“Family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty”- J.N.Westwood
When Nicholas II abdicated in March 1917 the Romanov Dynasty, which had ruled Russia since 1613, came to an end. Nicholas was the last of the Romanov’s, and it is often asked whether he was to blame for the end of the era, or whether revolution simply happened on his watch. He certainly had a troubled reign, and on his ascension to the throne in 1894 Russia was in a troubled state. In this essay I am going to argue that it was Nicholas II’s own weaknesses which were the most serious challenge that he faced when he became Tsar, and that although there were other important factors such as the Russian economy, the problem of reform in Russia, opposition to the Tsarist system and Russia’s social structure, the reason why Nicholas was doomed from the start was that he simply was not fit to rule an autocratic state such as Russia.
Nicholas grew up under the rule of his father, Alexander III, who felt that he possessed no qualities of leadership, and therefore felt no reason to educate him in the matters of ruling. He was also considered a weakling by his father, and called ‘Nicky’ into his twenties by his Mother. This hardly seemed like a good upbringing for someone that would one day become leader of the Russian Empire. To add to this, his tutor, a Mr Heath, had no university education and knew very little about Russia, and even less about how to rule a country of its size. This meant that when he came to the throne he had little idea of how to run his dictatorship, and this showed in the way he ruled. When he heard his father was dying he was heard to exclaim; “I am not prepared to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” Nicholas was a reclusive child who preferred to write in his diary and collect stamps than learn about his future destiny, and he lacked the charisma of his father. This led to him being easy to manipulate, not at all the type of strong leader that was needed to steer Russia through this tricky stage. His five foot seven frame did nothing to help this, and Viktor Chernov described him as “not a man, but a poor copy of one.” His weaknesses where well known in the cities, and a famous saying in the pubs of St. Petersburg was “the most powerful man in Russia is the last man to have spoken to the Tsar.”
Nicholas had impeccable manners, and was unerringly polite and charming. However this led to him being submissive, and later he would have no concept of how to rule. He manipulated and mistrusted his ministers, agreeing with all of them in person and none of them in practice. He devoted himself to menial tasks such as peasants surnames and small town budgets. He would refuse to hire a secretary and instead perform all administrative tasks himself. His upbringing as a royal led him to be a likeable, hard working man, but he was not fit to rule a country autocratically. He had no interest in Politics, and no interest in ruling. He would have made a fantastic constitutional monarch, whose duties would not extend beyond being a likeable and charming man, but the reality is that he had to rule, and he was not conditioned to do it.
Nicholas was not clever, and this led to questions over his fitness to rule. On the day of his coronation thousands of people died celebrating in a stampede, and yet he did not want to upset his dinner guests and so went on ahead with the plans as normal, only attending to the problem later. This is an example of how woefully inept Nicholas was at managing a country, and the people in it. His concept of priorities was seemingly warped. Overall Nicholas was simply incapable of ruling, both due to his innate personality, for example his dislike of politics and his distrust, and his fathers treatment of him as a child, not seeing it fit to educate him to be a ruler. In reality, Nicholas’s personality was the most serious challenge he faced upon his ascension to the throne, as a dynasty that has been ruling for three hundred years does not simply become disliked over night, as can be shown by the continuing reign of the Royal Family of China, which has lasted much longer. Nicholas simply gave people reasons to dislike the system and angered people that with a bit of tact could have been kept sufficiently dormant, such as the intelligentsia and the Liberalists.
The social structure of Russia was also a large problem for Nicholas II when he came to power in 1894. Russia was a huge expanse of 8.5 Million square miles, with a population undergoing rapid growth: in 1815 it was 40 Million and in 1914 it had grown to 170 Million. Controlling such an area as an autocratic leader, maintaining political authority and keeping people happy, would have been hard for an effective ruler, and Nicholas was far from an effective ruler. Therefore Nicholas’s inability to rule enhanced this problem greatly.
