Interests and Ideas

The central topic of the reading is whether ideas have any impact on policy outcomes and if so under what conditions. The author provides three causal pathways to describe how ideas can effect policy, namely that ideas can serve as roadmaps, they contribute to outcomes in absence of an equilibrium, and that ideas embedded in institutions dictate policy in absence of innovation.

There were several concepts that appeared throughout the text, the ones that specifically jumped out at me were that interests and ideas are not inherently mutually exclusive and that ideas are more apparent in the policy decision making process in times of uncertainty. I believe that ideas shape perceived notions of interests as self-interest is often impossible to empirically and therefore subjective in nature. Russia believed it acted in it’s self-interest when it invaded Georgia in 2008 to prevent it from joining NATO while the rest of the world was on the outside looking in to determine what the possible motives were for this action. The idea of NATO expansion to Russia was a perceived threat to it’s interests while to NATO countries this expansion was not intended to be a slight on Russia. The concept of ideas acting as pathways during times of uncertainty I believe is most apparent when examining international organizations and alliances, formal and otherwise. Comparisons can be make between Hobbes’ State of Nature and the realm of international politics as there is no central authority dictating the rules of governance, and the uncertainty caused by this lack of governance leads nations to make alliances and form friendships with nations which have similar ideas and world views (one notable exception being the US-Saudi relationship). Nations generally tend to seek friendships from other nations who have a similar moral compass, hence the U.S. and E.U. friendship as both value individual liberties and (at least nominally) human rights.

Goldstein, Judith, Robert O Keohane. Ideas and Foreign Policy. Cornell University Press. 1993

Module 1 week 2, coercion versus reason, post class blog

An interesting nuance to the conversation on coercion versus reason is that it’s easy to struggle to identify the line between coercion and reason. I think our definition of Coercion bears reexamination as I propose there will be a change in what we define as hard power. The reason I think this has more to do with the changing nature of our world. Soft and hard power aren’t quite what they used to be anymore.

With the advent of the internet and mass supplied media we can see how public opinion itself has become a hard power. We have seen this power exemplified under the Trump administration. There have been wide swings with the stock market as announcements about policy changes within the government have occurred. In recent News, multiple media outlets covered stories speculating the potential for a trade war with China and the U.S. the stock markets tanked within 24 hours. It has been clear that negative news media can affect investors world-wide. The changes happen before there is any report into the potential validity. The effect of the media as a potential weapon has been exemplified by Russia efforts within the U.S. company Facebook. while not an official news site, Facebook been a social platform that disseminates information worldwide. I think that Facebook as utilized by Russia is a covert action I don’t use it to explain soft Versus hard power as much to exemplify the power of public opinion to have tangible effects. This rapid response is enabled by current technological changes.  It has been within the last 5 years that internet capable smart phone technologies coupled with widespread Wi-Fi have been widely available. Increased security has allowed people to have Apps with their bank accounts and stock portfolios at hang any given moment. This has presented an unprecedented ability to respond near instantaneously. This is interesting but also terrifying as people begin to digest” click bate” sound bites as fact without due diligence.  This widespread access to services and information has allowed businesses to grow internationally with ease.

 Tremendous global companies wield immense power and I believe the concept of sovereignty might be changing as a result.  We see now that certain companies have been able to expand globally and have a huge influence even more so than the government under which they might officially owe allegiance. Business and government have always had intersecting lines but now it is happening on a global scale where businesses are basically Comparison shopping for headquarters. An example of this is Apple. They made themselves headquartered in Ireland to avoid considerable taxes. They came back to the U.S. with the drop in corporate taxes. At the point that companies like apple can play off international actors and influence major changes in a country’s policies do we need to start considering them their own sovereign?

Leviathan module 1 week 1

Thomas Hobbs “Leviathan” is an incredibly comprehensive and detailed argument relying on logic using a scientific context. While the text isn’t devoid of religious references or arguments they are far from the center of any arguments. This is a welcome divergence for this time period. It is impossible to completely separate leviathan from the English civil war in the way that many scholars would never interpret Milton’s “Paradise Lost” ignoring this context.

What strikes me the most about Hobbs approach is how he provides all the framework required for the United States Current democratic model. Hobbs states that man must relinquish rights in order to live without a constant state of war. His work is clearly influential to Thomas Locke who further develops the idea of a social contract. Locke further defines what a just social contract would entail in his “Two Treatises of Government. Hobbs is incredibly forward thinking in proposing all that is required of a stable government; establishing legitimacy, defining context of disagreements and limits, and laying a framework for transfer of power (only under his restrictive limits that would necessitate a transfer occur). He even begins to set the initial theory for separation of Church and state.

While he may personally have been a royalist it is easy to see how those rebelling during the English civil war could have easily clung to his words to justify their actions. To state that a commonwealth derived its rights “.by the consent of the people assembled”, clearly did not alone solve the problem as either side could claim they did not support the legitimacy of the opposing party.

In regards to his attempt to define limits within rebellion is acceptable, he could be argued to have provided stabilizing factors by defining a minority had no right to usurp the majority desire. However, he does not put this to bed by leaving both parties the right to “the sword” to either attack or defend. In this way he leaves a hole in his argument as answerable by might makes right. He attempts to support the king’s legitimacy but his logic leaves clear openings to delegitimize leaders that become unfavorable.

In Hobbs’s chapter on religion I find this the most evocative writing for the time. To conclude the “natural Cause of Religions, the Anxiety of the time to come”, as the driving factor of religion makes the case that religion is born of human desire not of natural truth.  By doing this it can be argued that he makes religion a logical imperative to assuage his own fears not a tool through which we should define government and other things that can be deduced with logic. He further separates religion from his political theory by proposing that forces unseen can have no bearing on the physical world. His common-sense approach to favoring scientific process in developing theory of government mirror those of the present day.

