Some of these may be observations rather then questions.
1. If Japan played a major part in US involvement in Korea, was it more so out of fear of a threat to the system or a need to preserve further spread of Communism? Did it also seem odd that only a few years after the war that Japan would regain regional hegemony with a few different conditions such as openness to trade?
2. This a broad point. Reading so far has led me to the conclusion that a system must be in play for reasonable stability. If this idea is somewhat recognizable, then would the communist/socialist system have been any less exploitation or did the better system (liberal capitalism) eventually win in the end?
3. It seems as if there was a continuum in US policy from the late 1890's onward throughout the use of the a-bomb and US insistence that Japan be kept from Russian hands or policy. The goal appeared to be an emphasis on liberal economics and adherence to US norms and policy. Is there any truth to this?
4. Schoonover's conclusion makes more sense now with the chapter on post-WWII events. He observed that communist Russia and Vietnam were logical responses to the imperial/neo-imperial policies of the west. Should we view them as such or should we also look at external factors such as the influence of the USSR? Why did they go Communist when Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, the Malaysia and many other South Asian and Pacific nations went with the liberal world system? Nonetheless it does seem correct that western difficulties with these two nations did rest upon the inherent nature of the world system.
5. Without engaging in majority's simpleton arguement, was it logical for the US to hold back in Korea? If the goal was to further the world system in favor of the US, why would China not merit addition? Or was the restraint due to the internal/external needs of US politicians who realized that long term success was more important and required restraint to matinee domestic support?
6. The delay in peace talks was presented by McCormick as a need to implement NSC-68. Could also be that the delay was imperative for the US to concretely implement the new evolution of the military-industrial complex that was required to support its world system?
7. It seems odd in Germany that the US could quickly turn into a better friend then that of one of its war allies France. While the war was brutal, did the conclusion of it mean that enemies could quickly become friends in a world system were economics were more important than prior conflicts? Also, did US alliance with Germany occurring early on in the Cold War, was the US already seeing an endgame where Germany would be key to toppling the Cold War and in creating a new Europe with a relatively friendly Germany as its core?
8. Was Vietnam really the loss of American hegemony given its current friendly relations and embrace of the world system?
9. Were Japan and Vietnam effects of WWII goals to create a free Asia where liberal economics would rule the day? Or should the be looked at separately? My interest is in how Japan like Germany quickly became the centerpiece of US policy with an understanding that arms and power must be given to preserve the world system to former enemies.
10. I found the suggestion that the Cold War was used to suppress the EEC interesting. A new Europe with a clearly antagonistic French outlook on US would have surely led to an impediment on trade and a reorganization of European relations with the USSR. Is this a correct understanding of US actions that seemed to intesify the conflict?
11. Hegemony v. Intergration. If intergration would bring countires into the world system, is it any better or worse then communist attempts to keep them out. Can intergration be looked as a way for the hegemon to ensure the success of its systerm even if ability declines to prop up the system?
12. Can Israel and its destabilizing actions be looked at as an effect of US need to keep the Middle East non-commuinst/USSr friendly? Could it also be that the Middle East in turmoil is more profitable for the world system if the "Achilles heel" of the world system is oil? Is this one of the reason's the US continues to prop uo Isreale and keep out of its actions?
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Discussion Questions for McCormick - Take 2
Here are some more discussion questions (2 from each chapter) regarding McCormick's America's Half-Century.
Chapter 1
What are the two instances that a single hegemonic power overtook the balance of power in the capitalist world economy and what was the crucial element for the formation of this single hegemonic power in both cases?
What gave the ins-and-outers the advantage over the careerists?
Chapter 2
What strategy did the US employ to minimize casualties, achieve continuous victories, and maintain their wealth during WWII?
What was the significance of the Yalta System and what brought it to a close?
Chapter 3
What was the reason for the US to utilize the atomic bomb twice and with such haste?
How was productionism favorable to the US? What did other nations fear about productionism?
Chapter 4
What were the major concerns of American government and big businesses when the dollar gap impacted the trade between America and Europe?
What were the American responses to the dollar gap and how did they influence this crisis?
Chapter 5
What common goal was the US seeking by entering into the Korean War and Vietnam War?
If Vietnam "had little intrinsic value" according to McCormick, then why did the US play such a large role in the war?
Chapter 6
How did the French stand in the way of American hegemony after the return of French leader de Gaulle?