There was an issue with the geography of Russia, and in particular the great divide between the Westerners, based in European Russia, and the Slavophiles, based in Asiatic Russia. Geographically the two sections of Russia were separated roughly down the centre of the Ural mountains, but culturally the difference was vast. The population, and the industry, were concentrated in European Russia, where the two largest cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg, were situated. Much of Russia was uninhabitable, with tundra, desert and mountains dominating. In ‘Russia of the Tsars’ by Smith, Tsarist Russia is described as a “hard land, whose overpowering landscape reduced men and their works to insignificance.” Trying to keep two groups happy is hard, however the fact of the matter is that with Russia there were multitudes of different nationalities. Minority groups such as the Mongols, the Jews and the Cossacks all inhabited part of the Russian Empire, and in a census carried out in 1897 it was revealed that only 55.6 Million of the population were Russians by mother tongue. The sheer amount of minority groups meant that pleasing each community was a tough task, and the concept of an empire at this time seemed dated. Many of these individual nationalities wanted independence, but Russia, like Britain, wanted to keep hold of her empire.
The demography of Russia was also a problem for the newly crowned Nicholas. 84.9% of the population was made up of peasants, either landlord’s serfs or state peasants, whilst the educated, non productive classes made up only 11.4% of the population. As most of the peasants were illiterate, only a small proportion of the population contributed to the development of the state, leaving it backward, anachronistic even, in its industrial and cultural development. The sheer amount of workers meant that there was always the chance of a revolution, if the educated intelligentsia could manage to make it happen. Karl Marx showed this by famously saying; “workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.” Some industries were growing however, and new industrial areas were popping up, leading to the development of a class of bourgeoisie, or factory owners, who as a group angered the workers and contributed to ideologies such as Marxism.
Overall, Mother Russia was a country of a harsh climate and varying landscape, with an unjustly weighted social structure and a scattering of different nationalities. It had caused many problems to previous Tsars, and was an accelerated problem by the time Nicholas came to power in 1894. However I think this is a less important factor than Nicholas’s weaknesses as other Tsars had managed to cope with Russia’s structure, however Nicholas was a poor leader, and therefore had an even tougher challenge in maintaining the balances that previous Tsars had managed to maintain.
The Russian economy at this point was overwhelmingly agricultural, and was mainly serf-based and therefore ineffectual. Long winters meant that farming had a large off-season, and peasants had to look to handicrafts to maintain their keep. The development of many small scale industries was a hindrance to major expansion, helping to cause Russia’s economic backwardness. However there were some larger industries such as silk, leather and iron: in fact Ural was the world’s leading iron producer in the early 19th century. The low number of urban workers showed that Russia had not achieved major industrial growth like other major countries such as Germany and Britain. The main feature of this slow economical development was the huge gap between the rich minority and the poor peasant majority. The fact is the sheer size and undeveloped transport of Russia made it hard for industrial expansion to occur.
Russia found it hard to raise capital, and was not good at borrowing and lending money. Tsarism encourages autarky, rather than trade with other countries, however this borrowing of money was a key reason why other countries found it easier to expand economically. This financial ideology discouraged the rise of entrepreneurialism which was what stimulated industrial revolution in Britain. As Nicholas felt it his duty to keep everything the same, part of the reaction against the assassination of his grandfather that sparked a shutdown on reform, this was not likely to change. This was a problem when Nicholas came to the throne as Russia was lagging behind other European countries, and their system was crying out to be reformed.
I do not believe that the economy of Russia was a very serious challenge Nicholas faced when he came to the throne in 1894, as I believe that the problem was solvable with reform, but that Nicholas was not prepared to overcome his natural instincts to tend towards reactionism and that therefore it was Nicholas’s weaknesses that prevented him from overcoming this hurdle. Instead, his lack of willingness to change led Russia’s economy to become a larger problem. The best thing to do when Nicholas came to the throne would have been to address the problem with reform, accepting that some features of traditional Tsarism needed to be changed for the good of the country.
Even if Nicholas had planned on countering Russia’s backwardness with reform however, there were many problems associated with reform in Russia at this time, based on a century of failed attempts by Tsars. It was generally accepted that reform was needed to overcome the problem of Russia’s social and economic backwardness; however there was a conflict of identity in Russia: the two distinct groups, Slavophiles and Westerners, both wanted to be represented in Russia’s culture. The two groups often disagreed: Westerners thought that Russia needed to adopt features of other Western political and economic systems to remain a great power, whereas Slavophiles thought of Western values as corrupt, not good enough for Russia the great power.
