A cinematic concern?

For decades, movies have been one of the essential components of our global popular culture. During a time when entertainment is both in high demand and great supply, we find ourselves immersed in a cycle of anticipation, enjoyment, and critical review. The line "I can't wait for that new movie to come out" is often followed by "I want to buy this when it's released on DVD" or "What a waste of money!" Films can even help us to improve our personal situations, for they allow us to see new perspectives and similarities with our own lives, spend time with people we care about, and find new ways to experience true joy and happiness.

  Movies have such a powerful impact because of the energy which they can channel into us. Though characters and events may be fictional, the emotions and feelings invoked enter our minds with the same power as the ones which we encounter in our own lives. When we root for our favorite character, feel great joy about a scene, or cry in front of a screen, we are being affected by vibes from the given movie.

  Indeed, the energy of a film can have positive and negative effects on us. It can inspire us to do better or provide a perceived justification for our imperfection. Movies can bring us in the direction of calm and comfort, or desensitize us and lower our defenses against the evil which we find in our own world. The type of film that we choose to watch can, in practice, contribute to who we will ultimately become.

  Unfortunately, many of us have been misled to think that a movie is solely meant for providing entertainment and enjoyment. We want films that stimulate our minds with what is, essentially, the equivalent of junk food. These movies carry a kind of energy which evokes dark and unhealthy emotions in us, such as high suspense, horror, and anger.

  The film industry has adapted to the popular demand by producing movies which are designed to disgust, incite, and scare us. Films based on moral value are largely ignored and even held in contempt, while dessert movies with repeating plots and themes gain most of our attention. And while it is true that they can include virtuous elements (for example, the fight between good and evil), this matters little if we only focus on the sugar.

  Individually, we are often attracted to unhealthy films by curiosity. Recently, my family and I saw a film that was filled with darkness, manifested in the physical forms of carnage, hatred and the widespread loss of life. After deeply regretting this, we were reminded that our natural inquisitive instincts are very difficult to overcome, and it’s often best not to start such a movie in the first place.

  While we are very susceptible to both curiosity and all kinds of energy, we also have instincts of identifying right and wrong. All of us are able to tell when we are watching something we shouldn't be. We can choose to turn a movie off, but more importantly, we can discern between movies of good and evil, and reject the latter. If all of us take advantage of our gifts, we might not encounter as much cinematic filth in the future.

  Films don't do us any good when they promote antagonism, pride, and a need for revenge. Rather, we should launch a new revolution in film, one in which sympathy and morality will be restored as key elements. It would be great to experience future generations of film-making, when a movie's potential to turn us towards true happiness and peace can be fully realized.

The future of movies is something which we should all be concerned about, for films will have a great impact on our society's direction. As an integral part of our culture, movies can have a powerful influence on us. Because of this, we need to work to ensure a positive outcome for ourselves and our descendants.

Alone in the playground?

