Obama Constructivism Research Paper

Beginning with the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, up to the current Obama doctrine, presidential doctrines have dominated United States foreign policy. A presidential doctrine highlights the goals and positions for United States foreign affairs outlined by the sitting president. Many of the country’s major foreign policy successes or disasters can be explained by tracing the doctrines of sitting or previous presidents and analyzing their evolution and eventual impact on world events. After established, a presidential doctrine often takes on a life of its own. This can be explained by the military resources and human capital involved in carrying out these doctrines. Future presidents often feel compelled to abide by previous doctrines, or find the reality of change can only be done with incremental changes over a period of years. For this reason, presidential doctrines often outlive their creators and consequently effect American foreign policy for years to come.

Who do you think is the person who influenced America the most? I believe that Barack Obama was one of the most influential people of america. He believes in civils rights, he believes in the good for all people. He had also help the country with giving most people the opportunity of healthcare.

Unfortunately indicative of the politics and policies in today’s terms, foreign policy increasingly occurs 150 characters at a time through Twitter, and the unhinged behavior often displayed by our executive leadership damages our national image and ability to effectively manage foreign policy. This fosters a political climate bent on retribution, vilifying dissent, and clear lacks of self-control does not convey an image of national strength and admiration. Unfortunately, this reinforces the stereotypical worldview of American’s and our politics as “the gun toting cowboy” that shoots first and asks questions later. While “the gun toting cowboy” is part of our culture as a nation, an “environment of threat inflation, frenzied overreaction, confusion, complexity, and uncertainty requires cool judgment” (LeVien 16), but cool judgement and detailed planning are not the hallmarks of a shoot-from-the-hip approach. Fulbright spoke to this in The Arrogance of Power in comparing two Americas when he clearly portrayed “the gun toting cowboy” as self righteous, narrowly egotistical, and arrogant in the use of power (Fulbright 245). This only reinforces Fulbright and Bacevich’s

The 11th of September 2001 drew attention across the world as horrifying images appeared through the media of terrorists using hijacked commercial jets as weapons to destroy the World Trade Center twin towers in the United States of America, reaping thousands of casualties of innocent US civilians. This event created a number of new and deeply complex paradigms determining how states and individuals understand international politics. The most notable change in these paradigms is a shift from conflict between clearly defined nation states to what was hypothesised as a ‘clash of civilizations’ in Samuel P. Huntington’s 1996 book on the future

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.

The belief in the superiority of the western value system, capitalism, liberal democracy, and its vulnerability to survive as the ultimate way has been shaken, but not completely discarded. We now have a world that is interconnected to nearly all other countries through globalism and Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs). As the United States prepares for the upcoming election that decides which presidential candidate will occupy the most popular and arguably the most powerful position in the world, we have to take a step back and look at the past experience of each candidate and their proposed foreign policy stance which will be enacted should they be elected. Any nation that is apart of a globalized market such as The United States must be careful when choosing their next president. More importantly they need a president that is in tune with the current international system and one that focuses on a foreign policy based on realism instead of a foreign policy based on idealism. In the following, I will look at the foreign policies of the current presidential candidates and I will discuss which policies are in tune with the current international system and which ones are out of tune with reality.

Yet, Mr. Pence has expressed that the United States is in full support of the United States’ alliances with European countries. The articles also mention the dispute between the prime minister of Australia and President Trump. Once again, President Trump’s hostility towards Australia did not accurately reflect the United States’ hope of maintaining the alliance between the two countries. This inconsistency does not add credence to the stability of the current United States government and its approach to foreign policy. In terms of pinpointing President Trump’s actions within the deterrence or spiral model theory Jervis suggests, it is rather impossible to categorize the administration to one or another. Neither one adequately explains the motivations behind President Trump’s actions and it is difficult to understand whether President Trump’s inconsistency with others in the White House results from his belief in the U.S.’ threatened security from these alliances or from innate aggressiveness inhabited by these countries. Based on what policies Trump executed so far, his pre-election campaigns, and the great turmoil in the United States’ government, I would analyze that the true motives behind President Trump’s actions primarily focus on sending domestic messages rather than international messages. Yet, it is important to recognize that these domestic-directed actions are interpreted by other states as international messages.

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

Many people may not know if they will ever be a famous person someday. We are all special and have our unique differences. For example, Barack Obama was the first African American President of the United States. According to biography.com he was born on august 4th, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He was first a civil rights lawyer and then was elected to State Senate in 1996 and then to U.S. Senate in 2004. Later in 2008 he was elected as president and ran again for a second term in 2012 and won again. He has done many things for the U.S. that has made it a better country for all of us.

– There are several ways that the Trump administration differs from the view of the authors. The first point is the suggestion of a fifty-cent gas tax with an additional twenty-five cents added for the next ten years. President Trump campaigned on lowering taxes, not raising them. The second difference is found in conjunction with global terror networks. The Trump administration prides itself on saying “Radical Islam”. In contrast, the author states that this actually helps the enemy out by giving them “Legitimacy and respect to an enemy that deserves neither (pg. 634)”. The last major difference between the Trump Administration and the authors’ point of view is found in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The authors state that a revision to Article IV of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty(NPT) to allow for all states to have the capability of nuclear energy, but not nuclear capacity. In contrast, the Trump Administration hopes to eliminate nuclear energy from all major powers throughout the world. To conclude, these differences are almost based solely off of campaign promises as President Trump has only been in office for roughly three months

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

American presidents have spent decades attempting to explain how a particular grand strategy benefits US foreign policy. The Obama Doctrine departs from past doctrines, representing a hybrid approach, combining two approaches to foreign policy. Although it lacks consistency, the flexibility of the Obama Doctrine defies the constraints of grand strategies to discover solutions to problems in international relations.

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

President Obama can be described as a president who is both a progressive and pragmatist. His approach at times can be progressive and at other times he is pragmatic when it comes to foreign policy issues. Also, he characterizes his foreign policy by being clearly being engaged in international affairs multilaterally and committed to humanitarianism. It is also interesting to note his foreign policy stance prior to becoming president, and Obama’s values themes, and perspectives on doctrine is outlined in his essay named “Renewing American Leadership.”