This essay will be covering the viewpoints of Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, and over Deliberation Day. Michael Parenti is ”an American political scientist, historian, and cultural critic who writes on scholarly and popular subjects”. This essay will contain information on his views of Why Rulers Seek Global Dominion, The Omnipresent Arsenal, and Target Cuba. Noam Chomsky is ”an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, logician, political commentator and activist”. This essay will contain his view of The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy. The final contents of this paper will contain information on what Deliberation Day is.
Why Rulers Seek Global Dominion is written by Parenti to open the eyes of his readers on what the real motives of political figures are. Parenti throughout his whole passage, claims that everything a political figure or head leading figure proceeds on an action that it is deliberately done. There is truth to that statement. While the media portrays leaders as “stupid”, those leaders have many more intentions behind their actions than the media actually knows about. As Parenti backs up his argument by saying, “The problem becomes crucial when dealing with political leaders, many of whom make it difficult to divine the intentions behind their actions.”. One such case of actions that not only one politician, by the United States Government itself did with Cuba which will later be talked about in this essay.
The Omnipresent Arsenal, which was also written by Michael Parenti, was to show readers how the United States used their army as a scare tactic and how a country is either a Satellite country or considered an enemy to them. Parenti says,”The imperial nation conceives of only two kinds of nati...
... middle of paper ...
...older money without consent.”. With companies already having strong influence over politicians and citizens in the U.S., these companies have formed something called the CFR, “Council of Foreign Relations.” and in this council, there is discussion on current events and how to bribe an political figure to do their bidding.
The Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to the rights of personhood allowed them to have the same rights just as people did such as, freedom of speech, and freedom of press. Chomsky says in his article, “corporate managers, “wield a power and control over the wealth and the business operations of the country,” becoming “rivals of the government itself.”. These companies, who are run by very wealthy, well known political names such as Bush, Kennedy, Rockefellers, Mellons, Rothchilds, DuPont, and J.P. Morgan, all have great influence in
In his book Contesting Castro: The United States and the Triumph of the Cuban, Thomas G. Patterson explores Cuban relationships with the United States during the Batista and Castro regimes. In the 1950’s, when Fulgencio Batista was in power, the United States had an almost imperialistic dominance over Cuba. Patterson uses the word “Hegemony” to describe this dominance. He defines hegemony as “the dominance or preponderant influence that permitted U.S. decisions to condition Cuba’s politics, economy, culture, society, and military. U.S. hegemony empowered North Americans to set and maintain most of the rules by which Cubans lived and by which the Cuban – American relationship was governed” (7). At this time, the U.S. was imposing it self on Cuba without really understanding the people or the culture. The U.S. viewed Cubans as an “emotional, romantic, and childish people suffering from excessive pride” (6). There was obviously little respect for Cubans from the U.S. Moreover, Cubans felt that the strong, multifaceted U.S. influence was causing Cuba to loose its “independent identity” (8).
It seems that the United States has been one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant, countries in the world, since the Declaration of Independence. Yet, on Monday, April 17, 1961, our government experienced incredible criticism and extreme embarrassment when Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, instantly stopped an invasion on the Cuban beach known as the Bay of Pigs. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, his advisors, and many Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials, made the largest error of their political careers. Once the decision was made to invade Cuba, to end Castro and his Communist government, Kennedy and his administration were never looked at in the same light nor trusted again. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev was affiliated with Castro, and the two countries made many military decisions together. As Kennedy and the United States tried to stop Cuba and Russia from becoming a threat to the world, an invasion was planned out and executed. The results were a disaster. The Bay of Pigs invasion was the largest military mistake ever made by the United States government and the CIA in the 20th century and brought America to the brink of war with Cuba and Russia. The Bay of Pigs invasion was not a quick decision, many hours of meetings and conferences occurred before President Kennedy gave permission for the attack. President Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961, and immediately wanted to take the initiative with the Soviet and Cuban governments (Pearson 12). Russia was already under Communist control, and Fidel Castro took over the Cuban government with heavily armed troops and policeman. Castro’s policemen filled the streets, and he ran the newspapers, as well as many assembly buildings (Frankel 60). At the beginning, Castro did not run a Communist government, but once he began to meet with Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, Castro started a Communist government (Crassweller 23). Max Frankel, writer for the New York Times, summarizes the situation in Cuba by saying, “Little by little, the vise tightened. Little by little the free people of Cuba came to realize it could happen there. The grim facts of life on an island that became a police state” (Frankel 59). Every day, Castro came closer to controlling every aspect in life in Cuba. Fidel Castro even took control of the schools in Cuba, throwing out any teacher who he thought...
