Barack Obama v George Bush: Realist Analysis

On January 20, 2009 Barack Obama took office after running on a campaign of hope and change. This essay will examine the first 10 months of his presidency, and compare it to the rule of his predecessor, George W. Bush. Several policy areas will be examined, with special focus paid to international security issues, including the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fate of the Europe-based missile defence shield within the context of a stronger Russia, and the foreign policy toward North Korea and Iran, especially as relates to their respective nuclear ambitions. Recognition will be given to the so-called Bush Doctrine, a four pillared policy framework of preemption, unilateralism, American primacy and democracy promotion, and it will be compared to the actions of Obama along these lines. Further, the major international events that occurred during the Bush and Obama presidencies will be discussed in terms of the underlying theoretical frameworks influencing them, as well as the presidents' respective foreign policy responses. From this analysis, it will be noted that there have been several course corrections between the administrations, with a renewed focus being placed on the neo-Liberal ideas of multilateralism and institution-building by Obama, even if in name only. However, it will be shown that the underlying state of the international political system is one of continuity, reflecting the dominant ideological realities of the realist/neo-realist tradition.
[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]

Analysis of film Arguing The World

Below is something I've been working on at school. Since McMaster has essentially eaten up all my time for the past few months, I thought it might be good to post some of my work to prove I am still alive (don't people usually go bungee jumping for that same reason?). So here is my analysis of the film Arguing the World.

Arguing the World: A Marxist Analysis of the New York Intellectuals

Wesley Kellar

The film Arguing the World follows the lives of four New York intellectuals from their modest childhoods, through their early experiences with academia and their subsequent careers as influential thinkers and social commentators. This paper will begin with a summary of the film, paying special attention to the early school days of Daniel Bell, Nathan Glazer, Irving Howe and Irving Kristol, and the subsequent changes in their respective theoretical subscriptions. Following this, the film will be analyzed with reference to material relevant to the study of sociological theory, with particular focus paid to parallels with the life of Marx and connections to the Marxist paradigm. In so doing, this essay will prove the utility of the Marxist theoretical framework in the study of sociology and the world.

This section summarizing the experiences of the four New York intellectuals draws entirely from the film Arguing the World (Dorman 1998). The film begins with a discussion of the childhood of each of the four characters profiled. Each was a Jewish child growing up in New York, experiencing the burdens of poverty and discrimination. Bell came from the lower east side, Glazer was raised in the Bronx to a working-class family, Howe recalls a difficult move to the East Bronx and a resulting drop in socioeconomic status, and Kristol relates that he barely noticed his poverty in Brooklyn, because everyone he knew was also poor. These trying economic circumstances helped lay the foundation for the brilliant careers that followed. The result of their lack of money was that all four young men attended the City University of New York (CUNY), a relative dumping ground for the “smart poor” (Dorman 1998).
[continued after the jump, or click on title to view full article]