New Developments

Good afternoon, readers. I know without a doubt that every one of you is wondering why I’ve neglected the blog so long. Well, I’ve had a very long and trying semester. I’ve had a lot of academic, personal and professional trials come my way, and I’ve learned from them—or at least I hope so. Despite the negatives, however, my semester in Washington taught me a great deal about, among other things, my limits and my professional interests.

My article today, appropriately, is on this very subject: the value of experiences in human development. At one point in my life I was convinced that one could learn everything simply by reading and researching. While this is true to some extent, it’s not completely factual; humans, being mobile and creative beings, need to pursue their interests to live wholesomely. That is, experience—whether positive or negative—is necessary to the purpose of positive human development. To illustrate, we can take the example of the reclusive individual. As animals can only develop as is appropriate to their respective species, so must humans interact to develop. Reclusive behavior, depending on the intensity thereof, can slow one’s development of social skills necessary to progress in life.

I went to Washington for three reasons:

1) To gain a firsthand understanding of the influence of non-governmental organizations on the legislative process.

It’s hard to understand how national policy is developed without actually seeing the process itself, you know?

2) To break away from the everyday college grind for a semester.

To be sure, I love college. I wouldn’t be there otherwise. However, I wanted to experience what real life in my profession was like. Hence, my decision to leave for a semester.

3) To find out why foreigners, to varying extents, dislike the “Washington Consensus”.

I understand that the researchers at DC policy firms, and the legislators that support them, are literally experts in their respective fields, and deserve—and indeed, have—my utmost respect. However, it seems that in recent years other countries have come to increasingly dislike the overall nature of the policies set out by Washington. In my first week in Washington, I visited one of the leading policy firms in DC to hear an expert talk on the recommended course for the Obama Administration to take following its establishment. Throughout, I slowly became aware of an underlying and quite significant preoccupation with America’s image in relation to the subjects raised—subjects concerning Middle East policy, human rights issues and nuclear disarmament. From this one could infer that some of America’s leading policymakers might be afflicted with what some students have come to call “resumé syndrome”—doing things, either wholly or partly, for the sake of appearance, instead of or only in part for their utility to US citizens. One might also contend, however—and quite rightly—that the current administration’s recent initiatives and pursuits, which, of course, must lend themselves to the guidance of policymakers of both the left and right—including the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the initiation of a nationwide community service program to pay off college debt—are indicators that citizen well-being doubtless matters to US policymakers, and likely more than the US’ image. Still, the fact that such a preoccupation exists within some of the nation’s leading policymakers, even in spite of Obama’s election—though doubtless the majority do not express this with the fervor of the previous administration—might be slightly unsettling to some. Nonetheless, the past 8 years, combined with my experiences in Washington, have given me somewhat of a better perspective on why Obama has pledged to “change business as usual in Washington.” The Obama Administration’s recent pledges to increase and improve positive interactions and relations with countries it was previously hostile towards is an indicator that things are indeed improving. Before Obama’s election, however, as we all remember, Washington politics were, in some ways, going towards the exact opposite direction of the current Administration. In some ways I understand why US policymakers are concerned with improving the nation’s image. However, positive actions lend themselves to positive outcomes, and certainly engender respect within others. The United States only need trust in the current administration’s positive intentions, yet still hold it accountable for any behavioral deviations from said intentions. It’s highly unlikely that the Obama Administration will repeat the Bush Administration’s mistakes—however, those interested in politics might be well served by involving themselves in whatever way as would help to further decrease this possibility to zero.

WASHINGTON!!!

The verdict’s in, folks—I won’t be coming back to UHart until Fall. I’m in Washington right now, studying Foreign Policy at American University, hence the lack of posts. Sorry about that, folks. Anyway, it’s been crazy. Since last week, I’ve been in whirlwind meetings and classes. On the first day of class, I went to a symposium featuring luminaries such as Gen. Petraeus, Richard Armitage, Madeline Albright, and others. Capitol Hill’s fantastic, and it’s so easy to get around here. The Metro, DC’s subway system,  runs throughout the city, much like New York’s, only on a smaller scale. Another thing—I’ve heard that it’s colder in higher places, but Washington exemplifies this: it’s coldest on the Hill, but becomes warmer after only a few blocks. The city has possibly the strangest climate ever—with the possible exemption of Barrow, Alaska, which experiences annual 2-month dark periods during winters. Classes are fun, I won’t lie—45-page research papers and all.

You think you’ve heard about Washington’s  inauguration preparations? Unless you’re living here, you seriously have no idea. Half of Capitol Hill has been sequined off for construction, and there’s a large build effort going on at the Capitol. The White House is enlisting over 5,000 volunteers for the Day, and the entire city is already packed. In addition, I saw Obama speak live yesterday. That in itself was AMAZING!!!!

