Obama Doctrine : The Greatest Country Of The World

In the 21st century, America faces various threats and challenges to its authority as a growing world power. These threats and challenges help define America’s role as a growing world power in the 21st century. As a large nation, America faces a plethora of issues and continues to compete against other world powers. America today is plagued with various economic, social, political, and military problems, with little or no simple or practical solutions available.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

America, along with its commitments, needs to “stand behind [its] word, and make sure [that the] word stands up” (Trump 138). This means that we need to take back control and never step back. Compromises should be kept to a minimum, and strong leaders need to take control in Washington (Trump 139). These leaders can be attracted by creating an exciting atmosphere for them to work in, as opposed to a failing government which only a bare minimum of Americans have the heart to try to fix (Trump 140). America needs to increase its power, successfully, military-wise (Trump 137) and financially. This will allow the country to start winning all the time by continually starting at the top of every race, and will force other countries to see it as a serious and strong national

Thus the imperial presidency was born from foreign affairs, from “faith and duty and the right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world” at any moment without the approval of congress (Schlesinger). Past presidents have dealt with national emergencies, this pressure is responsibility that he “must take unto himself” and act accordingly (Schlesinger). Good government starts with the appearance of our leader, and the entire executive office. The president should be representative of the all people in the United States, an exceptional role model who takes the people’s needs into account. The best time for a strong imperialistic president is when faction, anarchy, and excessive ambitions threaten it. The energy put forth by the president “generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree” than that of a weaker and more dispersed power system (Hamilton). The importance of this energy highlights the respect our government continues to have for the constitution because of the importance it maintains in this day and age.

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

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.

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

Donald J. Trump outlines his plans to make USA great again through better leadership and action. Too much empty talk, not enough action. We the People are tired of these politicians who talk their way into office and then fail to live up to what they promised. Trump will restore America to its former greatness, a greatness we have not seen since the Reagan years. This book is also a call for the return of genuine patriotism and taking pride in our country. We the People know that USA is the greatest country in the world and we need to put someone in the Oval Office who will actually Lead and put that greatness on display by taking Action.

Everyday. Everyday we see articles, blogs, and videos of citizens having their rights violated; values demoralized; and beliefs taunted. Each report by media outlets is filled with bias, whether it be natural or driven by a “secret agenda” as so many claim. Within the Constitution is a set of rights or principles that were granted to each individual by our founding fathers. To this day, every American holds true to these principles; it is these principles that make us different, make us unique, it is these principles that make us free. But what happens when these rights are violated, when our values are destroyed? What happens when our way of life is suspended to make way for a greater or safer good? When we as citizens no longer have

Additionally, The Cycles of American History discusses the changing roles of the president, vice-president and American democracy in general. Late in the book, the idea of the “Imperial President” is brought up in contrast to the early days of the office where it took much more of the role as a “presider” over the workings of the state. Along with Politics and Power, America and the World is the most important theme of the book. Challenged, is the notion that American foreign involvement is only in pursuit of economic development, and that there is an inherent, American desire for strength and influence abroad. The Cold War era geopolitcs also play a role in this theme.

Throughout the course of American political history, the presidential office has always been envisioned as a position of tremendous power and liberty, capable of making change and fulfilling promises to the American people for the ultimate betterment of their lives. Elected president in 2008, President Obama was faced with the hope and expectations of significant reform to combat the present discontent and struggle of the American public that remained at the end of Bush’s presidency. Surprisingly, while most Americans and the general public believe that the American president is capable of change and essentially rewriting history, Stephen Skowronek, in his book, The Politics Presidents Make, contends that presidents rarely have the opportunities to enforce drastic change. Rather, he states that presidencies are marked by life-cycles in respect to the “rise and fall” of political regimes and hence, these presidencies are characterized by their given moments and opportunities in history. Within this definition, the Obama presidency is restricted to an ongoing Reagan regime, limiting the Obama presidency to a preemptive role. Thus, in my paper I will expand upon the notion that Obama is a preemptive president rather than a reconstructive one based on Obama’s given political time by examining the Obama presidency in relation to the previous regime and the specific status of that regime.

The United States stands as an example of a sovereignty with a flourishing democracy and stands as an economic powerhouse. The countries’ quick rise to prominence can be attributed to the success of its industrial era. The mix of

George W. Bush is often described as the worst president the US has ever had. For many, this harsh criticism is propelled by the great challenges of his presidency and the sheer problems that were left to his successor. Much of the reproach for Bush is valid, both domestic and international affairs worsened due to mistakes made under his leadership. We saw a rise in unemployment, an economy on the verge of collapse, and terrorist actions triggering two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the turmoil and challenges, George W. Bush demonstrates some positive change in his way of dealing with foreign policy. David J. Rothkopf in his book National Insecurity takes a look behind the scenes of George W. Bush’s decision-making and elaborates on the strengths and advancement of foreign policy throughout his presidency. Rothkopf is insightful and makes a strong case that Bush developed and improved overtime, comparing it to the lack of progress in Obama’s administration. So we must ask what can Barack Obama learn from his predecessor’s foreign policy decision-making. Is it too late for Obama to change?

The establishment of the United States of America was a landmark moment in humanity’s history. In the short 239 years since our nation’s humble beginnings, we have accomplished much and have changed dynamically along the way. We have gone from a colony underneath the rule of another country, to the world’s sole super-power. This nation is pivotal in world events, because of this it is critical to understand what makes us unique, and what has influenced our ability to rise as the world hegemon. What has had a lasting impact on our nation, providing the proper power necessary to thrust us ahead? Events that lead to a transfer power and have a long

In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye’s book Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power ignited a huge discussion among society of the need to transition from America’s traditional use of hard power to something more benign which he termed soft power. Before looking at the two branches of power, we first define power as the ability to do something or act in a certain way. As Nye had pointed out, nations can wield power in two forms, soft and hard power. Soft power, as coined by Nye (1990) is defined as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than through coercion.” In contrast, hard power is seen as the use of military might or economic sanctions to coerce others into