Monday, June 10, 2013

We're Just Not Cutting It - An Honest Look at American Immigration

"Well, when I say uncivilized, what I mean is . . ."
"What you mean is not like you."
-Disney's Pocahontas

Immigration is a subject that has been passionately debated around the world for generations, and as the global economy continues to evolve, this debate will continue for years.  Among the debates and arguments, each side provides compelling evidence, and thus makes choosing between them exceedingly difficult.  For proponents of restricted immigration, they cite sources which prove that current immigrants are more likely to take advantage of public welfare services such as food stamps (SNAP benefits) or healthcare such as Medicaid.  In fact, in 2000, "8.0 percent of immigrant households received cash benefits, compared to fewer than 6 percent of native households" (Borjas, 90).  While these figures are difficult to refute, proponents for less restrictive immigration laws can point out that while the financial burden of social programs to native Americans is apparent, it is minimal.  It was estimated in 1995 by the National Academy that immigration "increased the tax bill of the typical native-born household . . .  by around $200 annually" which is around $18 billion per year (Borjas, 92).
Image Source
In May of 2013, the Immigration Policy Center by the American Immigration Council produced a report on the current condition of illegal and legal immigration in California.  While many critics may guffaw at the statistics presented, the substantial evidence in favor of immigration reform is significant.  In California alone, there were an estimated 10.2 million (documented and undocumented) immigrants in 2011 and of those, nearly 50% were naturalized citizens - meaning they have the right to vote.  I highly urge you to check out the statistics and facts for yourself, but the most clamorous evidence I found concerned what would happen should the US government suddenly deport all unauthorized immigrants in California.  If all those living in California were deported today, it would reduce economic activity in the state by a staggering $360.1 billion and 3.6 million jobs (for both native Americans and immigrants alike) would be lost.
Hollie McNish, a British woman who writes amazing poetry in the form of spoken word recently penned and recited a wonderful piece on the (often wrong) preconceived notions of immigrants.  I encourage you to watch the video below, but please be warned that there is quite a bit of foul language.



Hollie, who has studied economics, points out in her video that "it's nice to have someone to blame our lack of jobs upon, but immigration is not as plain," and how right she is.  Very few immigrants simply leech off of the government or look constantly for hand outs.  They spend money, buy houses, put their children through school, invest money in stock, etc.  In fact, the purchasing power of Latinos alone in California is $310.5 billion!  What our country needs is an open, honest, and transparent dialogue about how to approach immigration.  Beating our chests, demonizing human beings, and ripping families apart does nothing to solve the problem.
We need immigration reform which treats human beings with respect, and not isolationist propaganda intended to encourage American citizens to hate anything or anyone foreign born.  It has been proven time and again that both legal and illegal immigration can be beneficial to the country.  I don't have all the answers and I won't pretend to, but our current policies just aren't cutting it.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Power To the People: One woman's struggle for peace in Burma


There are few thinkers in the modern world who captivate millions with their kindness and love for people, and Aung San Suu Kyi ranks among them. Fully supported around the world by influential people such as Hillary Clinton, Daw Suu has enchanted her people for decades as she has strived to lead them from the bonds of unrelenting dictatorship in Burma. From 1988, when she was elected secretary of the National League for Democracy, to today, Daw Suu has battled tirelessly for her people. What sets her apart from all other world leaders, save for leaders like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, is that her platform lies in the basis of nonviolence.
She differs from other female leaders in Asia due to the fact that while her father was a prominent politician to the Burmese people, her decision to lead them in 1988 was hers and hers alone. Unlike Indira Gandhi in India, when Daw Suu promoted peace, peace is what she gave to her people. Her nonviolent strategies and unwillingness to bend to the rule of the autocratic government have also drastically set her apart from other Asian leaders, and has also led to extended time imprisoned and under house arrest. She is a woman who holds true to convictions, without fear or shame of the fact. Her gender doesn’t dictate who she is because she is simply a human being who wishes to see all of humanity have the choice to live freely without fear of their basic human rights being infringed upon. In the book of conversations between Daw Suu and Alan Clements she had this to say: “But we know that we are not alone. The cause of liberty and justice finds sympathetic responses responses around the world. Thinking and feeling people everywhere, regardless of color or creed, understand the deeply rooted human need for a meaningful existence that goes beyond the mere gratification of material desires. Those fortunate enough to live in societies where they are entitled to full political rights can reach out to help their less fortunate brethren in other areas of our troubled planet” (Clements).

