Why Teach About Genocide?

Since the Second World War genocide has become a subject of study. Today, most history books include, at the very least, a mention of the past genocides and devote sections on the atrocious calamities. Additionally, within academia, various courses are being wholly dedicated to the subject of genocide. Also, there are multiple memorials for mass atrocities in Africa, the one that stands out is the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre, which focuses on the Rwandan Genocide of 1994.  That gruesome incident claimed nearly a million victims in 100 days.

The increase in genocide education highlights the fact there is still a need for education that raises people’s awareness concerning the tragic consequences of genocide. Indeed, as demonstrated by the United Nations (UN) Conference, entitled The Global Prevention of Genocide: Learning from the Holocaust, although there is a general disagreement of how genocides should be taught, most experts agree on the need to teach about the devastating atrocities (Mortimer & Glahn, 2010).

Generally speaking, the most acquiesced motive for genocide education is the belief that it will eventually lead to genocide prevention in the future. A second important reason for teaching about genocide is for the purpose of bringing reconciliation to feuding parties. Some argue that genocides should be openly discussed because the pronunciation of the truth brings about justice and consequential reconciliation.

Genocide has demonstrated to be as much a crime of the present as a crime of the past, with numerous cases of genocide plaguing the post Genocide Convention period. Genocide prevention is said to be one of the weaknesses of the genocide regime, for the Convention, which was to aid in the prevention of the crime, has not been fully successful in achieving its aim. Many believe that genocide prevention is to be achieved by educating the current and future generations about genocide. This belief comes from the premise that “those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it” (Santayana, 1905:284).

Institutions, as well as educators, need to pay more attention to how genocide is being taught to the current generation. In order to achieve the genocide prevention objective, they may need to enhance or maximize their teaching methods. Few, such as Ellen J. Kennedy, the Interim Director of the Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies of the University of Minnesota, have argued that the current method of teaching genocide is not the most appropriate in terms of bringing about prevention because we teach about genocide [perhaps for the sake of teaching] rather than inject how-to mechanisms to prevent it. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary General, following the same line of thought, has stated:

If our goal in teaching students about the Holocaust is to make them think harder about civic responsibility, human rights and the dangers of racism, then presumably we need to connect the Holocaust with other instances of genocide, and with ethnic conflicts or tensions in our own time and place. That would enable students not only to learn about the Holocaust, but also to learn important lessons from it. (Annan, 2010)

Certainly, education that leads towards acquiring more knowledge about the causes and effects of mass killings is instrumental in preventing future mass atrocities. However, it is no revelation that alone it cannot be a deterrent unless we develop a holistic preventative approach to such tragedies. The African Union Human Rights Memorial project has plans to develop and distribute instructional materials and provide access to teaching resources for organizing educational workshops on-line. It is expected that this on-line module will aid new generations of Africans to reflect and develop thoughts that will contribute to genocide prevention by providing them with a tutorial that is not given in regular classrooms.

Moreover, it is commonly believed that teaching about genocide has the ability to provide reconciliation to those who were on both sides of the tragedy.  Indeed, the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Centre has claimed that “acknowledging the suffering of the victims through formal education is an effective way to foster reconciliation between victims and per­petrators” (Dy, 2009:134).

It should be noted however, that there is a second school of thought that argues that discussing genocide opens old wounds and may reignite feelings of hatred and angst. In Cambodia, for instance, the modern history books include very little about the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Khmer Rouge is remembered primarily for its policy of social engineering, which resulted in genocide. Indeed, the government has edited the history books in order to skip accounts of what happened in the past – with the aim of prompting the victims to forget the atrocities. However, because current generations do not know much about what happened under Khmer Rouge, there is a disconnect between generations. Also, in this case the victims of genocide are denied the full truth, and therefore, denied justice; and henceforth may find it difficult to fill the gaps that exist in their personal and social histories. That alone is a cause for concern.

Essentially, there is an ongoing debate concerning what will pave the way for reconciliatory measures: ignoring the past, or confronting it.  The majority of literature tends to demonstrate that public pronunciation of the truth will bring about, to a certain extent, reconciliatory attitudes in the way past mass atrocities in Africa are treated. It is in this spirit that the AUHRM online educational module should be designed.

(article published in justiceafrica.org)

Deterrence at present is not the most effective way in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons

For deterrence to work, it must be credible. It is here that the problem lies. This post shall discuss the extent to which the deterrence at present is credible and therefore effective. It will become evident that the US threats are not entirely credible and therefore deterrence may not work in achieving the US aim of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The threats the US has made include the assertion that if Iran creates weapons, it would face serious punishment (war or a nuclear strike). Another assertion which was famously made by Hillary Clinton in 2008 in a report for ABC News was that if Iran attacks Israel the US will obliterate Iran. 

Zagare and Kilgour as well as other political scientists have made credibility synonymous to rationality. Their point is that if a threat is rational then it is credible. The rationality of the US threats can be questioned. Following the same line of thought of de Gaulle who once rhetorically asked the question- would the US risk New York and Washington for Bonn and Paris?- I would like to ask the question of whether the US would risk New York and Washington for Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? from this question the true risk of the threat for the US is exposed and the threat seems less rational altogether. On this point of rationality, a military strike on Iran may pose too much of a risk- indeed- bombing Iran can create a chain reaction of attacks against the US or European institutions alike. This route of action therefore becomes irrational for the gains will be minimal in comparison to the losses, especially if one takes into consideration the shock which will be experienced by the international system. 

