Latino politics

Over the past couple of years, Latinos have gained significant ground in the American political scene. Progressing from being almost non-existent in American politics in the early 90's, Latinos have gained nearly 20 seats in Congress in the past decade. The Latino population has played a crucial role in the elections in several states, as whichever candidate wins the Latino vote often wins the election. This fact has helped the Latino population, as politicians are now more willing to fight for Latino rights and reform in Congress. Issues like Latino civil and political rights, immigration, and language policies have come to the forefront of heated debates in Congress, when 15 years ago these topics would never have even been considered. President George W. Bush has even broadcasted his speeches over Spanish radio in the U.S., and the Republican party has been broadcasting on Spanish language television in order to establish closer links with the Latino people. Latinos are slowly growing from a mere political minority to a dominant force in politics. Latinos have also been influential in the workplace, as they are willing to work for longer hours and less money. This issue has been a real problem for "native" Americans whose jobs have been "stolen" by these Latino immigrants. Government has also had to pay more attention to this issue as it slowly becomes more heated. In conclusion, the Latino population is steadily increasing in the U.S., and someday it will not be a simple minority. Latinos have already made their presence known in the workplace and in Congress itself. Who knows where the Latino population will end up in the next 50 years. 

Reaction to "Blowback"

First, this article challenged me to look at the United States in a way that I had never really thought about-that the United States is really an empire. I had never really considered the U.S. to be an empire, simply because I thought that all empires ended at least 100 years ago. But, after being presented with this article, the U.S. certainly does seem to have built quite an empire. We influence much of what goes on in the world today, either directly, indirectly, or in ways that only certain people know. We are always trying to find the best way to better ourselves-no matter what price other people in the world have to pay. It certainly makes me uneasy to think that the U.S. government is doing a lot of things that I don't know about, especially if those actions are going to jeopardize the safety of innocent Americans. "Blowback" is an unfortunate consequence of the way the U.S. pursues foreign policy and the way the U.S. attempts to remain on top of the world. Most surprising to me was the fact that the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am Flight was retaliation for the Reagan administration's aerial raid on Libya! All those innocent people were killed probably without even knowing anything about this raid. Who knows what will happen to us in a few years, as who knows what the government is secretly doing at this moment?

    Further, I do not necessarily agree with Johnson's assertion that terrorists attacks are one type of "blowback". Terrorists are usually unaffected by American policies; they just hate America for whatever reason. It was also surprising to me that, at one time, Osama Bin Laden was actually supported by the U.S. to help drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, we upset him by putting our soldiers in his home country, Saudi Arabia, which apparently is against his religion. Now Osama is the man terrorizing the country and remains one of our greatest enemies. 

    Finally, the United States needs to be more careful with its foreign policy. Firing cruise missiles blindly and with the wrong information is never a good thing, especially when the targets are in Africa. The U.S. officials need to think through their actions AND their consequences instead of acting at the spur of the moment. The U.S. must be more careful with the routes it is taking, and U.S. officials must also consider the negative effects that their decisions could have on innocent American people years down the road.

Joseph Nye Article

This Joseph Nye article from Soft Power makes some good points, but it also makes some points that I do not necessarily agree with. First, Nye defines "soft power" as the ability to shape the preferences of others and "hard power" as the use of military or economic power to shape these preferences. He then goes on to describe the three main resources of a country's soft power: culture, political values, and foreign policies. Governments are able to control all of the hard power assets, but not all assets of soft power lie in government's hands-popular culture often reacts to government actions, as in the Vietnam war. Similarly, government used both its hard and soft powers during the 2003 Iraq War. Rumsfield wanted to prove America's military strength, while others in government saw this war as a chance to bring the power of democracy to the Middle East. This implantation of democracy has both positives and negatives-as it will only be affective if the Iraqi people prove to accept this form of government(which remains a challenge today). Further, I do agree with Nye's assertion that Anti-American sentiment has been growing over the past few years, but I do not agree with him on the fact that America is the world's only superpower. America may be a superpower, but I certainly do not think that we are the only superpower-China is on the rise and the growing European Union is slowly becoming more powerful in the world economy. We cannot "take this decline in our attractiveness lightly", as our soft power resources are dwindling as our popularity in the world decreases. Lastly, I also agree with Nye's assertion that "we need to adopt policies that appeal to moderates, and to use public diplomacy more effectively to explain our common interests". Instead of catering to the extremes of policy, we need to look more towards the middle in order to be effective. Most people are in that conservativish-middle, as fewer people remain on the extreme poles. The United States must find an effective way to wield both our hard and soft power to continue to dominate in world affairs.

Welfare Reform Reaction

According to this article, welfare reform seems to be presented in a good light and is supported by a good deal of Americans. Especially in the 1990's, in accordance with the booming economy, government funds were permeating through all modes of life. Also, the call for welfare reform was called for more than ever. With the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, people were forced to move away from depending solely on welfare. New requirements were made to qualify for welfare, and people had to do more to qualify for welfare. It certainly hit close to my heart to hear Carolyn's story of desperation and need for help. Welfare is for people like her-who are struggling to make it by even though they are trying to do everything they can to make it. Welfare should not be for people who are not even trying to work. Although it can be very difficult to decide who gets the privilege of welfare and who does not qualify for it, only people trying to improve their situation should be able to receive the assistance. Welfare reform has truly changed the old face of welfare, as people are more active in trying to improve their positions and not simply depending on welfare as their means for life. It is difficult to say how effective these reforms have been, as the success is only relative. But, I think, in terms of people receiving welfare who really need it, that it has been more successful. The most deserving people seem to be receiving the aid, and those who previously abused the system have not received the benefits.