Political Science

According to Geoffrey Garins and Guy Molyneuxs Informing and Empowering American Workers (114), a survey was conducted amongst union members regarding a  unions actvie engagement in the political process,  and three quarters of the survey respondents believe that unions, indeed, need to exert time, effort, as well as money in politics. It is widely believed that by actively participating in politics, unions could help minimize the influence of corporations on politicians the more unions are involved, the lesser are the chances that corporations will influence politicians into bending into their interests.

    Apart from this, out of ten union members, seven believe that it is more wise to vote for an individual who is supported by national unions and American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). Also, the candidate must have  strong pro-union positions on the issues  that unions and its members are fighting for. The explanation for these positions is that union members believe that big corporations can influence politicians into changing labor laws into laws which the corporation could benefit from there are instances wherein these corporations interests do not benefit the workers, and union members believe that by initiating union involvement in politics, unions could ensure that workers rights are protected. Apart from this, unions need to make sure that the working-class is given a voice during the political process (Garin and Molyneux 114).

    One problem that unions face upon engaging in politics is that there are instances wherein unions pursue skewed political goals. Sometimes, the union engages itself in politics and becomes absorbed in it that it forgets about the goals of its members and the reasons on why it engaged itself in politics in the first place. Another problem is that some unions do not focus on involving and informing their members, resulting in politically powerless union members. Unions must focus on its members and on finding means to empower its members if the union trusts its members with vital political information, it believes that its members can make proper voting choices and decisions. Most unions do not properly inform their members and instead, these unions merely bombard their members with information regarding endorsements of who these unions believe should be voted. If a union is engaged in politics, it needs to give its members the information they need in order to make wise decisions. Some unions get blinded by their means that they forget their ends most engage in politics with clear goals and yet they fail to meet these goals, eventually failing union members. Union members need to be reassured that the union they are part of is a union that aims to empower them as workers (Garin and Molyneux 114-115).

    According to Garin and Molyneux (116-120), there are unions must follow ten rules when it comes to participating in politics. First, union issues must always come first, whereas political parties and their candidates are only second unions must not lose track of their goals and focus on what it really important for its members. Second, unions need to  provide members with information, not voting instructions  union members want to be empowered, therefore, they want to be able to decide for themselves, instead of being told what to do. Third, unions need to present information credibly and objectively therefore, unions must be able to present information without including their biases and ulterior motives. Fourth, unions must not be partisan unions must work independently with the motive of empowering and helping their members. Fifth, unions should work as watchdogs and make sure that the information that they are giving to their members are information that is accurate. Some politicians put on a facade whenever they face unions and act as if they are pro-union when in fact they have entirely different agendas. Unions should be able to see beneath the surface and properly inform their members. Apart from this, once a union and its member support and elect a candidate, the union must make sure that the politician represents the union and its members once he or she is in the position.

    Sixth, unions need to represent its members are workers and that they address issues that directly affect union members, particularly their jobs. There are unions who take positions when it comes to cultural and social issues and union members deem this inappropriate for these issues are not directly related to their job and are very sensitive. Seventh,  union political action should always be of, by, and for the members.  A union could not properly represent its members if it does not base its political actions on the concerns and needs of the members.

    According to a PEW Research Center news release (2-4), there are six types of people who when it comes to the election process the regular voters, the intermittent voters, the registered but rare voters, the unregistered adults, the regular and intermittent voters, and the non-voters. The PEW Research Center focused on those who do not vote and conducted a survey to find out the reason on why some people do not engage in the election process, however, the results indicate that there is no single reason. Apparently, people have very relative reasons when it comes to voting. It all ends up on whatever may motivate them to engage in the process.

    In relation to this, a lot of union members feel apathetic towards the process for they feel that they are not properly informed and that their opinion is not needed. The eighth rule to consider when participating in politics is that if unions want to mobilize its members, they need to provide them information. Ninth, in order for unions to mobilize their members during the election process, unions need to be able to communicate to them via modern communication means and tenth, unions should address its members concerns by looking at them in sub-groups, for not everything may apply to everyone. For example, women and men see issues differently, and unions must address these properly (Garin and Molyneux 120-124).

    According to Donald Bleacher (311-315), unions played a significant role in the mobilization on union voters in the 2000 election. However, there are several aspects that affect the voting decisions of the union voter, such as race, religion, and standpoint regarding firearms. For example, Latinos, whites, and Christians who live in union households are far more inclined to vote for the Democratic party, whereas blacks and those who are non-Christians prefer those from the Republican party. In Bleachers Victory and the Promise of Reform Labor and the 2008 Election (267), it was stated that blacks were persuaded by unions into voting by stating that they ought to vote so that there is a chance that they can elect a black president, who is a friend, rather than have white people elect a white president who is an enemy.

     In 2008, Barack Obama won the seat of the president of the United States. It is said that  unions worked very hard  in order for Obama to be elected, for his  records in the U.S Senate  show that he is pro-labor. Fifty-nine percent of of Obamas votes were from workers living in union houeholds, for they believe that Obama would be able to help unions and their members address their issues. When Obama was elected, he  enhanced the prospects for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)  and enabled unions to organize in the United States (Bleacher 265).

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, there are a lot of American donors who provide campaign contributions for political parties and candidates. Out of the estimated US population of 296, 410, 404, around 0.10 provide political parties and candidates with 200 or more currently, the House Candidate and Senate Candidate whom are able to raise the highest are Joe Wilson and Harry Reid, respectively. Most of the contributions that these politicians have accumulated are from lawyers, retired individuals, health professionals and so on. Given that both are Republicans, it could be said that unions have to work hard in lobbying for politicians from the Democratic party, for Republicans have the reputation of being anti-labor.

    According to the Federal Election Commissions Citizens Guide, both corporations and unions are not allowed to contribute to the campaign funds of a politician, given that this may compromise the politician into standing for a certain corporation, or a certain union, when in fact, there should be fair play. However, individuals from a corporation may use their personal accounts to contribute to the politician of their choice. If this is the case, then the best that unions can do to make sure that they are properly informing their members about the running politicians. Information is always a good means to motivate employees, because, as previously discussed, by informing employees, they feel a sense of empowerment.  Apart from this, if the employees are well-informed, the higher are the chances that they will vote and encourage others to vote as well for a specific politician whom they deem to be someone who is pro-labor and will represent them properly.