As a person, Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the most gentle and genuine to ever walk the planet. She radiates empathy and kindness which permeate through her speech and demeanor. She is a slight and tiny woman many would perceive weak, but her eyes behold a burning passion for liberty that can not be squelched. As a devout Buddhist, Daw Suu has devoted her life to achieving a constant state of metta, or loving-kindness. Throughout both the book, lecture, and documentary on this brave and empowered woman, Daw Suu repeats the importance of forgiveness many times. To find the inner strength not only to forgive, but also to welcome reconciliation with those who have held her prisoner for nearly two decades shows a deep understanding and comprehension of freedom. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Of all the Asian women leaders discussed throughout this course, the most similar to Daw Suu would have been Corazon Aquino. They both possessed quiet, but commanding demeanors which enabled them to motivate, inspire, and captivate the people of their nations toward action. Unlike Corazon, however, Daw Suu made the decision to lead her people of her own volition. That isn’t to say her father’s political career and death didn’t motivate her, but it wasn’t the deciding factor in her decision. She followed in her father’s footsteps because they stood for the same cause; to better humanity in Burma. Where Corazon was thrust into politics mostly because of her political ties, Daw Suu willingly walked into the life of politician because she felt it was the right and just thing to do.
Although one could fill an entire thesaurus with words used to describe Aung San Suu Kyi, among the first would be heroine. She has devoted her life to seeing the freedom and liberation of her people and at a Wallenberg Lecture she said that “a dedication to the cause of freedom binds us close together,” (14:10-14:15). How true these words are. In fact, not only does she have the support of Hillary Clinton, but also George Bush. In 2008, he awarded her with the Congressional Gold Medal and went as far as to pass a law allowing her to receive the medal will imprisoned. Her unyielding stake in the freedom of her brothers and sisters in bondage make Daw Suu an exemplary person.
In Chapter 13 of Aung San Suu Kyi: the Voice of Hope, Alan Clements describes Aung San Suu Kyi as a “voice that speaks for the voiceless, a power that stands up for the powerless - the simple people, the ordinary folks, and the disenfranchised” (Clements). Daw Suu, an extremely gracious woman, answers by explaining how there are many people who attain greatness and have it hidden within them. She goes on to say being aware of the world around us will aid tremendously in helping the cause of people everywhere. By allowing the people knowledge, Daw Suu implies, it will give them better understanding about choosing between right and wrong.