   In an elementary school playground, there are many different children in one area, many of whom are pursuing their own agendas. Some are there simply to play, while others seek to bully and intimidate. Many of the children want to make new friends for mutual benefits, and a few others might want to do so in order to manipulate and control. By far, the greatest force for good in a playground is the child who has the ability and the motivation to protect his or her classmates from persecution.
   Today's global order resembles such a place. Some countries project power and influence only in their respective regions. Other countries are non-aligned, and they try to abstain from any kind of political contention or military conflict. Another type of nation seeks to build working friendships and alliances with its neighbors for mutual benefit and self defense. And yet another country wants to use its economic and military might to promote peace and prosperity across the globe.
   What we often forget, however, is that our world is also filled with countries which bully their neighbors for their own gain. When denouncing Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated that "you just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text." Indeed, Kerry and others like him seem to believe that aggression and domination on a foreign policy level are things of the past. The fact that Western nations have adopted standards of peaceful co-existence doesn't mean that other countries necessarily have. And those nations which bully, manipulate and intimidate others on a global scale are not deterred by rhetoric, any more than a school bully is fazed by someone telling them to "stop".
   Therefore, the only way to enforce peace and security is for there to be a nation or group of countries dedicated to doing so. This role, effectively created after World War II, has been filled by the United States. Since 1945, the US and its allies have constituted the primary force involved in confronting communism, international terrorism and rogue nations.
   Yet, the United States is also a traditionally isolationist country. Sheltered from much of the world's strife by two large oceans, the US kept to itself for much of the 19th century. While Americans did start to emerge on the world stage after the Spanish-American War, they retreated back into isolationism twice during the 20th century: once in the 1920s and 30s and again (mildly) in the late 1970s.
   Today, America has entered a new period of isolationism. Perceiving the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to be lost, and believing that domestic concerns outmatch foreign ones, more and more Americans want their country to "mind its own business". The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan, relative inaction on the part of the United States to events in Ukraine, Eastern Asia and the Middle East, and the weakening of US support to Egypt, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Thailand all suggest an ongoing retreat from world affairs. If future events unfold based on current trends, it is conceivable that the United States will retreat to the sidelines and silently watch as turmoil and conflict sweep the rest of the globe.
   In order to more fully understand our new era of isolationism, we can look back at a similar time during the 1930s. The destruction and horrors of the First World War created a great disillusionment for interventionism abroad within the United States, resulting in the period of isolationism which lasted for the next 20 years. Frightened by their experiences in the war, Americans wanted no part in the outside world's problems. The coming of the Depression in the 1930s only deepened this isolation; the United States did nothing to respond to German, Italian and Japanese aggression abroad while cutting itself off from foreign trade with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930). Paradoxically, this desperation to evade a European war helped lead to one. It was the inaction of Britain, France, the US and their allies that gave tyrants free reign to do anything they wanted.
   By leaving the global playground of the Interwar era, the United States left its friends to themselves. When they needed America most, their ally retreated. The bullies could do anything they wanted for a time, and they did so with vengeance. Without mercy, they terrorized everyone in the playground. Eventually, America did return and help to defeat them, but it was at great cost. This could've been avoided if the United States had never left.
   Isolationist sentiment is understandable. We live in a world where different people have opposing goals, norms and values, some of which conflict with each other. Safeguarding world peace is a daunting and seemingly-impossible task. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to defend the freedoms that many people worldwide can now enjoy. With the completion of this task far from our sight and far from present reality, it's difficult not to ask: Is this worth it?  Can't we just pull back and solve our own problems before solving the world's?  Why shouldn't we stick to ourselves and be alone in the playground?
   However, we must answer these questions in a way that will commit us to being involved internationally. Since the United States was first created, it has been committed to defending freedom at home and abroad. Americans from all walks of life and from all political, racial and social groups have given their lives so that we, today, can be free. Having received this precious gift, are we not obliged to work so that others throughout the world can enjoy it as well?  It is up to us to ensure that those who have served, some of whom have given their lives in the process, did not die in vain. Fighting for a good cause is rarely an easy task. It can take astronomical amounts of time and effort to do so. We are not justified in walking away from our obligations in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam when things don't proceed as quickly as we hope.
   The world beyond our shores is a difficult place to understand, and we often wonder why we have any kind of obligation to get involved there. Yet, there are people all over the world who need us. We have promised to be there for them and to support them against the threats which they face. Now, we need to live up to these pledges. We cannot possibly retire to the edge of the playground until our work is done. Our future, and that of the world, depends on it.

Works Cited:

• Kerry quote
• America's isolationism just hit a 50-year high
• Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930

Should the United States maintain a nuclear arsenal?

    The successful detonation of a nuclear bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945, and the subsequent destruction of two Japanese cities by this fearsome weapon, forever altered the equation of security in the world. In the short term these events contributed to an unconditional Japanese surrender, but in the long-term they have continued to impact international relations and global security all the way to the present day.