    Empowered employees, as seen in the previous discussion, feel the need to contribute to the political process. By giving them relevant information, encouraging them, and letting them make their own decisions, they can contribute to the possibility of electing a politician that will be able to address their labor issues.

The labor sector comprises a huge bulk of the United States political and economic landscape. However, given the capitalist set-up, labor is bound to be one of the marginalized areas of American society. History would show that the struggle for economic equality rests mainly on the domain of the fight of the labor movement. And the labor movement is only but a result of a wider and more entrenched union groups. On the other hand, statistics would show that the working class and their families are sources of poll victories to any political party the labor movement chooses to support. Since the 1930s, there exists a union-Democrat alliance wherein candidates of the Democratic Party almost always garner the support of the greater majority of the members of labor unions across the country. However, if current labor situations would be the basis of judging whether coming into alliance with the Democrats, or with any of the two political parties for that matter, served the labor sector better, it can be confidently said that the alliance is, on the most parts, a failure for the labor movement. The question now is whether it would be best if the labor movement formed a political party of their own given its vast political support base and a sort of organized form - not to mention an almost consistent and one ideology and vision. Taking all things into perspective, however, one can say that despite the fact that the labor sector should have a political party of its own to better serve its purpose and protect its interests, the political clime is just not ripe for this kind of endeavor as well as the fact that the labor movement, specifically the labor unions, still needs to be strengthened. This paper will look into this contention by assessing the history of the labor sector in terms of political struggles, the pros and cons of the current two-party system to the movement, and the goals of labor unions. 

    The absence of a labor party in the United States can be attributed to a host of factors. First, the American government was created as a result of a revolt against the English conquerors thus many people, including the working class, recognize the government as their own greatly in the ideals of a democratic society. Because of this perception,  most white working man...did not undertake to form a labor party  (Yates 114). Aside from this, the politics is dominated by the Democratic and the Republican Parties by tradition and  sanctioned by laws  making any attempt of any new party into the field predominantly nil of success (114). Also, society is wary of any  labor radicalism  either in the form of political parties or labor unions (114). This situation led Samuel Gompers, a famous labor leader, to remark that the working class should  abandon politics and concentrate on building labor parties  (115). This ideology became widespread in the years to follow only to be altered a little during the Great Depression when most workers come to the aid of candidates of the Democratic Party hoping that Democrats would serve them well. This paved the way for the union-Democrat alliance still in effect up to the present. In fact, in the 2006  Congressional elections, union voters provided Democrat candidates with a whooping 74 support gaining the party 233 House and 51 Senates seats (AFL-CIO n.p.). These figures are further magnified if one is to consider that one in every four voters belong to the working class. In the case of Decatur, Illinois a labor dispute between the workers of the A.E. Staley corn processing plant and the management lead to a greater solidarity of labor unions in the city and during the 1995 local elections successfully elected city leaders from their own ranks or supportive of their cause (Ashby  Hawking 210-211).

    Given this encouraging scenario, one is bound to believe that a labor party is on the rise. However, why is there a need for such a party Tommy Douglas presented a justification for the need of the labor movement to enter into mainstream politics by using the story of Mouseland as an analogy. Douglas argued that the working class, the mice in Mouseland, is primarily the majority of the society. Yet despite their strength in numbers, the mice population time and time again opted for cats, the politicians, to rule over them. This situation is detrimental to the worker  mice  as the  cats  would understandably look after their own interests and that of their kind and it does not matter what predisposition the cats have, the fact is, they are still cats and are thus alien to the plight of the  mice . Therefore, there is a need for the workers to coalesce and form a political alliance with one another in order to promote their own interests and protect their rights against the capitalists. As Royal Plankenhorn argued,  We have to break down the walls that divide us because his battle is my battle, my battle is his battle, and your battle is my battle. We cant succeed any other way  (as qtd. in Ashby  Hawkings 99).

    However, one needs to remember Gompers missive regarding efforts to enter into the political field. Gompers rightly observed that politics is a  divisive subject  which could potentially render collective efforts  impossible to sustain  (Yates 115). It is in this vein that he advised the labor movement  to abandon labor politics and concentrate on building labor unions  (115). One could observe that despite the congruence in goals of each and every labor union, they still fail to collectively come together and present a unified front. What is happening is that the labor movement is, on the most part, greatly confined to the concerns of union workers in any given locality. Thus, although the issues are one and the same if seen on a holistic perspective, there is an absence of the recognition of this fact, or at least, to coagulate in pursuit of a collective interest on a national level. Therefore, one can say that the time to create a national labor party which is not only competitive on the national level but would also be able to survive political storms is still not ripe. As Gompers advised, the labor movement first need to strengthen labor unions (115). Aside from this, the public is still in need of greater education in terms of workers rights and the plight of the working class. There is no question that majority of Americans still regard the labor movement, from unionism to the entry to politics, with wariness and caution. Although, union voters are steadily presents a unified front in national and local elections this does not translate to an assurance that a labor party would have the same support. There is still a need to educate the  ignorant  majority and win them over to the cause of the workers.

    In conclusion, a labor party in America is still a bit pre-mature as of this moment. There are still some important things, like public education and nationwide worker unification, to be achieved before even pondering whether or not to create such party. Although, the fact that a labor party is needed now more than ever, the working class need to consider the long-run. If a labor party is to be created, it must be one that would be able to weather political, economic and social conditions of the future. It must not only be responsive to the problems of the present but should be, at all times, present in order to forward the interests of the workers.

    The question of whether democracies wage war against each other has continued to spark a lot of interest among different scholars from different sectors and countries. While some are strongly convinced that democracies wage war against each other, others feel that it is highly unlikely for democracies to fight against other democratic states. Democracies do not go to war with each other theory has been debated for the past two decades and still continues to raise various arguments today. Authors and theorists supporting this theory argue that since democracies have policies that are open to criticism and that are transparent, they are more open to negotiations and rarely result in war as a means of solving their conflicts. It is argued that free people rarely fight against each other but instead look for ways to resolve their differences through dialogue. However, there are some schools of thought that feel that democracies just as the socialist countries are engaged in war with each other and there are various evidences of wars to support this. Since the 1960s, theorists and scholars have observed that there has been peaceful coexistence between various types of regimes. This trend has been peculiar in most well established democracies leading to the question of whether democracies really engage in war with each other.