This was a problem for Nicholas when he came to power, and as a shy man who disliked angering people, he was not willing to offend either group, therefore ended up doing nothing and offending both. As Nicholas was an autocratic leader he had absolute power, and therefore could do what he liked. As he felt that he had a God-given right to rule over all the Russias unchallenged, it was also unlikely that he would bring in reform, however needed it was, that may have lead to devolution of power from himself. The Russian Orthodox Church was used to reinforce this message, preaching that the Tsar was anointed by God to be in control of all the Russias. As Tsar’s changed frequently, and each Tsar had their own ideas about reform, no ideas were ever implemented for a long period of time, and no programmes of change could be expected to progressively introduce reform in Russia either.
Reformers were wary of Nicholas, who seemed very autocratic. He had been heavily influenced by Konstantin Pobedonostsev during his youth, who had a deep dislike of democracy, and Nicholas was always likely to be a reactionary rather than a reformist. Reformers had been severely let down by previous Tsars, and were losing patience with passive resistance. Nicholas’s grandfather Alexander II introduced rural councils called Zemstvas, and universities with a greater freedom of expression, as well as several legal reforms to avoid corruption, which led to the development of an intelligentsia which would eventually lead to the downfall of the Tsarist system. However he did this only to lessen opposition to his regime, and he abandoned his ideas in the 1870’s after raising the hopes of the reformers. After Alexander was assassinated by the people’s will in 1881, his son Alexander III started ‘The Reaction,’ a period where reforms were constantly stifled. The powers of the Okhrana were increased, and censorship became more evident. The press was controlled more strictly and the Universities became under strict Government control. Anyone in power favouring Liberal ideas was kicked out of their positions, and this led to hatred of the ruling class by Liberal Opposition. Many decided they had waited enough for reform and wanted action.
Nicholas displayed poor judgement in not acting to stop the blatant Anti-Semitism, which he actually encouraged, or the Russification which divided the various Russian nationalities even further. Russification consisted of maintaining Russian values, as well as the language, at the expense of other cultures evident in the empire. This links back to his weaknesses, specifically his lack of ability to rule, and backs up my argument that Nicholas’s own weaknesses were the most serious challenges that he faced when he was crowned in 1894. At this time, with a new Tsar coming to the throne, unity was vital in the empire, and alienating half of the Empire’s population by treating them as inferior was not a good move on Nicholas’s part.
Nicholas contributed to the trouble with reform by continuing on with The Reaction during his reign, and alienating the various minority groups in Russia through Anti-Semitism and Russification. Therefore Nicholas’s weaknesses were more important that the problems of reform themselves, as he amplified these problems thus proving his ineptness at leading.
The last point I am going to look at is opposition to the Tsarist system. The Romanov’s were overthrown by the Social Democrats, who as a group were negligible when Nicholas came to the throne. Much opposition developed under his regime due to various faults of his, such as the lack of reform, and therefore his downfall can be directly linked to his own weaknesses. However there was some resistance when Nicholas came to the throne, which would have been a bit of a problem for him. Populists were the main opposition to the Tsarist regime prior to Nicholas coming to the throne, and the people’s will managed to assassinate Nicholas’s grandfather Alexander II in 1881. Vladimir Lenin (formerly Ulyanov, leader of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917,) had a brother who was executed for attempting to assassinate Alexander III in 1887, and this sowed the seeds of revolution in his head. However populism was in decline by the time Nicholas came to power, as neither propaganda nor terrorism had produced results. It was seen to have no clear ideologies, but it had managed to achieve a violent anti-Tsar tradition, paving the way for later groups to finish off their work.
The Social Revolutionaries grew directly from the Populists, however they only started to revolt through assassinating government officials in the early 20th Century. They were good at their job: between 1902 and 1906 2000 government officials were murdered in the name of the Social Revolutionaries. The Social Democrats were Marxists that split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, and wanted the creation of a communist system with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The other main threats to Nicholas as he came to power in 1894 were the Liberal Opposition, who wanted reform rather than revolution. The main aims of the reformers were to get a parliament in place, and for the Tsar to become a constitutional monarch. Ironically being a constitutional monarch would have suited Nicholas perfectly, but he felt compelled to suppress change. Liberal ideas were based on the political systems of Western Europe, and therefore Liberalists could bank on the support of the Intelligentsia. A small revolution in 1905 did lead to the Duma (parliament) being set up, but it was too little, too late for Nicholas.
