Simulation Reflection

            I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the simulation. I’ve participated in forensics all throughout high school and I felt it was more structured. I definitely saw the need of having cross examination. The problem with some teams was that they were addressing comments of other teams with a different interpretation. I believe that cross-ex would have also given “the President” an idea of whether or not the team could defend their position quickly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I did enjoy seeing different groups defend their point.

            Throughout forensics, individuals would have to defend sides with a generalized position, but they would never take into consideration different groups, as the simulation did. It was definitely an eye opener when the President stated at the end that none of the groups addressed working with the current status quo and that everyone sought some degree of change. Perhaps in my mind it was always the “ideal” thing to have a drastic change, but I never saw the practicality in it. The President brought up an interesting reason for this and he stated that change would be costly. I now see that in the process of dealing with policies, one has to take into great consideration reforming policies rather than completely eliminating it.  With this in mind, I definitely have a stronger understanding of what to expect for the next simulation.

Minor Simulation Reflection

If there is one major concept that I learned from the simulation this week it's that in world politics there is never one clear answer. It is never black and white, and making decisions is pretty darn tough. The domestic content rules simulation made this especially clear for me because, at first, I vehemently opposed the position I was forced to research, defend, and present. Throughout my academic career, simulations and debates similar to the one we engaged in were set up a little differently; almost always, the students could choose themselves which side/group they wanted to follow. At first, I was less than ecstatic, to say the least, about my "GM" appointment. I knew that as GM we would obviously not be supporting the tariff, something that I, personally, supported. Throughout the research however, I was actually swayed by a couple anti-tariff points. Especially after seeing the entire class's presentations, I was thoroughly conflicted about my new opinions about the domestic content rules. I am actually really thankful I was assigned the position I didn't want to take, because in the process my mind, though quite forcibly, was opened to so many differing viewpoints on the matter.

This simulation helped me realize that issues, especially in world politics, that I thought I had such a firm understanding of are so much more complex. For example, during the simulation there was one concept that I thought I had a set position on: "outsourcing." For as long as I can remember, I always thought "outsourcing = bad". What some groups called "outsourcing" was to others a "global exchange of ideas". I used to think, as many Americans did, that outsourcing was purely awful for the country and lead to job loss and economic problems. In reality, economic interdependence and trade are in fact mutually beneficial exchanges (thanks Prof Broder!). Also, the groups that were anti-tariff made valid points about the efficiency that a global exchange of resources allowed. While it is often so easy to brand a world politics concern as immediately good or bad, it is almost always so much more complex than what can be seen from the surface level, as proved by the minor simulation.

Reflection

Well, this week was a whirlwind.

Preparing a video in 48 hours was...interesting. As the group of four, you would think it would be easier to get everyone together for meetings--but it wasn't. I did learn that iMovie is really easy to work with. And that Jesse strangely and awesomely fits the Sierra Club 70s mold (or say the word "tariffs"). In the end though, even if it was a lot of work and stress for a couple of days, the simulation was a much better learning experience/midterm than a traditional test. Defending points of views that aren't your own is a great life skill, especially for many of the UC World Politics kids who want to be diplomats and work for the US government.

While I wasn't thrilled that I was part of the group representing the Sierra Club, it was a learning opportunity. I'm not exactly a tree hugger.

Still, I'm not sure how I'm going to like a MAJOR simulation. The minor one was pretty time consuming and stressful as it were.

On a side note, 4 am fire alarms. aren't. cool.

Reflection: Simulation

When I first got the syllabus for what the simulation would consist of I must admit I was less than excited about it. This feeling continued until I really started to work on it with my group and I found myself really getting into it. I personally started out being for the domestic content rules but by the end I had changed my mind. All the research my group did and the collaboration we had with the other section as well as groups like GM, worked to shift my thinking. I think this was the most valuable part of the simulation. It forced me to think about things in a different way.

Also I think it helped all of us to work with others in our section that we didn't necessarily always work with, which was a good thing. During the making of the video, I thought it was a pain in the butt, but when we actually presented I enjoyed the videos very much. It added some variety and entertainment value to what could have otherwise been a very boring presentation based around facts and figures. And for me personally, it helped me learn some of the technical applications of imovie, which I will have to use for a final project of mine for another class.