Do democracies wage war against each other
    The debate on whether democracies engage in wars against each other is an interesting topic today having to do to international relations. The idea that democracies do not fight with other ones was first introduced by Immanuel Kant, a philosopher in his essay dubbed perpetual peace in the year 1875. Historically, there has been no clear evidence on whether democratic countries engage or do not engage in war with other democratic countries. Liberal democracies of post Second World War comprising of North America and Europe have not engaged with each other in war. Various socio-political reasons have been formulated to explain the reason for regional peacefulness that has been observed between democracies. Most analysts have come to a conclusion that democracies have never engaged in or waged war against other democracies. It has also been argued that the only way to reduce wars and poverty around the world is by ensuring that all countries become democratic. Analysts argue that the interpretation of democracy and war are the foundation of determining whether democracies engage in or fight against other democracies.

Definitions and arguments of democracy
    The term democracy has become a major source of difference when it comes to the evaluation of the debate of war between democracies. An understanding of such definitions is vital in evaluation of the peace theory or the foundations of the concept that democracies do not fight against each other. Different theorists have come up with different definitions of democracy. One of the oldest definitions was forwarded by Immanuel Kant in the year 1875. Kant was opposed to the idea of direct democracy arguing that this kind of democracy leads to the establishment of and executive powers that is contrary to the will of the general public. Kant advocated for constitutional republic characterized by individuals liberties that are protected or guarded against the will of all or the majority. Another theorists who defined democracy during this period were Singer and Small (1976) who defined democracy as being made up of nations that allow for periodic elections whereby opposition parties were allowed and free to become government parties, a country that allows over ten percent of its adult population to participate in the elections and lastly a government or a country with a parliament that is charged with the role of controlling the governments executive branch. Other definitions have been formulated by different theorists with the most recent by Rummel in 1997 that defined democracy in terms of liberalism. Rummel argued that democracy is depicted when government officials are only allowed to hold power via a competitive election following a secret ballot, where individuals are granted freedom of religion, speech and organization and where a constitution governing a country allows and guarantees equal rights for all citizens. Rummel is one of the theorists who have highly supported the argument that democracies do not war against other democracies.

    The changing definition of democracy has contributed largely to the debate as to why democracies do not wage war on each other. Unlike in the past, many of the republics though they may have a voting system or the elections, they do not qualify to be termed as democracies. Changes in the definition of the term have made many researchers and scientists come to consensus that no genuine democracy has in the past engaged in any war with another genuine democracy. The question of mutual peace has come up in most of the debates regarding lack of war between democratic countries. In the past, it was argued that genuine democracies seek mutual peace, a reason that has restrained war between them. Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to bring out the idea of peace and democracy. Kant argued that human beings are inherently peaceful and as such, they cannot wage war unless they are provoked by tyranny. However, this explanation of lack of wars between democrats has so far been refuted due to the existence of democratic belligerence problem that democracies experience.  

    Democracies naturally tend to ensure mutual peace despite the fact that they may have many differences and may even be enemies. Dubrovnik is a good example of democracies that have not resulted in war for a long time. This republic built great walls to enable it survive amidst chaos and wars. It wanted to become an independent republic going by the name of Ragusa. Citizens of this country used to elect their officials and to vote for their councils for a long time. The country also had a well crafted constitution. Venice was another very stable republic but a great enemy to Ragusa at this time. They were bitter competitors in the Adriatic trade. The two cities were the merchants in this trade, although they used to regard each other as enemies. In most cases, these two rival independent countries, on legal pretext used to seize goods belonging to each other (as they were great rivals). Despite the fact that this region was tormented by many wars, there was no single time that Ragusa and Venice engaged in war. Individually, these two cities did not engage in war with other independent regions in the region or elsewhere. Despite the fact that Ragusa and Venice were great enemies and bitter trade competitors stealing or seizing goods from each other, they never even once engaged in any war. This is a clear indication that true democracies never engage other true democracies in war despite the fact that there are factors that may prompt war. However, this is not because they have no conflict or because they are friends, rather it is because they seek mutual peace which restraints them from engaging in war.

    Peace among democracies is one of the highly investigated areas today by scholars with an aim of identifying why there have been no wars between them, especially throughout the 20th century. Scholars have been trying to discover whether democracies are highly peaceful as compared to autocrat of communist countries. It was largely believed that the economic condition or position of a country, its ideology or its domestic situation have contributed to the lack of war between democracies. However, scholars have refuted this claim due to lack of evidence. Well established democracies have had a unique regularity for the past one century with no wars between them. Political scientists have been looking at the possible cause of such mutual peace between these nations, although no concrete explanations have so far been deduced. Critics argue that only a few democracies are full fledged around the world and such democratic states have not been in existence for such a long time. Others argue that there have been no conducive or provocative situations that could have necessitated the democracies to engage in war. Others argue that the level of economic development as well as international trade could have been the reason for lack of war between democracies. Meanwhile, scholars have come up with a list of conflicts that have occurred for the last two centuries to enable them assess the level of electoral freedom and other determinants of democracy thus determining whether democracies have engaged in war among themselves. Studies however show that no democracies have so far engaged in any war with another one, leading to the question of what them not to take such actions. Various theories and explanations have been brought forth to explain this scenario, although most of them still lack empirical evidence.

    Some scholars have argued that lack of such wars has been as a result of geographic differences and locations of these countries making it hard for them to engage in conflicts. However, this has been refuted on the basis that Europe, for example, has the largest number of democracies that are closely located and have not had wars. Economic development has also been advanced as a possibility of lack of wars among the democracies. Most of them today are well endowed with resources and have the largest shares in the international market or the global economy. It is thus argued that since these countries are economically stable, they are able to relate well given that they do not engage in high competition but rather form trade agreement aimed at increasing their wealth. However, this argument has been refuted on the ground that developed countries have had as many wars as the developing and poor countries and as such, endowment with economic resource or lack of it thereof is not a reason or a conclusive explanation for lack of wars between them. While it is true that trade alliances may be a hindrance or an influencing factor on a nations engagement in war, it is not sufficient evidence for absence of war among democracies.