On a different note, the US track record in North Korea lessens the credibility of their threats to Iran. Indeed,  the US had threatened North Korea numerous times and had declared that it would not accept a nuclear armed North Korea. Despite the numerous threats, the US failed in taking action accordingly and in containing the North Korean nuclear program and they managed to proceed with nuclear armament and develop nuclear weapons. Thereafter the US had to change strategies and tried to apply concessions on their nuclear weapons. Moreover, to Obamas threats made about the US continued commitment to extend "deterrence  to Seoul, including the US nuclear Umbrella" North Korea responded that they now had more of a reason to create further weapons. What this case demonstrates is that US threats are not credible because they are not carried out, and that North Korea does not obey US commands. 

To conclude, the only credibility the US holds in its threats is that they have the military power to carry out their threats. However, assuming that the US is a rational actor and if one takes the case of North Korea into consideration, it doesn't seem like the threats can be described as credible, and therefore may not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Thus, the US, in order to be effective, it must increase its credibility by henceforth making rational threats and acting out on their threats. Additionally the US needs to make a costly signal. 

“Both Hobbes and Rousseau recognized that individual liberty can only be realized by first granting the state absolute authority.”

The notion of individual freedom is something that was of great value to both Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Even though their conceptualization of freedom was somewhat different, they both agreed on the fundamental role of authority in securing liberties. Indeed, Hobbes and Rousseau were, to a great extent, supporters of a powerful and coerce sovereign. Interestingly this is where the problems begin and answering the question becomes so difficult: how can two minds that essentially disagree on the principal of freedom support absolute authority?  This essay will take a step back and analyze why they come to this similar conclusion from completely different ideas on freedom and human nature. This essay will argue that Hobbes and Rousseau arrive at similar conclusions essentially because of their understandings of human nature. It will also be argued that there is a thin line which separates their different understandings of authority, and that Rousseau’s authority is slightly more absolutist than Hobbes’s, but not authoritarian as some scholars like Robert Nisbet claim. I will first discuss the definition of absolute authority, and will follow by confirming that both Hobbes and Rousseau promote an absolute authority. This essay will then touch upon their contrasting ideas on freedom, by categorizing Hobbes and Rousseau under Isaiah Berlin´s negative and positive sense of liberty. Seeing as freedom is not the key factor that explains absolute authority, another step is taken back to discuss Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s understanding of human nature. The fact that they think absolute  authority is necessary in securing individual liberties will thereafter be explained. To conclude the essay will compare and contrast the different opinions of both political philosophers on how the body politic functions. It is in this part of the essay where the complexity and subtlety of their different views on authority can be found.

Before the discussion can commence, it is vital in the development of this essay, to define the term absolute authority. After research, it becomes noticeable that the definition, is mostly seen as extremely similar. Indeed, the scholar Felix Oppenheim is of the opinion that “A government has an absolutistic form if all power is wielded by one or a few without any restraint” (Oppenheim 1950, 952). Similarly politics textbooks tend to claim that authority is absolute when “It possesses unfettered power” (Heywood 2007, 28).  This paper will also contend that such power “cannot be constrained by a body external to itself [... and has] unlimited right to rule”(Heywood 2007, 28). However it is important to make a distinction between absolute power and authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, in essence, is opposed to democracy and this is one of the key elements which distinguishes authoritarianism from absolute authority. However, this is still a contested topic seeing as even Felix Oppenheim considers “implementing some anti-democratic aim”(Oppenheim 1950, 952) as a purpose of an absolute authority. Nevertheless, for the function of the essay, this debate shall be ignored and absolute authority shall be defined as:  a government having unrestrained power to rule.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau describe an authority which is absolute. Indeed, Hobbes’s Leviathan is in parts described as all powerful and as an immortal God. He describes the sovereignty as ostensibly coerce in chapter XVII: “For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred to him that by terror thereof, he is enabled to perform the will of them all”(Hobbes 1969, XVIII). Moreover, chapter XVIII discusses thoroughly the powers assigned to the sovereign. The powers assigned to the sovereignty include: “the whole power of prescribing the rules” (Hobbes 1969, XVIII), and the “right of judicature” (Hobbes 1969, XVIII) amongst other powers which crown the Leviathan as an absolute authority. Rousseau also employs an absolute authority in which one must give up oneself absolutely to enjoy an equal contract. Similarly to Hobbes, Rousseau describes the sovereign as having unrestrained power to rule and this is summed up in Rousseau’s following words: “As nature gives each man absolute power over all his members, the social compact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members also.” (Rousseau 1986, 204) Additionally, the authority can be seen as absolutist in that “whoever refuses to obey the general will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than he will be forced to be free” (Rousseau 1986, 195). In other words, whoever disobeys the general will be forced to “pay the penalty for violating that rule of law” (Wokler 1995, 124). In that infamous quote of Rousseau there is almost a hint of authoritarianism.