     Nuclear weapons can produce a yield measuring into the megatons, and can be delivered by land (intercontinental ballistic missiles or ICBMs), air (strategic bombers), and sea (submarines). The world’s foremost nuclear powers include the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, France, Israel (widely suspected) and North Korea. Currently, the United States and Russia have together enough warheads to completely destroy each other, if not the rest of the world as well. Even an exchange between India and Pakistan, both of which have arsenals of around 100, could conceivably lower global temperatures and rainfall, and perhaps cause the starvation of 2 billion people.

     Indeed, a nuclear war could quite possibly result in the eradication of humanity. It seems as though the fate of the world rests with a handful of politicians, military leaders, and programmers in the White House and the Kremlin. This view is frightening enough considering how many times the world has come close to an all-out nuclear war. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, a Soviet attempt to place warheads in Cuba in 1962 led to a tense military stand-off. As US President John F. Kennedy and Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev negotiated, American civilians feared that nuclear war was imminent and began preparing for such. Thankfully diplomacy won, and the crisis was “defused.”

     The case against nuclear weapons is compelling. To many people, the danger that these warheads pose is reason enough. Also cited are the environmental and economic costs of creating and maintaining a nuclear arsenal. The signing of the 1963 Test Ban Treaty, which banned all non-underground nuclear tests, was warranted by the destructive impact that these can have on our planet’s biosphere. From 1940 to 1996, the United States spent more than $5 trillion on its arsenal, the majority of it being on deployment. It is undeniable that nuclear arsenals require significant economic commitment on the part of a country’s government and citizens.

     However, nuclear weapons have attracted considerable support from those who believe that their existence has saved lives. To understand how, we need to revisit the final stages of World War II, when atomic bombs were used in warfare for the only such occurrence in history. There has been significant debate concerning the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. Significant evidence points to the fact that the use of these weapons on Japan brought about a quicker and less costly end to World War II. Alternatives to the use of atomic bombs on Japanese cities, such as atomic bomb demonstrations, are often invoked by the critics of President Truman’s “unethical” decision.

     The likelihood of demonstrations bringing about an unconditional surrender seems dubious at best, due to the fact that Japan already knew of the bombs’ existence (from the ultimatum issued at the Potsdam Conference). In fact, Japan had its own (though very unsuccessful) program to build a nuclear weapon. The Japanese already knew what the bomb was capable of, and if this knowledge wasn’t enough to bring them to terms, it seems unlikely that a demonstration would have.

    If the purpose of avoiding the use of atomic bombs was to save lives, the alternative of increased strategic bombing would have accomplished the opposite. America’s aerial bombardment of Japan during World War II resulted in the deaths of around half a million civilians, as well as the destruction of anywhere from 12% to 99% of 67 different Japanese cities. Furthermore, there is no indication that this tactic, which had been going on since 1944, would have brought about a Japanese surrender.

    An Allied invasion of Japan would have ended with many more lives lost than the atomic bombs due to extreme Japanese resistance. The ferocity and desperation with which the Japanese Military and civilians would have countered an invasion cannot be overstated. Evidence of the likelihood of this level of resistance in any invasion of the Japanese home islands can be seen from the fighting that happened earlier in 1945, notably at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. If American fatalities per square mile in an invasion of Japan had been just 5% of the corresponding losses at Okinawa, they would have reached 297,000 (along with an untold number of Japanese civilians and soldiers).

    Presumably, the purpose of avoiding the use of nuclear weapons would’ve been to preserve lives; like the other alternatives, Operation Downfall (the codename of the invasion) could not have successfully fulfilled this goal. Considering the circumstances, the use of nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities was the quickest and least deadly way to end World War II.

    Building on this, we must next examine the Cold War, in which the United States (backed by the West) faced off against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (with its client states in the East). Both of these superpowers were armed with nuclear arsenals measuring into the tens of thousands. The push of a wrong button or the rise in politics of a nuclear extremist could have resulted in the complete and thorough destruction of humanity.