To conclude, when Nicholas II came to power in 1894 he faced a great deal of issues. He had to deal with Russia’s social and economical backwardness, as well as the social structure of Russia and the opposition to the Tsarist system. However he dealt with none of these issues well, and when he heard that he was to become Tsar he knew that he did not have the political knowledge or interest to deal with them well. He seemed resigned to his fate, and although he had a happy family life, and was a polite and charming person, as I quoted at the beginning of my essay: “Family Happiness has never yet saved a dynasty.” Therefore the most serious challenge that Nicholas faced upon his ascension to the throne in 1894 was his own weaknesses.
Essay Grade: A
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Monday, November 26, 2007
Switchgrass Ethanol vs. Corn Ethanol (no conclusion)
Switchgrass Ethanol
Americans use 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year, but only 4.8 billion gallons is produced from ethanol and approximately 95% of ethanol is corn based
Maywa Montenegro gives the simple explanation of producing ethanol, “Creating ethanol involves leaching simple sugars from plant matter and fermenting them into alcohol, just like the process for making "corn liquor," or moonshine. It's affordable and effective.” Montenegro’s explanation sums up the process, but there is one significant difference between producing ethanol from corn and producing it from switchgrass. Montenegro explains that conventional ethanol is produced from simple sugars, and it is easiest to obtain these sugars from plants that concentrate sugars in certain parts. Corn is used widely because it concentrates these sugars in its kernels. The problem is that little of the plant is used in this method and a lot of biomass is not used (Montenegro). Switchgrass and biomass are actually converted into ethanol using same process. There is one extra step in ethanol production from switchgrass than from corn. C. Matthew Rendleman and Hosein Shapouri explain that switchgrass is composed of complex carbohydrates unlike the simple carbohydrates found in corn. The complexity of the carbohydrates in the switchgrass means that it must first be broken down into simple sugars before it can be fermented. To do this either sulfuric acid is added or enzymes are used. Glucose and other five and six carbon sugars are produced and are converted to ethanol by fermentation. In addition, there are also some non-glucose sugars produced, but they are not easily fermentable by Saccharomyces cerevisia, a naturally occurring yeast. This problem can be combated by genetically engineered yeasts, but the process is not economically viable (Rendleman 22).
Though the process of producing ethanol from switchgrass is still in its infancy, the benefits of switchgrass based ethanol are well known and agreed upon. The first big benefit is soil conservation. According to S.B. McLaughlin and M. E. Walsh, 2.7 million metric tons of soil organic matter (SOM) per year is lost in the United States. There is a large difference between erosion of cultivated row crops like corn and perennial grasses like switchgrass. Erosion of corn fields in Iowa was 70 times higher than perennial grass fields on similar land, and during heavy rains corn fields eroded up to 200 times more than the grasslands. Erosion of land washes away many chemicals used to increase production. The chemicals washed away not only harm the environment, but also the farmer’s pocket. It is estimated that $18 billion in fertilizer nutrients are lost to erosion annually in the U.S. Switchgrass not only retains more of the fertilizer, but it also uses less. Usually switchgrass only needs herbicides during the first year of what is usually a ten-year growth cycle (McLaughlin 320).
Using less fertilizer is only one of the energy saving benefits of switchgrass. McLaughlin and Walsh explain some of the others. Switchgrass has a higher energy output for a few reasons. The first is that the plant itself produces more energy. The biomass from switchgrass can be more easily converted into ethanol than the biomass from corn can; therefore, if one has equal amounts of corn and switchgrass, the switchgrass can produce more energy. It has been calculated that it takes 4.5 times more energy to produce an equivalent amount of ethanol from corn than it does from switchgrass. The differences in the way the plants are broken down, and the amount of energy produced when broken down accounts for the difference. When comparing switchgrass to corn one can see that switchgrass requires less energy for agricultural production, produces more energy in its biomass, and uses less energy to process the biomass into ethanol than corn does. All of the factors presented account for the fact that corn based ethanol has a 21% net energy gain while switchgrass based ethanol has a substantially higher 343% net energy gain (McLaughlin 321).