Reasons why democracies do not engage wars against each other
    In the year 1977, Tullock extended the economic analysis domain of revolution and war as the underlying reasons as to why democracies have in the past not engaged and may not in the future engage in wars amongst themselves. Tullock focused his attention on individual choice of a country in the non market setting. He argued that democracy was about public choice rather than the governments choice. He came up with a hypothesis that stated that individuals and governments would only engage in war if they expect to benefit from it with the benefits being more than the costs for engaging in war. Tullock evaluated the government on two dimensions the autocratic type where people do not contribute to the composition of a government and the second dimension as democratic where individuals vote to determine the leadership or government of a country. While deciding on whether to engage in war or not, individuals look at the cost-benefit analysis. War can either be offensive or defensive. The main motivation for offensive war according to Tullock is rent-seeking while external threats act as motivating factor for defensive wary. Countries pursue or initiate offensive and wars with an aim of gaining economically, or other forms of benefits. Democracies are not likely to engage in any of these types of wars for a number of reasons.

    In considering the democratic and autocratic governments, Tullock did not evaluate or consider private wars as both these forms of regimes involve them. Autocratic regimes do not consider the opinions of the people and citizens to do as they are told by the government officials. As such, while making a decision for war, autocrats allocate a bigger share of all the benefits to themselves while the costs are passed on the citizens. An autocrat would also engage in war even when it is not beneficial to him since such costs are born by the citizens who have no right to questions the leaders decision. In democratic administration, this is different. Like in autocratic governments, war costs are also born by the citizens. However, the citizens have power to remove a government from power following an election. People naturally do not like wars and gaining a consensus to engage in war in democracies is difficult. This makes democracies keep off from wars, especially the offensive conflicts. This has been evident in the United States since the 1970s. The country has been engaged in various terrorist attacks from Arab and Muslim countries. In the 1960s, airliner was a major target by terrorists including PELP hijackings, bombings of marine barracks and the United States embassy in 1983 among others. The United States did not engage in defensive war although it could have done so. It was only after the 911 terrorist attack that the country reached a consensus to engage in offensive war. Prior to this period, economic analysts argue that benefits of engaging in a defensive war were very low for the country.

    This argument states that since democracies are less likely to initiate war or even engage in defensive war given their form of government as well as the cost benefit analysis, they are not likely to engage with each other in conflicts hence there are no wars between democracies. Tullock argued that for autocrats the benefits of war are large and are shared among the leadership of a nation while the costs are distributed among the people. Autocrat leadership rarely bears the costs but its people do. In democratic governments, benefits are shared among all individuals making the benefits to be relatively low. Democracies, especially those characterized by free markets, have greater power dispersion among nations and mostly agree with other democracies to eliminate or reduce chances of commencing a war. In most cases, they form alliances that aim at protecting the relationships they make via trade agreements, mostly leading to creation of permanent structures such as constitutional contracts. This leads to formation of another form of democracies within, making it difficult for them to wage war against each other. 

    Another explanation that has been given as to why democracies rarely or never fight against each other is as a result of the politics exercised by these countries. Politics of democracies unlike those of communists and autocrats are unique in that they are open to global scrutiny, thus it leads to formation of long term commitments that make it difficult for them to engage in wars. It is difficult for democracies to deceive, bluff or even plan to launch surprise attacks unlike the case with communists countries. The transparency exercised by democracies in their politics lowers the bargaining position of democrats and this in turn makes their promises to each other more durable and credible as a result of stable democracies. Constitutional rules usually constraint the leaders. Leaders are also constrained by independent officials as well as political costs associated with abandoning commitments entrusted by the public. This paves way for solid bargains to be staged between democracies lowering the likelihood of war. In cases where democracies decide to retaliate on their agreements, they must inform their partners on their intention, giving such partners time to protect themselves and appeal the decision. Agreements between democracies are not risky, unlike in non democratic nations. Via the friendship created, following the various open agreements between democracies, war is avoided and democratic peace is maintained. Democracies also make reliable partners unlike non democrat states and there has been a move to alliances from rivalries characterized by the sealing to bargains that are enduring hence avoiding war. Democracies have led to formation of unipolar kind of government between the democratic countries hence wars are unlikely even in the future among theses countries.

    Citizens influence is another possible reason as to why democracies do not wage war against each other. Some researchers have come up with the explanation that democracies may be forced or compelled to maintain peace among themselves because of the way citizens of these countries believe or think concerning the beliefs and values, general cultural traditions of democracy and norms for behaviour. Usually, in democracies, citizens are able to restrain their leaders from engaging in acts they feel are not in line with their democratic values and norms. Citizens are afraid of war as nothing much seems to come out of war but death of innocent people and destruction of property. As a result, these citizens through such beliefs influence or restrain their leaders from engaging in either defensive or offensive wars. Citizens in democratic countries also believe in equality of all individuals and human rights. People in most democracies believe that all citizens should be protected by the law and not exposed to unnecessary dangers, such as war. Through these commonly held believes of citizens from democratic nations, it is difficult for such nations to engage in war. Citizens in democracies believe in negotiations, in solving whatever disagreements and disputes that may arise between nations. This is true and quite evident in most democracies today. Recently, Britain announced that it would be adding 500 soldiers to Afghanistan while the United States announced it would be adding 30,000 soldiers to this country. This has been met with mixed reactions with over 70 of citizens from these two superpowers calling for immediate withdrawal of those already in this war. Leaders making war decisions in democracies are viewed as being inhumane and this could be a reason as to why no wars have been recorded among the democracies. In non democratic nations, leaders make decisions with little regard or no regard at all of the opinions of their citizens. War is viewed as the normal way of solving issues hence there are many offensive and defensive wars in such countries.