    However, evidence supports the idea that the presence of nuclear weapons prevented major conventional wars. Student researcher Bleddyn E. Bowen examines the outcome of “A Cold War without Nuclear Weapons” in his essay of the same name, suggesting that in such a scenario, a Third World War would’ve been much more likely to occur. In order to come to this conclusion, he contrasts the philosophies of non-nuclear (conventional) and nuclear warfare. Bowen notes that the former “could be winnable in the eyes of the opposing sides, and the states could be more willing to test their opponent’s strategies and military technologies.”
     To put this into effect, one could paint the picture of a likely conventional war scenario just after the conclusion of the Second World War. The Soviet Union probably would’ve relied on its superior numbers to overrun Western Europe, while the United States and its Allies could have mobilized their stronger economies and employed strategic bombing to defeat their communist adversary. As seen, both sides would have had their strengths and weaknesses, as well as strategies to perfect. This is what makes conventional wars winnable, which is why they’ve been waged for thousands of years.

    On the other hand, nuclear warfare is not winnable. As of yet, no adequate defense has been designed by any nation against thousands of incoming nuclear warheads. The doctrine of Mutually-Assured Destruction (MAD) is based on “the irrationality of a suicidal war”. It was this idea that held the United States and the Soviet Union back during the Cold War years. Any direct conventional war would almost certainly escalate into a nuclear war, and as neither side could have emerged victorious in such a conflict, it was seen as illogical to pursue. In any confrontation, a country is much more likely to be deterred by threats of complete annihilation than by weak statements or economic sanctions.

     The historical and current situation in South Asia also supports the idea that nuclear weapons prevent major conventional wars. India and Pakistan are two rival neighbors who have been waging their own cold war since the late 1940s. These two countries fought direct wars in 1947, 1965 and 1971. In the 1970s, India developed its own nuclear weapons, resulting in Pakistan doing the same by 1999. Since then, the two nations have had near-war moments, such as that in 2002, when an attack on the Indian Parliament resulted in a military buildup and a nuclear crisis. They’ve also been engaged in minor and indirect warfare, notably in the disputed region of Kashmir. However, there have been no more direct Indo-Pakistani wars. This is due to the so-called stability-instability paradox, when nuclear weapons decrease the chance of major conventional wars but increase the risk for small-scale conflicts.

     The idea helps explain why the United States and the Soviet Union never directly fought each other, but instead clashed through proxy wars in Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia. While these wars were destructive and resulted in enormous suffering, a full-scale conventional Third World War between two modern superpowers would have likely resulted in far more severe loss of life and destruction in the short-term. This isn’t to mention the long-term problems that often result from major conventional wars; many of the above-mentioned conflicts were caused by the First and Second World Wars.

     The existence of nuclear weapons has consistently saved lives and served as a deterrent to massive conventional wars. That is why they are essential; if our purpose is to promote stability and preserve life, the United States must continue to maintain a nuclear arsenal.

     The opposing side of this argument does have serious legitimate concerns. Nuclear weapons must be used responsibly, and they need to be regulated and limited to decrease the possibility of a nuclear war, whether accidental or not. At the same time, it is imperative that we continue to store, deploy, and test these weapons with respect to the environment. Efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union (later Russia) to sharply reduce the number of deployed and active warheads have had the positive effect of decreasing economic costs and limiting the impact of a potential nuclear war.

     However, we still live in an increasingly dangerous world. Rising powers such as Russia and China are actively upgrading and expanding their nuclear arsenals, and they have no indication of depriving themselves of the deterrent. At the same time, rogue states, notably Iran and North Korea, are unpredictable and could sell or use nuclear weapons to threaten not only their neighbors, but the United States as well. Because of this, it is essential that we here in the West give up our perfect world mentality and accept that this is not reality. If our government achieved unilateral nuclear disarmament, foreign powers will be able to either use blackmail to force the United States to accept certain agreements, or launch a first-strike without fear of retaliation. Such a situation would be even worse than multilateral global disarmament. Nuclear weapons level the playing field; Russia, China, and other countries understand this, which is why they will not yield their weapons in the foreseeable future.