Having affirmed that Hobbes and Rousseau employ an absolute authority, this essay will take a step back and discuss how these political philosophers arrive at such conclusions. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau fundamentally disagree on the principle of freedom. Indeed, Hobbes sees freedom as “the absence of external impediments” (Hobbes 1969, 79). One must bear in mind that Hobbes does not mean that one is un-free because one cannot, for instance, fly. In fact, “mere incapacity to attain a goal is not lack of political freedom” (Berlin 1989, 122). Rather, a man is truly free when he does what he wants without being impeded by human beings. Rousseau on the other hand considers one to be truly free when he is the master of his own self rather than being dependent on others.  Thus independence is the key aspect of freedom for Rousseau. So Rousseau sees freedom “not in the sense of immunity from control of the state but in that of withdrawal from the oppressions and corruptions of society” (Rousseau 1986). One could therefore classify Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s notion of freedom by Isaiah Berlin’s negative and positive sense of liberty. Hobbes can be seen as propagating freedom in the negative sense because he is of the opinion that interference from others brings about un-freedoms.  Rousseau on the other hand, could be seen as a classic positive liberalist. In general terms, positive liberty calls for more state interference, whilst, negative liberty calls for minimal state interference. If this statement stands then one would expect opposite views on authority to develop, however, they both promote an absolute authority. Perhaps freedom is not the only factor affecting their views on authority, perhaps their understanding of the human nature also plays a role.

Having discussed their different conceptualizations of freedom, it was apparent that categorizing Hobbes and Rousseau by negative and positive liberty does not explain why they arrive at their conclusions. This is especially the case for Hobbes; freedom is not the biggest factor in determining an absolute authority, because his freedom would intuitively ask for a minimal government. It is therefore important to take another approach and look at what Hobbes and Rousseau write about human nature and the state of nature.

Thomas Hobbes illustrates the natural world in the Leviathan as completely chaotic, a world where society finds itself in “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1969, XIII). In the world of Hobbes, men have been made equal in their abilities, and from this equality there is a common hope and desire that one can attain their aims. Because of this common ability, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 1969, XIII). Hence, the state of nature is defined by “war” because everything in life is relative, there is only a limited “stock” of things which causes a disharmony of interests between people. Indeed, Hobbes explains that there are three principal causes of such quarrelling: competition, diffidence and glory. All three principals allow for violence and war “of everyman, against every man” (Hobbes 1969, XIII). To demonstrate such a brutish human nature-which is commonly depicted by students of realism -Hobbes explains in chapter XIII that even in a society where we are safeguarded by laws, justice, police and militia we still lock our doors, walk accompanied by others and walk armed. This is because we are aware of human nature and its tendencies in a world where there is a limited power, goods, resources and liberties. Henceforth, the fear of death and desire of self-preservation lead people to the common search for peace. It is through this common inclination to peace that people will lay down their rights to anything, so that they can ensure their own security and freedoms. Therefore a man will give up his right to someone else’s property so that his own right to private property can be guaranteed, hence eliminating the fears of having things taken away and having to bear the paranoia that comes alongside it. Hobbes called the “mutual transferring of right” (Hobbes 1969, XIV) the contract. In the contract people transfer their rights to the sovereign so that the will of all “to peace at home” (Hobbes 1969, XVII) can be secured.

                 Without a sovereign Hobbes explains that “desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions, that proceed from those passions, till they know a law that forbids them”( Hobbes 1969, XIII).  In such a world there is also no just or unjust acts, it is what it is and hence Hobbes perceives it as a world where there is no place for justice: “where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no justice” (Hobbes1969, XVIII). Moreover, Hobbes attempts to demonstrate the importance of the sovereign to secure ones liberty by saying that a covenant of words between people is “too weak to bridle men´s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions without the fear of some coercive power”(Hobbes 1969, XIV). This lends us to the next point, which is that Hobbes sees the need for a coercive authority merely as a measure to assure that freedoms, peace and self preservation. Thus it seems that human nature was the key in determining the need of an absolute authority.

Rousseau’s beliefs disagree with Hobbes’s on the thought that “because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked” (Rousseau 1986, 71) . Indeed, Rousseau explains that in the state of nature, men are simply amoral rather than immoral and hence man “couldn’t be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious” (Rousseau 1986, 71).  However, Rousseau claims that men were changed from the moment that they started the unequal civil society. Rousseau believed that due to the unequal contract where the many bow down to the privileged few, everyone has been led to a state of great dependency. In a civil society “if rich, they stood in need of the services of others; if poor, of their assistance; and even a middle condition did not enable them to do without one another” (Rousseau 1986, 95)  .Because of this there is great un-freedom and hence his renowned quote that “man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 1986, 181).  Rousseau doesn’t believe that this unequal contract came about due to the wickedness of man but rather that it was brought by the invention of private property. He explains that the point in which this unequal contract was created was when “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself saying ‘this is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society” (Rousseau 1986, 84).

Rousseau argued that the way to step out of this state of dependency upon others and be truly free is to adopt a contract of equals. What this contract requires is that people absolutely alienate their private rights, the rights to private property. If this is done, then we can have true freedom where no one depends on others, but rather on the sovereign. However, this requires that society give up their power to be directed by the general will. Rousseau made it clear that if one holds the power to decide what is best for oneself, dependency and therefore un-freedom remain. Rousseau also explains that the power must be absolute so that independence and thus freedom can be secured: “in order that the social contract shall be no empty formula it tacitly implies that obligation which alone can give force to all others: namely that anyone who refuses obedience to the general will is forced to it by the whole body” (Rousseau 1986, 148). So to resume, Rousseau believes that because of the condition of man an absolute power is necessary. 