How did the US deal with peripheral nations that turned from being stable parts of economic internationalism to being uncooperative?
Chapter 1
What are the two instances that a single hegemonic power overtook the balance of power in the capitalist world economy and what was the crucial element for the formation of this single hegemonic power in both cases?
What gave the ins-and-outers the advantage over the careerists?
Chapter 2
What strategy did the US employ to minimize casualties, achieve continuous victories, and maintain their wealth during WWII?
What was the significance of the Yalta System and what brought it to a close?
Chapter 3
What was the reason for the US to utilize the atomic bomb twice and with such haste?
How was productionism favorable to the US? What did other nations fear about productionism?
Chapter 4
What were the major concerns of American government and big businesses when the dollar gap impacted the trade between America and Europe?
What were the American responses to the dollar gap and how did they influence this crisis?
Chapter 5
What common goal was the US seeking by entering into the Korean War and Vietnam War?
If Vietnam "had little intrinsic value" according to McCormick, then why did the US play such a large role in the war?
Chapter 6
How did the French stand in the way of American hegemony after the return of French leader de Gaulle?
How did the US deal with peripheral nations that turned from being stable parts of economic internationalism to being uncooperative?
Foreign policy today
I found an article on foreignpolicy.com by Marcia Pally, a professor at NYU, that directly relates to the material we are covering in McCormick's America's Half-Century.
According to Pally, foreign policy will not change as much as some think, though there may be many changes in the "domestic arena". Pally takes a fairly neutral approach to this article. She looks back to the "exceptional period of U.S. internationalism" which is exactly what we are covering in the text by McCormick.
Pally compares Bush's invasion in Iraq to the US invasions of the past, such as Phillipines, Korea, and Vietnam. She concludes that although the results are dissimilar, the motives are the same. That is, the US looks to maintain a stable periphery in order to have "access to the key resources".
According to Pally, foreign policy will not change as much as some think, though there may be many changes in the "domestic arena". Pally takes a fairly neutral approach to this article. She looks back to the "exceptional period of U.S. internationalism" which is exactly what we are covering in the text by McCormick.
Pally compares Bush's invasion in Iraq to the US invasions of the past, such as Phillipines, Korea, and Vietnam. She concludes that although the results are dissimilar, the motives are the same. That is, the US looks to maintain a stable periphery in order to have "access to the key resources".
Monday, November 13, 2006
Question
I enjoyed the book so far.
1. Is world systems an appropriate way to analyze events or do events require analysis on issues other then sole economic imperatives?
2. I agree with others on the question of American hegemony. It seems that while other nations such as China may be on the rise, American hegemony is evolving rather than disappearing after the end of the Cold War. How do we reconcile McCormick argument that since the 1970's hegemony has been on the decline when it seems to have remained strong?
3. I enjoyed the analysis of the domestic sphere reinforcing the notion of hegemony. McCormick was convincing in his argument that much of American popular belief is unsupported by fact. What would it take for Americans or any nation for that matter to look at themselves objectively without merely accepting the beliefs that elites want to propagate?
I also enjoyed reading Julie's response. It was redeeming in its clarity and clarification of beliefs that at first seemed...well somewhat on the verge of political fanaticism. Hopefully moderation and reason will win the day. Good afternoon.
1. Is world systems an appropriate way to analyze events or do events require analysis on issues other then sole economic imperatives?
2. I agree with others on the question of American hegemony. It seems that while other nations such as China may be on the rise, American hegemony is evolving rather than disappearing after the end of the Cold War. How do we reconcile McCormick argument that since the 1970's hegemony has been on the decline when it seems to have remained strong?
3. I enjoyed the analysis of the domestic sphere reinforcing the notion of hegemony. McCormick was convincing in his argument that much of American popular belief is unsupported by fact. What would it take for Americans or any nation for that matter to look at themselves objectively without merely accepting the beliefs that elites want to propagate?
I also enjoyed reading Julie's response. It was redeeming in its clarity and clarification of beliefs that at first seemed...well somewhat on the verge of political fanaticism. Hopefully moderation and reason will win the day. Good afternoon.
Discussion Questions for McCormick
I enjoyed reading this first part of McCormick's America's Half-Century more than any of the books we have covered up to now.
The 3 discussion questions I have developed for the reading (Ch 1-4) follow. I was most comfortable with the material in the first chapter, so I focused my discussion questions on that material.
