America's External and Internal Political Issues - Term Paper Example

Question one. The actions of lance Armstrong are significant to the American government in various ways. The first one is that that when lance was diagnosed with a cancer he was in deep trouble, he could no longer cycle, he did not have a family of his own and chances of him surviving the cancer were dwindling day by day. i can compare the American situation to the lance Armstrong one. We are in a lot f trouble, politically, pollution destroying the ozone layer and the urgent need to get a new form of energy to replace oil among many other things. What did Armstrong do when he was in trouble? He realized that he was the most suited candidate to solve his own problems. He was positive about his treatment and the huddles he had to face. When he got through the cancer he set his life on track by getting a family and going back on the track. He then decided to give back to society by starting the Armstrong foundation to create cancer awareness. What is America doing? Its choosing other candidates to blame for its shortcomings. America has the capability to solve the political crisis in the Middle East and ensure the end of oil monopoly by dictators. America has the technological advancement to exploit clean energy for the whole nation but lacks appropriate financial strategies to do so. This goes to justify Friedman’s view that there is a great lack of strength and strategy on our part. The Chinese culture is one of hard work, commitment and discipline. This extends to all areas in their lives even socialization. We have seen the Chinese rise the ashes of a great recession and steadily climb up the ladder of development. This view is supported by the technological advancements, infrastructure, and health care and to an extent politics. What stands out is how they are raising their younger generations. Their education system focuses on technology as it is the future of most economic ventures, that right there is strategy. There leaders are not merely politically oriented. Most of them have a healthy education background encompassing not only arts but also sciences (the heart of technology) in contrast, it is only fair to conclude that much as America is currently more advanced than china it will not be long before tables are turned. Question two. The past few decades have seen china “develop” especially in the manufacturing sector. Imitations from china at first had given Nokia a run for their money. The problem with imitations however is that they lack the basic backup of research that original items have making them less competent and therefore less preferred. All imitations do to the world global market is to create an influx of products with few or no consumers to purchase them. Chinas politics also needs a change because politics plays the biggest role in economic management sector and this like in Libya can only be done be the younger generation who have a greater potential of being dynamic. Unlike china, America’s younger generation has redundant dynamism (in terms of change and development) this mainly because the “work smart” policy is slowly evolving to a “take the easy way out” policy. Like china, the pace America has adopted will lead to stunted growth. The main idea of having different political parties was to create the option of having different ideologies to run the country but as it stands none of the parties is being innovative enough in terms of governance and in solving these issues. Despite the hat and wallet metaphors, Freidman has indeed pointed out a looming tragedy. Question three I agree with Friedman that the bush regime did America the least justice. But that is not all. I blame the American people for letting this happen. To give such a regime 8 years of your life is ridiculously insane. A democracy gives its citizens the right to choose its leaders and that is what America should have done, chose a new leader in the face of calamity such as 9/11. In Friedman’s other article “learning from lance” he points the value of sacrificing now to have a better tomorrow. He also emphasized on strategizing. This decade of fun that has just passed is going to cost us more than we bargained for. Take a look at Obama trying to give Americans his version of a better health care bill, fighting with recession and terrorist threats, increase of gas prizes. One nation can only take so much before it cracks and all the loopholes in their strategies and other maneuvers intended to bar the sad truth are seen. I therefore agree with Friedman that Obama should tell the cold hard truth to the people. To tell the truth means accepting that so far, not so good and for us to get to good we have to do things we do not want to do. It is not too late to rectify our mistakes we a can still pay the $1 per gallon tax, cut down on the social security budget, reduce our dependence on oil and on the Middle East in general. A democracy is designed to be for the people, by the people but this comes with a price, when it fails the people get hurt. Not telling the truth is failing. Question four In the year 2006 on December 30th Sadaam Hussein was executed. This was the beginning of the world’s strife to end impunity caused by dictators in the Middle East. The second step towards a free middle east happened most recently. On 2nd May, 2011, Osama was killed by U.S Special Forces at his home in Abbotabad, Pakistan. I think