While during the simulation I tried to be in the best "America First" mindset I could be in, I couldn't help but be slightly shaken by the great points the opposing sides were making. Specifically in the consumer group, I felt Corwin was incredibly persuasive in describing the complexity behind domestic content laws and the negative effects that strengthening them would have on the consumer market place in the U.S.. Olivia also greatly added to his argument by showing how influential foreign car companies are in America's auto-industry, something my group fell short on looking into.
After reflecting on the simulation and seeing what the main points my group, Ford, focused on to convince the other groups to support the strengthening of domestic content laws, I have to say that simply taking a nationalist approach to the argument leaves out a significant amount of the complexity behind how and why this may not be the best option for U.S. workers, the U.S.'s economy, and U.S. consumers. When answering the question of how the U.S. should set domestic content rules, we need to look at it from all angles. What would happen to consumers if we lowered them? What would happen to the economy if we strengthened them? What would happen to U.S. auto-manufacturing jobs if we lowered them? I found Miranda does an amazing job of discussing the importance of looking at this from the perspective of it being a complex problem in her response to this blog question. While it's true that looking at all of this can seem daunting, it's something that is necessary for the U.S. government to do before coming to a decision. After the simulation, I found the only really evidence we had for strengthening them was that it would clearly come off as being an America First policy, which, as PTJ said, could easily be sold to the public by politicians. But when delving deeper into the complexity behind the issue, we see that raising them would cause an increase in car prices which is not good for the consumers, it may cause foreign auto manufacturers to pull out of the U.S. causing people to lose their jobs, which is obviously bad for U.S. workers. And because the price of parts manufactured in the U.S. would go up, foreign auto makers would be less incentivized to buy parts from the U.S. which would be bad for the U.S. economy as the auto maker industry is America's largest manufacturing industry responsible for 3% of America's overall GDP. (AAPC) Overall, I think in the case of domestic content laws we cannot rely on a pathos centric approach to the argument if we really want to do what's best for the consumers, workers, and economy. By looking at the negative effects that seem probable with the strengthening of domestic content rules, it seems weakening them a bit or keeping them the same would be the best move going forward if the government truly cares about the interests of it's people and economy. Sources http://www.americanautocouncil.org/sites/aapc2016/files/2017%20Economic%20Contribution%20Report.pdf
2 Comments
After a few weeks of craziness thing's are finally dying down which is a more than welcome change. While I do have a few more big essays coming up, it's nice to have them spread out instead of crammed into a 2 week period. Having more time has allowed me to get out into the city more. I finally went to Adams Morgan, I got to see some friends from home at GW, and I got to relax for a bit today which was much needed. But so far in school I'm pretty pleased with how things are going. I'm glad that I'm spending time learning about subjects that are actually interesting to me. It makes school feel much more rewarding. As I've started thinking about the classes I'll need to take in the next few years, I'm feeling both anxious and excited. When I really looked into my possible thematic areas and regional focuses it made me really excited to start focusing in on even more specific areas that relate to my interests. One thing is for sure, the next 2.5 years will be quite busy.
This week's minor simulation was surprisingly interesting to me. When I first read the prompt I didn't think I would find it to be very interesting to research but I ended up really enjoying looking into economics behind Ford's support of domestic content rules. This surprised me but it made me realize that I pretty much find anything interesting when there's some competition behind it. I'm interested to see how tomorrow's decision turns out. The essay was interesting too. It was a good chance for me to really think about the different aspects of IR theory and how they're used in real life scenarios in stead of purely theoretical thought. This week we talked a lot about the concept of double consciousness and what groups of people experience it. I really enjoyed our in class discussions this week and hearing people's diverse points of views on what double consciousness really is and who's capable of experiencing it. This is a subject that really interests me especially in today's climate. It feels that now more than ever that conversations about racism, sexism, rape culture, classism, and what the future should look like for all people are being brought to the table, and that's really important. The conversation on Thursday about double consciousness reminded me about concepts we're discussing in my power, privilege and inequality class. I think double consciousness is an affect of our enculturation into a culture that views people of the white race as "normal" because they're the majority. When we're part of a culture that views people of color as the "other" we use ethnocentrism, or the judgment of people based on the values that have been normalized in our culture, to view them differently than we would someone who fits into our culture or group. I think this judgment plays a huge role in racism. We feel uncomfortable evaluating groups based on their own cultural values so we judge them based on what we've been taught as the majority which causes this sense of "otherness" that pushed people into groups.
