Name That Doctrine
Happy Friday APLGers.
Stumbled across this editorial while doing some early morning reading and thought this might generate some great discussion since this is a concept you are responsible for. Please read the article and write a 2 or 3 sentence editorial response to Michael Gerson.
Later,
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 7:17 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Danielle Humphrey
"It really doesn't matter much if the next president and vice president can identify these three elements of the Bush doctrine. They will live by them anyway."
Still, it would be nice if we could have faith in the candidates, who may be running our country, that they are familiar with our legal documents. Plus, as the article states, the Bush doctrine isn't difficult. I appreciated that the article laid out all of the facts, it was less biased than what you usually hear.
(but not without bias either i think)
I agree with what Danielle said that it would be nice to have confidence in the next leader that they should be familiar with the legal documents but they should also understand them as well. Because in order for them to better follow them shouldn't the candidates also be able to know exactly why and for what reasons they are doing those things stated in the doctrine.
-Aggressively confronting emerging security threats
-Democracy promotion
-Fighting disease and promoting development
But besides the two that involve promoting I think that the more important of the three that the next leader should concentrate on would be the first. Thats because of all that has happened, since there still are people who worry about another terrorist threat.
[[STEPHEN HANDLON]]
"It really doesn't matter much if the next president and vice president can identify these three elements of the Bush doctrine they will live by them anyway"
Fair enough but it is still important for someone who is a major canidate for the US VP spot (I'm looking at you Palin) to understand policies that have shaped many years of American history. While agressively confronting threats is one way to handle the situation, it would be nice to have a leader who will
(a) understand and deal with the root causes of the threats (why are people subscribing to radical, fundamentalist islamic beliefs?)or
(b) get the support of our allies before charging into a war or taking other agressive actions
How can you live by something that you can't identify? I'm sure we all know the quote that I'm referring too, since it has been cited in two of the last three posts, by Mr. Michael Gerson.
I agree that the candidates will most likely live up to the Bush doctrine standards. However these things are written down or named so that both people and politician's can have an easy way to identify certain ideological principals. If they don't know what they are I don't believe they have any right to say that they understand. Nor should anyone, Mr. Gerson, be able to say that it is unimportant for our future rulers (for lack of a better word) to not know their predecessors policies.
I agree with Gerson's claim that our future leaders do not need to know the Bush doctrine because it seems like the specific points of the doctrine are somewhat common sense. It isn't hard to see why trying to confront emerging security threats, promote democracy, and fight disease and promote development are key issues in our world today. So, although it may be preferable for our upcoming leaders to be quite familiar with former legal policies for knowledge's sake, it is not essential, because the points of emphasis in the Bush doctrine will inevitably be confronted simply by the fact that the problems are fairly obvious to see.
I find it very interesting that as election season comes along, and it is time to decide which candidate to vote for many people refuse to vote because they don't like either candidate, or they don't think that the President has that much power in and of himself. The Bush Doctrine is an amazing example of how the President can effect our everyday lives. It is also amazing that something which effects each one of us can be so universally misinterpreted.
"It raises a disturbing prospect: That most such debates are conducted by experts possessing great confidence and little knowledge."
I agree with Michael Gerson on this one. As election day draws near, I keep seeing commericials and speeches of candidates on T.V. speaking confidently about why they will be a good leader or why their opponent won't. Since they cannot possibly know the entire situation of the topic they're speaking of, they use rhetorical devices to appear confident and wise to the viewer without actually knowing all of the information.
Post a Comment
<< Home