So it’s fair enough to say that both Hobbes and Rousseau feel that absolute authority is necessary to secure individual liberties regardless of how they arrive to this conclusion.  However, I wish to make a distinction between Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s sovereign, because it is counter intuitive that different views of human nature and freedom have led Hobbes and Rousseau to an analogous conclusion. The way to explain the difference is by looking at how Hobbes and Rousseau think the body politic works. For Hobbes the body politic is made of artificial man, “in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body” (Hobbes 1969, Introduction). For Rousseau on the other hand, man is the limbs and the sovereignty is the brain. Indeed, Elizabeth Wingrove wrote: “Just as the fingers of a sane man move only in accordance with his will, so the limbs of the body politic (the citizens) can act in accordance with its brain (the sovereign)” (Wingrove 2000, 152). In other words, for Hobbes, the sovereignty is an entity which simply aids with the motion of things. So whilst for Hobbes the body politic is the integration of man with the sovereign in a sense, for Rousseau the brain (sovereign) of the body politic decides the will and what is good for you, hence one becomes totally dependent on the authority. These metaphors which are found in the works of Rousseau and of Hobbes explain the complex and subtle difference in the similar authorities of the philosophers. It would seem that both are absolute, but that Rousseau’s authority is more absolutist.  As explained in the introduction, the difference between the two in essence is defined by a thin line.

To conclude, this essay took the title[1] for granted and it focused on how Hobbes and Rousseau arrived to their conclusions. It was realized that the way in which Hobbes and Rousseau understand human nature rather than freedom leads them to favour absolute authority, or rather think of it as necessary. The essay resumed by making a distinction between the way that Hobbes and Rousseau view the body politic in order to demonstrate the difference with the authorities that they think  of as indispensable. It was suggested that Rousseau’s perception of authority is more absolutist. Some scholars have argued that Rousseau verges on authoritarianism because “What Rousseau calls freedom is at bottom no more than the freedom to do that which the state in its omniscience determines” (Nisbet 1943, 102). However, this paper concludes that due to the truism that Rousseau is “familiarly identified with the philosophy of democracy” (Nisbet 1943, 111), one cannot due to the definition of the word associate Rousseau with authoritarianism. Surely this changes as the definition of absolute authority takes another meaning. I would like to resume with the following quote: “Rousseau is the philosopher of democracy, but never of liberalism.” (Nisbet 1943, 112).

What are George W. Bush’s greatest achievements and failures? How will history judge him?

At the end of George W. Bush’s presidency the United States was left in a state of turmoil: in an economic crisis and in the midst of two wars in the Middle East which are not supported by the majority of Americans. Former President Bush has been harshly criticized by bestselling books by Bob Woodward, by the media, by both America and other nations worldwide. He is judged on the grounds of his failures as well his disliked personality and character which is portrayed by the media. George Bush arguably had many failures in his two consecutive terms in office, like for instance not signing the Kyoto protocol, his views on torture, and his weakened relations with Russia.  However, this essay will concentrate on the most talked about and arguable most important issues such as the controversial entry into the Iraq war as well as other foreign policy mishaps and failures in the domestic front. It will become apparent in this paper that the failures of George W. Bush in his two terms outweigh the successes, however, it is not to say that there were no successes for there were various domestic successes in his time including the tax cuts and the No Child Left Behind act. The first part of this essay will discuss what I have found to be the greatest failures of Bush, and the second part of this paper will thereafter assess what I think were Bush´s greatest achievements. What this essay will attempt to conclude is how former President Bush will be judged in the future- will he always be judged as the President who brought America into two unpopular and arguably illegitimate wars in the Middle East? Will it depend on whether one is ideologically more towards the left or right side of the political spectrum?

One of the greatest failures of George W. Bush was entering into a controversial war with Iraq and Afghanistan. 9/11 refers to a day marked by fear, confusion, vulnerability, and death in America. On September the 11^th, 2001 planes were high-jacked and then crashed on to the world trade center, and a plane was also crashed strategically onto the Pentagon later on the same day. This was the day which changed American foreign policy and which led to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. At first the war in Iraq received high public support, and according to Amy Gershkoff this was  “because the Bush Administration successfully framed the conflict as an extension of the war on terror, which was a response to the September 11, 2001”[1] attacks. However, today the polls show a big difference in opinion- around 67% in 2007 said it was not going well and 57%[2] said they should withdraw troops, and today, public opinion shows that there is more opposition towards the war. There are many reasons for this change of opinion from the start of the war until the present day. Firstly, the war can be classified as illegal or illegitimate in the sense that the US did not achieve a mandate from the UN to enter the war. Because of this Kofi Annan said in an interview: “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." Other reasons which led to the low manifestation of support for the war are linked to not finding either any weapons of mass destruction, and or not finding any links to Al Qaeda or the attacks in 2001. To a great extent the fact that 4, 287 have died in Iraq and that 30, 182[3] have been wounded in a war which can be described a pointless, means that only a small percent of the nation still supports the war. Lastly, the war has been extremely costly crossing the $300 trillion mark- many Americans aren’t happy that their tax dollars are feeding the war that they don’t believe in. because of all said above, it will be hard to believe that many Americans are in favor of Bush on this account. Bush will probably be judged negatively for a long time because of placing America in the midst of an unnecessary war with no casus belli.