Some say that corn ethanol could be a "stepping stone" to cleaner fuels like cellulosic (from biomass) ethanol (Montenegro). New technologies for producing ethanol from biomass may make the technique more appealing than it currently is. Right now it takes an extra step to create ethanol from biomass which means more time and money than the technique used for corn based ethanol. Two new methods for producing ethanol form biomass are Countercurrent Hydrolysis and Enzymatic Hydrolysis, which was touched upon earlier. In Countercurrent Hydrolysis steam is first used to break down or hydrolyze most of the biomass and then acid is added to hydrolyze the rest. The idea is that the new method would reduce costs and increase glucose yields. In fact scientists have achieved glucose yields of over 90% in experiments using hardwoods. The second method, Enzymatic Hydrolysis, involves using a genetically engineered enzyme to break down the complex biomass. Studies are being done using enzymes in place of sulfuric acid, but the cost is too great to do this commercially. The goal is to engineer an enzyme that can both hydrolyze and ferment the biomass because the extra step of having to break down the biomass before fermentation is the biggest problem right now (Rendleman 23-24).
Works Cited
Brady, D., & Pratt, G. C. (2007). Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Dry Mill Fuel. Journal of the
Air & Waste Management Association , 1091–1102.
McLaughlin, S. B., & Walsh, M. E. (1998). Evaluating Enviromental Consequences of Producing
Herbaceous Crops for Bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy , 317-324.
Montenegro, M. (2006, December 4). The Big Three :The numbers behind ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and
biodiesel in the U.S. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from Grist:
http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/montenegro/
Rendleman, C. M., & Shapouri, H. (2007). New Technologies in Ethanol Production. Washington D.C.:
United States Department of Agriculture.
Realism vs. Idealism
Realism vs. Idealism
Realism is defined as: the representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form. While idealism is defined as: the act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal form; or the pursuit of one's ideals. As one can see the two are opposites of one another. Realism is viewing things as they actually are, while idealism is viewing things as being the way one wants them. People argue that one or the other is better, but I feel a balance of the two is best.
Teddy Roosevelt is usually viewed as being a realist. He is identified as realist because many of his accomplishments were obtained by force and they were done without looking at future consequences. The Panama Canal is an example. Roosevelt basically stole the land for the canal. He was sick of Colombia wasting time and trying to cheat France out of its investment there; therefore, Roosevelt bribed the Colombian soldiers $50 each to lay down their arms, and he then helped create the Republic of Panama. Shortly after, the U.S. signed a protection treaty with Panama which said that America could control the land to build the canal if the U.S. protected Panama. The Panama Canal is an example of realism because Roosevelt went ahead with his plan without thinking of the future. He did not think about how the world would view the U.S. or about the many difficulties, like malaria, that would be encountered while building the canal.
Woodrow Wilson is perceived as an idealist because of his lofty goals and his strive for greatness. His 14 Points Speech is a perfect example of idealism. In the speech Wilson talked about free trade, self-determination, disarmament, freedom of the seas, and possibly the most important part of the speech was the League of Nations. Each of these points, or goals, is long term, and for the most part Wilson did not present a way to achieve his goals. Congress did not pass the proposal to join the League of Nations because Wilson had not included Congress in the negotiations. This is a trait of many idealists. They want to imprint a lasting legacy and think that no one else is able enough to help them get there.
There are upsides and downsides to both views. In short realists do not look to the future and idealists look to the future, but they do not have a means to get there. A balance of the two may be best. One can set high goals for himself or herself (idealism), and then have a realistic way of achieving the goals. If an individual leans too far one way or the other he or she can get into trouble. One may either lose sight of his or her goals, or on the other hand, one may no longer be able to find a way to reach his or her goals. As the old cliché goes, “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.”
Thursday, November 15, 2007
War of 1812 (mainly causes and effects)
War of 1812
The dispute on the seas and involving trade may have been the biggest concern. Britain was blockading any ship from going to France because of a war between the two countries, and as a result, ships had to first go through a British port in order to trade in France. Britain considered any ship that did not stop any enemy. On top of the trade dilemma was the problem of British search and seizure on the high seas. The British felt they had the right to search for deserters on any ship, anywhere in the ocean. Sometimes British generals made mistakes and American citizens would be wrongly accused of deserting. Many times it would take years for the mistake to be corrected.