We live in a culture that not only allows but perpetuates racism. Not only is our nations history clear evidence of a racist society, our modern day policies don't do much to show progress. For example, the effects of redlining from the National Housing Act in 1934 still greatly effects people of color who are forced into low income communities because of subprime mortgage lending practices. Consequently these communities have lower funding for public education which causes less people of color to have access to high quality higher education because of price and level of education. Lack of access to higher education leads to many people of color getting jobs that don't provide benefits, which is even if they have access to the labor market because many of these communities lack geographical access to jobs. All of these factor into the racial wealth gap that works as a system of oppression in the U.S.. This all connects back to double consciousness and our tendency to judge others without understanding the circumstances. Many American's still believe in the concept of "the American dream" and being able to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when, if you really look at the economic systems that exist in the U.S., you'd find that this is a hoax. The white majority judge groups such as African Americans based on what we see from the outside or our own cultural understanding, which is that they are traditionally the people who make up the majority of the lower socio economic class. By not taking the time to understand the deeper issues that make up the cycle of poverty in these communities, we classify these groups as lazy, unlucky, or not hard working which allows many people to feel they're justified in their racist beliefs. If we instead used a form of cultural relativism, judging a culture or group by it's own cultural rules and values, or in our case, by it's own circumstances, we may be able to actually see why people are stuck in this cycle of poverty and would see them not as just a group of lazy, unlucky people but people who have been deeply effected by racist policies that effect them everyday and cause the white majority to view them in a negative light causing them to experience double consciousness. W.E.B Du Bois describes the idea of a double consciousness as "[a] sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity." (Of Our Spiritual Strivings, Du Bois) While his explanation is in reference to how African American's experience two warring consciousnesses, one they have for themselves and one that is aware of how others view them, I believe this concept can be applied to many other marginalized groups in many different societies.
For instance, in the United States, I think essentially all minority groups experience some sort of double consciousness because evident inequalities in society that affect their everyday lives. For example, as a woman I often times think of how I'm proud to be a woman and I like who I am, but I also know I must think of how I need to do certain things, speak a certain way, or dress a certain way in different situations so that I can be taken seriously and be respected. This is something a lot of men don't have to consider. Having to consider not only how you view yourself but what you have to do so others will view you in a positive light is something most girls grow up learning. Being a woman does not give you automatic ethos in the way that being a man does. I believe Du Bois' idea of double consciousness applies to this situation as well. As for international situations, I believe the idea of double consciousness can be applied as well to help us understand different societies and experiences. For example, if we keep in mind the concept of double consciousness, we can better understand how and why minority groups do the way they do in situations of oppression. For example, many women in other societies face the same issues of double consciousness that women in the U.S., if we are aware of that we can better understand how and why they are oppressed. Du Bois's idea of double consciousness can be widely used to describe many different groups of people who experience some form of oppression that causes them think about how society views them. Wow, what a week. Midterms are upon us and it has caused everyone to assume a state of constant stress and worry. I didn't feel this way until my AUX class when it was brought to my attention that this is what everyone is feeling and apparently what I should be feeling as well. But stress is something I pride myself on being able to control. When I tell myself that I'm capable and that I will get my work done and that my work will be done well, I feel calmer. I don't like assuming that I should feel how everyone else does. However, it did cause my to start realizing all the things I need to do in the next few weeks. While it's quite a lot, I'm staying optimistic. Everyday I just remind myself that I'm extremely lucky and privileged to be where I am, to be learning what I'm learning, and to have what I have. Writing this blog right now is actually quite therapeutic. To put my many thoughts from this week into words, I'd like to write three highs and lows from the week.
Highs: 1) My dad, step-mom, one of my little sisters, and her boyfriend came up to visit me this weekend. It was great to spend time with them and it made me get out of the AU bubble and get out into DC and explore. We went to the National Portrait Gallery, walked all around the mall, and got an amazing dinner in Georgetown with two of my good friends from school. 2) I decided to minor in Public Health which sounds incredibly interesting to me. 3) I realized how comfortable I feel at AU. Whenever I'm out and come back to campus it feels like I'm coming home. Lows: 1) Having to map out my next three years of school. Talk about stress. 2) Kavanaugh getting confirmed, I don't think I have to elaborate on why that was a low for me, and many people, this week. 3) Stress over a long essay due on Monday. (But I know I'll get it done!) Life will always have stress in it, but hopefully I will be able to continue to feel confident enough in myself and my abilities that I don't let it take me over. I'm excited for class tomorrow to begin discussing the readings from this weekend, I found them very relevant and interesting. In John Shotter's "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society,", he writes about instead of convincing people, which " will compel belief in their conclusions in all rational minds" (Shotter, 167) we should instead shift towards trying to persuade people.
