Obama Constructivism Research Paper

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

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.

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.

Obama combines two approaches to foreign policy: retrenchment and internationalism. Retrenchment argues that rescuing failing states or containing dangers in rogue states impede on a state’s sovereignty, cost the US billions of dollars, and creates enemies instead of allies. A common critique of Obama’s foreign policy explains

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.

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.

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.

President Barack Obama is seen as one of the most controversial presidents in the recent U.S. history. This paper will examine Obama 's legacy by introducing his background prior to the white House; analyze Obama’s major accomplishments and challenges in the past 8 years. As well as examines the internal opposition force from the other branches of the government Obama faced when conducting domestic policy.

– 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

This study of global politics will define the American Realism as a theoretical international relations approach to the problem of U.S. unilateralism and military intervention throughout the world. An exanimation of the post-9/11 era of the Bush Doctrine will define the premise of “realism” as a valid international relations theory that defines the unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003. This aspect of the Bush Administrations use of military intervention in the 2000s has continued to expand under the Obama Administration. The theory of realism is based on the premise of “self-reliance”, self-interest, and a fear-based form of aggressive policies that have been implemented in unilateral American wars. Realism can provide a foundation for the motivations of the American government to act without global cooperation or diplomacy with other nations, especially due to the massive economic and military power that it wields as the “world’s policeman.” These factors define he conflict-based politics of American military intervention and the unilateral polices that it continues to utilize on a global scale. In essence, an examination of the theory of “realism” in an international relations perspective will define the increasingly problematic American policies of military intervention and unilateralist policies on global politics.

To conclude, it is rare both in American and World History to find presidencies and administrations that can go down in history as periods of great innovation on foreign policy. International relations are very complex and volatile and thus difficult to adjust and manage. Therefore, the only way for policymakers and politicians to acquire the necessary intuition in order to deal with the complex nature of international politics, is via the detailed comprehension of their predecessors foreign policy failures and achievement. Thus, the next American government in order to achieve its main goals must learn for Obama’s mistakes while at the same time to continue his successful political

When Bill Keller wrote his article in May of 2013, he said “For starters, President Obama articulates — as he has not done — how the disintegration of Syria represents a serious danger to America’s interests and ideals.” In this statement, Keller laid out the bare minimum level of action he deemed appropriate for the Obama administration to take against Syria. As a liberal internationalist hawk, the sentiment prior to the chemical attack in Ghouta was that this would have served as the absolute most extreme compromise that they would accept. However, following the attack in Ghouta, the most extreme compromise that liberal internationalists could live with was nothing less than an initiative to arm the Syrian rebels fighting to resist Assad’s regime. Though this compromise might satiate some of the hawkish liberal internationalists,

There have been numerous books written in the past by various political scientists on how to improve U.S. foreign policy. However, Fettweis’s Pathologies of Power provides a very interesting and somewhat unusual dig at U.S. foreign policy. In his book Pathologies of Power Fettweis is highly critical of the below average foreign policy performance of the United States over the last few decades and he strives to shed some light on why the U.S. keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again. In his view, the many blunders in American foreign policy can be attributed to the nation’s deep connection to a series of closely held pathological beliefs that he collectively describes as fear, honor, glory, and hubris. Professor Fettweis in his book also discusses the origins of these deep pathological beliefs. He strongly argues that some of the major foreign policy disasters like the Iraq War, the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War was a result of these strongly held pathological beliefs. He also recommends that American foreign policy performance can be improved significantly if these strongly held pathological beliefs are identified and eradicated and replaced with prudence and restraint.

US Presidents have made it a goal during their term(s) in office to establish a good relationship with foreign countries and even try to improve upon existing connections with our allies. Some believe it is to prevent conflicts between the countries while others dispute that it is a threat assessment by the United States to pick and choose their friends and enemies. Preventing conflict between two democracies or countries that practice democracy is called Democratic Peace Theory. However, research has begun to show that Democratic Peace Theory is ineffective and needs to be brought to an end as a model for how international relations are formed or destroyed. Democratic Peace Theory needs to be abolished as a support for forming

During their respected terms, former President George Bush Jr. and current President Barack Obama issued foreign policies that differed in various ways. Since former President George Bush Jr. and President Barack Obama are from different political parties their views and their policies differ. They both focus on different major issues, from invading countries, to taking out an organized terrorist leader, to making peace with countries and trying to abolish any nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of the wrong countries. From what their policies state they will do to what they actually do will show whether they are a realist or idealist based on their time in office, since they both served two consecutive terms.