Module 1 Week 1 James

(Apologies on the timing of this submission, between the Immersion which I just got back from and a hectic job schedule I didn't plan time to write this post effectively enough.)

The first three chapters of Leviathan lay the foundations for how Thomas Hobbes perceives humanity to be. He describes imagination, dreams, and memories among other themes in an attempt to demonstrate how the world is seen and analyzed from the human eye. He brings forth the notion that there is inertia in all aspects of life and that this inertia extends to the realm of the mind as well. For example he uses the metaphor of the wind pushing water and that even when the wind dies waves born of this wind still push forward. Much like the wind, human experience pushes forward in our own psyche and creates imagination long after the experience has finished.

One concept that stood out to me was when the author mentioned that if there was no superstition, witch craft, and a fear of spirits that people would be more civilly obedient. I thought that particular was insightful, and lends itself to an open ended interpretation. My main takeaway from that particular section is that those who believe in the fantastic are more prone to illogical and unpredictable actions, and therefore a detriment to civil society on a whole, however that it a bit of my own personal inference.

Week 1, Module 1

"And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." - Chapter  13, pg 89

It's probably one of, if not my favorite line in all of the political theory I've consumed. It answers a lot of the "why" questions people have about human nature and our modes of behavior. In my mind, it is also the crux of Hobbes' Leviathan and very much in line with the underpinnings of realist thought. Why does man seek security? Why do nations? It's all right there.

Let there be no doubt in Hobbes' painstaking attention to detail and process (method, if you will). He begins his rumination with sense, imagination, language,  reason, everything he uses later on to expound upon his ideas. Each successive chapter sheds more light on where he is coming from, laying the foundation so that it is near impossible that anything be missed or misinterpreted. We essentially get "man" from the ground up. Man imbued with sense and memory, gains prudence through experience, reason through method, and science through understanding of consequence. It goes on, explaining passion (life is motion), power, dignity, until we finally have this portrait of man that we can now put in the state of nature and understand where he's coming from.

It is this understanding of man that Hobbes begins to apply to the bigger picture. We know man is concerned for his security first, and so is willing to place impediments on his liberty to ameliorate those concerns, namely through contracting and, eventually, forming a commonwealth, living under a sovereign, etc. Each step of the way Hobbes adds another layer without ever actually getting away from the idea underscored in the above quote.


Sidebar:
One of the things I like most about Hobbes is his bringing the focus down from the heavens back to earth, very much following Machiavelli's example as the discipline shifted from ancient to modern. Science and reason (the way and the pace, respectively), will deliver the end, benefit to mankind.



"For who is so stupid both to mistake in Geometry, and also persist in it, when another detects his error to him?" (chp 5, 35)

Included this for the humor, couldn't help myself. Just about every social media argument in a nutshell.

Leviathan

The Leviathan, written by well known political theorist Thomas Hobbes, explains the aspects that make up man and how man interact with each other.  The text can be difficult to comprehend, requiring that the reader review what was previously read. I find it best to look at summaries online after reading each chapter, to ensure that I get everything from the text.

An interesting point that I found was that a person's imagination is restricted in part to their memory, which is just experiences had. I had never thought of imagination in this respect, though it makes complete sense after reading the text. The idea is that you cannot imagine a full scenario without having perviously experienced a stepping stone or building block in which the rest of the imagination is formed around.

Another explanation/examination made by Hobbes was that of the invention of speech. Hobbes believed that speech was invented as a way to share a person's inner thoughts, desires, and memories. If we look at this in regards to future events, we would not be able to learn from past mistakes without the invention of speech and universally ways in which to communicate through writing. This is very important to the study of international relations, and politics in general, to ensure that past mistakes are not continually repeated (although this sometimes continues to happen).

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/leviathan.html

Module 1, week 1

As I made my way through Hobbes’ Leviathan, I couldn’t help but wonder what he might have had to say if he were in the room with the Founders in 1776. Although he had been gone several decades at that point I think he would have been able to point out a few similarities between his ideologies and those of the founding fathers. However, I think he may have had some disagreement with them about the use of the words freedom and liberty.

While many of the principles Hobbes applies to the workings of common-wealth or more generally to man itself can be applied across boundaries of time, there are some ideologies that, quite obviously, do not transcend those boundaries. For example, his views on the role of women in society (e.g. “feminine courage” as less than that of men) while reflective of the time in which he lived, could use some serious updates.

 I tend to agree with Hobbes’ initial remarks on liberty, such as those that are broached in Chapter 21, regarding the liberty of the subjects of a sovereign body. He introduces liberty as the “absence of opposition,” or external pediments of motion. As the chapter develops on the “true” liberties of a subject, one could ask if such a thing as true liberty exists.

One of the primary words I associate with our own Constitution is Liberty. In some aspects I would argue that America is similar to Hobbes’ observation of Rome, in that we have been taught to “hate monarchy” or at least to disregard it; which is fair given the events that led to our country’s formation. But could it have led us as a people to put too much emphasis on the words freedom and liberty?

Take for example, our democratic system of elected representatives. If the people have, by electing their representatives, “for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves” and created as Hobbes calls, “artificial chains called Civil Laws” (pg. 92) and have also authorized our representatives to interpret those laws, we have only allowed ourselves liberty insofar as our representatives are inclined to determine.This is not to say that these laws are a detriment to our self-preservation but to acknowledge their role and that it should not be supposed that Americans possess “natural” liberties.