In America's Half-Century, published more than 10 years ago, McCormick raises the question, "Will the United States accept the loss of hegemony, and how will it define its new role in world affairs?". So my question is, has the US lost its hegemony at present, or is the US in the process of losing or regaining hegemony?
Does the US act as the global policeman, and overinvest in military production (a sign of speeding up the decline to a rentier nation and warfare state, according to McCormick)?
How is hegemonic power distributed throughout the world today?
The 3 discussion questions I have developed for the reading (Ch 1-4) follow. I was most comfortable with the material in the first chapter, so I focused my discussion questions on that material.
In America's Half-Century, published more than 10 years ago, McCormick raises the question, "Will the United States accept the loss of hegemony, and how will it define its new role in world affairs?". So my question is, has the US lost its hegemony at present, or is the US in the process of losing or regaining hegemony?
Does the US act as the global policeman, and overinvest in military production (a sign of speeding up the decline to a rentier nation and warfare state, according to McCormick)?
How is hegemonic power distributed throughout the world today?
Schoonover
Chapter six, "The War of 1898 in the Pacific Basin" examinies the background and the development of the war. Schoonover spots the need for "...industrial and consumable raw materials, labor, markets for overproduction, investment opportunities, and a stake in the future of selected external areas of resources", as the trigger for the US intervention in the Pacific Basin. For him the whole campaign was a response "...with a set of expansionist policies". While elaborating on the actual development of the different battles, Schoonover points out that the Filipinos were civilized, disciplined, intelligent and organized and partly independent (even under Spanish rule) and therefore showed no desire for American rule and resisted the US army in devastating and bloody skirmishes, which should last for decades. Schoonover gives various examples of Americans who opposed the war (Mark Twain, Henry Adam, Henry Waterson...) and identified it as Social Imperialism. Further, he also shows how other countries, as Germany for example, tried to benefit from the political change by securing their interest in the Pacific Basin. He concludes this chapter by talking about how Americans changed their language ("liberate"="occupy" and "pacify"= "conquer"), in order to change the mindset of the people at home (make them believe that the Filipinos were inferior and needed guidance) and to advance their expancionist policies in the Pacific Basin.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Moderation and Reason, the bedstone of my political beliefs
I share Julie’s hope for a change with the Democrats regaining control after the 2006 midterms. It seems clear that uni-party government does not lead to reasonable outcomes or honesty. It fosters insulation against differing ideas resulting in mis-management.
Now for the response Julie must have known would result from her clear adoration of Congresswoman and potential House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is interesting how the character traits that made some politicians in-competent and foolish are know being heralded as much needed. Bush’s backwater conservatism meets Pelosi’s and other liberal democrat’s inner city idealism and liberalism, six one way and half a dozen the other. Her strict adherence to her beliefs whereas the other side of course was foolhardy.
“Pelosi's democratic track record indicates a strong politician with apparent opinions and values... just the type of woman to open more political doors to females. Pelosi is no pushover, "she demands discipline and loyalty,”
Lets remember for a second 2004, Bush firm on beliefs whereas Kerry was prone to switching. An interesting change. Furthermore, is Pelosi any more at home to run the country that any other overly secure incumbent? My own intuition is that any challenger to her would face an uphill battle just as I am saddened to note that Republican Randy Forbes goes virtually unmatched in my own district. Just a thought to contemplate before one’s adoration turns into blind idol worship. While Pelosi’s gender will make history if she becomes the next speaker, I would certainly hope that biology alone is not enough to blind one’s reason.
However, I do understand Julie’s and others adamant liberal beliefs. I too used to feel secure in knowing that as a liberal I was right and others wrong. It felt good to look down un-approvingly on those “backwood” conservatives. I could articulate everything that was wrong and blame it all on Bush. I eventually reached some cracks in the logic of American liberals. I realized that they were as deciding and righteous as any person on the right. Many looked down on me as an aberration that could not exist within their select circle. My belief in things such as reason, the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the belief that work is not such a bad thing, and that at times we have to reconcile our political beliefs with the economic needs of the nation; these all led me to see that liberals did not have the entire picture. I could not join conservatives either. They looked down on other individual rights such as gay marriage and felt that business deserved a free hand without any safety net. Furthermore, neither could articulate solutions, a real problem when the purpose of government is supposed to serve the people. The only logical conclusion was to become an independent.
