Cole Gordner
International Relations
For my first blog, I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at some of the current presidential candidates and determine what IR theory they most closely resemble. Some of these comparisons will seem fairly obvious but some may catch you off guard and I will do my best to explain my thinking behind it.
First, I will start out with everybody's favorite, and most controversial candidate, Donald Trump. Mr. Trump has made it abundantly clear that our nation as a whole needs to be completely focused on our own well-being rather than that of other states. It is for this reason that he is easily identifiable as a realist. He does have a very intense interest in our economy and does seem to believe that it is one of the most important aspects of our nation and should be treated as such. However, Trump is not willing to boost our economy if it were to come at the expense of our nation's security. As for culture, it would seem fair to say that Trump does not respond extremely well to the idea that the United States is the 'melting pot' of the world.
On the other side of the spectrum is Democratic candidate, and favorite amongst many young college students, Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders would be classified as a liberal, and not just because he identifies as liberal in the political sense. Mr. Sanders cares immensely about domestic issues as is demonstrated through his advocacy for free tuition for all four-year public colleges and universities. To further my assessment of Bernie as an IR liberal, I would like to point out his stance on foreign policy. He has stated before that war, or any sort of foreign conflict, should be our absolute last resort when it comes to any issues oversees (i.e. the Iran Deal). Bernie seems to believe that all states should first try to work together and live in peace rather than solely worrying about our states national security, which perfectly describes a liberal way of thinking.
I tried my best to find a candidate who fell under the constructionist category of IR theory but I unfortunately could not. I did, however, make a realization that there is a candidate who falls almost directly in the middle of the two categories I have previously mentioned, Realist and Liberalist. This would be the Republican candidate who is a self-described Libertarian, Rand Paul. Rand has actually said that he believes himself to be a realist, but I disagree. Rand Paul has demonstrated very limited foreign policy platforms throughout his campaign. In fact, I got a better idea of what his foreign policy is through the recent Republican debate alone than I did throughout his campaign. He believes that national security is vital and a top priority, but he also does not want to risk causing any tension with countries that we have no quarrel with. Mr. Paul wishes to have better communication with other world leaders, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, and avoid any unwanted confrontations. However, he has explained that he is not just willing to bend to other countries and will put boots on the ground whenever our national security comes into risk. As for economic issues, Rand believes that our economy is just as important to keep in tact as our security. Along with our security he believes that if we do not have a well regulated economy we will not be able to maintain our position as a global leader.
As I have stated, these are my own personal assessments of some of the current presidential candidates in regards to where they fall in the International Relations theory spectrum. I have based my evaluations off of my examinations and interpretations of their platforms. I encourage you to take my analysis into consideration and provide feedback on why you either agree or disagree with my judgement.
I agree to an extent with your critique of Donald Trump, identifying him as an IR Realist. In terms of power, Donald Trump seems to favor relative gains over absolute gains. I defend this by pointing to his repeated rhetoric of America remaining at the top of the international community. In terms of Donald Trump being a Realist in his categorization of national threats, I am no too certain. Consistently, Trump has focused on terrorism as the greatest threat to US national security. In strictly Realist terms, terrorist organizations are not recognized as states. Since Trump’s recent defense plans call for stopping ISIS and defeating Islamic terrorists, I would categorize him as somewhat between Realist and Liberal.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to disagree with you Matt about Mr. Trump. Although he does place a large emphasis on combating terrorism, I believe any President would have to in this day and age. The threat of terrorism ever since 9/11 is higher than it ever has been. Trump places a huge emphasis on the threat of foreign states as well, which makes him a realist. Just because he thinks fighting terrorism is important also does not mean he is not as much of a realist.
ReplyDeleteTrump isn't much of a realist because of his emphasis on the economy and trade. Despite the importance of wealth is to national security, Trump's argument to boost the US's economic standing to beat China doesn't really reflect realism, which doesn't place much emphasis on economics. I agree with your analysis of Rand Paul, who has been teetering between realism and liberalism. Paul proclaims to be a realist and he does integrate realist ideas in his foreign policy; however, his emphasis on cooperation with other world leaders and avoidance of conflict can be seen as liberal. I think Carly Fiorina has proven herself to be quite realist. She has stated that she is willing to discard policies that are not advancing the interests of US and willing to use threaten and enforce preferences on other states.
ReplyDelete-Elaine
I agree with your assessments, I think it's hard to put a person in one category or another. Many candidates fall between the lines and have a little of everything mixed in, whether that is to connect with the most voters or because they actually believe that (something I cannot sort out). While you didn't bring up anyone who is a constructivist, I would like to think that Marco Rubio is slightly. During the last debate on CNN Rubio was the only person to speak well and seem to understand foreign policy, most likely because his position in the Senate. He seems to be balanced in the way that he understand cultures are different, but they are all equal. Thoughts on Rubio?
ReplyDeleteThat's a great point Kathryn! Senator Marco Rubio certainly has a good grasp on different cultures and what they stand for, this can be heard through the story he frequently tells of his Cuban born parents leaving the dictatorship of Fidel Castro and coming to America to begin a new life. I'm sure he would agree that all cultures are in fact socially constructed and therefore equal. However, I would still be inclined to label him as a realist as he does firmly believe that one of our number one prorities as a nation is to protect ourselves from other international threats.
ReplyDelete