    It is interesting to note that for the last two centuries, there has not been any war between the democracies in Europe and in the United States. Immanuel Kant, a philosopher, was the first man to come up with the argument that wars between democracies were unlikely. Despite the fact that his explanations have been refuted lately, his concept still remains viable and a major source of debate today. Many researchers, authors and political scientists have formulated several explanations as to why democracies do not engage with each other in war. The common arguments include cost-benefit analysis, values, norms, and believes that are common among citizens in democratic nations, formation of strategic alliances that have strengthened the democracies relationships, form of politics that allows for transparency and scrutiny by other democracies, and citizens influence on the leadership of their nations. While these explanations serve to affirm the notion that democracies do not fight other democracies, no single explanation has been widely accepted as the major reason by all researchers.

    The argument that balancing is the dominant tendency in international relations has found application in many different organs for different states in the international set up. Offensive realism observes nations and states as the core actors in international relations. However, the realism of offense amounts to several additional assumptions to the structure of organizational realism. The assumptions made here are that the international systems is a system of anarchy all states are fair and rational all nations and states have survival in a similar way to their primary goals all states have a bit of offensive capability in military and that states can never be sure of the plans and intentions of other nations (Clark, 2009). This essay seeks to compare and contrast the states of balancing to the bandwagoning effect in the international relations that exists in the states of the world.

    In internationalglobal relations, the defensive realism is an alternative of realism. In a similar way to realism, defense realism views the states as coherent players who in this case are the core actors in the international affairs. Defense realism expects that the anarchy at the international stage makes nations and states be obsessed with matters of security. This amounts to dilemmas in security where a states desire to increase its security measures can end up in a greater unsteadiness as the opponents of the state respond to the consequences of reduced security measures (Graham, 1989).

Balancing or Bandwagoning in International Relations
The offense-defensive explanation theory affirms that there is a natural balance experienced in technology or way of teaching that favors those attacking or those that are defending in the battle field. For its theoretical usefulness, this inherent balance must be applicable as well as measurable. The theory describes the First World War as a condition where all the sides were of the opinion that the balance of power was to the advantage of the offense, but were misguided. The balance of power in international relations is a central concept in the theory of realist (Clark, 2009). In the system of power balance, a nation may opt to engage in either bandwagon act or balancing behavior. In the period of war, the decision to bandwagon or balance may as well be a determinant of the chances of a nation or state survival.

A principle of equilibrium
    A steadiness of power occurs when there is stability that exists between the forces that are competing. This is a phrase used in the international law for equitable fair equilibrium between the affiliate members of the international body of states.  It expresses the policy purposed to deter any single state from being adequately strong so as to make possible for it to enforce its interests on the other states. The principle of balance denies the habit of allowing or giving great power to any person (Graham, 1989). This makes it easy for other people to dispute with them on equivalent terms as far as the rights of other people are concerned.

    The bandwagon effect states that if something has been good enough for many people of the same age, then it is expected to be the same for all in that bracket. In this scenario, a nation will either survive or be defeated. The balance of power that exists among nations at the international level needs to be maintained. It keeps many nations in a safe, secure and stable position. Equilibrium should exist between the given powers of the various members in the international body of relations. The bandwagon effect only exhibits the anarchical system and may not find application in many set ups. In the absence of any federal power, the probable sanction following the code of the set rules in the international law will not be able to hold each other in check (Clark, 2009).

Actions of Hegemon
    The USA was not able to sustain an effective economic competition against the block of Soviet during the times of cold war. This was made impossible despite the USAs strong aspiration to do so. It was easy for the UK to block the adequate measures desired by the US and the fact that the United States of America was not in a position to make provision for the goods on its own (Gilpin  Jean, 1987). Creating a diversified world economy needs the opening up of markets, the flow of money and capital in the economy and credit provision in times of crisis. Moreover, the management of rates of exchange and the degree of domestic fiscal policy coordination are also required for this diversification. However, some scholars put their emphasis on open system of trading entirely.

    Others believe that the world economic order that is open and liberal also needs the provision of strong rates of exchange or an economic regime (Gilpin  Jean, 1987). While several of these wants including international liquidity can greatly be offered by the hegemon acting all alone, other necessities need action done by other states for instance, the coordination of the fiscal policy. A hegemon has the capability of shaping the important rules that govern the international relations. Hegemony implies the ability to provide regimes of cooperation internationally with matters of international financial policy, trade as well as oil.

    In some cases, hegemony acting all alone can make supplies of significant quantities of the global public good (Clark, 2009). For example, in matters concerning climatic change, no matter how much the US could act solely and the fact that it has the largest emissions, very little achievement would be attained. Therefore, the failure of the leadership of hegemon cannot be grounded on the absence of its will but should refer to the interests of other states.

    In this case, the powerful countries in the international relations may be in a position to pick up the burden cost. However, they may also be in a position to coerce or bribe other states into making contribution. Therefore, the powerful countries or states will be seen to benefit in such a scenario. The hegemons will not only try to get organizations that suits them well but also will extract assistance from the rest offering coercive  leadership (Gilpin  Jean, 1987). The coercive leadership will be of combined benefit on the grounds of offering incentives for other countries to contribute in providing public good or be exploitative.     The need to depend on other states contribution gives an indication that the downfall of hegemonic leadership might also be depended on the ability of the larger states putting into considerations the contenders for the hegemon role, to block the attempts to make use of power that leads to the collective action of all.

Can US retain its primacy
    The national security strategy of the USA in the year 2006 indicates that the US must retain its primacy. Zakaria (2008) argues that the international community is currently experiencing the Rise of the Rest.  The global economy and climate politically is really shifting with the so called Rise of the Rest (Zakaria, 2008). There are developing nations that are emerging very fast in the international body. Countries like China and India are posing a great challenge to the United States. The US though having all along been a dominant player internationally is now subjected to competition in the international field that is equalizing as time goes by. The change that is seen here is motivated by the technology in information. It has become stylish enough in the recent past to term the United States hegemony as the describing feature of the international order coming after the Cold war (Clark, 2009). These claims hardly ever rest on anything much other than the consideration of the primacy of the United States of America.

    The system is now losing its popularity. The US has been enjoying an extraordinary predominance of material resources in its environs. There is a likelihood that the US will lose the will or the nerve to maintain this role that has existed for quite some time now. The US has been found to decline in the presence of the rest of the rest (Clark, 2009).  The furthest corners of the universe have been connected through networks of information. Information Technology (IT) has made it possible for employees to compete all over and the universal society where culture, ideas and trends have gone beyond borders (Zakaria, 2008).