To try to influence the European economy, President Jefferson passed the Embargo Act in 1807. It stopped almost every American vessel from sailing and closed trade with Europe; however, instead of disturbing Britain’s economy, the act adversely affected every region of the U.S., and its economy stalled. The Embargo lasted until 1810 when Congress passed Macon’s Bill No. 2, which reversed everything the Embargo Act had enforced. Americans were still mad at Britain, though, because it had not opened up free trade.
British officers in Canada realized the increasingly hostile relations between the United States and Britain, and because of this they began making friendships with Indians residing in the Northwest region of the United States. It was easy for the British to make friendships because of the pressure being put on Indians by the westward expansion of the United States. During the war, Americans called for an invasion of Canada mainly because of the support the British were giving the Indians of the Northwest.
The last primary cause of the war was the War Hawks. This nickname was given to Republicans who wanted to go to war with Britain. Many of them had just been elected into office and wanted to change the direction of the country. Some historians say the War Hawks must be blamed for the war because they wanted to fight even though the U.S.’s military was inadequate at the time. These historians feel that the War Hawks wanted war because they needed it to recover America’s self-respect that they and fellow Republicans had destroyed.
The war of 1812 had a few small effects on the United States at the time, but these accomplishments would lead to larger things. America gained international respect after the war for resisting Great Britain for the second time in less than forty years. Not only did the war prove the U.S.’s military, but it also strengthened its army. The U.S. learned how to train its servicemen, and it now had battle tested leaders. This factor would help the U.S. create one of the most powerful militaries in the world. Its military would later help America expand by land acquisitions from the Spanish-American and Mexican-American Wars. The War of 1812 also strengthened America’s economy. The British blockade of America’s coast forced the U.S. to manufacture goods it normally imported, so after the war dependence on foreign countries was greatly diminished.
In 1846, the term “Manifest Destiny” began to be used in the United States. It stated that it was America’s destiny to span from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. It would have been impossible to obtain this goal if the War of 1812 had not happened. The U.S.’s military may never had taken off as it did after the war, and it would not have become as organized. Americans would not have acknowledged the immense feeling of nationalism as they did after the war, and the people may never have had the ambition to span the distance between the oceans. The War of 1812 gave the U.S. military power, a strengthened economy with less foreign dependence, and the confidence to expand its borders to eventually span the continent by the year 1900.
Bibliography
Causes of the War. (2007). Retrieved October 26, 2007, from Infoplease:
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861857.html
Effects of the War of 1812. (2007). Retrieved November 6, 2007, from War of 1812-History:
http://www.warof1812-history.com/Effects-of-the-War-of-1812.aspx
Horsman, R. (1972). The Causes of The War of 1812. New York, NY: Octagon Books.
Major Harney, W. (2005, April 27). The Causes of the War of 1812. Retrieved October 26, 2007, from
Global Security: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/HWW.htm
Origins of the War of 1812. (2007, October 15). Retrieved October 26, 2007, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_War_of_1812
Perkins, B. (1961). Prologue to War: England and The United States: 1805-1812. Berkely and Los Angeles,
CA: University of California Press.
Pratt, P. D. (1949). Expansionists of 1812. Gloucester, MA: The Macimillan Company.
Pentagon Papers
Pentagon Papers Reaction
When I first learned about the Pentagon Papers, I asked myself, “Why would the government even decide to make this report?” I got my answer early on in the play. The Pentagon Papers were compiled because the Executive Branch wanted future generations of Americans to be able to read the Papers and learn from the mistakes of previous generations. The document was highly classified partly because it was not a report of how the U.S. got into the Vietnam War, but it really was a report of how the U.S. Government consistently lied to its citizens.
One of the first things said, in the play, about the Pentagon Papers, was that President Nixon was not mad that the papers came out, but he was furious that the New York Times had somehow got a hold of them and was publishing parts of the classified document. President Nixon only wanted to pursue the matter further because it was a highly classified document and not because of its contents. That could lead one to think that it was alright for the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish parts of it, since the details of the Papers were not an issue to the President. Writers for the two newspapers had many years of experience with world affairs, and they made decisions each day whether it was okay to write about a certain story. People sometimes do not know that newspaper writers have access to many classified documents, but many times do not publish the story because it may endanger the country. The courts brought up the Espionage Act in the New York Times’s case. The act did not exactly fit the times though, since the information the Pentagon Papers contained ended in 1968.