One of the greatest domestic failures of former president George W. Bush was the way in which he tackled the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Bush’s attempts at handling the catastrophe have been described as the most embarrassing political disaster by Jack Cafferty and described as an act of carelessness of Bush’s part by the New York Times. The Hurricane hit the United States late August 2005 and “devastated the Gulf Coats of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi and triggered the failures of levees surrounding New Orleans”[4]. This disaster has claimed almost 2000 deaths and has displaced more than a half a million people. [5]Former president Bush was blamed for being slow, incompetent and careless. Indeed, federal troops were only sent in days after the disaster, and they were extremely slow in that it took troops between 2 and 5 days to get there, because roads and highways were flooded[6]. People were hence starving, and thirsty on their roofs and in the superdome for days, waiting for some type of response. Broadcasters and news reporters got in on the first day and for days of filming the disaster they were wondering why no troops were coming in to remove the population and to bring any sort of aid, and the disaster and Bush’s failures were visible to the entire world.  The Bush administration was heavily criticized for the way in which it dealt with this disaster, and this was mirrored in the decrease of public support for Bush from 60% to 49% in the time span of two weeks[7]. The Union Leader, which is known to be arguably the most conservative newspaper in the United States wrote: “a better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced immediate mobilization of every available resource… the cool, confident, intuitive leadership Bush exhibited in his first term, particularly in the months immediately following Sept. 11, 2001, has vanished”[8]. Because of this, President Bush’s Image was wrecked to most Americans, and to many people worldwide, who saw him more interested in the Iraq war than helping Americans in a grave Disaster. 

            George Bush was at a disadvantage at the beginning of his first term as President: this was because Bush was the “the first candidate since 1888 to be elected with fewer popular votes than his principal opponent”[9]. Because of this, many thought his win of the election was illegitimate, especially the democrats. After such a controversial election, the first thing Bush needed to do was increase his legitimacy and gain some credibility. He was urged by many “to act as if he were indeed paralyzed, proposing only policies that enjoyed bipartisan support”[10], however, boldly, Bush decided to go un-intimidated and went forth with his some of his initiatives. The Bush administration decided on a $1.35 trillion tax cuts, which he then signed a bill on in June the 7^th 2001[11]. This tax cut was one of his many top priorities, and he decided to do it soon after elections with a hope that it would be a policy “that both unified and energized Republicans”[12]. He also thought that “although most congressional Democrats would oppose cuts, a majority of the public, including Independents and even some Democrats, would support or at least tolerate them.”[13] Bush and his advisors were expecting the tax cuts policy to show the competence of the Bush administration since it was early on in his first term. This was a successful move in the sense that he took a bold move and initiated a huge important bill when he had little public support nor a majority or a plurality of seats in both houses of congress. This move was also successful because it meant that Bush established himself as a powerful decision making president instead of acting in “paralysis” as advised. This was also important because usually congress “is unlikely to defer to the president for long” and will in turn set their own policy agendas, hence acting with power so early on meant George Bush would have a significant place in agenda setting, and policy initiation. Most importantly it showed Bush keeping his campaign promises and increasing his credibility. However, the tax cuts were unsuccessful in that it did not move the public: the public didn’t seem heavily impressed with the Bill. Indeed only 53% in February 2001 were in favor of the tax cut- even with his great campaign and travels around 29 states to promote the tax cuts had a minimal change. Also, he only managed to persuade one democratic senate (Zell Miller) to support him on tax cuts.

            Just as tax cuts increased the credibility of George W. Bush to some Americans, so did the No Child Left Behind act which aimed to increase the education standards in America. Increasing the education standards was one of the main issues that Bush campaigned about in his presidential race[14]. Hence, he was applauded by many for tackling this issue relatively early on in his first term, and so soon after the tax cuts:  indeed, it was passed by the senate by June the 14^th 2001, and it was made into law by January 2002. The No child Left Behind act was in brief based on the belief that in setting high standards students would be more motivated and hence would achieve higher grades. The act entails schools to be accountable for testing and the achievements and consequently can receive federal funding. However, if the standards of examination were to decrease, funding could be stopped[15]. The act saw an increase of funding education from $42.2billion to $55.7 billion from 2001 to 2004, and from $6.3billion to $10.1billion for children with disabilities[16].  Moreover, there were great improvements seen in the level of education. Indeed, nine and thirteen year olds showed a noticeable increase in reading and math, and more importantly the achievement gaps between whites, Hispanics and blacks has never been lower[17]. This definitely suggests that Bush indeed is a Uniter rather than a Divider, as promised in his campaign. In fact this act was “widely hailed as a bipartisan Breakthrough- a victory for American Children, particularly those traditionally underserved by public schools”[18]. Even though the act seems to be a success, only young age groups seemed affected by the act, which means people were still graduating with the same grades, and not entering the working world with better chances of succeeding. There have been many complaints and controversies about the system which “assumes that what schools need is more carrots and sticks rather than fundamental changes”[19]. Because of this, it is hard to imagine that the future will judge this as an outstanding achievement of George W. Bush, because the bill didn’t reach its expected targets.

             The third and last achievement that this paper will discuss is the two appointments to the Supreme Court. During his presidency, George W. Bush saw the chance to nominate two people to the Supreme Court because of the retirement of Sandra day O´Connor and the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist. With the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, President Bush nominated John Roberts, who was originally meant take the place of Sarah O’connor when she would retire. His choice of John Roberts was applauded by many, since he "has devoted his entire professional life to the cause of justice and is widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and personal decency." Also, more importantly, he was seen as a close to perfect candidate to maintain the ideological balance, since both Chief of Justice Rehnquist and John Roberts were “ideologically conservative”[20]. The second appointment wasn’t as popular as the one of John Roberts. As Sandra Day O’Connor retired, Bush wanted to replace the moderate O’Connor with a conservative Samuel Alito. As expected, this move was not welcomed by democrats, because it was an obvious move towards the conservatives advantage. So democratically speaking the second appointment was not a democratic success which favored democrats, however, it was a success for republicans, whose views would be more represented in the Supreme Court. This was extremely important for Bush because “Senator James Jeffords of Vermont left the republican party, shifting the majority in the senate to the democrats”[21]. It was also important because republicans were at a disadvantage when they “lost seats in both houses of congress” when Bush first came into power. Lastly, moving the Supreme Court towards the right was a positive move for Bush because he was able to justify more of political moves with justice. With the appointments, the republican voice can live on in the realm of Justice.

