International Relations and Foreign Policy - Essay Example

International relations and foreign policy This paper considers the essays by Hillary Clinton, a democrat, and Mitt Romney, a Republican, in order toanalyse their ideas on international relations. It may be observed that politically motivated essays do not always fall within the purview of specific theories because they are almost always affected by rhetoric to a great extent. In their enthusiasm to drive home their points, both candidates have resorted to rhetoric that does not essentially allow us to categorise their stance within the limits of theories such as realism, liberalism, Marxism, constructivism, feminism etc. However, both the essays provide a lot of opportunities to analyse the distinct and differing attitudes of both the candidates. For example, the essay by Romney is based more on rhetoric when it is compared against the more balanced essays of Clinton. While Romney harps on the superiority of the Americans in all conceivable areas, Clinton is more realistic and accepts areas where the American faculty may be less exuberant than its diverse counterparts around the world. In this aspect, it may be seen that the Clinton is more realistic in her approach that Romney who employs a lot of rhetoric and fundamentalism in his analysis of the world and its relationship with the United States. Form the start of his essay; it is very clear that Romney is a presidential candidate who, if elected to be president, would like to exercise the powers of the presidency of the United States. His unbridled enthusiasm on the capability of the US war systems and his power talk on how the American state may force itself to achieve its goals, both internationally and domestically, betrays his urge to resort to the use of power even if the situation does not warrant it. In fact, he reflects the stance taken by the current president who has an unhealthy tendency of using power for means that can easily be solved through other less-violent means. It is an irony that Romney, who criticises the Russians as morally bankrupt, displays his lack of prowess in that very same faculty when he brazenly displays his urge to pulverise resistance to American ideologies and business needs from global players. He displays an impetuousness that was characteristic of communist leaders who led Russia some years before; the same impetuousness that has been displayed, and globally criticised, by the current president of the United States. Clinton on the other hand, is more modest about American achievements and correctly balances the achievements and follies that the nation has made in the years before. She is able to take a balanced stance, which may be as she rightly points at the beginning of the essay, because of her exposure as the leading lady of the United States. She is able to examine issues on their merit although it leaves a lot of doubt as to whether her ideas are always correct and up to the point. However, she makes a try as a matured and able politician to think in other peoples shoes and examine issues on the merit that it deserves rather than taking a fiery, hot-headed approach to all issues that needs tact and diplomacy. It may be seen that the policies advocated by both the candidates are not consistent when analysed within a theoretical purview. For example, Romney speaks like a communist when he criticises Russia and the need for America to embark on an expansion plan for arms. He becomes idealistic when he criticises the government saying that its foreign policies have faltered. He takes a liberal stance when he says that global challenges such as AIDS and poverty need to be addressed under the American leadership. (Mitt Romney. 2007). The same is the case with Clinton. She takes an totalitarian stance when she says that terrorists must be killed for the sake of the safety of the United States. She takes a liberal stance when she says that the rights of women need to be safeguarded. (Hillary Rodham Clinton. 2007). In fact, the fact that future leaders are using so many approaches to explain their ideas show that we have a set of thinking leaders who are capable of modifying their stance according to the requirements. We can be assured that we will have flexible leaders, leaders who are not bound by their ideologies that may seem foolish in certain circumstances. Although the essay is but a minor reflection of the many aspects of the candidates outlook, it must be said that the essays penned by the authors reflect their character and approach to issues at hand. While it must be said that more diverse issues have to be discussed in order to ascertain the true disposition and political will of the candidates in question, it is sufficient to allow us a glimpse of the inner feelings of the people who may be leading the United States one day. In order to conclusively brand the ideas of a person within available theories, the views and perceptions of the person on a wide variety of topics need to be analysed and commented upon. Since people can have differing views on various topics, it may not be justifiable to analyse the candidates merely on their stance on international relations. What can be best done is to assess the candidates based on their responses to the issues at hand. The ideas and perspectives that are displayed by the candidates in these two essays are a mixture of views and are not consistently limited to one ideology. For example, Romney, at the beginning of his article, is visibly exuberant and one-sided about his views. He justifies the current US government and tries to echo the feeling that the US has sanctioned military solutions in many parts of the world because of a genuine threat to the US state. While he criticises the Muslim world and their leaders for genocide and spreading terror, he does not even mention the atrocities perpetuated by Israel or other allies of the United States who are no better in the moral scale when comparing each others’ predisposition to extreme ideologies and violence. He categorically criticises other ideologies that are available in the world and vehemently tries to expose their non-viability in the new world order. At the same time, he is also exposing his inability to accommodate other perspectives and ideologies. Here he scores as a politician, but regrettably, fails as a statesman. However, at a later point of time, he devotes a small portion of his essay to illustrate the need to forge alliances in order to bolster peace and harmony in the world. Here, he sobers his attitude a bit and approaches the issue with realistic aplomb. For the first time in his essay, he discards the one-solution-only attitude of hardcore communists and starts speaking about political and ideological toleration. The case is not similar with Clinton. She begins her essay with a tone that is entirely different from Romney. While displaying the balance of a matured politician, she attacks the present government for depending too much on military solutions that has killed scores of people and has disrupted many families. She is realistic enough to criticise the American government, which has in its own way, displayed its military prowess and destructive capabilities to the world. She tries to break the myth that the US can solve issues through purely military solutions. She exudes courage that is characteristic of a realist and attacks issues that may often be uncomfortable to deal with in the light of values such as patriotism and other similar ideals. However, she also often slips into what could be described as America-centric rhetoric and often echoes the sentiment that America has to assume the position of a world leader. She assumes that the leadership position of the United States is unwavering and does not seem to be aware of the fact that the United States cannot always maintain its position at the top of the world. Here, her thoughts are more of a politician than a statesman. She is also idealistic at times and goes on to suggest solutions to problems that may seem impractical. Her ideas on joint environmental responsibilities and creating an international movement to contain the Taliban are based on pure idealism because it has been proved that the world leaders, at least at present are not interested in the environment and that the Taliban is not easily conquered on its home turf although they it be powerless internationally. She fails to notice that she needs to approach these issues with a new perspective and that the solutions that she is suggesting have already failed. She should know more than to merely repeat mistakes, be it for the sake of rhetoric, or for mature public acceptance. However the ideas expressed by the two candidates may be used as an outline to define the perspectives of the two candidates. While Romney is adamant about the need for America to possess and use power to enhance its stature in the international arena, Clinton is appreciative of the need for America to play a subdued, but more comprehensive role in solving internal and external issues. While Clinton demonstrates a realistic attitude that is based on co-operation and consensus, Romney has adopted a more totalitarian view similar to the communist ideology. In spite of the merit that these theories have in categorising the ideologies of people, it is not always advantageous to use the theory to analyse the candidates because of the fact that people tend to stereotype a candidate. Since the actual utterances at election campaigns are vastly different from the actions of candidates in real-life situations, a mere theoretical analysis of candidates may not be a good approach to assess them. I found Clintons essay more compelling because of its balanced outlook and maturity of views and ideas. Works Cited Romney, Mitt. Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges. 2007. 23 Oct. 2007 . Clinton, Hillary Rodham. Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century. 2007. 23 Oct. 2007 . Read More