This is where our daily reactions to the readings will be posted. Also, we will be able to reply to each other and continue discussions outside of class.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Monday
Hi,
I have the exams graded. Remember, we are still doing the chapter on foreign policy plus the readings in the syllabus from the Reader and de Tocqueville.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Tocqueville External Policy Journal #9
Throughout the reading, Tocqueville explains the external policies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. George Washington believes that we should have little policy with Europe because we do not have the same interests and what affects them does not affect America. He does not regard any relation between the United States and Europe. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson believes we should not even demand privileges among foreign nations so we do not have to return the favor. The United States had kept this policy until after World War II. Our foreign policy was based mainly on isolationism and not worrying about issues that did not affect us. For instance, the United States did not get involved in World War I and II until a direct attack was made on United States ship or soil. We attempted to stay clear of the European problems and did not usually offer our services. After World War II our foreign policy shifted to a more global position. We began focusing on foreign issues that did not necessarily affect us, such as the spread of Communism to Korea and Vietnam. Lately we have also attempted to help the Iraqi people in efforts to remove the tyrannical government that has occupied the country for many years. According to Tocqueville Jefferson and Washington would not be pleased with our foreign policy in the last fifty years. They believed that we should stick to a more isolated policy. But, times have changed since these men lived and we had responsibility to defend Capitalism and attempt to stop the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam. We still have a responsibility to the people of Iraq.
After reading “The Prince” by Machiavelli I was very surprised about almost how simple of a concept it is that he talks about. The way I interpreted the reading was that the main point was to in a way keep your country happy and you will gain respect from other countries and get their support. I could be wrong about how I interpreted it but if I am I believe that the concept that I previously stated is a good way to do things. An example of this would be a father who takes care of and loves his children but still at the same time uses some force to get their respect and discipline them. By doing this not only does he get their respect he gets the respect of other people in the community because of the way his children act outside of the house. As for the Tocqueville reading I believe that with the changes in technology and the powers that other counties have to make attacks on our soil in numerous I think that we have done many good things with our foreign policy. When he talks about Washington and Jefferson I believe that the United States was isolated from Europe at the point in time and could survive without them. Yes, I do believe at times we bit off more than we can chew and get into other countries business to much but I also believe that if we did not do this at times we would not have alliances that keep us from getting into much larger conflicts.
I just wanted to comment on Machiavelli's theory on how to keep power after you acquire it. I do not agree that ruling by means of fear is the best policy. I think any ruler would be more effective if they were loved rather than feared. A ruler that is loved has a special bond of mutual respect with his or her subjects. This bond is strong because it allows for open lines of communication that are helpful when the ruler is trying to establish policies that are most beneficial to him or her and the subjects. It also provides a stable support group because the subjects are willing to give a little more to help the ruler when they know that he or she will care for them. If a ruler and his subjects support each other in this manner, then there will always be someone willing to help rather than being forced into helping. It also does not cause any hostility or resentment, which means that people will remember the ruler and his or her deeds kindly when he or she is gone. If a ruler is feared rather than loved, the only way he or she can accomplish anything is if he or she scares or forces people to help. This creates tension in the relationship and can also lead to rebellion if the subjects decide that they are ready to end the mistreatment. Someone who is feared also will have more trouble passing policies because he or she lacks the support necessary to get things accomplished. It is true that he or she would be able to bully people into passing the ruler's policies, but after he or she is no longer the ruler, those policies will change and no one will remember anything but his or her brutality.
Something that really caught my eye is in Machiavelli's The Prince, when it said is it better to be loved than feared. This made me wonder. In one point of view, I can see how it could be better to be feared than loved because if people fear you than they will not mess with you or over rule you. It's said that if someone fears you, than you own them. Which makes since because if someone does fear you, than you have power over them and can control them. But just because someone fears you doesn't mean that they respect you. That’s why I can also see why being loved could be better than being feared. Because if you are loved than you have a much better chance of having the respect of people. Having the respect of people goes along way because then they will trust you and believe in you much more than if they feared you. And you wouldn't have to worry about people hating you and trying to double cross you and stab you in the back because people are far less likely to do that to someone they love. People tend to act and respond to someone they love and respect then to someone they fear.