As Shotter explains, convincing someone can really only be done when it's possible to use specific calculations to come to a conclusion. Persuasion, on the other hand, must be used when people have to use good reasoning to cause their audience to believe in their claim. But in this day and age is it more useful to use persuasion over convincing? Do people respond better to emotional reasoning over fact? I have to say yes. When I thought about this my mind immediately went to a video I recently saw from the Trevor Noah's, The Daily Show. In the clip, Jordan Keppler went to a Trump rally where he interviewed Trump supporters on their conspiracy theories. In one of the interviews a woman talked about how she believed Obama was a muslim and a terrorist. Later in the clip, she said she had no proof or articles but her mind was made up without any information. I think this would be a good example of Shotter's argument that convincing can be less useful than persuading. In this case, and many of the others shown in the video, it's obvious that simply stating facts that oppose these people's ideas would not convince them to change their minds. However, it's possible that by using good reasoning and as Shotter says "with regard to the particular audience, they work as some kind of ultimate justification; they touch on something in the 'basic' vocabulary of that audience". (Shotter, 167) one would be able to change people's ideas. I think that by using persuasion as a way to come to an agreement on something, people can interact in a way that avoids conflict that is oftentimes brought about by frustration that trying to convince someone of something with facts isn't working. However, there is a time and a place for facts and I believe they should still be valued and used especially in academic settings. But in day-to-day life, using persuasion over convincing may be more useful because of how highly prioritized people's emotions and opinions are, especially in our politic climate at the moment. It may allow people who felt otherwise unable to help shape our social lives because it allows for people to discuss what they believe in regardless of if it has been proven to be fact or not. This does have it's faults of course, but overall I agree it is more effective to use persuasion over convincing. Sources https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFQhw3VVToQ&list=PLDcZkswTGqCwFxZWNvK-C_VHwtwAfTp4k John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society," p. 167 This week’s readings for World Politics really made me think about what I consider to be a good representation of separation between church and state and if it really exists in the U.S. today.
I think it’s impossible for the state to not be influenced by the church. Its hard to see that supposed separation when our national motto is "In God We Trust", or when the 10 commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the fact that we’ve never, and as PTG pointed out, probably never will, had an atheist president just goes to show much the majority of the U.S. values religion, especially Christianity. So how can someone in politics not make decisions that are influenced by their religion? If someone’s political decision is based on their morals, which are often times influenced by their religion, is there really a separation between church and state? There are certainly exceptions, Tim Kaine, for example, noted that in his religion he personally opposed abortion, but he did agree that the constitution granted women the right to choose for themselves. But the majority of high power people in politics don’t follow these same standards of separating their personal beliefs with what rights the constitution grants people. The big problem with this is that because people have freedom of religion, there are many religions in the U.S. and when laws are passed that are based on the values held by certain religions, it affects people who hold different religious values or beliefs. One of the main examples of this blurry line of separation between church and state is the U.S. Supreme Court's confusing history regarding aid for private religious schools. While in the court case Everson v. Board of Education (1947) the court's declaration stated, "“No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” However, in Mueller v. Allen (1983) the court allowed for a Minnesota statute that granted taxpayers tax deductions for most educational expenses. However, the majority of the deductions went to private school tuitions where 96% of the students were enrolled in sectarian schools. While this decision was declared to not go against the Establishment Clause in the court case Mitchell v. Helms, it feels to me that cases like Mueller v. Allen and many others can be manipulated to seem constitutional under the concept of separation of church of state, but were in fact made with the influence of religion in mind. So, while Locke does say in his Letter of Toleration, that politics should be influenced by the values of religion, I can’t determine if he would tolerate religion having a big enough role in politics that it influences people’s decisions that create the laws that govern the citizens of the U.S., but I personally believe it goes against the constitutional concept of separation of church and state. Sources http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-449 As discussed in class, Locke supports religious freedom as long as it doesn't impede on the authority of the government, cause citizens to follow another leader (aka the Pope), or if someone is an atheist. I don't believe his letter of toleration could truly be applied to the context of the Flat Earth Society's involvement in universities Geography departments or the government's map-making agencies because the Flat Earth Society is not a religion. They describe themselves on their website as, "a place for free thinkers and the intellectual exchange of ideas...and serves as an archive for Flat Earth Theory." (Flat Earth Society)
This was an interesting week in class because we started really discussing ways that governments deal with international diplomacy, specifically, realism. I'd like to reflect on what I think of realism overall in the context of our two readings, The Prince by Machiavelli and “The Petroleum Paradox: Oil, Coercive Vulnerability, and Great Power Behavior" by Rosemary Kelanic.