There are various studies which were conducted on Bush’s approval rates, and one by Richard Eichenberg and Richard Stoll strongly suggests that at least for the next generations Bush has been “ruined” to the public[22]. According to their study, the defining factor was the Iraq war[23]. So hypothetically, America could have forgiven former president Bush for his other failures, had it not been for the Iraq war. Moreover, I think how George Bush will be judged depends greatly on whether one is ideologically conservative or more liberal.  Since on the domestic front, President Bush has served the Republicans well with the tax cuts, the two appointments, and even with the rising of the education standards, I would expect a big percentage of Republicans to still think of him positively. Overall I think he will not be judged well in world history, for as discussed before, the failures of war, and almost neglect of his own people in New Orleans as well as his many other failures which were shortly mentioned, outweigh the successes. Thus, leading to the consequent demise of his image.

A Brief Review of Eric Neumayer's Paper: 'Global Warming: Discounting is not the issue, but substitutability is'

We are at a stage whereby human activity has potentially huge and long term “consequences on both environmental amenities and the capacity to provide material well being.” Global warming is one of these consequences which will have both economic and environmental repercussions. The greatest impact of global warming will primarily be felt by future generations, hence the benefits of greenhouse gas emission abatement are aimed for them, whilst the costs will be borne by today’s generation. However, global warming being such a complex premise implies that not all of its outcomes are negative; indeed, some regions will actually benefit from global warming. Russia would be one of the countries which would be affected positively, seeing as it is close to the poles. The concept of global warming is so contested that “older estimates of damage due to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere range between 1-2.5% of GDP”. However, newer studies have tended to show that it is more economically viable to tackle adaptability rather than greenhouse gas abatement. Seeing as global warming is such a disputed issue it follows that there has been great debate on how to manage it. The principle of discounting has been at the center of this debate.

                Eric Neumayer’s paper discusses the relevance of discounting on tackling global warming. Neumayer first presents the neoclassical approach by concentrating on William Nordhaus’s study of 1994. Nordhaus implicitly assumes the validity of perfect substitutability (which is at the center of the weak sustainability paradigm). Arguably one of the ways in which he achieves this, is in the manner he discounts the future. Nordhaus’s formula for discounting is the infamous Ramsey formula of 1928 (which is shown below.)

Symbol	Definition	Figures assigned by Nordhaus
r	social discount rate	6%
p	pure rate of time preference	3%
n(c)	product of the elasticity of the	1
	marginal utility of consumption
C/C	per capita  growth rate of	3
	comsumption

Per capita growth rate of consumption (C/C) is not tremendously important in Neumayer’s discussion. In fact, irrespective of its value, the assumption is that environmental costs and benefits can be substituted by material costs and benefits. Moreover, according to Nordhaus, “given that n(c) C/C > 0, the future should count less because it is then presumed to be better off due to the increase in consumption”.

                Nordhaus’s study has received a lot of speculation. Most critics disapprove of his social discount rate of 6% and his pure rate of time preference of 3%. Indeed, many environmental economists have wanted to set the pure rate of time preference to zero “for reasons of intergenerational fairness”. The premise is that being of a future generation shouldn’t be a reason for being of less value. However, Neumayer observes various problems with the critics’ propositions, especially those to lower the discount rate. The first being that lowering the discount rate is dubious, seeing as future generations have been estimated to be 4.5 times richer 100 years from now. The second problem is that lowering the discount rate means that society must channel scarce financial resources for the purpose of combating global warming when current populations are in need of the resources today. Lastly, and arguably most importantly Neumayer is of the opinion that such propositions do not attack the real issue in Nordhaus’s methodology, which is his “underlying assumption of perfect substitutability”.

                Rigorous emission abatement must presuppose that natural capital and manufactured capital are less than perfect substitutes for each other. Indeed, proponents of strong sustainability are of the opinion that natural capital cannot be substituted by human-made capital. There is a consensus emerging that global warming is putting ecosystems under stress and therefore damaging the capacity of natural capital to provide food, medicine, purify water, control floods and more. “Since natural capital as such should be kept intact, strong sustainability calls for aggressive policies to combat global warming”. According to this view, held by proponents of strong sustainability, seeing as natural capital cannot be substituted, “global warming has to be prevented quite regardless of the costs of doing so”. The question Neumayer asks is: But is it really true that damages to natural capital cannot be compensated for with higher consumption levels?

                To conclude, we can ask ourselves the following question- if substitutability is the key issue and discounting is not, then what steps need to be taken to manage global warming? Strong sustainability calls for stringent CO2 emission abatement policies whilst weak sustainability calls for lenient abatement policies. Both strong and weak sustainability have negative and positive propositions.  The question Neumayer asks is which of these proponents are correct? I think the answer to this question depends on whether future generations will value natural capital or consumption more.

