Watching The Extraordinary Rise Of Donald Trump 's Presidential Campaign

Donald Trump before he became the 45th president, his famous campaign motto “Make America Great Again” caught the attention of many Americans, but mostly by white Americans. Trump’s tactics made him a very clever man throughout the election, he had many techniques on how to gain the American vote. Throughout his campaign, he was attentive of the men around him. For example, Trump knew exactly what to say to get the attention of the American people. He already had in mind who he was going to pick in position for foreign policy, national security, and defense (“Donald Trump is the ultimate Machiavellian prince”). With this intention, he brought comfort to Americans, yet the people he was going to pick for these positions all have a common trait, which was all of them are specialist in the Middle East and Russia. Not only, was Trump attentive of America, yet he kept in mind how it was going to affect

In President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation, he warned the United States to strive for continuous balance so that the power of the military and industrial complex would not harm the democratic process. The goal was to maintain agreement and compromise on issues existing in the current moment, as well as the solutions that would help to shape the nation in the coming future. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment (Eisenhower, II).

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has arguably been considered the greatest country in the world. The supposed leader of the free world, strongest and most powerful country in the world. The definition that the United States is the ‘greatest country’ in the world is open to discussion and can be compared at many different levels, however, for the purpose of this essay, the term ‘greatness’ is measured by its economic prowess and its hard power. The term ‘hard power’ is defined as ‘a coercive approach to international political relation, especially one that involves the use of military power’. After eight years of Obama doctrine, is it time to make America great again” must be broken down into two parts. What is Obama Doctrine, does it exist and then compare his Doctrine also tackle the quote of ‘making America great again’. This essay will argue that Obama Doctrine does exist and is linked to his foreign and domestic policies. It will also argue that America is still great but for different reasons. It will provide evidence that with the Obama doctrine it has moved from the historic use of hard power to a soft power footing. ‘Soft power” is defined as ‘a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economical or cultural influence’. However, even with this switch in posture, the United States has remained great. Albeit for

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.

The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.

The era of globalization has witnessed the growing influence of a number of unconventional international actors, from non-governmental organizations, to multi-national corporations, to global political movements. Traditional, state-centric definitions of foreign policy as "the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states is no longer sufficient. Several alternative definitions are more helpful at highlighting aspects of foreign policy

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 article, “Trump’s Foreign Policy: The Conservatives’ Report Card,” Bret Stephens effectively builds an argument to persuade his audience that conservatives should be unhappy with Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Stephens effectively employs sound logic, specific evidence, and impactful language and literary devices to establish a legitimate argument.

Examined in the film was the event when Bush was to appoint his foreign policy team. All the advisors he selected were viewed as major contributors in the political picture. It was observed that all but one of these advisors were members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York-based organization that is a well-renowned exponent of America’s Insider establishment. This was a common method used in an attempt to make the United States a one-world government ruled by the elite class. The CFR has made close to every decision in the past regarding foreign policy, no matter what the political party of the current president. Therefore, when President Bush joined forces with this council, it became practically impossible for a change in policy while the Bush Administration is in power (www.thenewamerican.com).

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 2016 Presidential Election was historic and unprecedented for many reasons. However, throughout the election, the word unprecedented was most associated with Donald Trump, his campaign, his controversial platform and his wave of followers and support. This election was historic for many other reasons, not just for the rise of this right wing populist leader. It was also the first time that a female, Hillary Clinton, won the nomination of a major political party and stood a substantial chance at winning the presidency.

“Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush will make his first official campaign stop in Colorado” (Rittiman). Jeb Bush started his presidential campaign August 25th and seems to be falling fast just two months later. Suffering Donald Trump 's reality show style insults and the problems his family 's dynasty created Jeb has been steadily falling in the polls. He first came out running with many people behind him seeing him as genuine, but now he is beginning to fall prey to Trump 's demonization. Bush is losing funding fast and unfortunately for him some are calling him the next Scott Walker.

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

The Bush Doctrine vastly expanded what the United States deems a “vital interest”—dragging preëmptive action, unilateralism, and anti-terrorism under its umbrella. Democratizing nations plays a critical role in the strategy as well. A spirit of liberalism flows through the Doctrine, as it attempts to depose tyrannical dictators to ease relations between nations and foster democracy. It