Carl Schmitt’s claim that politics is fundamentally distinct from other spheres is persuasive on the premise that the core of politics consists on the friend/enemy theory with each side of the conflict posing a perceived existential threat of violence to one another. However, his argument is less persuasive when he uses this premise to critique liberalism because he does not provide an alternative solution to his criticism. Schmitt contends that, “the political must rest on its own ultimate distinction, [and] the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is between friend and enemy” (Schmitt 26). Schmitt defines a political or public enemy as a collective group that poses an existential threat of violence, “the real possibility of physical killing” (Schmitt 33). Therefore Schmitt contends the political cannot exist without violence, or the threat/possibility of violence.
According to “Time to Assert,” it explains, “The Fay case provides a legitimate opening for American citizens and companies to bring political and economic pressure to bear in the propagation of freedom and basic rights” (Time to Assert 180). The quote reflects no relative information that helps sustain a good argument and instead appeals more to the emotion of the reader which causes the argument to lose some of its backbone. “Time to Assert” has a difficult time conveying its argument in a positive way because it revolves its argument around non factual information that starts to become
Underpinnings and Effectiveness of Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” In Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie proposed a system of which he thought was best to dispose of “surplus wealth” through progress of the nation. Carnegie wanted to create opportunities for people “lift themselves up” rather than directly give money to these people. This was because he considered that giving money to these people would be “improper spending”. Through Social Darwinism, he hoped to dispose of the problems of: the Darwinian intellectual revolution, Eugenies, and the hierarchy of race. However his system was inherently flawed because Carnegie built this system on racism and warmongering.
When people rely on surface appearances and false racial stereotypes, rather than in-depth knowledge of others at the level of the heart, mind and spirit, their ability to assess and understand people accurately is compromised” (Jam A. Forbes). Throughout history, humanity’s judgmental perspectives of each other have been rapidly escalating. Those who think of themselves as superior have desperately gotten to a point of creating an artificial concept known as “race”. This fabricated idea has been used to segregate the “inferior” kind from the “superior” kind. “Chyna and Me” by Joyin C Shih, and “Causes of Prejudice” by Vincent N. Parrillo are two literal texts that support the argument of race being a socially constructed term to outcast those who “do not” reach the social standards.
Directly put, politicians and state actors use the meaning behind ‘freedom’ as a way to justify and construct consent to dissolve market regulations and privatize formerly public institutions. Harvey’s stance on neoliberalism is greatly influenced by his Marxist ideologies. While he provides a handful of sound arguments against these practically globalized policies, there are still gaps of reason and logical throughout his assessment of neoliberalism. By using the arguments presented by Hayek, Keynes, and Friedman, Harvey’s account of neoliberalism will be critiqued and challenged, supporting the notion that as a whole, neoliberalism is frequently
Structuralism, as stated by Ajandi, examines inequities in power by revealing structures as the root of problems, rather than the individual (2018). Structuralism influences on AOP; it defines itself through structural power and its wrath of inequalities on those unlike the dominant group. AOP upholds the idea of relieving the sense of blame the individual holds and identifies their problems stem from the structures and systems put in place with the intent of discriminating against them. Anti-oppressive practice goes one step further with the concepts of structuralism by expressing the dire need for communication. According to Wilson & Beresford (2000), anti-oppressive practice promotes knowledge and expertise in each situation with every different service user, as no two situations require the exact same theories and practices.
Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated. Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
The article, highlighted aspects of politics, ethnic and racial inequalities in the United States and as such I believe that the conflict theory best describes the problems. Crossman (2017) articulates “The Conflict theory states that tensions and conflicts arise when resources, status, and power are unevenly distributed between groups in society and that these conflicts become the engine for social change.” In simple terms, the conflict theory indicates that human behavior, in a social aspect, is a consequence of conflicts between competing groups. One of Mills (1956) most famous theories, the power elite, describes this
When arguing that emancipatory movements have been plagued by an antinomy between a politics of ‘redistribution’ and a politics of ‘recognition’, Nancy Fraser is specifically referring to the manner by which cultural recognition displaces socioeconomic redistribution as a remedy for injustice and the goal for political struggle. In order to thoroughly investigate this dilemma Fraser analytically distinguishes the different logics behind ‘redistribution’ and ‘recognition’, while situating them into current political predicaments. From her extensive analysis Fraser proposes two broad remedies that can cut across the redistribution-reconstruction divide.
Hence, one can see that constructionist school focus mainly on historical force and social influence on ethnicity. Despite the constructionist approach better explains possible changes in identity; it does not pay appropriate attention to the economic and political effect on shaping the ethnic
Bartels focuses on unenlightened self-interest whereas Hacker and Pierson focuses on the role of elite manipulation. Bartel rebuts, “I believe that it is a mistake to suppose that any specific package could be said to represent “popular wishes” or “majority views” (Bartels 175). He believes that misinformation is the source of the support, and explains that the personal views that Americans have about their own taxation colored their opinions about the Bush tax cuts; further, those who knowledgeable that supported the cuts tended to be partisan. Bartels never seeks to explain why people are uninformed only that they use their limited information to form “simple-minded” opinions. I find that it is important to address the source of that misinformation/ignorance.
One reason why vague policy mandates can serve as a disadvantage to public administrators is because vague policy mandates have no guidance nor direction and they can lead to legislators losing political support from political groups or people. According to Rosenbloom, “ political expediency dictates that legislative will not take a firm stand on an issue which may be controversial, divisive, and loss of support among segments of the electorate” (Rosenbloom, 2015, p. 60). Rosenbloom is saying that political expediency can impact legislators in a damaging way because vague mandates can lead to great political dilemmas, divide people against each people, and lose support from
Another question that arose from the greed and grievance hypothesis is its observed disregard of the seeming varying motives and nature of conflicts. The argument presents that this thesis ignores the fact that some conflict do have political reasons for their preliminary occurrence and with the seizure of resources by combatants over time, it changes the motive of the conflict into an economic one (Ballentine and Nitzschke, 2003). According to Ballentine and Nitzschke, this has rendered the findings of Collier and Hoeffler as less convincing because of procedural complications related to the ascertainment of the economic and political motivation for a
However, the degree of leverage the wealthy truly have against the majority is a point of criticism. Many assume supermajority rules ensure the prohibition of results that severely damage people’s interest (Beitz 65). However, this argument presumes equal electoral engagement, and the effect of income inequality on this engagement is under considerable debate. Some theorists believe that the deep cleavage of inequality suppresses political engagement, especially amongst the poorest of society (Dahl 85-86). Other political scientists argue that greater inequality results in more political engagement (Brady).