In Ronnie Lipschutz’s book entitled The Constitution of Imperium, Lipschutz, a critical theorist, offers a rational and thought provoking evaluation of the United States’ social, political, and economic influence in the International arena. The Constitution of Imperium that Lipschutz discusses is a paradoxical document proposed by the Bush administration that would approve of the US’ ability to operate outside of the US Constitution without any written consent, besides the actual Constitution of Imperium itself. This new Constitution would lend more influence to the US by allowing it to have greater political, social, and economic power over other actors who agree to policies, or organizations that were created by the US. Lipschutz proposes that the US has been building its imperium since the end of WWII with its creation of organizations such as the United Nations.
We have fierce debates today concerning war tactics, drone strikes on Americans, torture, military tribunals, citizens’ rights during wartime, and how to reconcile the needs of the national defense with liberty and self-rule. Does the president have a constitutional power to torture foreign enemy combatants? Overrule Congress on war tactics? Deny formal trials to enemies?
Michael Oakeshott and Edmund Burke have very similar views on Conservatism, yet they both use different styles of writing and fundamental reasoning to justify their views. Though Burke expressed his views on Conservatism in 1790 and Oakeshott wrote in 1962, 172 years later, the two men have astonishingly similar explanations of Conservatism. They share similar thoughts on conservative themes such as gradual change, the embrace of familiarity, and agree upon their distaste for rationalism. Though the two authors have slightly contrasting reasons for their beliefs and ways of writing about them, the assumptions they make regarding conservatism are notably alike despite the substantial time gap between them.
“Was not John Bunyan an extremist? … Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist?” not only repetition but ad verecundiam because Martin Luther King uses significant figures who stood up for important matters, which creates an ethos to his point of being an extremist. Also, “Will we be extremist for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?”
Throughout American history, our presidents have changed the implications by the meaning of American exceptionalism. Originally coined to mean the United States has a unique position to create a better world, the term soon morphed into an excuse to force our beliefs onto other nations. In its purest form, American exceptionalism serves as an urging for the United States to go and help nations who ask for it, and it is our duty to respond. However, various administrations have morphed this message to imply that the United States is the pinnacle of “good”, and any nation who is not following our system is “evil”. This view leads to a dangerous international affairs, and the perception Americans have of the world.
Moderator: President Roosevelt, what would you say to people who oppose imperialism to change their mind? Roosevelt: The American people have to look at the good things that happened only because of imperialism. There is a Panama Cannel, the Philippines and Cubans are independent from Spain, and the people in those countries are more civilized with more advanced technology.
The freedoms of men and women are guaranteed under law, yet somehow we tell eachother that our speech is incorrect and should be looked down upon. How can the liberties of other people be less valuable than than your own? Americans tend to simply push an opposing opinion out of their way, deeming it invaluable and useless, but when someone does that same thing to them, they are up in arms about their right to free speech. Walter Lippman uses powerful pathos and strong diction in his article The Indispensable Opposition to develop his argument that individuals must respect and listen to other’s opinions in order for society to grow as a whole. People’s emotions are always hard to decipher and angle so that their opinion is altered, or even changed.
For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power” (Chomsky, 1993) this movie other than trying to justify America’s Intervention in World War II also has other propaganda messages such as showing America as a land of freedom and opportunity and safe haven for the victims and a place that everyone dreams of going and through this movie there have been so many scenes showing people in dream of going to America and it can be even said that almost all of the characters unless the ones who have power and money in Casablanca desire to go to America and are willing to do anything for
According to Matthew Yglesias article, "Donald Trump 's belief that Obamacare is exploding is false and self-destructive" Yglesias explains that "Like a lot of Trump 's public policy thinking, the notion of a self-destructing Affordable Care Act appears to be a piece of deliberately misleading conservative political rhetoric that Trump may be taking literally." He went on to describe various aspect of the law that was flawed and beneficial to the American people to further explain that Obamacare is far from
Obama on the other hand, focuses on why it isn’t a good idea, and explains the effects it may have, and why overall it isn’t the best thing for our country. Imperializing can lead to unnecessary wars, which could have been avoided; something Beveridge didn’t even consider since he has different goals of what the outcomes of imperializing should be than the realistic results that could actually occur due to his strong
Overall, historians and theorists have predicated the Cold War as a learning experience for future decision-making. However, one can draw similarities in current military actions, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those can argue not much has changed in the demeanor and action of military leadership to civilian leadership. Overall, Betts provides a thoroughly researched and structured framework for the reader to analyze historical evidence from a different perspective but I found his conclusions to be inherently flawed.
The US may or may not switch to the metric system in the future, but both sides to the argument have reasonable reasons to which why Americans should or should not switch to metric. Americans protest to the change of measurement but the other half see, why not? To begin with, the French created and started with the metric system and the British founded the other system, which is now renamed and knowns as, the US customary system. America should not switch to the metric system that all other countries follow - which is known as the national system of measurement - because without it America stands out and is different from other countries, also making Americans know more since we learn and use both systems, and it will cause confusion throughout the whole nation. America is different from other nations by many things but one could be the use of measurements.
Chapter one of the book is the opening thesis of the argument for the book Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized. He explains, that Americans are not deeply divided. However, he thinks that Americans are closely divided on certain issues. He portray’s that there’s not a culture war within the general population of the United States. He say’s that this culture war is between the conservative and liberal states.
Peter, by these condemnations, believes in the importance of the dialogue between the different faiths. He refutes any call to deepen the gap between religions because he considers it the main reason of the intolerance and hatred people of different faiths express against each other. He mentions” ACT tries to dissuade Jews and Christians from conducting interfaith dialogue with Muslims.” Furthermore, the political involvement the American Congress For Truth (ACT), is very hazardous. He lists different politicians, who hold very critical positions in the government and are part of ACT, such as Michael Flynn, CIA director Mike Pompeo, counterterrorism advisor Sebastian Gorka….