the U.S is putting effort to see democracy in Arab nations sprout but the efforts are not enough; they are not helping it grow. In short U.S.A has done a commendable job but they can do better than that. There is so much more to democracy than getting rid of the person or object hindering it. A nation needs political reforms, financial and world support to attain democracy. Perhaps the greatest fear the Middle East has is that in a bid to help them with their political issues the U.S is just out to take control of their oil. In this case the best thing to do is to be a passive initiator of this journey to democracy. America should start by finding its own sources of energy and conserving whatever amount of oil they have in the country therefore reducing their dependence on the Middle East. There will be no conflict of interest when the U.S lashes out at those leaders in the Arab world to reform and embrace education for the girl child, more opportunities for the youth and healthy gainful interaction with other nations. It took the initiative of the youth in North Africa to open the eyes of a whole nation to the evils of Gaddafi, this shows that the Arab countries do not only have potential but full-fledged strength and authority to rid themselves off their dictator leaders. Question five. In my opinion if people start taking the tea kettle movement seriously, much as it is a good idea, it can only qualify to be a campaign slogan. There are various reasons that support this assumption. One of them is that all this is just talk and no action. The president and his delegates must read these things written on newspapers and magazines, hear the news, and view internet sites that criticize them. The sad thing is that even if that information is positive and constructive the government already has a predetermined plan on how to run its businesses and it is not about to drop that and adopt recommendations that might down play their strategies. In summary the current government is not about to change because of tea kettles. The second reason is that America is a democratic. Yes, most countries envy our liberal attitudes but they can be as destructive as they are constructive. Our leaders know this and so they try their best not to annoy the people who elected them even if it means keeping the truth from them. It is clear that America is heading towards needing an intervention to get back on its feet but very few people in government will admit this. Days when we had leaders bold enough to say “we are doing ABC and D, so that we can get to point X even if in doing so we will sweat, shed tears and blood.” So when Friedman says in his article that Americans want leaders with strategy he forgot to add that the strategy will involve a level of “pain” like raising taxes, over hauling immigration laws, cut on services such as social security, conserving resources, and Americans don’t like pain. Question six. No one expects a developed nation like America with all its technology to doubt the existence of global warming and its dangers. The atmosphere did not just wake up one day and say “I hate Texas so am going to turn up the heat in here!” or intentionally lowered the sun such that even in Africa there is drought and a rise in sea level. Global warming and climate change is not a hoax, it exists. Obama’s efforts are evident but let’s not forget the fact that there are people in his government who think that America is on the brink of climatic catastrophe. This shows that the government’s commitment to save the environment is riddled with many barriers. Then there are political issues such as the need to save face, most of the budget plans are made in such a way that it does not cost the president his political career. It is not the first time it has been pointed out that to save America the reforms need to be drastic and a bit uncomfortable to the people but all we can see is subtle, careful maneuvers. Treading softly is not what the Chinese are doing, they are reforming as fast as the climate is changing and they are not doubtful of their scientist’s interpretations and recommendations. Question seven. It is clear that the past eight years of being under a conservative did not feel conservative at all. Most of the political rules followed by the conservatives were broken and this is the main cause of our turmoil. That aside, focus is now being paid to what the democrat government can do for us. It is ironical how Obama’s regime is taking very conservative budget cuts and implementing policies that are not as drastic as the American people would want them to be. For instance the $447 billion job program fell short of many people’s expectations. As Friedman pointed out, it will not appeal to republicans. Some may argue that the president has a lot on his plate in terms of reforms. But the whole idea of being radical is to change fast and big. Then the issue of complications that may arise when we undertake very big changes all at once makes one take a step back. Financial time’s editorial points out that, voters need more than a strategy; they require “responsible attitudes to the countries challenges”. It is mind boggling that the G.O.P is still fixed on a non-tax reduction policy while it is as clear as it can be that a tax increase is the sacrifice Americans really need to make right now. Works Cited Friedman, Thomas. All Together Now. New York Times. August 28, 2011. Print Read More