Regarding the blog topic for this week, the first thing that really stood out to me was the introduction for Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy which said:
During Trump’s presidency, “American” has been a designation clearly reserved for American citizens, with even some naturalized citizens not being considered American enough. NSS 2017 supports this with its explicit use of American citizens, as opposed to NSS 2015 which used the vaguer term “American people”. In NSS 2015 this usage was used to further a more humanist and moralist sense of self which aligned American values with the well-being of the world and something that all other countries could benefit from. In this way, as discussed in “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11”, “self” become conflated with ideals of good and virtue, while “other” was used to denote bad. This moralist separation of “other” is consistent, and can be seen in NSC-68’s description of the Soviet Union as a fanatical slave state, as well as NSS 2017’s characterization jihadist terrorists as having “barbaric ideologies” (3). The Wolfers reading says that national security “indicates that the policy is designed to promote demands which are ascribed to the nation rather than individuals, sub-national groups or mankind as a whole” (481). By separating“who” and “what” within the categories of “self” and “other”, the US can get support for current policy by using the definitions most helpful to the present condition. Obama’s use of “American” focused more on general American ideals that other countries could also subscribe to, against globalized concerns like ebola and climate change. This worked to support Obama’s tactic of increased international bilateral cooperation. On the other hand, Trump makes “America” an exclusive ideal and group, which then supports his tactics of America working more by itself for itself. From NSC-68 to NSS 2017, American leadership was used as a strategy for obtaining security, as well as a definition for what security is. As NSS 2015 says, security is protecting “the leadership of United States ensuring the safety of American people in-land and overseas”. Leadership becomes a way of maintaining autonomy, and this is autonomy becomes synonymous with the freedom which America lists as one of its core defining values of self. In conclusion, similar to Elyssa, I think that the general framework for discussing national security has remained the same and is centered around general concepts of “us” and “them”, but that the interpretation of these concepts has changed over time and has been used for the justification of different means.
3 Comments
Miranda Baumann
10/31/2018 10:30:26 pm
Kate,
Reply
Elyssa
10/31/2018 10:40:36 pm
Hi Kate!! Thanks for the shoutout ;) I liked how you pointed out the differences in the framework of the policies-- this is also something I touched on in my post, but I like the way you explained it. I also thought it was interesting how you brought up the idea that Trump is trying to make America an "exclusive" ideal. It's so warped that a country that was built on the concepts of toleration (Hello, John Locke!!) and freedom has become a cesspool for ideals that are the exact opposite. Overall, great post!!
Reply
Kate
11/4/2018 10:29:51 pm
Hi Miranda,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
KateHi, I'm Kate! I'm from Madison, WI and am planning on majoring in SIS focusing on East-Asia China. I like practicing kung fu, listening to music, and drinking bubble tea. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|