In my opinion, the way Machiavelli believes a leader should rule is overly militaristic and cruel. His overall message seems to be that leaders should be feared not loved or hated by their subjects and to do this they must crush all resistance to their rule. He also believes rulers should focus the majority of the energy and resources on having a sound military that will allow them to expand into new territories and force the subjects their to respect their rule. We can see this shown in the quote from Chapter 14 when Machiavelli writes, "A prince must have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler." I disagree with this idea full heartedly. While, yes, it is important for countries to have a sound military I believe it should have the purpose of protecting the rights of the citizens in that country, from attack from another country, or for protecting the rights of people in allied countries when necessary. My stance on the issue is obviously not one that supports the ideas of a realist like Michiavelli. From my understanding of realism at this point, a realist's believe that policy must be made based on countries positions of strength not with the idea that there could one day be world peace between the weaker and stronger countries. This concept is shown again in the second article when the author talks about the types of preemptive strategies countries take to prevent themselves from losing access to petroleum. Countries must choose to engage in direct, indirect, or self sufficiency strategies to protect themselves against petroleum embargos. While the article says that countries would choose the least costly and risky strategy that promises to supply them with enough access to petroleum to make them secure, it seems to me that a realist would usually tend to choose direct control because that is the one that is most likely to give them oil security benefits which prevents them from having to worry about lack of petroleum affecting their military capabilities which seems to be the most important aspect of both domestic and international policy to them. But in contrast to that idea, one of the worlds superpowers, China, has decided to use continental trade to prevent worry naval blockade from In Machiavelli's, The Prince, the author brings up controversial but often times realistic approaches to gaining and maintaining power. While there are many things I disagree with in the book, I do agree with the quote from Chapter 15, "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rules and talk about practical realities.".
In this quote, Machiavelli is discussing the fact that being not only a perfect ruler but a perfect person is impossible. He is speaking to the fact that, in reality, everyone has faults and that, for rulers, sometimes these faults can lead to good outcomes while good qualities could in fact lead to their downfall. Essentially, he is trying to say that the assumption that having only good qualities isn't always necessarily the best thing, I agree with this. I also think its difficult to determine what are objectively good and bad qualities. For example, while some may see a ruler prone to advocating for violence and war as good, others might see this as bad. I believe that's something that comes with being a leader, the fact that public scrutiny is always going to exist, no matter what qualities you have. To build on this, he later writes, "But one cannot have all the good qualities, nor always act in a praiseworthy fashion, for we do not live in an ideal world." (Chapter 15, Page 48) I agree with this as well. I'd like to make a connection to modern day and how these ideas are applicable to modern day leaders. Take President Barack Obama for example, while looking at his time as president overall, I would say I support a lot of decisions, there are still many decisions he made that I do not agree. For example, while Obama was not seen as an ally to the oil industry, under his presidency oil production grew 88%, which is the largest domestic oil production increase during any presidency in U.S. history. (Forbes, 2016) Even as a big Obama supporter, I cannot say I agree with all of his decisions. I believe this is what Machiavelli is trying to say, that no leader can please everyone so it is ridiculous to think that you can. This, I believe, is something not only rulers but people in general need to understand. Outside Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/01/15/president-obamas-petroleum-legacy/#44d679ac10fd The Prince by Machiavelli |
AuthorMy name's Wyatt Foster and I'm from Chapel Hill North Carolina. I'm studying International Relations and French. Last year I took a gap year in Senegal which cemented my passion for international studies in particular women's reproductive health and education access. |