    The confrontations that the United States of America has come across as it challenges the new global economy have been listed before as the globalization impact which has much influence on the competitive nature being experienced. This scenario is not that one of desperation for America it is only a chance for changing the opportunities present in the international relations (Zakaria, 2008). However, the rise of the rest is not centered on the fall of America. The point here is that no particular country has hegemony economically. This has seen many states come up in support of this trend of the rise of the rest.

    In fact, the US no longer has domination in the global landscape of economy. At the same time, the USA has no direct competition from other states and nations of the world as the power of its economy is found in several levels of the chain of supply. The sector of innovation of the economy of the United States has worked very hard to ensure that the economy in the US remains at the top of the rest in the entire world (Zakaria, 2008). Therefore through these efforts of innovation, the United States is found not to be losing its primacy. What has actually happened is the fact that many states and nations are in the process of attaining economic power. It is believed that the US has the most stable economy, the best education system, the leader in emerging technologies and usage of lean energy and thereby will retain its primacy.

    In several ways, the foreign policy always begin with a meta-policy which is intended to interpret actors and events that the final policy will seek to address. The Meta policy brings together the ideas born by a certain nation and the interests thereof. There must be significant interests that will be beneficial to the country whether directly or indirectly.  The way the policy trigger is explained and built up predetermines the plan options available together with the legalization process of the policy. Consequently, the way the foreign policy is difficult or simple in construction is very imperative to help understand the worldview of the makers of policies and the ideas therein that drive the whole process of foreign policy (Deconde, 1957). This essay seeks to discuss the extent to which ideas influence the adoption of foreign policies.                                                                                  

Definition of foreign policy
    A nations foreign policy is generally a set of intentions or goals describing the way the country will interrelate with other nations in matters of economy, politics, society and the military and also to a lesser degree, the way the nation will seek to interact with actors which are no-state. This interaction is evaluated and looked at in the attempts to increase the benefits of the multilateral and at the same time, International Corporation. Foreign policies have therefore been designed to help in the process of protecting the nations interests, security, prosperity, economic as well as ideological goals (Deconde, 1957). This has occurred as a consequence of peaceful cooperation with other nations or even through exploitation. The creation of the foreign policy is the work of the federal government.

Ideas and their Influence on Foreign Policy
    International diplomacy has used its wide sense to incorporate the wonderful processes through which countries and nations together with their respective governments come up with foreign policies. The ideas or rather the ideological assumptions from the policies that are expected to come up have never been a major preoccupation of many, according to the claims by the proponents of these ideas. A nation has to be sure of the thoughts and dreams of the country before coming up with any foreign policy. The interests of the nation could turn inward rather than the expected outward interests in achieving its goals and purposes.

    The ideas required before the making of a foreign policy could form a variety of them. The nation or country needs to establish itself economically. The foreign policy drawn up should not interfere with the countrys gain of economic prosperity. The foreign policy is meant to build the country economically (Deconde, 1957). It is therefore very imperative for the country to have in mind these ideas before embarking in full force on a foreign policy. A policy that wastes the resources of the country cannot be considered as an economically feasible foreign policy.

    Foreign policies need to get ideas of the state of security of the countries the nation is aiming to have an interaction with. It is very paramount to get information on this factor as lack of security and the policy of neutrality could negatively affect the country. However, the country can proceed on well with nations that exhibit the neutrality policy and peace. Also, in occasions when the country feels it could offer protection for herself, then the policy can be embraced. Generally, the country should seek to protect her ideological goals. Any attempts by the federal government to engage in practices that undermines this should be avoided at all costs. It is of no use to engage in practices which do not protect the interests of the country. It is therefore important to put in mind these ideas before coming into conclusion to any foreign policy.

Realists and Constructivists View On the Relationship between Interests and Ideas
    Of important consideration in the foreign policy is the ideas born by the federal government. The Realists and Constructivists have brought out the relationship between ideas and interests in foreign policy making as a very key step in analyzing the policy. The ideas of the foreign policy should therefore not be left to override national interests. The purpose of the foreign policy could easily be affected by this. The process of making the foreign policy should exercise control in striking a balance between the national interests and the ideas leading to the establishment of the foreign policy. The consideration of the national interests is a prerequisite to the ideas of the foreign policy (Deconde, 1957). All the ideas born in the policy making process should always have their reference to the national interests. They should receive a backing from the aspirations of the country and the purposes that it wants to accomplish. The foreign policy should leave the country at ease to go after her interests in her own specific way.  They should not be hampered by foreign complexities.

    The principles or ideas which are believed to stand out in the foreign policy should be defended using all efforts as they preserve the interests of the nation. The country should exhibit confidence when executing the foreign policy. It would be very much embarrassing for any country to act on a policy that would derail her. There is therefore need to ensure the ideas of the policy does not conflict with the interests of the country. This is what the realists and constructivists of the foreign policy view the relationship between the ideas and interests in the foreign policy. The action taken could be destructive if not controlled by measures as seen in the interests of a particular country (Deconde, 1957). What is required therefore is the ability of the federal government to exercise control over these two factors as they contribute much to the establishment of the foreign policy.

US decision to launch a humanitarian operation in Somalia
    The United States has for a long time now being a superpower. The problems in the country of Somalia have intensified to greater heights despite several interventions from outside forces. This raised a major concern to the United States. The idea to intervene with an enormous force began to gain momentum. The operation of the United States was purely based on humanitarian grounds (Graham, 1989). The input made by the United States was in the protection of the interests of the international peace and policy of neutrality. The United States has now for a long time been known as a superpower, a prestigious position to be in. The actions of the US federal government could have greatly been motivated by this fact. The country of Somalia had experienced human torture and seemingly no solution was emerging to protect the poor and the vulnerable. The US foreign policy on Somalia was influenced by the need to promote the agreement made by the nations of the world on matters of peace and maintaining neutrality. Though the country of Somalia is a sovereign state, the things going on in the country were far much the expectations of the entire world on protecting the rights of the people. Somalia seemed unable to solve her own internal problems (Clark, 2009). The position held by the USA could support the move it made in launching this humanitarian operation. However, the troops of the United States could not be placed in a dangerous situation not unless their numbers were overpowering the opponents.