    Perhaps, if we as humans ever lose our tendencies of resorting to violence to solve problems, the abolition of nuclear weapons would have a positive effect. Until then however, they are our best option for maintaining global security, limiting the scope of conflicts, and preserving human life.

Works Cited

Ask not what your country can do for you...

   "My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." These unforgettable words from John F. Kennedy make up some of the greatest advice that a President of the United States has ever given. Indeed, millions of Americans today continue to follow this advice by serving their country and its people first, rather than themselves. These genuine citizens include countless leaders and politicians who work to protect our freedoms and keep the American Dream as a reality for the present and the future.
   Unfortunately, the history of the United States is filled with instances in which certain leaders have not followed this counsel. Though expected to serve our country and its people faithfully and honestly, a considerable number of politicians have acted and continue to act corruptly, exercising power for their own gain. Rather than working for the country, they want the country to work for them. Political corruption, one of the greatest fears of the Founding Fathers, began on a large scale with the Spoils System of Andrew Jackson (1829 to 1837). This lasted all the way through the Gilded Age, and was characterized by small groups of powerful men meeting in back rooms in sealed-off buildings, making decisions such as the Compromise of 1877 that affected the entire country.
   Political corruption in our time, however, started with the era of the New Deal. It was around this time that traditional values in American society - such as expectations of honesty, hard work, and diligence (those advocated for by people such as Herbert Hoover) began to fall out of favor. They were ultimately replaced by a new philosophy, one that emphasized the belief that one could not solve their own problems without direct outside intervention. As a result, many Americans began to see the government as an essential centerpiece of their existence, a source of aid and relief during hard times.
   That change in philosophy enabled the rise of the new Spoils System, which continues to this day. This form of political corruption, unlike the old one, has substantial protection because of the near-universal acceptance of the belief that the government needs to have a significant role in our lives (though the size of this role is under constant debate). Advocates of the new system bring their ideas and their promises of assistance directly to the American people, creating the illusion that these politicians and leaders are here to help us.
   As a result, full-blown political corruption is a hardly-visible problem in modern America. Whether local or national, a growing number of leaders are in power to serve themselves, rather than our country. Their method of gaining and retaining power is simple: they exploit dark feelings and motives within people, such as greed, resentment, and sorrow. By doing so, they are able to accomplish two key goals. First, the bitterness and hostility which come out of these emotions pit us against each other, keeping us divided and unwilling to recognize the greater problem. Second, spoiled leaders capitalize on all of this to get themselves into office, and end up with a sizable voting bloc to preserve their power.
   As a result, many spoiled politicians in the United States have had considerable success in taking advantage of racial, ethnic, gender and socioeconomic differences and the accompanying emotions (explained above) to accomplish those two goals. This is why we see most members of one minority group voting for one party, different social classes voting for another, and a considerable number of other Americans selecting their leaders based on their personal status, rather than their values or those of the candidates. Nowadays, many of us tend to fill in the box next to a candidate based on that individual's skin color, gender, or amount of wealth rather than their values and vision for our nation.
   Many of us also succumb to our own material and fiscal wishes when making choices on election day. Rather than inquiring "what will this person do for our country?", we sometimes ask "what will this individual do for me?" By opting for the latter, we are ignoring President Kennedy's advice, for voting is not merely a privilege; it is a duty that we must exercise responsibly to serve our country.
   Why is this so? By dropping a piece of paper into a ballot box, we are deciding on an individual or a policy which could preserve or destroy the future. Wise and well-guided voting is an essential element of a successful democracy, and if we fail to do it correctly, we will be jeopardizing our descendants' opportunities, safety, and freedoms.
   However, if we vote for genuine people who share our values and want to serve our country, rather than themselves, we will be preserving our own chances for success as well as those for our children and descendants. Americans who vote based on what their country can do for them will often stay in the same spot. Yet, people who are committed to the values of hard work, self-government and perseverance are much more likely to prosper, both in the short-term and in the long-term.
   In the interests of preserving our democracy and our country, as well as our own opportunities and those of our children, it is imperative that we follow John F. Kennedy's advice and ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country.