Known as one of the most influential senators in American history, William J. Fulbright served as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1959 through 1974, and at his death in 1995, he was the group’s longest serving reader. During this time, he authored “On the Arrogance of Power, 1966”, in which discussed the tendency of countries to equate power as proof of superiority. In fact, he Fulbright refers to “the arrogance of power – as a psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better, or stronger than other nations” (1). Using a combination of pathos, ethos, and logos appeals, he presents support for his argument. Because power corrupts how people and
Re-reading the bulk of my work in the course of a spring and summer, one theme came to predominate-it was apparent that most of my writing was about America. How much I loved our country-that was evident-and how much I didn't love it at all!
The political culture that defines American politics shows that despite this compromise, America is still very much a democratic society. The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic... ...
The ideology behind American democracy can be defined by equal opportunity. More specifically it is ability for all citizens to have equal economic opportunity, such as education and also equal political opportunity, such as being able to vote and bail out of prison. The novels Our Kids and Just Mercy, by authors Robert Putnam and Brian Stevenson respectively, are both intellectual literacies following stories of inequalities in America. Focusing on two distinct types of inequality-socioeconomic and race- each book gives explicit insight to how it is affecting American democracy. Socioeconomic and racial inequalities are undermining the foundation of democracy. Citizens in poverty and racial minority groups are finding themselves to have unequal opportunities in education, incarceration, political efficacy.
In foreign policy, decision making is guided by different a leader that is from presidents, cabinets, parliaments and groups such as communist party of Soviet Union and the standing committee of the communist party of china and Central Intelligence Agency of USA. One cannot run away from the fact that a leader’s personality can affect foreign policy. Maoz and Shayer believe that one cannot underrate or ignore the role of personality in decision making as it plays a huge role. By examining ones foreign policy, we can understand foreign policy better (Jensen, 1982). If a leader is aggressive then there are certain traits he will exhibit such as paranoia, manipulation, thirst for power high intensity of nationalism, (Hermann, 1980). Hitler was one leader who led to world war when he challenged the treaty of Versailles by adopting an aggressive foreign policy. The opposite is true for a mild leader for example George Washington who told Americans to avoid entrapping alliances.
A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. “Hard and Soft Power in American Foreign Policy.” In Paradox of American Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4-17. Print.
Many philosophical theories and arguments were used during the establishment of government in the United States. These arguments told of the virtues of democracy as an instrument, and some suggested, that democracy was based on the moral rights of men having equality and liberty regardless of the outcomes. As an instrument, “John Stuart Mills believed that since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and critical assessment of laws and policies.” (Christiano) Although the United States is technically a Republic, the idea that the people give authority to the representatives of their choosing still has the foundational principles of democracy. This republic
Kennedy warned that if Khrushchev fired missiles from Cuba, the result would be “a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union. ”(Goldman, 4). If it wasn’t for the smart, rational decision making by President Kennedy and his staff, the world would have gone to World War III and possibly would never have been the same again. This analysis explains the Cuban rebels in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the importance of the great leaders of the United States, the important decision making by the U.S. leaders, and the crazy leaders of the Soviet Union and Cuba.
There have been enormous efforts to spread democracy as a political system throughout the world by the developed democratic countries and the international development organizations including the World Bank. By the late 1990s the United States alone spent over a half billion dollars to promote democratic expansion throughout the world (Diamond, 2003). These were done considering that the democratic system leads towards development. As a result in the late 20th century we saw a huge political transformation towards democracy. During the last few decades a huge number of countries adopted democracy as their political system. However, it retain a big question how far democracy is successful in bringing development of a country? At this stage, some people also criticizes the effort of democratization arguing that it is done without considering the context of a country, sometimes democracy is not ideal for all countries and it is an effort to extinct diversity of political system. In studying the literature regarding the debate, we found a paradoxical relationship between democracy and development. Some argue that democracy has failed to ensure expected outcomes in terms of development. While others confronted that democracy has a considerable impact on development. Another group of people argue that form of political system actually does not have any impact on development process. On the verge of these debates, some development institutions and academics throw light on why democracy is not working properly, and what measure should be taken to make it more successful in bringing effective development of developing countries. Consequently, this writing is an effort of revisiting the different views about impact of democra...
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
A memorable expression said by President Abraham Lincoln reads, “Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Democracy, is a derived from the Greek term "demos" which means people. It is a successful, system of government that vests power to the public or majority. Adopted by the United States in 1776, a democratic government has six basic characteristics: (i) established/elected sovereignty (where power and civic responsibility are exercised either directly by the public or their freely agreed elected representative(s)), (ii) majority rule(vs minority), (iii) (protects one’s own and reside with) human rights, (iv) regular free and fair elections to citizens (upon a certain age), (v) responsibility of
When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose.