Analysis Of President John Trump's America First DoesnT Mean America Alone

The realist theory has developed as a theory of state autonomy, emphasizing individual state survival, as a consequence of the perceptions of theorists about the nature of states and progress in the global system. Robert Powell define this perception, reasoning that “if one state can turn a relative gain to its advantage and the disadvantage of others, then [the system’s constraints] will induce a concern for the relative gains and this may impede cooperation absent any superior authority to ensure that these gains not be used in this way” (Powell qtd. Ordershook 213). This emphasizes the concept that states are chiefly concerned with the relative gains that they are capable of achieving, and [states] are acutely aware that other states intend to take advantage of any relative gain that they are capable of achieving in order to further protect their security and sovereignty.

The entire editorial board at the New York times decided to cooperate on an op-ed piece covered on Donald Trump concerning his post election actions and decisions. The Op-Ed was titled “What President Trump Doesn’t Get About America” and was published on the New York Times on January 20, 2017. The rhetorical situation behind the piece is the after-effects of Mr. Trump's official inauguration which took place on the same date the Op-Ed was published. The author's purpose and intended audience is to inform and persuade the American people that America was and will be fine even with some of the so-called harsh executive decisions of Trump.

With Trump’s election this year, his rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” and therefore revitalizing our military will soon become a reality. Trump has formally requested a reappropriation of funds; around $54 Billion, towards the US military. Part of Trump’s campaign promises had to do with making the military more robust; ensuring America’s title of militarily strongest in the world. In order to achieve this goal. Trump’s federal government has the option of many different aspects of the military to focus on. Of these, funding weapons of mass destruction, cyber security, and further military research and development prove themselves as most relevant in the contemporary military.

Taxation, government expenditures, management of the national debt, and tax expenditures (tax breaks) were all expounded by Trump in Dave Shiflett’s (2000) book, Trump: The America we Deserve.” Trump is quoted:

In the chapter “Foreign Policy” in the book, “The Politics of Power” by Ira Katznelson, Mark Kesselman, and Alan Draper, describes in detail of the events leading to America’s great level of dominance. Throughout the chapter, a few key points were made. The main three points that were observed in this chapter consisted of America’s influence and global expansion, the transition into the globalization era, and environmental problems. From the beginning of the exploration era, to the globalization ear, foreign policy never escaped existence. The use of foreign policy continued into the beginning of World War II, after the war, and through present day. Between each date in history, foreign policy increasingly has played a major role in the turning tides within each event. The importance of foreign policy instructed the world into what it is today and has continued to do so. The relationship pertaining to the United States and its foreign policies have aimlessly been altered through good and bad times. At its birth, America’s international involvement began. Through time, its foreign policy has gained great interest and provided immense dominant reputation. Within the ordinance of America’s global dominance, speculation estimates that no nation truly is dominant as other problems counter true dominance. These problems consist of global warming, human rights, and ecological crisis. These problems will challenge nations in the future to answer the question: “What nation is truly

Even though realism finds itself deeply rooted in a utilitarian moral framework, critics arise as to such an outlook remains immoral (it is wrong to apply) at best. A major opponent theory is liberalism. Dismissing that conflicts are inevitable, liberals uphold that the spread of legitimate domestic political orders will eventually bring an end to international conflicts.[ Scott Burchill, “Liberalism” in Theories of International Relations, ed. Scott Burchill (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 35.] This approach involves embedding notions of democracy, human rights, and free trade. As a result, states will avoid ideology clashes and a universal state will emerge. Liberals might repudiate realism on its utilitarian ground: its consequential nature and lack of universal moral code. In this section, I will defend realism against some liberal criticism.

While realists, liberals and neo-conservatives disagree about what America should do with its unrivalled power, they share the belief that America’s dominance of the post-Cold War system puts it in a category of its own (Walsh, 2015). Unipolarity captures the character of the international order that has been sustained by the economic and military power of the United States and shaped by its liberal mission to extend the reach of capitalism and democracy. The unipolar configuration of power provides a crucial context within which US foreign policy behavior must be understood. If the primacy of American power and the hierarchical nature of the current international order are undisputed, the characterization of such an order has been the subject of intense debate.

should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners." (Staff,

With the election of Donald J. Trump, the United States has met a strong change of position in the international playing field. The Obama years, characterized by periods of soft power playing and reliance on international frameworks with intermittent reliance on military intervention, have been all but cast aside by a President often associated with ideals of isolationism. Foreign policy can change throughout administrations, but the scale at which these two administrations differ in how they see the world is unparalleled. Whether it be the willingness to work with Russia, a state condemned by the previous administration, in the pursuit of defeating ISIS, the hardline approach which Trump and his Defense Secretary General Mattis approach

In the days surrounding president George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations regarding the political climate in Iraq, Washington had become a whirlpool of two different approaches: unilateralism and multilateralism. After an attempt to appeal to both sides in Washington with his initial address to the UN, George Bush’s action of waging an arguably unjustified war against Iraq without assistance from the United Nations can ultimately be explained using realist theory.

With the US being a leader on the global scale militarily and economically, Trump has come into office with a new vision, a somewhat controversial one. This essay will critique Trump’s controversial foreign policy objectives

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

Alternatively, his serial provocations could incite a South Korean or US military response that creates an unstoppable escalation spiral. The logic of Trump’s ‘America First’ policy contains the rationale for preventing North Korea from acquiring the capacity to strike the US mainland, regardless of the scale and gravity of the harm inflicted on South Koreans, Japanese and others in the region. The Kim dynasty has outwitted the United States with more tenacity, resourcefulness and single-minded determination. There is nothing the world can offer Kim that he would value more than his prized bomb. More sanctions suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Any country is exposed to the threat of sanctions when it is fully integrated into

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Realism focuses on the balance of power and how it impacts of actions of state actors within the international political system. Morgenthau said that, “The aspirations for power on the part of several nations, each trying to either maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it” (Morgenthau 1967,131). He goes on by explain that not only is the balance of power and the policies that protect it inevitable but also that they are essential for