The most interesting parts of the play were the excerpts from the Pentagon Papers themselves. From the Papers, Americans learned that the U.S. played a role in the coup to overthrow the South Vietnamese government, killing its leaders Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu. The U.S. had been backing the South Vietnamese at the time. Americas also learned that the U.S. had a part in the problem with the free elections. The U.S. was pushing for free elections, but was also secretly stopping them from happening. It did this because there were rumors that the Communist leader, Ho Chi Minh, would win the election. The lies that came out led many Americans to distrust the U.S. Government, and that same feeling has stayed with Americans into the 21st century.
I assume that the play was historically correct, and if it was, the U.S. government had absolutely no proof that the contents of the Pentagon Papers would have threatened the United States’s national security. The biggest piece of evidence, about the Gulf of Tonkin interception and how the U.S.’s secret of code deciphering would get out, was already in a Senate committee’s report. Every piece of evidence the U.S.’s lawyer brought out was shut down by the Washington Post’s lawyer. Many of the points brought up by the U.S., could already be obtained by the American population.
The end of the play was most interesting. It said that a government official was quoted saying, “Most documents are over-classified. The real concern is to cover the government from embarrassment, not to keep the country safe.” If this was the feeling of the government at the time, the New York Times and the Washington Post should be commended on the bravery they had shown. Without them we may never have been able to find the courage to stand up to what is wrong with our government. The play used an interesting quote, “We can’t gain freedom, we can only lose it.” This quote has a powerful message. It implies that Americans, or any free country for that matter, must protect their freedom by standing up to what is wrong. Sometimes the wrong doers may not even realize they are harming their country.
Grade Received: 10/10The Constitution, Shared Power, and Foreign Policy
The Constitution, Shared Power, and Foreign Policy
The founding fathers set up the United States Constitution in a way that no one branch would have too much power. Each branch is supposed to work with each other to make decisions. The decisions made by the U.S. form its foreign policy. When the Legislative and Executive branches work together, rash decisions can be eliminated, and the foreign policy is a somewhat accurate representation of the views of American’s.
The United States foreign policy has changed over time. It began with an attempt to compromise with Great Britain. That did not work and the U.S. went to war. After winning its independence, Americans stayed out of most foreign affairs and concentrated on expanding the new country. When the Spanish colonies in Latin America declared their independence, the U.S. created the Monroe Doctrine. It was a policy to keep out all European powers in the newly independent Americas. The doctrine allowed the United States to interfere with any hostilities the new states had with Europe. The U.S. continued to expand after this, partly because of a war against Mexico and a dispute with Britain and Russia concerning the Oregon Territory. The U.S. won both of these, and it greatly increased in size as a result.
As the country grew in size and power, its interests grew further from home. Americans found themselves conquering Cuba and Puerto Rico and occupying Hawaii and the Philippines. The U.S. also wanted to gain more trade power throughout the world; therefore, they demanded that Japan open up for trade and fought for influence in China. The U.S. entered World War II after it was attacked by Japan, and after the war, America became one of the five permanent members of the United Nations. After World War II, American foreign policy switched to stopping the spread of communism. This view got the U.S. involved in the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War. Since the Vietnam War, the United States has been involved in almost every major conflict around the world. Some examples are the U.S. invading Panama in 1989, the Gulf War in 1991, and the 2003 “War on Terror” in Iraq.
Many people argue about the U.S. being involved in so many conflicts over the past two decades. The primary debate is about who should have the authority to declare war. Some think the President should have sole power to decide because there is not time for Congress to debate the issue. Others think Congress should decide because Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution states, “Congress shall have Power to declare War.” Still others think the President and Congress should jointly decide the plan of action. The President can quickly deploy troops if needed and then Congress must authorize the war shortly after. This view runs parallel with the War Powers Act (WPA) which Congress passed in 1973 because the Vietnam War had failed miserably. The WPA states that the President should speak to Congress before doing anything, but he has the power to send troops wherever he wishes for sixty days. If the President determines that troops cannot leave yet, he must submit a written explanation to Congress. If Congress does not authorize the troops after this time period, they must be withdrawn.