A Critique of the Main Ideas that Influence the way that Americans Think about Politics

The constitution of the United States was created by a group of great liberal men like James Madison with the aim of constructing a nation state that would primarily reject tyranny; that would be based on individual freedoms and rights, and equality of men. This was the first Liberal state in the world that was born arguably purely out of liberalism, without having to fight for the ideal or undergo a revolution- “With freedom thus a matter of birthright and not of conquest” (Schlesinger, 1962) America is hence an extraordinary modern Liberal state. The average “American assumes liberalism as one of the presuppositions of life”. (Schlesinger, 1962) The most significant of modern liberal ideas that influence the way that Americans think about politics are arguably Liberty and individual rights; equality of opportunity and democracy. It is these three ideas that this essay will in brief describe and critique in the modern context.

                The first part of this essay will attempt to describe in simple terms and evaluate the idea of liberty and individual rights.  Firstly I would like to justify the reason why this essay chooses to talk about liberty as one of its significant ideas that influence the way that Americans think about politics. The main reason is that the United States constitution commences with the statement that: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union (…) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.(U.S  Constitution) Early liberty in the United States was described as: one is truly free when one is free to do what one wants without intervention- however Thomas Jefferson another founding father added that “If I do not hurt anyone else, I should be free to pursue my own will”(Brooks, 2008). Jefferson also believed that a wise government is one that only interferes by preventing men from hurting one another (Brooks,2008). Even though the idea of liberty has changed since then, two thirds of American citizens “define freedom in terms of doing what they want, being able to make their own choices, or having liberty in speech and religion”(Brooks,2008).  The American nation stands as a big symbol for freedom- however turns of events in the last nine years has begged the question- to what degree has freedom and individual rights influenced American politics in recent years?

                There have been major discussions about how the American state has undermined civil liberties since the war on terror began. Various episodes such as ; a couple getting arrested on the grounds of having an American flag hung upside down on their porch to show dislike of the Iraq war (News ABC 13, 2007) have shown the weakening of individual rights- for this couple was arrested purely in demonstrating opinion with no aggression.  Also tightening of security and increased state control has also arguably decreased the freedom of people to some degree. However, one of the major topics which lead this critique on this American ideal is the legalization of torture as an interrogation technique brought forward by the Bush Administration. This can possibly be the first time in which an American government has “agreed to set aside the provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights” (World Socialist Website, 2006). Alongside the validation of torture, some laws were released which permit the president to appoint any one as an “unlawful enemy combatant,”(World Socialist Website,2006) who can be imprisoned for an indefinite period without any legal choice. Because of the flexible understanding of the Bush administration as to “what constitutes ‘hostilities’, this definition has the potential to erase any legal distinction between an actual Al Qaeda terrorist, an Arab immigrant who makes a charitable donation to Lebanese relief, and an American college student who clashes with police during a protest demonstration against the Iraq war.”(World Socialist Website,2006)  This may sound farfetched; however the war on terror has resulted to some degree on the American government in bringing forth methods which have been conventionally used in Police states. To the same effect the American Civil Liberties Union has held that “this wave of anti- terrorist activity, all in the name of national security, also launched one of the most serious civil liberties crises our nation has ever seen”(Delsch, 2008). However, it is important to keep in mind that American Illiberality cannot be blamed solely on the war on terror because the government has undermined domestic liberties before: predominately in inter-state wars.

When critiquing the Ideal of Liberty, I am of the opinion that it all comes down to how one perceives liberty- if you are a positive librettist and think that by further state control your liberties will be enhanced or whether you think the state power should be minimized to only keeping national order. This would explain that by the state in maximizing control- and reducing civil liberties with the war on terror- it could hypothetically be increasing your liberties – however if you take the negative liberty stance- then you will think that your liberties are being minimized with so much state control. Another small example for why this philosophical critique is important is by looking at the right to bear arms. If you are a negative librettist- you would be more likely to think that one should be allowed to bear arms- and if you were a positive librettist you would be more likely to disagree on the rights to bear arms.

So as I have criticized how the land stamped with the great symbol of liberty has Undermined civil liberties and rights, I have also explained that this coin is two sided- and the critique on this matter will depend on the individual criticizer itself- i.e. if I were a positive librettist I wouldn’t criticize America to such a great degree on increasing state control for the countries security.

Now moving on to the second part of this essay, where Equality of Opportunity, another highly disputed idea which influences American political thought will be briefly illustrated and analyzed. The concept of Equality has always been fundamental since the formation of the United States. In 1776 it was written in the American Declaration of Independence that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” (MacKenzie, 2005) Even though the concept of equality has changed greatly in the last centuries- there is a common shared thought about the importance of equality in providing justice. The concept of equality that the American nation (as well as most western democracies (Mackenzie, 2005)) lives by is the idea of equality of opportunity. This requires that “all persons in a society have an equal chance or prospect of securing the important social and political goods” (Mackenzie, 2005) such as education and the right to vote. Equality of opportunity also entails that everyone should be able to reach high positions of social and political prestige, “authority and great financial reward” (Mackenzie, 2005) without discrimination when it comes to race, social background and sex. America is known in theory, but not in practice for carrying the big name of the Land of Opportunities and the conception of the American Dream.