Truth, according to Aung San Suu Kyi, is closely and deeply related to the act of forgiveness. In Chapter 1 of Aung San Suu Kyi, she says that she “believe[s] truth and reconciliation go together” (Clements). She also says, “I don’t think that people will really thirst for vengeance once they have been given access to the truth. But the fact that they are denied access to the truth simple strokes the anger and hatred in them. That their sufferings have not been acknowledge makes people angry. That is one of the great differences between SLORC [State Law & Order Restoration Council] and ourselves. We do not think that there is anything wrong with saying we made a mistake and that we are sorry” (Clements). This compelling passage sheds a new light on those who have been oppressed by unfair and unjust laws. She says here that all the people want is to be set free and apologized to.
Many may ask why those living in Burma don’t simply rise up against their oppressive and controlling regime, and oust the leader. While this sounds impressive on paper, it simply isn’t practical for a population of impoverished people to take on their heavily armed military which have frightened and terrorized them for generations. Indeed, fear is a factor which keeps many people in Burma continuously oppressed. “Almost everyone says that they are afraid of SLORC’s wrath: afraid of retribution; afraid that if they speak out they’ll pay for it with imprisonment,” says Alan Clements in Chapter 1 (Clements). Daw Suu doesn’t say that she isn’t fearful of what the government in Burma may do to her, but the emancipation of her people is greater than any amount of fear that could ever possess her.
In line with her Buddhist ideals, Aung San Suu Kyi ardently advocates for the exercise of compassion amongst her peoples. In Chapter 2 of the Alan Clements book, Daw Suu tells the tale of two quarreling sides and how Buddha intervened. Rather than telling them to stop from afar, Buddha stepped in between the two sides so that they would be forced to hurt him if they continued to fight. This, Daw Suu, implies, is what true compassion is all about. By pouring out love to one another through acts in the community, this furthers the agenda of compassion. There is a scripture in the Christian Bible taken from Galatians 2:6 that instructs followers to “carry each other’s burdens and in this way fulfill the law of Christ.” Daw Suu is instructing people around the world to do just that, “by coming to the families of political prisoners and offering them practical help and by surrounding them with love, compassion and moral support” (Clements, Chapter 2). She then goes on to liken compassion to “a mother’s courage to sacrifice herself comes out of her love for her child” (Clements, Chapter 2). If more people would live their lives being more compassionate and caring toward one another, perhaps such gross injustice and denial of human rights wouldn’t reign supreme.
Aung San Suu Kyi, who has led her people for more than twenty years, is the integral part of the push for democracy in Burma. She essentially has become the face of all the above listed attributes not only to her countrymen, but also to people around the world. Her steadfast desire to serve her country, at the expense of her familial and social ties, must prove exceedingly tiring, but she prevails. She missed a huge chunk of her two boys’ lives as well as the final breaths of her beloved husband in 1999. These burdens must weigh heavily upon her heart and soul, but still she fights for her people. Her unwavering devotion to the people she leads is truly an act that can barely be expressed. She has laid down her life so that others may have a chance to prosper, and that is truly amazing.
If the liberation of Burma occurs during the lifetime of Aung San Suu Kyi, as I sincerely hope, it would only be fitting for her to remain the head of the revolution. Her struggle for democracy within her country, in my opinion, sets her on equal footing with other great minds in history such as William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. It would have been so simple to retreat after visiting Burma in 1988 and return to the privileged life she’d led, but Daw Suu realized that she was needed. In the future, I believe that Daw Suu’s passionate light will ignite a burning fire of peaceful revolution that will spread not only through Burma, but the whole world as well. Injustice may never be completely eradicated from our planet, but to people like Aung San Suu Kyi, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.
There are few thinkers in the modern world who captivate millions with their kindness and love for people, and Aung San Suu Kyi ranks among them. Fully supported around the world by influential people such as Hillary Clinton, Daw Suu has enchanted her people for decades as she has strived to lead them from the bonds of unrelenting dictatorship in Burma. From 1988, when she was elected secretary of the National League for Democracy, to today, Daw Suu has battled tirelessly for her people. What sets her apart from all other world leaders, save for leaders like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi, is that her platform lies in the basis of nonviolence.
She differs from other female leaders in Asia due to the fact that while her father was a prominent politician to the Burmese people, her decision to lead them in 1988 was hers and hers alone. Unlike Indira Gandhi in India, when Daw Suu promoted peace, peace is what she gave to her people. Her nonviolent strategies and unwillingness to bend to the rule of the autocratic government have also drastically set her apart from other Asian leaders, and has also led to extended time imprisoned and under house arrest. She is a woman who holds true to convictions, without fear or shame of the fact. Her gender doesn’t dictate who she is because she is simply a human being who wishes to see all of humanity have the choice to live freely without fear of their basic human rights being infringed upon. In the book of conversations between Daw Suu and Alan Clements she had this to say: “But we know that we are not alone. The cause of liberty and justice finds sympathetic responses responses around the world. Thinking and feeling people everywhere, regardless of color or creed, understand the deeply rooted human need for a meaningful existence that goes beyond the mere gratification of material desires. Those fortunate enough to live in societies where they are entitled to full political rights can reach out to help their less fortunate brethren in other areas of our troubled planet” (Clements).
As a person, Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the most gentle and genuine to ever walk the planet. She radiates empathy and kindness which permeate through her speech and demeanor. She is a slight and tiny woman many would perceive weak, but her eyes behold a burning passion for liberty that can not be squelched. As a devout Buddhist, Daw Suu has devoted her life to achieving a constant state of metta, or loving-kindness. Throughout both the book, lecture, and documentary on this brave and empowered woman, Daw Suu repeats the importance of forgiveness many times. To find the inner strength not only to forgive, but also to welcome reconciliation with those who have held her prisoner for nearly two decades shows a deep understanding and comprehension of freedom. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Of all the Asian women leaders discussed throughout this course, the most similar to Daw Suu would have been Corazon Aquino. They both possessed quiet, but commanding demeanors which enabled them to motivate, inspire, and captivate the people of their nations toward action. Unlike Corazon, however, Daw Suu made the decision to lead her people of her own volition. That isn’t to say her father’s political career and death didn’t motivate her, but it wasn’t the deciding factor in her decision. She followed in her father’s footsteps because they stood for the same cause; to better humanity in Burma. Where Corazon was thrust into politics mostly because of her political ties, Daw Suu willingly walked into the life of politician because she felt it was the right and just thing to do.
Although one could fill an entire thesaurus with words used to describe Aung San Suu Kyi, among the first would be heroine. She has devoted her life to seeing the freedom and liberation of her people and at a Wallenberg Lecture she said that “a dedication to the cause of freedom binds us close together,” (14:10-14:15). How true these words are. In fact, not only does she have the support of Hillary Clinton, but also George Bush. In 2008, he awarded her with the Congressional Gold Medal and went as far as to pass a law allowing her to receive the medal will imprisoned. Her unyielding stake in the freedom of her brothers and sisters in bondage make Daw Suu an exemplary person.
In Chapter 13 of Aung San Suu Kyi: the Voice of Hope, Alan Clements describes Aung San Suu Kyi as a “voice that speaks for the voiceless, a power that stands up for the powerless - the simple people, the ordinary folks, and the disenfranchised” (Clements). Daw Suu, an extremely gracious woman, answers by explaining how there are many people who attain greatness and have it hidden within them. She goes on to say being aware of the world around us will aid tremendously in helping the cause of people everywhere. By allowing the people knowledge, Daw Suu implies, it will give them better understanding about choosing between right and wrong.