Back to now, it is important to note that the Democrats who actually won races were moderate and more understanding of the needs of everyday America. Polticians such as Webb, Tester, or Kaine illustrate what is the future of the Democratic Party. There are two articles in The New Republic I would recommend. One deals with democrats being the party of the people (it highlights the difference between old liberals and new moderates, including the remarkable fact that many old school liberals were not self-made) and the other argues that “gun toting libertarians” will provide the future of the party. Furthermore, if the party wants to grow and possibly win 2008, Pelosi will quickly need to temper her beliefs. On Friday, an aide to Senator McCain announced an exploratory commission to examine his running in 2008. The party had better remember this. My hope is for moderates such as Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Warner, and others to take the helm. The Democratic Leadership Council, of which the party’s greatest hero in recent memory (Clinton) was part of works towards moderation. It also contains many officials who manage to win elections in red states and accomplish things with the Republicans. If the party is to continue, it will be with politicians who understand the needs of the global economy and can mange to balance the needs of the American people with the cold hard economic realities of the 21st century.
One other thing I would like to note. I feel that the unwillingness to compromise is the inability to govern. To govern is to understand all sides of the debate in an attempt to reach a reasonable and productive outcome.
“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America”, Bill Clinton
Now for the response Julie must have known would result from her clear adoration of Congresswoman and potential House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It is interesting how the character traits that made some politicians in-competent and foolish are know being heralded as much needed. Bush’s backwater conservatism meets Pelosi’s and other liberal democrat’s inner city idealism and liberalism, six one way and half a dozen the other. Her strict adherence to her beliefs whereas the other side of course was foolhardy.
“Pelosi's democratic track record indicates a strong politician with apparent opinions and values... just the type of woman to open more political doors to females. Pelosi is no pushover, "she demands discipline and loyalty,”
Lets remember for a second 2004, Bush firm on beliefs whereas Kerry was prone to switching. An interesting change. Furthermore, is Pelosi any more at home to run the country that any other overly secure incumbent? My own intuition is that any challenger to her would face an uphill battle just as I am saddened to note that Republican Randy Forbes goes virtually unmatched in my own district. Just a thought to contemplate before one’s adoration turns into blind idol worship. While Pelosi’s gender will make history if she becomes the next speaker, I would certainly hope that biology alone is not enough to blind one’s reason.
However, I do understand Julie’s and others adamant liberal beliefs. I too used to feel secure in knowing that as a liberal I was right and others wrong. It felt good to look down un-approvingly on those “backwood” conservatives. I could articulate everything that was wrong and blame it all on Bush. I eventually reached some cracks in the logic of American liberals. I realized that they were as deciding and righteous as any person on the right. Many looked down on me as an aberration that could not exist within their select circle. My belief in things such as reason, the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the belief that work is not such a bad thing, and that at times we have to reconcile our political beliefs with the economic needs of the nation; these all led me to see that liberals did not have the entire picture. I could not join conservatives either. They looked down on other individual rights such as gay marriage and felt that business deserved a free hand without any safety net. Furthermore, neither could articulate solutions, a real problem when the purpose of government is supposed to serve the people. The only logical conclusion was to become an independent.
Back to now, it is important to note that the Democrats who actually won races were moderate and more understanding of the needs of everyday America. Polticians such as Webb, Tester, or Kaine illustrate what is the future of the Democratic Party. There are two articles in The New Republic I would recommend. One deals with democrats being the party of the people (it highlights the difference between old liberals and new moderates, including the remarkable fact that many old school liberals were not self-made) and the other argues that “gun toting libertarians” will provide the future of the party. Furthermore, if the party wants to grow and possibly win 2008, Pelosi will quickly need to temper her beliefs. On Friday, an aide to Senator McCain announced an exploratory commission to examine his running in 2008. The party had better remember this. My hope is for moderates such as Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Warner, and others to take the helm. The Democratic Leadership Council, of which the party’s greatest hero in recent memory (Clinton) was part of works towards moderation. It also contains many officials who manage to win elections in red states and accomplish things with the Republicans. If the party is to continue, it will be with politicians who understand the needs of the global economy and can mange to balance the needs of the American people with the cold hard economic realities of the 21st century.
One other thing I would like to note. I feel that the unwillingness to compromise is the inability to govern. To govern is to understand all sides of the debate in an attempt to reach a reasonable and productive outcome.
“There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America”, Bill Clinton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)