Soviet Union of adopting new thinking
    The growing organ on the advancement of the human reasoning has provided a new approach for predicting the trend of behaviors of societies and the individuals therein in the future. Whilst the statesmen and the strategists of the military have continued to look at the past history of behaviors, the national traits of character and the military together with the economic capabilities form a basis for the efforts of calculating the behaviors in various societies in the future. There is now more which is needed in giving weight concerning the assessments of modes and patterns used in judgment experienced in the society (Graham, 1989). This was also aimed at looking at the factors that could influence the process of translating the judgment as a result into behavior.

    The Soviet Unions new thinking was prompted by these ideas of the differences occurring in the changes seen in the public opinion in the society and many more changes that were predictable in the reasoning patterns of the citizens (Graham, 1989). The ideas provided a ground for the people of Soviet for perestroika and a direction for reforms that would increase its projection for success.
 United States adoption of bush doctrine

    The doctrine of Bush is a phrase that was used to explain the several foreign policies which are related to the principles of the former president of the United States, George W. Bush. This phrase formerly was used to explain the policy that saw the United States secure and protect itself from the nations that harbor or have been found giving assistance to terrorist organizations and groups. It was used to give a good reason for the invasion of Afghanistan in the year 2001.

Later on the policy included preventive war policy which held that the US must overthrow foreign regimes that represented a threat to her security (Clark, 2009). The ideas of terrorism made the US continue with the Bush plans. Even if the threats were not seen as immediate ones, the US made a move of promoting democracy and more especially in the Middle East. The foreign policy was helpful in promoting the Security of the United States of America as it has all along been the target as a super power nation.

American and indeed the worlds industrialization was a process that entailed drastic transformations in the fields of industry, social and economic spheres from the pre-industrial era to the industrial period. During that period, countries like Britain, Germany, Belgium and the USA made a clear jump from agricultural dependency societies to self sustaining industrial societies. They embarked on a tight Programme of sustained and regular economic and social growth which propelled them into what was referred to as the New World of material wealth and prosperity. The United States of America became one of the most industrialized economies during the 19th Century. That brings forth the main theme of this essay, which is to examine the plight of women during the industrialization period and post industrialization period. The essay will also try to describe the different roles that women performed both in the family circles and the in the whole society at large. Finally the paper will try to propose some of the things that should be taken into consideration to ensure that the role that women play in the society is revised to improve their plight in the modern world.

Some of the fields affected by industrialization included Agriculture which was improved by new forms of progression farming that insisted on payment in cash rather than in kind. For the farmers, this also meant they needed to acquire cash in order to purchase new implements which could be used to maximize yields and also replace the traditional farm laborers. Industrialization also brought new forms of transport than included canal and rail transport there were also new forms of communication that saw the introduction of the telephone, telegraph, typewriter and also daily news papers. The domestic arena was also affected to a large extent this was mainly attributed to introduction of new kind of goods which altered social relations. (Cowan 1983, p. 47) For instance home sewing and spinning which was mainly done by women was replaced by the purchase of ready made cloth. This also eliminated jobs for the seamstresses. Due to the introduction of many industries, many men and some women were lured to work in the industries for wages which they brought home to trade for goods. Furthermore, the demand for those goods was what fueled economic growth. The households ceased to manufacture goods which were made mainly by women. The substitution for industrial goods for home-made goods eased the burden on womens work for example they started to purchase kerosene instead of making candles at home. Instead of tending to cow management and milking in order to get milk, they started to purchase milk from vendors. Instead of chopping wood they bought coal. This meant easy work for women. (Cowan 1983, p. 48)

    Furthermore, during the industrial revolution era, it was easier for women in the urban environment to do household chores with the assistance of servants. It was also during the 19th century that women started to control their fertility rates with the average children per woman falling from 7.04 in 1800 to 3.56 in 1900. This meant that the number of women with broken backs and poor health reduced. From that perspective, it was easy to conclude that the general lives of average American women were made easier during the 19th Century.
This was however not the case as explained by the contemporary documents taken from the beginning of the century up to its end. The American women seemed to have been exhausted. Even famous women such as Harriet Beecher who was an abolitionist and author who wrote many books were not immune to the pressure even though they had plenty of servants. Some of the daily chores they did included cleaning and arranging the house, cleaning and taking care of the children and their clothes among other duties. (Cowan 1983, p. 50)

Other observers commented and wrote about the ill health of the women, their waxen complexion and stooped shoulders and care worn faces which were brought as a result of the burdens as a result of the domestic works they did.

Before 1800s, most of the wives did limited amount of domestics work for instance, they cooked and baked but their husbands did much of the preparation like chopping wood, pounding grain into meal, shelling corn among others. The children on the other hand helped in performing seasonal tasks such as making sausages. This set up however changed with the coming of industrialization. This is because, their daily lives changed radically, this was mainly attributed to the increase in the availability of jobs in the fast growing industries that made more men to go and work there living the women with the whole burden of housework and the house became a place for leisure for the men and the children.   

The period is also described to be influenced by modern technologies which replaced the old simple industries and the implication that these technologies had on women both in the workforce outside and in the home. Ruth Schwartz first starts by arguing that because of the expansion in welfare, there was a decrease in paid domestic labor. Due to the expansion of the American economy services like food, milk or clean laundry delivery services disappeared and those that remained became costly. This therefore left women at home to do housework without the aid of the servants. In addition to that, the creation of electrical appliances, reduced the amount of work that men did, instead of them taking out garbage, they left their wives to dump the garbage down the garbage disposal as she washed the dishes. The dishwasher also seemed to have eliminated any help that their husbands could have assisted them in doing.