Bibliography:

• John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address           

Is this era defined by success or stagnation?

As interpreters and students of history, we tend to easily classify and define other historical time periods. As an example, we look to the Renaissance as an era of artistic achievement and innovation, while we view the 1930s as a time of economic failures, physical hardships and governments of totalitarianism. But how do we define what future readers will find in our chapter of the history book? What many of us don’t think about is that we, too, are part of history. Our “Modern Era”, as we call it, won't be so “modern” a century from now. Our descendants will be analyzing us, our society, culture and choices just as we are currently observing the characters who led nations through the devastating world wars of the 20th century. As such, will our descendants, the future historians, politicians and idealists of our world, view our time as a Golden Age of prosperity and peace, or a Dark Age of human backwardness and conflict?

  Let’s start by defining the “modern era”. In order to do this, we must identify the events that ushered in the changes that shape our era. The world’s current political, economic, technological and cultural order has been relatively uniform going back to the end of the Cold War; before this, those systems were very different. Using the Cold War era as a point of comparison, and knowing that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that helped the world transition to current trends, we can presume that the modern era starts with the downfall of Soviet communism and totalitarianism, around 1990. This means that the modern era encompasses the last 25 years or so.

  Now that we know what the Modern Era exactly is, we can analyze whether our time has been an era of prosperity or one of failure. In order to do this, we need to ask and then analyze three more questions: First, is prosperity (the common characteristic of all happy historical times) spreading or receding? Second, are we committed to confronting our problems, or do we shy away from them? Third, can we follow up on our past success, or will we repeat past failures? The answers to these three questions will tell us whether or not we have the ability to create and maintain a time of greatness for our current world.

  Is prosperity advancing or retreating? Let’s look at a common indicator: economics. In this area, once-developing nations appear to be leading the way, while the West, for the most part, has stalled. Consider China, which was a somewhat impoverished country in the late 1970s. Before that time, the PRC was under the control of Mao Zedong. At that time, China’s economic growth was only 3% per year. However, since then, Chinese economic growth has sped up to be about twice that of America’s. In fact, the Chinese GDP has risen so fast in such a short span of time that it is projected to surpass the GDP of the United States within the next decade. Other developing Asian countries, such as India and Indonesia, are also experiencing high economic growth rates. Meanwhile, the expansion of the “advanced” economies of western nations has slowed way down in the last several years. On average, western economic growth is below the world average, and might amount to as little as 1/3 of Asian growth. On top of this, the national debts of western nations are skyrocketing: Britain, France, Germany and the United States combined have a grand total debt as high as $35 trillion. The United States alone just surpassed the $18 trillion mark. Though we aren’t yet feeling the effects of this unacceptable level of western spending, it is logical that we will be in the next few years. One cannot keep borrowing money without paying it back and expect to avoid the consequences.

  None of this is to say that the progress of non-western nations is a problem; on the contrary, their economic growth and development towards capitalist economies and stable nations have been very positive, an example that western countries ought to follow. Rather, I am pointing out these facts to compare how western civilization is beginning to fall behind developing nations in the area of economic growth. As such, it seems that non-western nations are moving closer to prosperity, while in the west, this spread has stagnated, and as seen in the 2007 Global Recession, is often receding.

  Are we committed to confronting the challenges that we face? An important factor on the ability to do so is our popular culture; rather than emphasizing what’s right or what’s important, it often encourages us to do “fun” things that make us “happy”. Because this often takes the form of one discarding social norms and values, a significant portion of our population sees this “self-expression” as “liberating”. As the topic of what constitutes a good culture goes beyond the purpose of this essay, it would need to be addressed in a potential future essay. Rather, I want to show how our cultural norms of ignoring reality and responsibility are leading to the failure of many of us to react to the problems that we face, as a nation and a world, today.