There has been a precedent set that the President does not have to follow this law. Either the President blatantly ignores it, or he uses a fancy description to say the situation is not war. This precedent has given Congress little power. Members of Congress have taken the President to court over the matter a few times, and each time, the Supreme Court has decided that only individual members had a conflict with the issue, not the entire Congress. Ultimately though, Congress has all the power. If they were to stop passing funding bills, the war would eventually stop.
To prevent major disagreements, the Legislative and Executive branches need to work together when deciding whether or not to go to war. The two branches would then be more willing to work with each other when the war does not go so well, like the War on Terror. Instead of arguing back and forth about progress in Iraq, the two could determine a plan of action for a successful end to the war. To fix these problems, either the President needs to be more willing to work with Congress, or Congress needs to take back some authority by using the power it has. For example they could stop passing bills the President wants. If the U.S. government were more willing to work together on issues inside and outside its borders; the United States would be better “united” and would have a better chance of surviving in the future.
Grade Received: A
Technology In the U.S. and Throughout the World
How Technology Has Affected the U.S.
The United States of America is at a crossroads with the War on Terror in Iraq. The war has not only sparked debate in the U.S., but it has been criticized in other countries as well. To fully understand the situation, one needs to be familiar with the way the U.S. interacts with other countries. Over the past twenty years there have been numerous technological breakthroughs that have allowed people all over the world to find almost any type of information desired. The ease of accessing this information has affected the way United States is viewed by the rest of the world.
The average American watches four hours of television per day, and the average person in the United Kingdom watches three hours per day. That means the average person in the United States and the U.K. spends about one day every week watching television. Most of these hours are spent watching television shows or sports, but twenty-seven million people in the U.S. still watch the evening news each night. Thirty-five million people watched the evening news ten years ago, but many of those turning off the television are turning on the computer.
The internet has been growing exponentially since the beginning of the 1990’s. It has changed into something almost everybody has. In the U.S. 70% of households have access to the internet, in Australia 54% have access, and in Europe 40% have access. In 1990, there were 313,000 internet hosts (websites). Today there are around 350 million hosts and that number continues to rise each year. This has allowed people to know what is going on in any other part of the world. Thus, America’s news can be viewed almost anywhere and criticized instantly by countless people.
The internet contains nearly an infinite amount of content. This allows people to find information that is normally not given much acknowledgement by the media. Examples of this are foreign aid and charity donations. Many times the U.S. media reports that the United States is the most generous country in the world. This is true if one looks only at the amount of money donated, but if one looks at the dollar amount per capita, the United States ranks near the bottom of the list. This example shows how the media manipulates their data to get the result they want. When realizing they have been lied to by the press, people wonder what other lies the press, and many times the government, has told them. American citizens may react by electing someone they think will change the country’s wrongs, while another country’s leaders may debate whether to remain in alliance with America. The lies may fuel an enemy to act on their hatred towards America, causing the U.S. to react (i.e. September 11). Attacks like this happen and are highly publicized when they do, but this is usually the only time the United States’s news is regularly on other countries’s television stations.
Though our news is not broadcast everywhere, our music and movies are, allowing people of other countries to know and learn our culture. Many of the U.S.’s movies and television shows demonstrate violence. This can be dangerous because someone may interpret the actions of the U.S in an offensive manner. Misinterpretation hurts the United States’s image, and the violence depicted may sway someone to think that all American’s act the way an actor does in a movie. Obviously this is not true, but that is the stereotype many countries have associated with the U.S. Through globalization, people from one country will be more willing to interact with one another, and these interactions should help the world shape a more realistic view of the American population.
In conclusion, the amount of information available will continue to grow, and it will become easier and easier to obtain. The internet has made it easy for many people to find information about the U.S. that is normally not presented by the news media. Some of the information found has led people in other countries to view the United States as having too much money and too much power. Our interaction with other countries is essential for continuing progress in America, and the ease and availability of information will continue to help people view how positive or negative these interactions are.
Grade Received: B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)