I think it’s great that we’ve elected—and will soon be inaugurating—an African-American president. It’s not just because I’m of the same ethnicity that I’m saying this, but because of the possibility that it will change global comparisons of ability to color, and related comparisons. How is it, one might ask, That a country whose majority, for a good part of its history, attempted to withhold the rights of an entire people, now has chosen to elect one whose race was the object of said oppression? To answer this question, I would simply cite a combination of public dissatisfaction with government in its usual incarnation, a desire for (yes, you got it) a change therein, and a realization that ability is not related to color, or to sexual orientation, or economic status, etc. Though it is my only my opinion, and therefore subject to error, Obama’s not doing a bad job so far. He’s brought in economic officials from the Clinton administration and kept R. Gates as Defense Secretary, which, I feel, is a fantastic move: he’s kept the one person able to give Democrats express knowledge on the most vital aspects of our Middle East campaign while simultaneously ensuring, mostly anyway, that the Democrat-ruled Congress will be able to pressure him out of any decisions otherwise detrimental and/or contrary to both American public interest and the White House’s goal of putting pressure on Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaeda–not on Iraq, whose only major benefit to American interest is its vast quantities of oil, the use of which is progressively contributing to the spoiling of the Earth’s environment (but that’s a story for another post). The mere fact that I’m alive to see this happen gives me hope for the future. Though, whether Obama will be able to shoulder the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression whilst simultaneously searching for an alternative, yet mutually favorable, conclusion to America’s conflict with the Middle East is yet to be seen. Let us hope.

The Insomniac Term Paper Chronicles, Part 1

Good morning, everyone. This is Hadid again, procrastinating like I haven’t done in a year and a half and thus avoiding writing my 10-page Comparative Politics paper. Basically, I have to try to explain the end of the Cold War in a post-behavioralist context.  For those of you who don’t know what post-behavioralism is, it’s a theory of international relations that researches and attempts to constructively develop values, and calls for the politicization of the field itself. It’s derived from behavioralism, in that the latter masquerades as liberal while concealing its true ideology of empirical conservatism, detaches itself from reality in its conservative view on international relations, and conducts research so sophisticated as to actually hinder understanding thereof by laypeople.

In other words,

behavioralism =

with

on the inside.

Yeah.

So, anyway, that Cold War. I really don’t know why it ended. Gorbachev, with his sweeping reforms of perestroika (economic and political restructuring), on the one hand, shocked the entire region into economic and bureaucratic destabilization; on the other, with glasnost, destroyed the political capital of the entire Communist party. Seems that when an incredibly corrupt, secretive and criminal government lets loose its secrets to its terrified, hungry and angry citizens, things tend to go wrong. Complete undermining of the Communist Party’s power, increasing governmental delegitimization and ultimate dissolution of the entire USSR, to name a few. All painful and very, very expensive—for the Soviets, anyway. They lost everything.

Could the Cold War happen again? True, Russia and the former Soviet republics still aren’t in as high economic straits as the US currently is (but that’s not saying much nowadays), but with Bush publicizing plans for a missile defense system to be placed in Europe and Medvedev threatening to fire short-range missiles at—no, I’m sorry, near Poland—and with Russian paranoia already escalating in reaction, could history possibly repeat itself? Top five causes factoring into the Cold War’s development: security-related paranoia, tension, hostility, postwar environment, and lack of honest diplomacy (arguably detrimental if used, yes, but with the Cold War, you never really know). Let’s see—pre-emptive war (“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Guess who said that? I’ll give you a hint, he can’t talk with or without a teleprompter), Russian officials perpetually intense distrust in US defense and overall security claims, sustainedly negative US-Russian relations since the alleged end of the Cold War in ≈1991—if you believe your professors, all you PoliSci majors out there; if you don’t, you could say it’s still going on, just with Russia trapped in the 90s and the US trying to understand why—Obama’s attempts to pull troops out of Iraq, and Bush’s total refusal to “negotiate with terrorists.” Hopefully I’m wrong. I’m just a PoliScier, trying to make some sense out of the world. It’s not like I’m reading about this stuff in painstaking detail or anything.

Oh, wait.

McCain/Palin Lose Post-Convention Bounce

It’s official: McCain and Palin have once again fallen below Obama and Biden in the polls. In recent reports issued by CBS and the New York Times, Obama now leads McCain by five percentage points, at 48 to 43 percent public support, respectively (±2 %). It might be well explained by the relative lull in political festivity since the convention; polls taken directly after the convention showed a two-percent discrepancy between McCain and Obama, favoring the former. Since then, however, many women have taken umbrage to the GOP’s female pick. A double focus group session consisting of married and unmarried Clinton-supporting Nevada women echoed this, saying, “Once she started mudslinging… it’s the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women’s vote”, and, “She comes off pretty cutthroat.” Though all of the women in these two groups agreed on Palin’s excellent speaking abilities, none of them defended her anti-abortion stances, to which many have reacted with shock and even anger. Major news outlets will continue to update their polls throughout the week. The upcoming Presidential Debates, however, will largely determine the course of the election henceforth.