All in Political Theory
The Civil War is a central part of early American history. The bloodshed from 1861 to 1865 settled questions from the existence of slavery to federalism to economic issues. However, there were two earlier moments in the early 19th century when America could have descended into civil war, being prevented only through political skill, leadership, and sheer luck; this piece covers the second near miss - the Mexican-American War.
Thinking about gender relations, both in research and empirical investigation, through the concept of hegemonic masculinity, or even masculinities, is relatively new. Introduced into the field of academic and empirical gender research in the 1980s by the Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell, this concept has made it possible to consider, analyze and deconstruct relations of male-female domination and patriarchy from the male perspective. Hegemonic masculinity is defined by Connell in 1995 as "[not being] a fixed and unchanging personality type, but masculinity that is in a hegemonic position within a given structure of gender relations, a position that is always subject to challenge". She then goes on to define it as "that which guarantees (or is supposed to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women." It thus designates a configuration of - mainly masculine - gender practice that maintains the disparity of power(s) between women and men in a given time and place; the dominant form of representation of masculinity in a given time and place.
If you live in the United States, polarization is a term you may have heard often regarding American politics. In politics, polarization refers to the large divide between American voters that puts them on opposite ends of the political spectrum. This divide reflects voters’ values and affects how voters perceive the opposing party, as well as how they are represented in Congress (Fiorina, Abrams, 2008). With the rift between Democrats and Republicans being bigger than it’s ever been, it can be difficult for democracy in the United States to function correctly, bringing consequences to policymakers and the American people. Polarization is a reality in American society today, that is caused by internal and external factors influencing Congressional decisions and American voting habits. These factors include characteristics of Congressional and political processes, the pressure to conform to partisan demands from both voters and legislatures, media presence, monetary support, and economic inequalities that hinder policymaking, social cohesion, and the accurate representation of American voters in Congress. Despite the many causes of polarization and the resulting hindrance to democracy, polarization can be diminished through the recognition of harmful partisan attitudes, and corrective action through governmental processes that encourage cooperation and compromise between parties.
According to a study from Brown and Stanford universities, the United States is polarizing faster than other developed democracies and is arguably more divided today than at any time in the past 40 years (Boxwell et al., 2021; DeSilver, 2022). Our view of the word patriotism has likewise become increasingly contentious. Though traditionally understood as affection for one’s country, many now mistake patriotism for its darker counterpart, nationalism, and vice versa; this can be attributed to the rhetoric of both major political parties. However, before we can understand the importance of, and difference between, patriotism and nationalism, we must examine their etymology.
Nicholas Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513. It is ostensibly a manual for rulers to help them maintain their power. Still, many contradictions within the text make it unclear whether Machiavelli was ironic or serious. Understanding Machiavelli’s perspective requires one to analyze the time he lived. Machiavelli was born during the reign of the Borgias and the Medicis and studied the power struggles of the warring principalities of the Italian Renaissance (Shumer, 1979). During this period, dynastic families emerged. The period was also characterized by chaos; princes made and lost fortunes overnight. The understanding forms the basis for my support of Machiavelli's theory on political leadership.
For almost a year, the United States has experienced the horrors of the COVID-19 virus. From the hundreds of thousands of lives already taken, to the questioning of America’s leadership, this year has been nothing short of chaos. As we look forward, there is still a high level of uncertainty and anxiety amongst many. With a new president comes new policy; president Joe Biden took immediate steps in trying to overcome the pandemic that has already proved to be destructive. As one of his first presidential actions, on January 20, 2021, Biden implemented an executive order to require anyone who is working for or with the Federal Government or in a Federal building to wear masks and maintain social distancing. These orders were put in place to “halt the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures,” showing that this new administration is using scientific evidence to back their policies (The White House, 2021). While this may help certain parts of the United States, Section 3 “Encouraging Masking Across America” merely provides a suggestion to the American people. There should be more local and state-level intervention to mitigate the spread of the virus. As of March 29, 15 states have no restrictions with the use of masks. Moreover, there are six states that sometimes require masks (The New York Times, 2021). Although there are not clear trends with states with no-mask policies having higher COVID-19 cases, it is clear that this inconsistency across the country reveals the differing values between states, but also the United States’ values.
Amidst a growing number of COVID-19 cases and elevated uncertainty surrounding the trajectory of the pandemic, municipalities across the US are reinstating lockdown restrictions. Heated criticism comes from every direction, as both lockdown-proponents and opponents contest the best method for managing the virus. While everyone has different opinions on the matter, a familiar question has resurfaced: will people adhere to stay-at-home orders? Enforcing lockdown measures has proved to be difficult. Despite safety guidelines, many people continue to ignore recommended precautions, and the question of “why?” arises. While the answer is often reduced to saying that deviators simply don’t care about public welfare, this generalization doesn’t capture all the factors at play. Behavioral economics can explain why many people deviate from COVID recommendations; the pandemic can be treated as a game, and as such, game theory can elucidate why public consensus on how to handle the pandemic is not uniform. Examination under the lens of game theory shows that individuals often benefit more by not following guidelines. From this conclusion, the added benefit of further lockdowns becomes questionable.