Schwartz also discusses the functionalist interpretation of previously recent history of the family. She writes that the beginning of industrialization caused households to become deprived of their basic productive roles in the economy like people making clothes in a factory instead of making them at home and selling them later. One of the solutions that the women need to adapt in order to gain back a sense of their function in the society is that they need to seek new functions in the workplace that is outside their homes. Another solution would be to come up with a new ideologies in which womens function in the society are not confined to the home. In such circumstances, a woman would not have to go through this role and anxiety. Industrialization was therefore seen as a participant in the backward search for femininity. This was mainly because some womens roles were replaced with modern technologies women were also searching for themselves within the home set up. Such a situation is what led to the baby boom where many couples started having more babies. Women also started to return to the productive and fruitful ways that they experienced before the beginning of industrialization. They began crouching, knitting, baking and growing vegetable gardens. (Cowan 1983, p. 52)

     More work continued pilling up for women as technological systems which dominated the households and which the households were built around like the water, sewers and gas systems, were built with the simple assumption that there will be somebody around to operate them which was no other than the wife. To add on that, since utility companies operated twenty four hours a day, there was evidence that the larger society believed households should function around the clock. Also, if households had the intent of paying women for the women for the work that they performed inside and outside the home, then the technological appliances like the washing machines would not have been preferred over the laundry delivery services.

    Some theories suggests that the modern appliances are what caused the women to shift to workplaces outside their homes they now had more free time at their disposal since their jobs was made easier. For instance, the washing machines cleaned clothes faster than what the wash tub did. Schwartz however did not agree with these theories, this is because as stated earlier, time wasnt always reduced by the household appliances. Just to add on that, housewives began to enter into the labor market outside of the home were the ones who could not afford these amenities. The technology therefore was not a cause of women to enter the workforce outside the home. For whatever reasons, women simply wanted to be employed and they saw the amenities could not allow them to work outside of the home without somehow endangering the living standards of their families. The women could come home from work tire and still be able to prepare a decent dinner for their families thanks to the invention of the icebox they could also do a load of laundry to ensure that their husbands and children had clean clothes to wear the next day.

    What was also true of cooking was also true of all the other household chores as well. As the 19th Century progressed, in almost every aspect of the household work, the industrialization served to eliminate the work that husbands and children were doing and at the same time leaving the work of women either augmented or even touched. The factories also made boots and shoes this meant the men were no longer required to make leather goods at home which were one of their main trades at home. The factories also made tin ware and pottery which meant that they no longer had to whittle. The children were also freed from the house hold chores since they had to go to schools. Moreover, the piped water which was introduced in almost every middle class household meant that they had no longer to be burdened with perpetual bucket carrying. Furthermore, the growth of the meat packing factories coupled with the introduction of refrigerated transport during the 1880s meant that men had no longer to spend much time in butchering at home. This meant that all the male household occupations were virtually eliminated by technological and economic innovations during the mid-19th century.

    The 29th century however witnessed several changes in the domestic and household technology which was turned from a unit of production to a unit of consumption. This simply meant that the food and clothing that the people once made in their home was now manufactured in factories. The economic ties that once bound together the family members so tightly were undone. This therefore meant that nothing was left for the adult woman to do at home. This led to women to start different liberation campaigns to be liberated so that they are allowed to engage in employment activities outside their homes. This was however dismissed by some men who they termed it as simply a bunch of affluent housewives who had nothing better to do at home.

The health care system also developed from households into centralized institutions by approximately the end of the nineteenth century. Manufacturers of patent medical supplies were the first to take over some of the work which were earlier been done by housewives. At the same time, the various methods and forms of health care which had once been given by housewives increasingly became the responsibility of well trained workers. Nursing as a field started to professionalize in the latter years of the 19th century. By the end of that century, women had started to involve themselves in nursing activities which was practiced mainly in hospitals and not at home as it was previous (Cowan 1983, p. 62). The patient drug business was so active that there were more remedies to different illnesses. In 1862, the first schools for nurses were founded in Philadelphia and New York. By 1900, there were 432 schools for nurses that had produced 3,456 graduates and a professional association such as the American Nurse Association was started. Because the majority of these nurses were women, this meant that the adult women who might otherwise have had to care for those patients in their own houses, there was therefore a significant change from the net production to the net consumption of health services. This also meant more work for the mothers although the workplace had shifted from domestic to outside places.

The womens work also expanded to other outside fields like driving and shopping and waiting in lines and the energy that had once spent in preserving strawberries and stitching petticoats. And the energy that was once spent in bedsides care is now spent in driving a feverish child to the hospital to be attended by a doctor or racing to the railway station to pick up a relative, or even taking the baseball team to the next town for a game.

The automobile had become to the American housewife of the middle classes, what the cast-iron stove in the kitchen would have been to her counterpart of 1850- the vehicle through which she did much of her most significant work and the work locale where she could often be found (Cowan 1983, p. 85)

In conclusion, Cowan 1983, p. states that technological advancements in it are not at fault. This is because the daily lives that are usually shaped by the durable and household goods are more comfortable, this makes the society not to give them up. She also believes that the wife does not need to totally succumb the work process in which they are involved in. This problem there needs some fixing through neutralizing both the sexual connate ness of the vacuum cleaners and the washing machines and the senselessness tyranny of immaculate floors and spotless shirts. Not by returning to the old ways or by destroying the technological systems that have evolved over time. This simply means that though women still play major role in todays activities they have managed to move from the traditional place which is the homestead and play an active role in a progressive society.

There is only one planet where people live  the Earth. For the environmentalists, the Earth is a spaceship which carries the people (Hardin, 1974). In this spaceship, the people are expected to share resources and to gain as much resources as they can because they feel they have the freedom to do whatever they desire. However, Hardin (1964) asserts that a planet, or a place, can only accommodate so much. Besides, being a commons means that there is no single person who will be 100 responsible for the planet since all are using it. This is explained in comparison with private property. If one knows that something is his alone, then he would be responsible for this item. With no clear ownership, or with everybody claiming ownership on something, a hundred percent protection cannot be expected. In a crowded place where everyone is free to claim ownership of the commons, ruin is inevitable (Hardin, 1964). 

    This metaphor is used by Hardin to explain why population has to be controlled by the state. For most people, controlling population should not be placed in the hands of the government but Hardin sees otherwise. For Hardin, population has to be controlled by a leader because a finite world can support only a finite population (Hardin, 1964). If population would then not be controlled, the worlds fate would just be like the fate of water and air which are both considered commons.  Everybody seems to own air and water so they end up being polluted simply because no single person is taking a hundred percent responsibility for taking care of them. 

    Hardin reiterated that Only the replacement of the system of the commons with a responsible system of control will save the land, air, water and oceanic fisheries (Hardin, 1974).