It was hard work for all of us getting it all together, but once the final product was finished it was really cool to see it work. I was kind of disappointed in the result of our simulation. As the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, my group is dissatisfied with keeping the domestic content rules the way they are. I wondered what we could have done to further convince the president to see our side like the other section was able to. Maybe it had something to do with the AIAM in that section securing an interview with their CEO. Either way I think I can speak for everyone in saying we are glad it's all over and we can move on to new things, but we also learned a lot as well.

Reflection....

This week we talked about the marginalized, or the section of a country that doesn't always get it's opinions represented or heard. Over the course of our discussion, I came to the conclusion that it's best if policy makers are aware of the marginalized and their "underground" movements which inevitably do have an impact on the country. Policy makers shouldn't go out of their way to exclusively track the opinions and livelihoods of the marginalized because then they'll be forgetting about the opinions of the majority.

Especially considering examples like the "Moral Underground" illustrated, where sometimes the marginalized choose not to speak out (and become de-marginalized). Sometimes people choose to stay under the legal and political radar because becoming transparent would hurt what they're doing. Specifically getting into legal trouble. For example, the shop owners that help out their employees who are struggling supporting a family on minimum wage by giving them extra wages or merchandise "off the books".

Conversely, it was pointed out that sometimes the marginalized really want their voice to be heard and occasionally resort to violence. The Civil Rights movement is a good example, as well as the revolutionary and civil war.

Whether or not the marginalized are vocal or not, policy makers should note their existence as growing ideologies. Sometimes they can become powerful, and it's better not to let them take you by surprise.

When Does it Become Okay?

During our last class, an interesting question was brought up: When does it become okay, or acceptable, for a suppressed people to turn to violence? My answer was it is the state in power who dictates the image of those who rebel against oppression. Looking back through history, it seems that it does not become globally acceptable for the oppressed to fight back until they win. During the time in which they turn to violence, they are regarded as violent, rebellious terrorists. For example, take a look at the birth of our own country. During the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the colonists who rejected the British Kingdom's legitimacy and fought back were obviously considered violent traitors by the state of Britain. It was not until America seized its independence that the image of the revolutionaries drastically changed. After claiming their independence, and thus establishing their legitimacy, the revolutionaries were regarded as heroes. Had they not claimed their victory, would those colonists not just be viewed as pesky rebels who turned to violence and treason?

The same is true today, but to a more extreme extent. Now, through the influence of the media, the dominant or oppressive state can take advantage of their global influence to make any form of rebellion to their suppression appear any way they want. Those in control use their legitimacy as an excuse for immediately defaming any kind of violent protest to suppression as terrorism. The world in contemporary conditions, so sensitive to the thought of "terrorism", easily sympathizes with the legitimate state, further delegitimizing the body of rebels. However, if the repressed body does achieve sovereignty, or whatever their goal is, their win is an immediate symbol of legitimacy which leads to majority approval for their violent revolt. It is seen as something that was necessary in a time injustice and oppression.

It is almost too confusing to absorb: you have to win to win approval. Now the question is, how long are we going to let these standards cloud our judgement of an oppressed people?

Reflection: A World Conflicted

As I tried to sit down to write the blog about how to deal with all the competing views on the global order, I was stumped. I realized that really there is no solution to this power struggle, and my admittance to that was an admittance that I follow the realist way of thinking. I sat stumped again, my mind in a pretzel. I decided I would skip this weeks blog post.

Despite skipping the post for this week, the topic stayed on my mind. I kept trying to work on it and decided its all about subjectivity. Every person bases the way the view the world on experiences they've had, education, and environment as many of our articles have described. For example, some people will see a state joining an international institution as a willingness to concede some power to be a part of a multi-lateral group that can get things done. (Liberals). Others would see it as an attempt to gain greater power and comparative advantage over other states (Realists). And yet, still others would see it as the state acknowledging its identity as an actor on the international front (constructivists). The action of becoming part of the state is not the single factor in how it affects the way people view the state and its decisions. They will fit the action into the pre-existing paradigm they have on the world. This is not to say people's minds never change, but because of the subjective nature of the human mind, there will never be complete consensus.

This does not mean that nations can not get along, but with so many conflicting views and differing opinions, the only real way to deal with this is education in its purest sense. Before making decisions nations and their people must be knowledgeable about the impact and reasoning for doing what they are deciding to do. In this way negative impacts can be countered. Sometimes, time may not permit this kind of approach, but consideration of the effects of any cause is key to effectively running a country and participating in the international community.