McPhail's analysis of the electronic communications theory and the world systems theory are excellent depictions of the world around us. I think McPhail hit the nail with the hammer when he showed how nations outside of the US react to the influx of American media and culture by almost turning inward, becoming extremely nationalistic and aiming for a return to basic cultural values.
It is interesting that in the US, many on the far right wing believe that our media is corrupting American society, and that we as an American people need to return to basic American values and morals. Does the media do any of us in the world any good whatsoever???
McPhail's writing indicates how responsible the media needs to be operating in a global climate. While the media has done a respectable job respecting cultural and religious differences in its reporting, perhaps the media needs to advocate more for third world and developing nations, highlighting their problems and successes more so that we and they can gain a greater understanding of the common world we live in. More thoughtful and more in-depth reporting may be needed to achieve this....through what medium, though, remains to be seen. In the age of profit-driven media, what media can step up to the plate and take on this challenge?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy
The question posed by Fareed Zakaria's "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" is a striking one. What, exactly, is a nation supposed to do when opposed by an illiberal democracy. Does any nation, particularly the United States, have a right to invade/depose a sovereign, democratically elected government in the name of preserving liberal democracy?
This is a question I have long wrestled with, and there is obviously no easy answer. On one hand, I think that nations, particularly, the US, have an obligation to intervene when situations of genocide arise. For example, I think the United States should have intervened militarily in Sudan, just as they should have in Rowanda years ago. Yet, looking at the situation in Iraq, how different was it? Granted, Saddam Hussein was not a democratically elected leader, yet I was and remain staunchly against the invasion, and logically that doesn't make sense. Outside of the lies told by the US government, in order for my logic and morals to be consistent, I should support the invasion of Iraq...but I don't. Confused? So am I.
Does a nation have the right to intervene in America if our government shows signs of illiberal democracy? I think the answer is no--I can vote out my representatives every election as I please...unless the actions of our nation directly effect the security and well-being of another, I don't think another nation has the right to interfere with the goings-on of the US. Does that apply the other way around? Should it? Again, something else for me and you to ponder...
This is a question I have long wrestled with, and there is obviously no easy answer. On one hand, I think that nations, particularly, the US, have an obligation to intervene when situations of genocide arise. For example, I think the United States should have intervened militarily in Sudan, just as they should have in Rowanda years ago. Yet, looking at the situation in Iraq, how different was it? Granted, Saddam Hussein was not a democratically elected leader, yet I was and remain staunchly against the invasion, and logically that doesn't make sense. Outside of the lies told by the US government, in order for my logic and morals to be consistent, I should support the invasion of Iraq...but I don't. Confused? So am I.
Does a nation have the right to intervene in America if our government shows signs of illiberal democracy? I think the answer is no--I can vote out my representatives every election as I please...unless the actions of our nation directly effect the security and well-being of another, I don't think another nation has the right to interfere with the goings-on of the US. Does that apply the other way around? Should it? Again, something else for me and you to ponder...
The Coming Anarchy
Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy" was the most logical and well thought-out article I have read for this class to date. Personally, I agree that environmental issues will be the biggest flashpoint of the 21st century and perhaps beyond.
I found Kaplan's argument that the social group that can withstand suffering the longest will eventually prevail to be an intriguing and convincing one. One thought I have always pondered is when will the American people decide that enough is enough with our system of government (or lack thereof) and create a revolution of sorts. The term revolution is thrown out so much by talk show pundits and my parents and their friends/family...but when will we ever see this revolution? Perhaps if the oil crisis continues to grow, we will finally see this revolution. At what point do gas prices rise so much that the effect on the pocketbooks of Americans is too much and finally, we reach a breaking point? As we continue to learn more about the environmental impact and the limited amounts of oil available, I think the idea of such a revolution grows more and more legitimate.
I found Kaplan's argument that the social group that can withstand suffering the longest will eventually prevail to be an intriguing and convincing one. One thought I have always pondered is when will the American people decide that enough is enough with our system of government (or lack thereof) and create a revolution of sorts. The term revolution is thrown out so much by talk show pundits and my parents and their friends/family...but when will we ever see this revolution? Perhaps if the oil crisis continues to grow, we will finally see this revolution. At what point do gas prices rise so much that the effect on the pocketbooks of Americans is too much and finally, we reach a breaking point? As we continue to learn more about the environmental impact and the limited amounts of oil available, I think the idea of such a revolution grows more and more legitimate.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Clash of Civilizations
Huntingdon's "Clash of Civilizations" was at times an alarming read for me. Particularly troubling was the fact that Huntingdon attempts to boil down the political structures of his day into one main concept--that of a clash of civilizations. I don't think Huntingdon acknowledges that many elements are coming into play, outside of simply cultural/civilization differences.
In particular, I thought Huntingdon failed to address the role the United States has taken in shaping the global socio-political map. In discussing the Persian Gulf War, Huntingdon addresses how Muslim nations called for a war against the West and the idea that the struggle represented something greater than America protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait. However, Huntingdon never looks at this case from the opposite perspective. Is it possible that American leaders and the American people themselves viewed the conflict as a war against the Middle East? In light of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, this idea gains some credibility. Huntingdon fails to look at both sides of the coin--he addresses the cultural differences of countries outside of the West but fails to look at how ideas and philosophies of Western civilization may also create conflict outside of the West.
In particular, I thought Huntingdon failed to address the role the United States has taken in shaping the global socio-political map. In discussing the Persian Gulf War, Huntingdon addresses how Muslim nations called for a war against the West and the idea that the struggle represented something greater than America protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait. However, Huntingdon never looks at this case from the opposite perspective. Is it possible that American leaders and the American people themselves viewed the conflict as a war against the Middle East? In light of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, this idea gains some credibility. Huntingdon fails to look at both sides of the coin--he addresses the cultural differences of countries outside of the West but fails to look at how ideas and philosophies of Western civilization may also create conflict outside of the West.
The End of History?
Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History?" presents a controversial view on how historians and the media will view the past and the future of the world politically. While I think Fukuyama's analysis is original, I believe it is flawed. Fukuyama fails to explain why liberal democracy is the zenith of human socio-political development. There is no logical answer as to why all of human history has been building up to the point of liberal democracy, and that the evolution of human thought will end at this point.
Fukuyama does not take into account that new schools of political thought could arise. Surely, 200 years ago, the idea of a communist or socialist state would have seemed ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, the idea of a democratic state would have seemed equally silly. By not taking into account that a greater political ideal could trump liberal democracy, Fukuyama's argument becomes greatly flawed.
Finally, given the relative youth of liberal democracy (only about 300 years old), Fukuyama does not address that liberal democracy is still a relatively new concept and is likely to continue evolve, possibly into an ideal that is completely foreign to the people of today.
Fukuyama does not take into account that new schools of political thought could arise. Surely, 200 years ago, the idea of a communist or socialist state would have seemed ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, the idea of a democratic state would have seemed equally silly. By not taking into account that a greater political ideal could trump liberal democracy, Fukuyama's argument becomes greatly flawed.
Finally, given the relative youth of liberal democracy (only about 300 years old), Fukuyama does not address that liberal democracy is still a relatively new concept and is likely to continue evolve, possibly into an ideal that is completely foreign to the people of today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)