                Equality of opportunity is a respected and arguably an active concept, that had a woman, Hillary Clinton and afro-Americans run for president from both sides of the political spectrum this last election, and had Barack Obama win the election as president on the 4rth of November 2008. Even though African-American men gained the right to vote in 1870 and women in general later in 1918, it was after the 60’s that major changes towards equality of opportunity were seen: gender barriers have broken since then with women “now able to pursue most of the same economic and political opportunities as men” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) and “racial segregation and exclusion were no longer legal or socially accepted” (Jacobs, et al, 2004). However, it can be argued that even though the American nation has become more integrative, and equality has spread within society to different races, sex and ethnicity; there is a growing gap in income and wealth. There isn’t just a gap between the so called rich and poor, “but also between privileged professionals, managers, and business owners on the one hand, and the middle strata (...) on the other hand” (Jacobs, et al, 2004). The rich one and two percent have generally become even richer and the people in the middle class are struggling to keep their middle class position with two working parents. According to the American Political Science association the middle class families that struggle even more are the families which are head by a woman, African Americans and Latinos (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  This leads us to the next point which shows that there are still racial, ethnic and gender cleavages. Statistics hold that the average “white household earned 62 percent more income and possessed twelvefold more wealth than a median black household” (Piketty, et al, 2003). Even though African- Americans and other races were emancipated by the Civil Rights era, there is still a huge gap between them and the white America. (Jacobs, et al, 2004)

Undeniably women, Afro-Americans and other minorities like Latinos have gained equality for they can now vote, everyone can engage in education for its widespread and integrative. Today you also have women and afro-Americans working in all sectors. Nevertheless, women still get paid up to 25,000 dollars less (Vanderbilt University, 2007)  for the same job of a man, and Afro-Americans have it even worse in most cases. As I perceive this, there is definitely not the same chance for a white male and the rest of the population to succeed. So should the American nation hold the beacon of Land of opportunities or advertise the idea of the American dream which can be a reality for white American men, but that remains a dream to the majority of the nation?  Is equality of opportunity then a central idea that influences American political thought in practice? 

The third and last part of this essay will move onto describing and assessing the concept that Americans have proudly attempted to spread onto other nations. This is the notion of Democracy. This concept originated in Ancient Greece. The word Democracy comes from ‘Kratos’ meaning power or rule and the word ‘demos’ meaning people- hence democracy at its simplest means ‘rule by the people’ (Heywood, 2007). Democracy has developed to a significant degree through time- for instance from classical democracy, to developmental democracy. However, to understand the common understanding of democracy in America, one only needs to look at Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech in 1864. Lincoln “extolled the virtues of what he called ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’” (Heywood, 2007). However various modern political thinkers such as Noam Chomsky have found themselves suggesting that America is not a government, ‘of’, ‘by’ and ‘for’ the general public , but a government ‘of’, ‘by’ and ‘for’ a specific group of people: the rich elite.

Americans, according to opinion polls “accept considerable disparities of income and wealth” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) however, Americans in general celebrate that in theory everyone has “equal voice in representative government” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) because it is a right that belongs with everyone in spite of social and ethnic background and  sex. However, 90% of those who earn over 75,000 dollars per year claimed they have voted in elections, while just half of those who earn less than 15,000 dollars per year claimed to vote (Jacobs, et al, 2004). Interestingly up to 66% of those who didn’t vote said that “public officials don’t care about what people think” (Jacobs, et al, 2004) as their reasons for not voting. What is more interesting is that there is some truth to what these 66% of the people are suggesting: there is undemocratic action going on at every level in governments, and parties. Such actions include laws which prohibit current and former prisoners to vote, and more importantly, (What I shall concentrate on), how political parties and campaigns “focus their resources on citizens who are affluent and are already active politically.” (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  The reason why this happens is primarily because of donations. More affluent people are in the positions to make donations to their parties of choice when in power and when campaigning; in fact 95% of the people giving donations are generally from the richest households of the nation (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  In return for the donations the donators get a chance to express their opinions in a way that the average American cannot. This undemocratic phenomenon happens primarily because both the major parties (Democrats and the Republicans) are extremely reliant on “campaign contributors and activists, and have gotten used to competing for just over a half of a shrinking universe of voters” (Jacobs, et al, 2004).  Also, because the less affluent are much less likely to vote, the parties concentrate their campaigns, and to some degree policies, on the better off in society because, they will be more likely to vote for them. Because of these pressures on the parties :

“Citizens with lower or moderate incomes speak with a whisper that is lost on the ears of inattentive government officials, while the advantaged roar with a clarity and consistency that policymakers readily hear and routinely follow” (Jacobs, et al, 2004).                                                      

I think to some degree the poor and the worse off are in fault for this phenomenon- it is true that they must get unmotivated because (as mentioned before) they feel like they aren’t listened too- however only 3% (Jacobs, et al, 2004) of the worse off take part in non expense marches and demonstrations- this means that the badly off are in fault to some degree as well, since they don’t take initiative. 

As a non-American Citizen, after analyzing briefly the concept of democracy as the Americans see it and the current reality of the situation of democracy- this is how it appears to myself- there seems to be a vicious circle, where the worst off aren’t voting, which is “the most obvious means for Americans to exercise their rights of citizenship”(Jacobs, et al, 2004). Because they are not voting, the parties don’t bother to focus on the constituency, and hence the parties don’t provide attention to the worst off, and in turn the electorate doesn’t feel they want to vote. If something doesn’t happen to break this cycle, it may, and will probably spiral into bigger divides. America is prematurely attempting to Spread the ideal they so believe in, since they haven’t mastered the concept themselves.

                In summary, Americans are driven by these liberal ideals of Liberty, equality of opportunity and democracy, that as we have seen, in practice, they are flawed. It is fair to say that they do influence the way that Americans think about politics, however because of the flaws, they only influence to a certain extent. The nation must be applauded for attempting to live by these ideals, however I am of the opinion that the US, should not carry big names like the ‘Land of Opportunity’, or the ‘American Dream’ and even more so, it should not attempt to spread democracy to other states like to the Iraq, when they themselves don’t live in a active democracy.