Truth, according to Aung San Suu Kyi, is closely and deeply related to the act of forgiveness. In Chapter 1 of Aung San Suu Kyi, she says that she “believe[s] truth and reconciliation go together” (Clements). She also says, “I don’t think that people will really thirst for vengeance once they have been given access to the truth. But the fact that they are denied access to the truth simple strokes the anger and hatred in them. That their sufferings have not been acknowledge makes people angry. That is one of the great differences between SLORC [State Law & Order Restoration Council] and ourselves. We do not think that there is anything wrong with saying we made a mistake and that we are sorry” (Clements). This compelling passage sheds a new light on those who have been oppressed by unfair and unjust laws. She says here that all the people want is to be set free and apologized to.
Many may ask why those living in Burma don’t simply rise up against their oppressive and controlling regime, and oust the leader. While this sounds impressive on paper, it simply isn’t practical for a population of impoverished people to take on their heavily armed military which have frightened and terrorized them for generations. Indeed, fear is a factor which keeps many people in Burma continuously oppressed. “Almost everyone says that they are afraid of SLORC’s wrath: afraid of retribution; afraid that if they speak out they’ll pay for it with imprisonment,” says Alan Clements in Chapter 1 (Clements). Daw Suu doesn’t say that she isn’t fearful of what the government in Burma may do to her, but the emancipation of her people is greater than any amount of fear that could ever possess her.
In line with her Buddhist ideals, Aung San Suu Kyi ardently advocates for the exercise of compassion amongst her peoples. In Chapter 2 of the Alan Clements book, Daw Suu tells the tale of two quarreling sides and how Buddha intervened. Rather than telling them to stop from afar, Buddha stepped in between the two sides so that they would be forced to hurt him if they continued to fight. This, Daw Suu, implies, is what true compassion is all about. By pouring out love to one another through acts in the community, this furthers the agenda of compassion. There is a scripture in the Christian Bible taken from Galatians 2:6 that instructs followers to “carry each other’s burdens and in this way fulfill the law of Christ.” Daw Suu is instructing people around the world to do just that, “by coming to the families of political prisoners and offering them practical help and by surrounding them with love, compassion and moral support” (Clements, Chapter 2). She then goes on to liken compassion to “a mother’s courage to sacrifice herself comes out of her love for her child” (Clements, Chapter 2). If more people would live their lives being more compassionate and caring toward one another, perhaps such gross injustice and denial of human rights wouldn’t reign supreme.
Aung San Suu Kyi, who has led her people for more than twenty years, is the integral part of the push for democracy in Burma. She essentially has become the face of all the above listed attributes not only to her countrymen, but also to people around the world. Her steadfast desire to serve her country, at the expense of her familial and social ties, must prove exceedingly tiring, but she prevails. She missed a huge chunk of her two boys’ lives as well as the final breaths of her beloved husband in 1999. These burdens must weigh heavily upon her heart and soul, but still she fights for her people. Her unwavering devotion to the people she leads is truly an act that can barely be expressed. She has laid down her life so that others may have a chance to prosper, and that is truly amazing.
If the liberation of Burma occurs during the lifetime of Aung San Suu Kyi, as I sincerely hope, it would only be fitting for her to remain the head of the revolution. Her struggle for democracy within her country, in my opinion, sets her on equal footing with other great minds in history such as William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. It would have been so simple to retreat after visiting Burma in 1988 and return to the privileged life she’d led, but Daw Suu realized that she was needed. In the future, I believe that Daw Suu’s passionate light will ignite a burning fire of peaceful revolution that will spread not only through Burma, but the whole world as well. Injustice may never be completely eradicated from our planet, but to people like Aung San Suu Kyi, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.