  For starters, it makes sense to point out that doing “what’s fun” is not as important or significant in the long term as doing what needs to be done. Too many people acknowledge and recognize that something is wrong with our current world, yet do nothing about it. They don’t want to be the ones who stand up and fight back against the forces that threaten our future. Many of us reluctant fighters would rather hide in our comfortable hole, sheltered from the problems around us, and distract ourselves with entertainment or reassuring thoughts. However, the issues that the world faces today won’t disappear by themselves - just as how one's failure to brush their teeth won't make the reality of this choice vanish. In order for us living in affluence to preserve our status and help those who aren’t as fortunate, we need to be willing to confront the world’s problems rather than pretend that they don’t exist. This is something that we can all work on. If we won’t, we will lose everything that our forefathers fought for. If we have a lasting reputation for losing all the progress that our society has made, our time would likely be marked as one of failure, and we would be seen as responsible.

  Can we follow up on the triumphs of those who came before us? Today, as throughout human history, the world has no shortage of security threats - terrorism, rogue states, and vicious, cunning dictators all pose a problem for future prosperity and peace. Yet, our leaders react to these problems by downsizing our militaries, cancelling projects that would have increased our level of safety, and decreasing our defensive spending? As mentioned in past essays and as proven throughout history, powerful nations that shy away from their potential and fail to improvise will ultimately stagnate and eventually fall. Consider essentially every great empire that dominated its region in the era in which it existed. There were, to name a few, the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Mongols. There was also the British Empire, Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, and even the Russian Empire and later Soviet Union. What did all of these historical world powers have in common? They rose to power by improvising, or in other words, by exercising a new kind of warfare that enabled them to defeat their neighbors and dominate the land around them. At the same time, they all fell from power because they failed to follow up. None of these civilizations continued to pull more rabbits out of a hat. Instead, these groups of people sank back down and were overtaken by others, who went on to repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors. This is a very common trend for how history has played out. Virtually no world power continued to stay in its position indefinitely.

  This is not to suggest that there is no possibility of the west remaining on top - in fact, I’m trying to say the exact opposite. If we work diligently, keep building on what we have, labor to keep that which has served us well in the past (and what can help us succeed in the future), and believe in our own cause, then not only can our civilization continue to exist in peace and prosperity, but also, the rest of the world will be able to do so as well (or, at least, get closer to this objective). Is the world better off under the influence of a civilization that, more than anyone else (and even if not perfect in this pursuit), advocates for freedom, equality, justice and opportunity? Or would we rather find ourselves under the control of a ruthless dictator who stomps liberty and the pursuit of happiness under their feet? No matter what alternative we choose, if we work towards it diligently, it will become our reality.

  To conclude, the answer to the question of whether or not we are living in a time of success or stagnation needs to be left to the reader to decide for themselves. The three questions that I have raised regarding our current state, commitment, and ability to follow up on successes rather than failures are meant to guide us in deciding whether we, as a society, are moving forward or falling behind. More importantly, our personal answers to these questions will help us predict whether the future will be marked by success or stagnation. After all, our actions right now are the first steps taken to create or destroy the future. Will our descendants remember us well for giving them a secure and hopeful world, or will they be disappointed in us for allowing them to inherit a world marked by a dark age of failure?

Bibliography:

• Understanding China’s Growth: Past, Present, and Future
• Crowning the Dragon
• Unemployment rates for June 2013 in US and around the World
• Global Firepower Index

A Political Deadlock

100 years ago, the deadly and global conflict now known as the First World War was just barely getting started. In northeastern France, one of the most dramatic military stalemates in history had formed, a situation that would lead millions of fighting men to their graves and completely change the way that humans viewed warfare. Only a few months earlier,  the citizens of every single major European state had been eagerly anticipating war, unable to wait for the chance to prove themselves and their great nations. Yet, the First Battle of the Marne, fought near Paris in late 1914, dashed all hopes of this “quick victory”. The next four years would bring death and destruction on a scale unmatched by any previous war. The ultimate results included the destruction of empires, the political rebalancing of the European Continent, and the perfect conditions for the next great war: World War II.

