After last week’s Machiavellian reasoning behind realism, I was very much looking forward to our discussions about liberalism. My mind rang bells of life, liberty, and opportunity! Yet, by the end of the week, I realized that the liberalist notion of a “new imaginary of sovereignty as inhering in the people” is anything but simple (O&R, 99).
When a nation has faith in the people, it trusts humanity’s strengths and weaknesses. When the class ticked off some drawbacks of liberalism on Tuesday, they pointed to our faults: fickleness (i.e. acceptance/rejection of laws), stubbornness (i.e. “slowness” in passing a bill), and dissatisfaction (i.e. freedom of speech). Despite these characteristics, the mere fact that they are essentially human may strengthen a country’s character. If it makes any sense, the noise of media sources is truer than any one imposed truth. Freedom of expression lets the populace agree to disagree. Yet, when the majority does harmonize, it is powerful. Take for instance, the in-class mentioned example of America’s speedy reaction to 9/11. Though Bush may/may not have had his own motives for entering Iraq, it was a liberal act because most people were united by fear and pride.
 |
| What does it take to hold up the world? |
Cooperation pulled through garnering at least some (maybe not the best) solution, and the collaboration of many cultures, opinions, etc. has worked well for America over the years. Yet, after we discussed the uninformed/informed voting issue, I realized that we are biased by history. As Alyssa M. pointed out, “we all know why poll taxes and literacy tests make us jumpy; they have long been instruments used to serve racist purposes,” in the same way, well-to-do citizens like liberalism because it is America’s system.
It makes me question whether we would feel the same way if we were from another country, and if liberalism is the best state for all countries. If certain nation-states had the capacity to develop, would liberalism still work? How about nation-states which are not used to liberalism and states with different cultural norms? Mr. Bame noted China’s growing influence in the world. Though it has some capitalist tendencies, by no means is it referred to as “liberal.” If China rose using a different path than liberalism, then who is to say that liberalism is the only way? Even more, what measures “success”? Happiness?
~ See some of Alyssa's points at http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/09/reflection-week-4.html
No comments:
Post a Comment