Works Cited

Voice of Hope:  Conversations with Alan Clements

Saturday, June 8, 2013

Democracies, Soft Power, and a Close Look at the Future of an Emerging Multipolar World

During his Farewell Address in 1796, the first President of the United States of America, George Washington said that, "history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government" (Washington).  These words were offered as advice from Washington, who realized that democracy isn't an article of "one size fits all" clothing and can not be applied globally without serious repercussions.  Other countries, like China, realize that achieving a place of global power doesn't imply enforcing their brand of government onto the rest of the world, and as a result, this has enhanced the country's global approval.
The major players composing the multipolar world today are America, China, Russia, the European Union, and India.  China and India, in particular, have challenged the global dominance of the United States through what is known as soft power - which is "the ability to influence and shape the preferences of others" in a myriad of ways - and this definition was expanded by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in 2006 (Hiro, 237).  In addition to soft power challenges to the United States, there are four main flash points (volatile circumstances) that the country could face in the future.  These points all concern fundamental differences in the governance of the United States, China, and Russia.  The "take it or leave it" attitude of America toward nearly all foreign cultures has greatly led to the decline of the global opinion of America.
Washington would be wise to realize that democracy as a political model, while largely successful in the States, may not be the most effective style of government for all countries in the world.  With the rise of outwardly peaceful countries like China - who would rather not resort to military power in order to achieve results - soft power influence is a major player.  America will face future flash points with both China and Russia as ideologies continue to clash in the coming years.  The decline that America has experienced the past few decades could be alleviated if Washington would take a step back and examine the way foreign policy is conducted.  In learning from past mistakes, the country will fare better in succeeding in the adversities of tomorrow.

American Foreign Policy - Why Doesn't it Work Everywhere?
Over 200 years after George Washington delivered his Farewell Address, American foreign policy is far removed from what our founding father would have preferred.  In fact, during the presidency of Vladimir Putin in 2006, the prestigious Yuri-Levada Institute set out to gauge the attitudes of Russian citizens concerning their highest priorities.  Much to the chagrin of the West, this "wide-scale survey showed that 35 percent [of Russian citizens] wanted to return to the Soviet system, 26 percent" favored the control of Putin, and a mere 16 percent fancied Western style democracy (Hiro, 220).  Russians, in stark contrast to Americans, were more concerned with secure housing and safety from harm than they were with freedom of expression or association.  This idea of collective success over individualistic success is also found largely in the Chinese culture and society.  China, however, also realized that there are attractive traits of democracy and so set out to create a "democracy with Chinese characteristics" (Hiro, 228).  Between 1990 and 1999, China made leaps and strides toward fighting human rights violations within their borders by granting three vital laws to citizens.
One year after the Tiananmen Square protest, China enacted the Administrative Litigation Act.  This gave citizens the right to legal retaliation in the event that the government abused their power.  Four years later, in 1994, China passed the State Indemnity Law which also gave citizens the extended power to sue for compensation against the government when their rights or property were infringed upon.  The third law was passed in 1999 and allowed for the prosecution of prominent people such as the "state's administration, economic, and judicial agencies" as well as "the CPC's [Communist Party of China's] leadership organs" (Hiro, 231).  The passing of these laws were monumental because they were China's first attempts at increasing the well being of their citizens as a whole.  For many countries in the East and Asia, finding the middle ground between a free democracy and authoritarian rule is a top political priority, as most countries wish to exercise limited freedom while retaining a strict rule.