I share this history not only in centennial remembrance of that destructive conflict, but also to draw a parallel to the political warfare being waged in the United States today. Though the contest for control of the United States has resulted in very few deaths, it has become just as vicious in terms of the backstabbing, hatred, hostility and futile battles prevalent in Washington. Furthermore, the ultimate outcome of this war (no matter who, if anyone, wins) will decisively affect our future. In this essay, I hope to draw an accurate picture of the current political deadlock in the United States, and how the competing forces work. Regardless of one’s political affiliation or nationality (after all, your country probably has a similar problem to ours), this essay is meant to describe what is happening in the national capital, not to decide who is right or wrong.

This political deadlock is one of the unfortunate results of America’s two-party system. Whether this political architecture has proved (overall) to be a benefit or a burden to American democracy is unclear; supporters often note that it makes politics “more exciting” and helps maintain a delicate balance, while opponents suggest that the system is divisive and blocks progress. George Washington predicted this outcome and advanced his opinion in his Presidential Farewell Address of 1796. Recognizing the political “domination”, rivalry, and “spirit of revenge” (Washington’s Farewell Address) that result from competing political parties, Washington tried to convince Americans to prevent the formation of such factions.

Our history and current events show that Americans, for better or for worse, did not take Washington’s advice. With the exception of the Era of Good Feelings (roughly 1815-1825 following the War of 1812), virtually every period in our country’s history has had its share of factions and political warfare. One party’s fall gave way to the rise of another. One party’s immediate triumph would later end in disaster, and vice versa. With the exception of the brief undisputed reign of the Democratic-Republican Party (during the Era of Good Feelings), no single political party has completely and unilaterally handled the reins of power. While one party tends to hold a majority of the power, this can and often does reverse at any moment.

As such, we can see where George Washington was going with his warnings: America today finds itself bitterly divided by endless partisan warfare. The media and mass democracy are to politics what the machine gun was to World War I. In that deadly war, when either side launched a charge into no-man’s land, it would often quickly become bogged down and ultimately dispersed. Similar to warfare, when one faction in American politics makes gains, those rarely make a permanent impact on the national political picture.

In 2006 and 2008, the Democratic Party made big congressional gains, largely due to public disapproval of George W. Bush. Yet, in 2010 the Republican Party took more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives, taking control of that chamber of Congress. More recently (last November), the Republicans kept control of the House and also captured the Senate. During Barack Obama’s time in office, Congress has been a fierce battleground with neither party able to get much done. Frustration with George Bush once aided the Democrats, but now frustration with Barack Obama is strengthening the Republican Party. The tide of public opinion and the performance of sitting officials effectively decides who wins many of the elections, and as a result of ever-changing political conditions, the United States faces a political deadlock. Neither party will be able to permanently achieve its goals if its “doughboys” are being blasted to pieces by political machine guns.

As a result of this stalemate, Americans need to find a way to help their respective parties emerge victorious without crawling out into no-man’s land. A partisan offensive in Washington D.C. by either party can result in short-term gains for one side, but will it settle the matter altogether? Endless political debates in our government are not going to solve our problems, as the 2013 Government Shutdown revealed.

To conclude, the answer to the question of how to end America’s political deadlock cannot simply be answered in this essay: it would require the creation of a complex strategy that I personally don't have. Rather, I hope to demonstrate the futility of using partisan political solutions to make permanent gains for a party/ideology. Perhaps if there were to be political equivalents to the Geneva Conventions on warfare where ad hominem tactics, straw-man attacks and informal fallacies were suppressed while upholding the freedom of speech, then such a solution might be possible. However, for the time being, our politics, as George Washington predicted, have become deadlocked, and the way out will require political tanks rather than soldiers charging and dying at the hands of machine-gunners.

Bibliography:

• George Washington's Farewell Address
• Washington (George) got it right
• Wikipedia