citizen is have something bad happen to the United States because we were to arrogant in our foreign policy. There is no denying that the world is always changing, and so too must our policies. It seems to me that at some point Romney will have to swallow some pride in this department if he truly wants to win over voters.
This article was very interesting and brought a lot of good points to reflect upon. Right now we live in a world that is constantly changing and continuously globalizing. National security did not mean the same thing as it once did, and for the first time in generations I believe America needs to take a fresh approach to dealing with the rest the of world. Like the article mentioned, we are not living in the 80s when America was taking a more aggressive approach to global issues. Right now we should be working communally with the rest of the world and responding to foreign nations appropriately.
I also tend to agree with the author of this article on many of his stances. In particular, I thought it was very important to mention the interdependence that countries have with each other in our current world. In previous decades, the US could dominate and control nearly any factor of its economy, politics or foreign policy. However, now there are great impacts on the US when a major event occurs in another country around the world. I think this shows how much the world has actually changed and how the US must adjust very soon.
America is the country which spends about half the world's military budget and Romney has no intention to cut it down. With such complex inter dependencies, increased spending on military would neither benefit America nor rest of the world. To remain as superpower America has to consider other options than war and Obama knows this fact.
Brilliant article, so well written that I just forwarded to a few of my close friends. I was actually having an intelligent discussion over the weekend- over the dynamics of each candidate's foreign policy ideals. It reflected the contents of this article to a T. Romney wants to return to the old cowboy, Reagan-esque, American powerhouse...whereas Obama understands the complexities and need for quiet compromise on a variety of issues. The truth is, times have changed so much even since Bush left office. Romney has a potential cabinet composed of nearly half--the same members that George W. Bush shared. Did we really learn nothing from his term/failures abroad while in office? We do not live in a world where chest-beating and "American strength" will persevere. In the new-age world, compromise and negotiation should be our first option. Romney holds "international business experience"..in that Bain Capital worked with Chinese business-elite. His middle-east expertise is slim to none.
I think the real genius in this article was the comment that at present, "It is a world where, at times, pulling back — and focusing on rebuilding our strength at home — is the most meaningful foreign policy initiative we can undertake." Though Friedman's logic for this point is good- lead by living well- it pales in comparison to the other logic- the rest of the world hates our influence, and the more we do to upset the domestic situations of other countries, the more hated, ostracized and geo-politically dis-enfranchised we will become. It is no longer the United States of America's world to manipulate (nor was it ever), and the sooner we realize this and take our place among the rest of the class, the sooner we can get back to being prosperous.
That is a really cool article you found. I personally do not like politics at all and need to start doing more research before the election but from what the article said, a great point is made that we have to have a president who adapts to the current world. With Romney, you can use traditional theories as guides but our world today is way different than it was even as little as 20 years ago. You have to adjust to the current day and age to do what's best for the country at that time, which is probably going to be different that in was in the 90s. Obama does seem to have the upper hand in foreign policy and having the past 4 years as experience would help him out as well knowing exactly what is going and what what our current situation is with various situations.
ReplyDeleteThe author brings up some very good points. Hard to argue with him on any topic he brought up. I think the most important thing to take away from the article is how complex the world really has become. Every country, its citizens and their economies are intertwined in such a spiderweb of interdependencies, answers that were once simple are no longer an option. I don't believe that our county is incapable of stepping up to the challenge, in fact I think we have more so than it would seem. Politicians are always going to be playing smoke and mirror games and what they say is not always what they do. The significant fact that we have not experienced another terrorist attack like 9/11 (even though there have been many reported attempts) shows we are capable of being a world superpower and behaving like we are in charge. Unfortunately it will always be our failures that get the most attention rather than our triumphs.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the article and it think it's writer is in agreement with Tanzi when he says that implementing a plan based on traditional theories is not helpful if it means that current real life results are being over looked. Not only does world news travels instantly, but people are also being updated instantly via smartphones. The world as a whole is much different than it was even several years ago and this needs to be taken into account when discussing foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of this article as well. You can only puff out your chest so much before someone else rises to the challenge and surprises you. The last thing I want to see as an American citizen is have something bad happen to the United States because we were to arrogant in our foreign policy. There is no denying that the world is always changing, and so too must our policies. It seems to me that at some point Romney will have to swallow some pride in this department if he truly wants to win over voters.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting and brought a lot of good points to reflect upon. Right now we live in a world that is constantly changing and continuously globalizing. National security did not mean the same thing as it once did, and for the first time in generations I believe America needs to take a fresh approach to dealing with the rest the of world. Like the article mentioned, we are not living in the 80s when America was taking a more aggressive approach to global issues. Right now we should be working communally with the rest of the world and responding to foreign nations appropriately.
ReplyDeleteI also tend to agree with the author of this article on many of his stances. In particular, I thought it was very important to mention the interdependence that countries have with each other in our current world. In previous decades, the US could dominate and control nearly any factor of its economy, politics or foreign policy. However, now there are great impacts on the US when a major event occurs in another country around the world. I think this shows how much the world has actually changed and how the US must adjust very soon.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is the country which spends about half the world's military budget and Romney has no intention to cut it down. With such complex inter dependencies, increased spending on military would neither benefit America nor rest of the world. To remain as superpower America has to consider other options than war and Obama knows this fact.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant article, so well written that I just forwarded to a few of my close friends. I was actually having an intelligent discussion over the weekend- over the dynamics of each candidate's foreign policy ideals. It reflected the contents of this article to a T. Romney wants to return to the old cowboy, Reagan-esque, American powerhouse...whereas Obama understands the complexities and need for quiet compromise on a variety of issues. The truth is, times have changed so much even since Bush left office. Romney has a potential cabinet composed of nearly half--the same members that George W. Bush shared. Did we really learn nothing from his term/failures abroad while in office?
ReplyDeleteWe do not live in a world where chest-beating and "American strength" will persevere. In the new-age world, compromise and negotiation should be our first option. Romney holds "international business experience"..in that Bain Capital worked with Chinese business-elite. His middle-east expertise is slim to none.
I think the real genius in this article was the comment that at present, "It is a world where, at times, pulling back — and focusing on rebuilding our strength at home — is the most meaningful foreign policy initiative we can undertake." Though Friedman's logic for this point is good- lead by living well- it pales in comparison to the other logic- the rest of the world hates our influence, and the more we do to upset the domestic situations of other countries, the more hated, ostracized and geo-politically dis-enfranchised we will become. It is no longer the United States of America's world to manipulate (nor was it ever), and the sooner we realize this and take our place among the rest of the class, the sooner we can get back to being prosperous.
ReplyDelete