Soft Power Influence and Implications for the Future
When it comes to the most influential country in the world, the United States still ranks number 1, but that doesn't mean other countries aren't catching up.  In the early 1990s, Joseph Nye penned the term "soft power" and described it as "the ability to influence and shape the preferences of others" through "a nation's culture, values, and achievements" (Hiro, 237).  In 2006, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) extended this soft power definition to include 64 criteria including "defense capability, economic strength, scientific and technological capabilities, human development, the media, and arts and culture" (Hiro, 238).  The hosting of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing gave the People's Republic of China (PRC) their first prime opportunity to flex their soft power muscle - and that they certainly did.  The opening ceremony lasted for four hours and was televised to an "estimated 4 billion [people], nearly two-thirds of the human race" and cost $100 million (Hiro, 239).  This utilization of the media effectively portrayed China in a positive light and increased their level of global acceptance.  China hasn't been the only country to promote soft power through the media, however, countries like Qatar and India have joined in as well.
Prior to 1996, the only international news sources available to the public were the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Cable News Network (CNN).  This changed completely when the broadcasting company Al Jazeera was founded in Qatar in an effort to "offer a global perspective from an Arab and Muslim angle" and remains so today (Hiro, 244).  In addition to Al Jazeera in Qatar, India has taken the limelight in popular feature films.  Although Bollywood certainly isn't Hollywood, these films continue to gain international popularity largely due to the fact that Eastern countries relate more easily to these than Westernized films.  Although soft power may not carry as much force and domination as hard power, the seeds of soft power are sewn over time.  These are norms, customs, and notions that build gradually - such as the increased popular opinion of China over the declining opinion of the United States.

Flash Points - Is There a Troubling Future Ahead?
As America continues to conduct foreign policy, there will be four main points which may be the source of fighting or strife with other countries (particularly China and Russia).  These four categories are "perceived threats to national security, gaining control of disputed territories, competition for vital resources such as oil and natural gas, and currency and trade" (Hiro, 251).  Throughout the past decade, Washington has often cited threats to national security as a main reason for military involvement in matters.  Possibly the best example of this threat rests in the relations between the Kremlin and the Pentagon.  Vladimir Putin, understandably worried about America's possession of nuclear war heads and the strained Russia-America history, proposed the set up of an anti-missile defense system in Turkey or Azerbaijan, but George W. Bush declined the offer.  Although Putin attempted once again to negotiate in 2008, Bush refused to compromise and when the next Russian president was elected in November he wasn't shy to say that if America attacked, Russia would point all their weapons at Poland.  In addition to the matters with Russia which are likely to escalate in the future, relations with China are also expected to heat up over disputes regarding the country Taiwan.
Taiwan, a country which the PRC claim as their own, has become a hot spot of controversy in both the United States and China.  The United States want to prevent China from extending into other countries and as a result supply Taiwan with ample resources to use against China should they be needed.  Should the PRC enact an air force raid against Taiwan, the country is expected to perform relatively well until United States reinforcements can be dispatched to aid them.  In addition to these disputes over territories, America's relations with the international community will drastically be strained under competition for the world's dwindling natural resources.
The fight to find the most oil and other natural resources will only escalate in the coming years as the world's populations strain reserves.  What this means for America is that there will be a growing need to import land-intensive oil and natural resources from countries which it hasn't always been very cordial to.  This may prove a difficult and daunting task for the White House if they are unable to find a way to compromise with those they ardently disagree with.

Conclusion
Former American Congressman Ron Paul once said that, "setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms," and his words are undeniably true in the case of America.  Should the United States wish to conduct peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with the global community, the government must learn to compromise and make adjustments as all other countries have been forced to do since World War II for Washington.  With the likelihood of soft power challenges from other major powers in the world, and future flash points, it is imperative for the country to rethink the conduction of foreign policy in the near future.

Sources
Hiro, Dilip.  After Empire the Birth of a Multipolar World. New York: Nation Books, 2010.

Washington, George.  United States. Yale Law School. "Washington's Farewell Address 1796". New Haven: Lilian Goldman Law Library.