5 comments:
Tocqueville External Policy
Journal #9
Throughout the reading, Tocqueville explains the external policies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. George Washington believes that we should have little policy with Europe because we do not have the same interests and what affects them does not affect America. He does not regard any relation between the United States and Europe. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson believes we should not even demand privileges among foreign nations so we do not have to return the favor.
The United States had kept this policy until after World War II. Our foreign policy was based mainly on isolationism and not worrying about issues that did not affect us. For instance, the United States did not get involved in World War I and II until a direct attack was made on United States ship or soil. We attempted to stay clear of the European problems and did not usually offer our services.
After World War II our foreign policy shifted to a more global position. We began focusing on foreign issues that did not necessarily affect us, such as the spread of Communism to Korea and Vietnam. Lately we have also attempted to help the Iraqi people in efforts to remove the tyrannical government that has occupied the country for many years.
According to Tocqueville Jefferson and Washington would not be pleased with our foreign policy in the last fifty years. They believed that we should stick to a more isolated policy. But, times have changed since these men lived and we had responsibility to defend Capitalism and attempt to stop the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam. We still have a responsibility to the people of Iraq.
After reading “The Prince” by Machiavelli I was very surprised about almost how simple of a concept it is that he talks about. The way I interpreted the reading was that the main point was to in a way keep your country happy and you will gain respect from other countries and get their support. I could be wrong about how I interpreted it but if I am I believe that the concept that I previously stated is a good way to do things. An example of this would be a father who takes care of and loves his children but still at the same time uses some force to get their respect and discipline them. By doing this not only does he get their respect he gets the respect of other people in the community because of the way his children act outside of the house.
As for the Tocqueville reading I believe that with the changes in technology and the powers that other counties have to make attacks on our soil in numerous I think that we have done many good things with our foreign policy. When he talks about Washington and Jefferson I believe that the United States was isolated from Europe at the point in time and could survive without them. Yes, I do believe at times we bit off more than we can chew and get into other countries business to much but I also believe that if we did not do this at times we would not have alliances that keep us from getting into much larger conflicts.
I just wanted to comment on Machiavelli's theory on how to keep power after you acquire it. I do not agree that ruling by means of fear is the best policy. I think any ruler would be more effective if they were loved rather than feared.
A ruler that is loved has a special bond of mutual respect with his or her subjects. This bond is strong because it allows for open lines of communication that are helpful when the ruler is trying to establish policies that are most beneficial to him or her and the subjects. It also provides a stable support group because the subjects are willing to give a little more to help the ruler when they know that he or she will care for them. If a ruler and his subjects support each other in this manner, then there will always be someone willing to help rather than being forced into helping. It also does not cause any hostility or resentment, which means that people will remember the ruler and his or her deeds kindly when he or she is gone.
If a ruler is feared rather than loved, the only way he or she can accomplish anything is if he or she scares or forces people to help. This creates tension in the relationship and can also lead to rebellion if the subjects decide that they are ready to end the mistreatment. Someone who is feared also will have more trouble passing policies because he or she lacks the support necessary to get things accomplished. It is true that he or she would be able to bully people into passing the ruler's policies, but after he or she is no longer the ruler, those policies will change and no one will remember anything but his or her brutality.
Something that really caught my eye is in Machiavelli's The Prince, when it said is it better to be loved than feared. This made me wonder. In one point of view, I can see how it could be better to be feared than loved because if people fear you than they will not mess with you or over rule you. It's said that if someone fears you, than you own them. Which makes since because if someone does fear you, than you have power over them and can control them. But just because someone fears you doesn't mean that they respect you. That’s why I can also see why being loved could be better than being feared. Because if you are loved than you have a much better chance of having the respect of people. Having the respect of people goes along way because then they will trust you and believe in you much more than if they feared you. And you wouldn't have to worry about people hating you and trying to double cross you and stab you in the back because people are far less likely to do that to someone they love. People tend to act and respond to someone they love and respect then to someone they fear.
Post a Comment