Looking in or out

Watching what was supposed to be the foreign policy debate on Friday, I was struck by how quickly the candidates flipped to speaking on economic or domestic issues.  Foreign and domestic issues are competing for center stage in this election, and it is fairly clear that the economic side is winning out.  What does the conflict between foreign and domestic issues in the public eye say about the state of the nation?  About the candidates' views and strategies?  How is the focus of the debate telling of the decisions to be made by the next president in the four years to come?

The simplest conclusion from the trumping of economic issues over foreign policy is that in times of economic hardship, domestic matters become more significant.  Fewer people are concerned about what is happening in Syria when they are living from paycheck to paycheck.  It is also simple to paint failures in foreign policy as reflective of a weak economic base at home, which Romney did multiple times throughout the night.

Obama has been hailed as a successful foreign policy president, despite his perceived ineffectiveness at managing the economy.  This gave him an inherent advantage entering the debate, and allowed Romney very little ground to fight him on.  Thus, when asked directly about foreign policy plans and actions, former Governor Romney often found himself agreeing with the President.  Instead of disagreeing with Obama on foreign policy issues, the core of Romney's arguments rested on economic points and the idea that America needs to be strong at home in order to lead abroad.  Skewing the debate to this focus was a smart move by Romney, as it brought the battle from Obama's home field to a place where Romney had more control.

The conflict in framing of this debate clearly reflects where we can expect each candidate to be most effective in the next four years, if he is elected president.  Obama believes that working with the international community is crucial to America's growth, stating that we must continue to engage our allies to "start rebuilding America".  However, while Obama may improve America's standing in the world of international relations, he may continue to be less effective at reviving the economy.  Romney, on the other hand, seems more likely to focus on the economy, at the risk of putting foreign policy on the back burner.  "For [America to lead]," he stated, "we have to strengthen our economy here at home".  It will be up to America to decide the winner of this conflict for media attention.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-2012-presidential-debate-20121022,0,7479154.story

The Reality of Dreams

Most heroes die around the age of 14.  It is exceptionally rare for a hero to live past 25.  But in those glorious early years of life, most children envision their future selves making major differences in the world by curing disease or rallying a broken nation.  What is killing these heroes?  They are casualties of the war between dreams and realism.  The strategies and tactics of the belligerents can be complex and subtle, but the forces of reality are usually victorious.

In American culture, children are applauded for displays of imagination.  When asked, "what do you want to be when you grow up?", children find that "doctor" or "president" are better received by adults than "accountant" or "mechanic".  Their idea of success is created through the careers they see in the media, which naturally consist of only the careers that generate fame.  

As toddlers grow into kids and kids grow into preteens, the importance of "success" is hammered into their minds by parents, schools, books, movies, and a multitude of other mediums.  A preteen's definition of success, however, is often still confined to "fame".  My time as a preteen was when I developed the desire to make a difference that would be "worthy of the history books", to quote my thoughts at the time.  And just like that, I had formed a logical conclusion:  fame = success, and success = important, therefore fame = important.  A hero is born.

It is not until a few years later that children learn just how competitive the real world is.  Just work hard, get good grades, get into a good college, and get a fame-generating career, right?  Wrong.  If you receive perfect grades, you have a chance to get into the best schools, but their 7% admittance rate means that a lot of people with perfect scores won't make the cut.  After training to become an actor, you are likely to spend more time waiting tables than in front of the camera.  A hero dies.

The conflict facing individuals in American society often lies between pursuing your dreams or making money.  Dreaming big or living big.  Albert Einstein claims, "Logic will get you from A to B.  Imagination will take you everywhere."  A strict course from A to B can be dull and boring, but the benefits of being "everywhere" are exaggerated.  My high school Sophomore English teacher presented an analogy that argues for restricted imagination.  The analogy was created for writing papers, but I try to apply to my life:  creative writing [living] is like playing a football game.  It's fun and exciting and there are all kinds of possibilities, but there are rules.  There must be rules, because without them progress in the game is undefined.

The preferable outcome of the war is not easy to see.  If realism wins, a shadow world of accountants and mechanics is created.  If dreaming wins, everyone can be special, thereby making no one special.  Fighting for your dreams while playing by the rules of the real world is the desired equilibrium.  The best solution is accepting the conflict between the two.  

The Nature of Conflict

Positive change arises from competing destructive forces.  This phenomenon is what I think about late at night on the pillow and early in the morning under the shower-head.  Does it apply to biology?  Natural selection: those strong enough to survive challenges reproduce and ultimately "improve" the species in a given environment.  Check.  International relations?  Nations and cultures that are influential enough to survive conflict will grow and flourish.  Those that do not improve are lost to oblivion.  Check.  


These subject areas may seem at odds, but in my mind they are very similar.  In the world, governments exist as individuals, and an infinite number of variables determines whether those institutions live to pass influence or die out. Biological systems are reliant on cooperation and organization, but are imperfect and are subject to failure.  The common theme?  Conflict breeds competition, and competition allows for improvement.  In writing this blog, I intend to explore the paradox of improvement via conflict by examining the macro and micro ends of the spectrum: conflicts between great nations and cultures, and conflicts confined to an individual's mind.
So.... what is conflict?
History is riddled with great wars, from the legendary Battle of Troy to the present fighting in the Middle East and southwest Asia.  We call this, "conflict".
Across the world, cultures impose ideas and traditions upon one another, challenging the others around them.  We call this, "conflict".
At a party, a high school student faces the choice of abandoning his principles or his friends.  We call this, "conflict".
Conflict is embedded in all life, human and otherwise.  As lifeforms increase in complexity, so too do the battles they fight.  Plants fight for nutrients; animals fight for nutrients and mates; humans fight for life, liberty, and the rest.  The natural world evolved off of a foundation of competition, making conflict present at every level of organization.  
The conclusion, "conflict is inevitable," may sound gloomy, but it really is anything but.  While wars are tragic, conflict between individuals is the driving force behind science, technology, and the entire Capitalist system.    Understanding the conflicts that plague people and our organizations will further our understanding of human behavior, and hopefully will help us answer some of the deeper questions we hold about our lives.
"I exhort you also to take part in the great combat, which is the combat of life, and greater than every other earthly conflict" - Plato