THE WORLD IS FLAT!
THE WORLD IS FLAT!
I agree with THOMAS FRIEDMAN that THE WORLD IS FLAT (NOT the earth) and we are living in the 21st century. I KNOW that in this flat world, I prefer to have BARACK OBAMA as President of the USA. What IF a person with Romney’s world-view had been US president on this date – October 22, 1962? What is YOUR perspective?
First, IF you have not yet read THOMAS FRIEDMAN’s THE WORLD IS FLAT, YOU owe it to yourself to read it with all deliberate speed. In fact, I would urge you to read it before you cast your vote in our 2012 US Presidential election. It is the KEY to understanding our 21st century! Here are several links to help you gain more information about and awareness of the insights provided by the book:
Wikipedia feature article, “The World Is Flat."
Thomas L. Friedman webpage, The New ork Times, “The World Is Flat” Thomas L. Friedman.
The New York Times’ Magazine, April 3, 2005, published summary of Friedman’s book, “It’s a Flat World, After All.
The Guardian’s review by Richard Adams published May 20, 2005, “Once upon a time in America.”
In this context, I am VERY GLAD that John F. Kennedy was our US President on October 22, 1962 because of his worldview and his COURAGEOUS decision to use a blockade and eventually TRADE-OFF US Jupiter missiles in Turkey for the removal of the Soviet missiles from Cuba. That outcome was much healthier for ALL OF US than a NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST. What do YOU think?
These days we are getting valuable reviews of the WHOLE TRUTH of the CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS offsetting the myths of that critical time in world history.
As we approach the final presidential debate tonight, I believe that Anne Gearan and David A. Fahrenthold with Philip Rucker provide a valuable discussion preparatory to tonight’s final debate, “In final debate, Obama and Romney to offer differing views of America’s role in the world” published by the Washington Post yesterday (Oct. 21).
I encourage you to read this analysis of the expected arguments of each of the presidential candidates with valuable perspective and commentary.
I myself agree with David E. Sanger’s news analysis published by the New York Times last Saturday, Oct. 20, “The Debatable World.” Sanger is the chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
The KEY issue he poignantly focuses on is the contrast between Romney’s call for America to restore itself to the glory days when it was the “hyperpower” in the world while Obama “tends to live in the moment, reacting to the world’s problems” knowing that the “unipolar moment is a gauzy memory” which cannot exist again. There is a dynamic of when the US needs to act unilaterally and when it must act multilaterally and when it must delegate to others leadership in crisis situations. I agree with OBAMA. What is YOUR perspective?
I see Romney as wanting to reassert the George W. Bush worldview asserting that the US must CONTROL WORLD EVENTS and, when necessary, invade any other nation. That was the bottom-line vis-à-vis Iraq. I do NOT want to go there. Do YOU?
I believe that in this FLAT WORLD, the US must accept its legitimate role among the nations of the world. I believe that President Obama has moved us into this healthier role among the nations of this FLAT WORLD.
Answering the question, “Are WE BETTER OFF today than 4-years ago in terms of our international world relations?” I would assert, YES, FOR SURE! What would YOU answer?
I gained helpful information and perspective about tonight's debate with its focus on FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES reading the Washington Post's editorial published yesterday, “The final debate.” You can use the link to read the whole editorial.
I had NOT realize before that Bob Schieffer, the moderator of the CBS’ Face the Nation, who is the moderator tonight, has selected five topics that could prompt some specifics. I believe he has focused on the KEY ISSUE vis-à-vis international relations, “America’s role in the world.” The other topics which he has identified are: 2 & 3 - Afghanistan and Pakistan, 4 & 5 - the two planned segments on “the changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism,” embracing “the ‘red lines’ for Iran’s nuclear program” and the Benghazi attack.
The editorial urges Schieffer to push the discussion toward other subjects – it identifies: “beginning with Syria, whose civil war is threatening to become a strategic disaster for the region’s moderate forces and where neither candidate is suggesting consequential U.S. action. If the United States ends up intervening in Syria or Iran next year, or withdrawing in haste from Afghanistan, Americans should not have to ask themselves why there was no discussion of it before the election.” I agree. Do YOU?
Tonight is the final Presidential Debate starting at 8 pm CDT on broadcast media and online.
Here we go…
John W. Eyster lives in the Edgerton area. He is an adjunct professor of political science at UW-Whitewater and an advocate for Project Citizen, a model curriculum for democracy/civics education in Wisconsin high schools. John is a community blogger and is not a part of The Gazette staff. His opinion is not necessarily that of the The Gazette staff or management.