Post 1 response:
Cultural and ideational factors likely explain most of America’s interactions. American culture is so potent and impervious to many other cultures that it naturally affects how we conduct our foreign policy, and in what manner to which other countries respond to it. A fairly common saying nowadays when discussing American foreign policy is that America’s foreign policy is everyone else’s domestic policy.
America’s culture heavily relies on exceptionalism, and in many instances we are seen to be the sort of “savior” in other conflicts around the world. When America invades other countries, it is always expressed by Presidents and policy makers that we are creating democracy and improving the lives of citizens, liberating oppressed peoples, etc. It is a common rhetoric that has been used in countless speeches and addresses to the nation. The implementation of American ideas and values will lead to a more peaceful and harmonious international arena, by this logic. In some instances, this proves true, or at least seems successful. The fact that America was able to enter Pakistan, a nuclear armed power, and kill Osama Bin Laden is a feat likely no other country would be able to pull off successfully, or without facing severe consequences as a result.
One of the easiest ways to test the hypothesis of America’s culture of exceptionalism’s affect on foreign policy is the language in speeches used when occupying a country. Additionally, the media’s portrayal of the “other” could also be measured in the types of imagery used, though it must be acknowledged that while the media often uses exceptionalism, there is a much stronger emphasis on a culture of fear and garnering a reaction. Fear is a significant contributing factor to power, and as Gideon Rose writes in his review of “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” that power is then wielded by policy makers and politicians (Rose 1998, 147). America’s modern culture, often lead by the media, has very concrete, real world consequences for foreign policy and international relations
Post 2 response:
I personally do believe that cultural or ideational factors in the interactions that America or any other nation conducts in the international community. The question asked is of opinion and wants further explanation as to why, then offer a plausible hypothesis. Personally I see the way that America and its people behave themselves are viewed in a negative view due to the way we think or how we do things as a nation and as individuals. Many view that American policy and intervention is only correct from their standpoint. Of course nothing is absolute and therefore I am going to concentrate on one aspect of why our culture and thinking towards foreign policy is damaging our ties with the rest of the world. One of the famous foreign policies was the Bush Doctrine of how George Bush went about his methods of conducting foreign policies.
My hypothesis is: America has been the most powerful nation for so long, it has forgotten ethics, dignity, and respect of others.
This hypothesis can be tested and can prove positive from the international interactions we as a nation engage in. We receive very negative criticism from many nations and it people, however, we do not care nor do we try to change our methods or mindset to cater to each individual nation and culture. We must have it our way regardless if you like it or not. In an article I found wrote about Bush and his famously said words, “We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (Jones 2017). This is a very famous phrase that I think shows the world our arrogance everywhere we go. As a result of multiple decisions made throughout the years, the international community has a preemptive conclusion as to our ethics, dignity and respect in foreign policies and politics.
A way to test this hypothesis is by reviewing the data of how the foreign policies that are affected by American culture and take note of how well our foreign policy influenced and worked in regards to others. It is also possible to compare the effectiveness of our foreign policy in a specific area with another nations policy in order to gain insight from their approach and what it resulted in. Careful analysis among the theories and model used for the purpose and making of the policy may give the results from the intentions that are proposed. The data from the observation and experiment is highly important from what the policy results in, without bias and error. In addition, “Using the scientific method, we can take observations and data from today and develop and test hypotheses for possible events in the future. In this manner, policymakers can begin to predict areas where future policies will have an impact, rather than simply reacting to the constant changes in the world” (Turekian and Kishi, 2017).
Turekian, Vaughan and Kishi, Teruo. 2017. Science and Technology Advising in Today’s Foreign Policy. Science Diplomacy. Accessed November 19, 2017. http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2017/science-and-technology-advising-in-todays-foreign-policy
Jones, Steve. 2017. Understanding the Bush Doctrine: It Combines Unilateralism and Preventive Warfare. ThoughtCo. Accessed November 19, 2017. https://www.thoughtco.com/the-bush-doctrine-3310291
- Re: Week 3 Forum
Rebecca Ryti | 4 days ago | 181 words
Thank you for your insightful post for this week’s forum. Your perspective was very refreshing and outlined several items that I hadn’t considered before, particularly your interpretation of former President Bush’s quote addressing nations supporting terrorists and/or terrorism. I appreciated your description that the former President’s words could have been misconstrued to appear to be hostile in nature towards any nation siding with a rebel and terrorist organization pushing different ideals and practices unknown to the majority of the western world at the time; however, I beg to insert that time frame in which this speech was given. This was shortly after the 9/11 attack on American soil. This would naturally evoke the leader of any country to address any differentiating mindset in order to provide a clear message of the way ahead for their country and the type of interactions they will seek to have with either allied or enemy forces.
- But I am curious to further understand your argument; in your opinion, what would have been the best approach for the former President to take?
- Question for the Class
Sayeed Ahmed | 4 days ago | 36 words
You wrote: “My hypothesis is: America has been the most powerful nation for so long, it has forgotten ethics, dignity, and respect of others.” What is the difference between the state and the nation?
- Re: Question for the Class
Artashes Bznuni | 11 hours ago | 48 words
A “State” is usually a designated area or land that is governed by a government. A “nation” is the grouping of people whom share the same values, beliefs, language, and so on that live in the same land and government. They identify separately, but usually get used and described similarly by many.