Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Ponder this...9/9/14 - David Brooks Op-Ed
David Brooks argues that America needs to change the course of our foreign policy, from the inside out. He specifically says that, in comparison to our past foreign policy, "..Today, democratic self-confidence is low." Do you agree? Do you think America has to change its course in dealing with these world issues? Why or why not? If so, how? Explain. Please feel free to respond to other's comments as well, in an appropriate, respectful way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If America has learned anything from the past years in our history , it should teach us that interference with other nation's crisis doesn't always turn out pretty. When George Washington was leaving office , he strongly warned America to remain neutral. I believe that David Brooks is right because compared to our past foreign policy , our current foreign policy just raises tension. Instead of spending lots of money on the military , i think we need to pull our troops out from all countries especially Iraq. America needs to remain neutral and spend more time actually helping the people living in this country. Even as we judge other countries we consider not democratic, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own which is the land of the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land ruin that confidence.
ReplyDeleteDavid Brooks stated that: “... Today democratic self- confidence is low,” in comparison to the foreign policies in the past years. David also believes that there must be some sort of reform made towards the foreign policy in America. I agree with David Brooks’ statement because in the past, the outcomes of most foreign policies that were once created resulted with not following with what was initially said. For example, president George Washington’s foreign policy was based on the idea of staying neutral, and not supporting any side in a conflict… Now were those expectations met? Sooner or later the United States had become involved in international affairs… In present day today, I believe that the ideologies of saying that we’re not getting involved and sooner or later taking action to get involved, has had a general decrease (hence: “democratic self- confidence is low”). Perhaps the government came to the realization that they should not intervene with foreign affairs as much as they do unless it is something that is incredibly crucial. In other words, David Brooks is saying that if getting involved threatens the amount of focus towards domestic policies, and affects civilization, then there’s no purpose in becoming so desperately involved. The United States' government loves to showcase its strength, and how powerful it is by getting involved, but I believe there are limits that should not be surpassed when it comes to certain worldwide affairs.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history America is a superpower whose foreign policy reflect the national interest. I agree with what David Brooks had said, American do need to change the course of our foreign policy from inside out. However, it is hard to change foreign policy from inside out when people in government already have a specific mindset, as stated in the article “ People in senior positions are simply too busy to learn fundamental new viewpoints. Their minds are locked within the ones they brought into power.” It is human nature to deal with issues, if it is physically presented or it is seen as a threat to our daily lives. American need to change from the inside out by stepping back and start from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThrough out the years America has always had internal problems that seemed to be overshadowed by the foreign policy. No matter how unstable Anerica is they would attempt to aid other nations, which is good and bad at the same time. Good in the sense that America's allies would grow even stronger and become more stable and bad in the sense that our government would be temporarily pushing away direct problems with the country to go help another country deal with something that doesnt necessarily affect the state of America at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThe United States had gained the reputation of being a "world police" throughout history, however to what cost? The government uses our "human capital" but we do not gain anything from this loss. For example, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq resulted nothing but harsh criticism from both parties because of financial lost and human causalities. This war was not worth the heavy loss of our valuable resources, and that is what David Brooks wants to change: the views of our foreign policy. We cannot constantly intervene into every small battle that comes in our way and we cannot play "police" every single time some country steps out of line. That is why the "good guys have looked tired", we always intervene. George Washington once presented the idea of neutrality years ago. We must focus on the country's needs, not global affairs. We need to fix our problems here with the resources we have left. Present-day United States' self-confidence did not lower, we just became more realistic on the consequences that lie ahead us.
ReplyDeleteAs a strong nation i believe we have duties. As time goes more problems will increase and more duties we will have. "With strong power comes bigger responsibility". In our current era it is very hard to stay out of conflict when we have so much power. When a country is really in need they ask for aid from the US. I believe the US should help when they are really needed. Like in WWII. When the war ended, the US and many other nations tried to stop the spread of communist. Just like Communist i believe the US should step in and help stop these act of violence
ReplyDeleteForeign policy is a broad issue, encompassing not only present conflicts but future ones as well. Brooks takes a rather cynical perspective as he states "It’s frankly naïve to believe that the world’s problems can be conquered through conflict-free cooperation and that the menaces to civilization, whether in the form of Putin or Iran, can be simply not faced." His push toward confrontation leads readers to question his judgement. Considering a timeline of events from World War I to 21st century dilemmas, majority of citizens would conclude that the United States is in a much more peaceful state with the current foreign political policies in place. It can also be said that our global interaction is established by regulating the foreign policy of other nations. Our involvement and conflict with other countries is ALWAYS initiated with the primary goal of obtaining peace. The United States was built upon the idea that it is to be the peace-keeping nation - regulating and assisting developing countries. Brooks' assertion that our "democratic self-confidence is low" is ignorant as well as it is false. There is never a time that the country fleas in the face of demanding conflict. While it in no way antagonizes in other nations, the US is quite involved in foreign affairs whether it be through armed combat or the simple signing of a peace treaty.
ReplyDeleteForeign policy has its pros and cons. America is seen and known as a super-power nation. I believe it is our responsibility to get involve in other countries' issues whenever they're in periods of crisis. Sometimes, getting involved might make things worst. I also think that we should always help each other, that way we would live in a better world. However, if we interfere in others issues, we might be categorized as being violent or something similar. As you can see I'm really indecisive about how I feel towards foreign policy, as I said before, it has its pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in order for United States to successfully intervene and help other countries, we must get our own affairs in order. We need to be the example for everyone else to follow if we are taking care of other countries. Therefore, I believe to an extent that we have to change our foreign policy and stay neutral from foreign conflicts. After all, US appointed itself the role of a world police force; it was not appointed officially. Why should we take on more burdens when we already have dwindling resources for our own citizens and needs? But to another extent I disagree with Brooks. Democratic self confidence is not decreasing. We still interfere with other countries. But we need to step back and think about how the foreign conflict is affecting the bigger picture of things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David Brooks when he says that America has to change from inside out but i also disagree because if we don't act small problems will become big problems and it will be harder to stop it. We should help country end there problems fast and not wait till it starts to affect us like WW1. I believe the best way to achieve this is by asking the people what the government should do and take action instead of siting at home and watching t.v then do nothing at all but watch helplessly as the world falls into wars. Doing this will get lots of people involve into today's world!
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the United States is such a powerful nation that it is our responsibility as a nation to get involved in foreign affairs, but first before heading into other nations and intervening we should make sure we are at a good place because if we can't handle our own affairs how can we handle a different nation's problems.
ReplyDelete