Essay on Levels of National Interest (Revision)

Patriotism is generally defined as loyalty and love for one's country. However, patriotism's definition varies depending on how "loyalty" and "country" are themselves defined. For example, Stephen Decatur's toast indicates a definition that allows for some types of political dissent. When Decatur stated, "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong," the naval officer meant that dissention with regards to foreign policy can be injurious to national pride, identity, and military strategy. Hence, "in her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right." Yet, Decatur leaves open the possibility for political dissent with regards to domestic policies. If he were alive in the 20th century, for example, Decatur might have supported the Vietnam War while also supporting the Civil Rights movement.

Another of these monumental changes would be the surrender of the control of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Over the twentieth century, this became an increasing reality as the focus shifted from Congress to the president (Cooper 2009, 388). While this development has many different advantages in the American government system, there are disadvantages as well, such as a decrease in stability (Cooper 2009, 379). The role of the president has become more important because of the changes that have led to the modern world (Cooper 2009, 388). This has occurred because of a number of reasons, such as “substantial increases in the responsibilities of the federal government, the stakes of politics, and the ease of communication and travel” (Cooper 2009, 388). Furthermore, in recent years, Congress has not worked hard in certain circumstances to protect their rights but have surrendered to the executive branch (Davidson, Oleszek, and Lee 2010, 498). It is

e.g.: If person A has political power over B, then A is able to motivate, inspire, incite,

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

National interests are usually the main consideration for the U.S. foreign policy, which can divide into two different parts. First, to protect and prevent American people from any kind of attack, which is the most important and commonly agreed unanimously. Second, helping and maintaining the operation of the U.S. government. To ensure that the interests of national development are not being compromised, Untied States have more aggressively policy to protect its national interests. Some people believe the “the U.S. will use unrivaled military power to further the global counterterrorism movement and democracy as the core goal of foreign policy. Furthermore, the U.S. hopes that all countries and societies can choose the most advantageous political and economic system to themselves independently, to help those countries which have been used as safe haven by terrorism organizations to get rid of the chaos caused by war and poverty.”

Now that the constitution has been discussed let’s take a look at how federalism plays a part in American National

As Kelly Anderson’s Foreign Policy Analyst, the following memo will address three areas of the United States’ foreign policy. The U.S. has gone through may transition when it comes to its foreign policy. The United States has been an isolationist, neutralist, and internationalist country from the year it was founded to now. The executive branch and the president apply their power to influence and change the nation’s foreign policy. There are specific departments within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) created to assist the president in his or her process. Political context and historical events have occurred to prove why intervening with another country’s issues does not benefit the national interest and why isolationism is a better system for this country. Hopefully, the memo will accomplish informing what the foreign policy is, was, and should be.

Nationalism has played a crucial role in world history over the past centuries. It continues to do so today. For many, nationalism is indelibly associated with some of the worst aspects of modern history, such as the destructive confidence of the Napoleon’s army and the murderous pride of Nazi Germany. Large numbers of people, descent in their hearts, have carried out unbelievable atrocities for no better reason than their nation required them to. Authoritarian and totalitarian regime have crushed dissent, eliminated opposition, and trampled on civil liberties in the name of the nation.

In exploring the basis on which the U.S President is considered to hold dominant authority in regard to foreign policy making, and whether the Congress ought to hold a significant role in the foreign decision making process, it is imperative to take into account the executive powers vested on the U.S presidency. This paper posits that the Presidency should be considered to be dominant, while at other times the Congress should be considered to be the dominant authority. In this perspective, it is essential that the Congress plays an important role in the foreign policy making process, since the most important feature of the U.S system is the division of powers.

What I do know quite well is the phrase “In America’s Interest” this roughly translates into, most often, a corporation’s infrastructure or market share of resources in another people’s land. In addition, the well-used phrase “Protecting American Interests” roughly translates into “We must send your Sons and Daughters” to defend America from X, Y, or Z.

In the movie Starship Troopers, there are two classes of people, Civilians and Citizens. What are the differences? Citizens are the men and women, rich or poor that serve in the Federal Service; service guarantees citizenship. This is a short period in which a person serves in the military. A universal service that requires young (Americans) citizen, men and females: healthy and the disable, to obligatory serve an allotment of time. Basically, you have to earn the right to be called a citizen; this sounds like a good idea. Civilians do not have same rights as a Citizen; they choose not to serve in the Federal Service. If a person does not serve, he or she are not allowed the same benefits like, to vote or have children; if you don’t serve

In the Chapter 1 discussion of our Intro to American National Government course, the class had a discussion about an article from Professor Sanford Levinson titled “It Is Time to Repair the Constitution’s Flaws.” Levinson proposed in his article several objections he had to the current Constitution, why he felt the way he did about these objections, and called for others to join him in requesting that the country holds a new constitutional convention to fix some of the problems he brings up.

The notion that we do not need foreign policy, or that it is an antiquated concept is greatly misleading. In fact, we need a strong foreign policy now more than ever. We are living at a time when the world’s geographical divides are shrinking due to ever increasing advancements in communication, technology, trade, and a strong global economic interdependence. Even though the notion that we are somehow economically dependent upon other countries is not something new for the US, we still see a strong indifference to foreign policy. In order to understand the problems, let us take a step back and examine the history of US foreign policy.

American democracy is a key factor when looking into rights. Most rights are given to people in the United States Constitution. While some are just rights every American should have without being defined by law. Rights come in many shapes and sizes and are sectioned into groups like civil rights, economic rights, and natural rights. Rights are moral and social standards that people follow to ensure that everyone gets equal happiness and freedoms. Meaning that there are things that every person is entitled to, for example being able to talk about what they want, when they want (within certain principles), or follow the religion of their choice, whatever they may chose. Rights can conflict in many different ways, like when someone wants to protest

As the commander in chief, the president plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. The president possesses the power to appoint senior cabinet members, commit troops and conduct high level talks with foreign governments. Congress, on the other hand, has the power to ratify treaties, confirm the president’s appointees and approve budgetary measures. And while the president has the ability to commit troops, only Congress has the authority to declare war. Despite criticisms of the American policy making process describing it as inefficient and slow moving, the main purpose and thus benefit of the constitutional separation of power is the framework of checks and balances that safeguard against monopolization of foreign policy decision making.