UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Political Science 315
CEO: Heather Coburn
CFO: Shayna Langsner
CMO: Tara White
CIO: Ryo Sato
CBTO: Eric Nagata
CSO-Republican: David Kanarfogel
CSO-Democrat: Michael Ganoot
CSO: Gary Benjamin
TI: Ron Magtanong
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2…...Table of Contents
3…...CEO Graphs
6…...CEO Background Information
8…...CEO Policy Statement
10….CFO Graphs
12….CFO Background Information
14….CFO Policy Statement
16….CBTO Graphs
18….CBTO Background Information
19….CBTO Policy Statement
21….CSO-Republican Graphs
26….CSO-Republican Background Information
27….CSO-Republican Policy Statement
29….CSO-Democrat Graphs
32….CSO-Democrat Background Information
34….CSO-Democrat Policy Statement
3
CEO: Heather Coburn
Section A
Graphs for the United States of America, using a Security First Policy
This graph shows the power trends from the year 2000 until the year 2020. Although
no significant increase in power is noticeable it is important to note the slight rise in power
attributed to China and India as well as the slight decrease in power shown for the United
States as well as Japan. The goal of our foreign policy, as we discussed as a group is to
maintain the slight upper hand in national security while ultimately aiming for a more
egalitarian world. With this being said, it is necessary for the functionality of our own society
to maintain, security, safety, and freedom from fear, as suggested by Mallow’s hierarchy
theory.
4
Annual Carbon Emissions of Fossil Fuels
This chart shows the decline in use of fossil fuels which is congruent with our groups
plan and policy to protect the global environment. This graph describes the carbon emissions
of every policy option. We, the Untied States of America, are committed to the reduction of
global emissions of green house gasses. We intend to ratify the Kyoto protocol and will
uphold the financial responsibilities that the Kyoto protocol obligates us too. This includes
“the principle that developed countries have to pay and supply technology to undeveloped
countries for climate related studies and projects.” (wikipedia.com: Kyoto Protocol.)
Laswell would contend that because we have the power and resources (wealth) to
support other countries in this endeavor and we see this as a legitimate prospect for our future
health and safety, we have both our welfare and deference values in mind when making this
decision. I disagree with the stand that the current administration took on the ratification of
the Kyoto Protocol. According to www.wikipedia.com; Kyoto Protocol, the current president
“does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not agree with the
5
general idea but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy.”
(www.wikipedia.com: Kyoto Protocol) I believe that by signing the protocol we, as the
United States, are not only committed to the protection of our environment but we are also
committed to a cooperative effort with other nations.
As far as education is concerned, I believe the current policies we have are good. But,
in order to be more competitive in the international future we should consider putting more
money into education and promotion of higher education. According to this graph our
graduation rate will continue to rise for about the next twenty years, but after that it will
stagnate while other countries continue to rise to our level. While it is important to encourage
education on an equal level internationally, in order for us to maintain our position as one of
the world powers we need to ensure we are not surpassed in intelligence in the not so far
future.
Section B
6
As the CEO of the United States of America, along with my teammates I plan to
maintain a policy domestic and abroad that will ensure the safety of us and our citizens as
well as to encourage and improve international relations. We are open to reconsideration of
current trade policies and possible increase of foreign aid. We also plan on maintaining a
strong military because of possible simulation threats while at the same time hoping that a
more diplomatic approach will create a peaceful solution and in turn allow us to divert funds
from military spending to more productive expenses. We intend to maintain our power in
international society but encourage other countries to work with us to create more equal
global partnerships. We do not need or plan on maintaining our singular superpower title but
we do intend to be among the leaders of a more equal global society. We also have committed
ourselves to the protection of our global environment and as a group have decided to ratify the
Kyoto protocol. We plan on working with countries such as China and Taiwan to help create a
compromise that will be suitable for both countries as sovereign states. Because of our current
domination on global politics, our strong economy as well as out current trade allies we will
strive to do our part in to create a more unified system of international policy.
In a domestic aspect I plan our reinforcing good policies, while at the same time
creating new policy. We will continue to encourage and promote the equal rights and
opportunities of all citizens and discuss the legalization of gay marriage. According to
wikipedia.com “Medical bills are the most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the
United States and it is estimated that roughly 45 million Americans have no health coverage.”
(www.wikipedia.com : US Healthcare) For this reason, as CEO of the United States I plan on
investigating a more progressive plan for health coverage of all citizens by following the
example of other successful western governments. I also plan on creating a more federalized
7
structure of the education system supplementing this by more federal funding to states for the
specific purpose of education. “Our economy is healthy and vigorous and growing faster then
other industrialized nations. In the last two and a half years, America has created 4.6 million
new jobs.” (George Bush, State of the Union). To this end we will continue to promote a
thriving economy by encouraging higher education and funding research for alternate energy
sources.
I plan throughout this simulation to use the opinions and intelligence of my group
members to my advantage. I think disagreements will only benefit us in the long run because
we can contribute to the solution or compromise together. We are also prepared to work with
other countries openly and will assist them in a reasonable manner in their endeavors in order
to maintain peace and open cooperation.
Section C
As the CEO of the United States of America, I would like to take this opportunity to
address some of the issues that I believe will be important in aspect of this simulation. I would
also like to take this opportunity to introduce other Nations to our plan of action and welcome
their ideas for a peaceful and cooperative month ahead.
On the domestic front I will be working with my teammates to create a more
functional health care system for United States citizens while at the same time trying to keep
taxes minimal as possible. I will also be initiating a cut in military spending that will allow us
to use money in a more functional way for our society (i.e.: education). It is important
however to note that although I do plan on cutting military spending, I will not do so at the
risk of my nations security. We are currently the world’s leader in military spending by a huge
8
margin. I plan on closing the gap but still remaining on top. The US is no longer concerned
with being the super power we are today but we continue to be among the leaders in the
international future.
While we expect threats from outside nations, we will continue to be diplomatic in our
approach and will use military power only as a last resource. To this end we will be working
with other Countries to accomplish their goals as well. Here are some issues we have
discussed as a group and are open to negotiating with the respective countries to accomplish:

We will ratify and comply with the Kyoto Protocol

We will discuss and negotiate with Russia to lessen trade restrictions

We will consider recognizing Taiwan as sovereign as long as negotiations ensure the
safety of the United States

We will support the “Sunshine Policy” between North and South Korea and will
support South Korea in development of one Korea

We will continue to protect the safety and security of American citizens

We will increase foreign aid to developing countries in a way that is reasonable and
representative of their needs

We will encourage a multipolar system and hope that other countries will support our
endeavors to make it successful

We will decrease military spending while maintaing our role as leaders in international
society

We will maintain a diplomatic policy but will counter any threats to our nations
security with military forces
9
The goals of US domestic and foreign policy throughout this simulation will be to unite
people and nations as well as encourage a better economy, environment, and way of life
throughout the world. We plan on being cooperative and supportive of the endeavors of other
nations and expect their assistance and collaboration and mutual aid in our efforts.
10
Shayna Langsner
POLS 315
Chadwick
February 15, 2006
Essay 1: From the Perspective of Chief Foreign Officer
Section A
Graphs for the United States of America
Graph 1: Aid (foreign), net - Billion $,
Graph 2: Power index
I am referring to these graphs using a security first policy. The first graph of foreign
aid predicts that the United States will be aiding foreign countries even more than we are now,
11
rising to a negative –17.90 billion in 2020. Coming from the perspective as the Chief Foreign
Officer, this trend does not specifically indicate a looming threat to the US. In fact, it may
prove to help us more than ever, because we will be seen as generous and foreign countries
that receive our financial aid could potentially be “in debt” to us, or at least owe us some
obligation or allegiance. This trend also doesn’t indicate any specific threat to any other
countries in the simulation, if anything, we will be helping them more and ideally, they will
be using the aid money to better their society and country as a whole. Overall, this increase in
foreign aid should provide a strong footing for global community alliances, trading regions,
cooperation, and global respect. The second graph of the power index shows that the US will
maintain itself as a world power, only dropping slightly, from 25.05 in 2005 to 23.29 in 2020.
The US may not remain the single most important world power but we will continue to be the
most dominant player in the international system. I would like to develop policies to maintain
our slight drop in world power, only for the sense that it would perhaps humble our nation and
set the world on a more equally weighted power scale. From the CFO perspective, my vision
for the US involves stabilizing the global economy and power struggle more. I understand that
we can never be truly equal. However, I do support a strong multipolar system, which would
encourage more equal global partnerships.
As far as the GDA model is concerned, the direction of the “drift” or trends of the
United States is on the same route as our goals of a more globalized system. However, if
other nations were to oppose our goals, the US has leverage in our immense amount of
foreign aid provided, providing the US with more alliances and loyalty from foreign nations.
By using Easton’s political model and the anticipated trends, the US may perhaps
demand more foreign aid to be distributed worldwide. In regard to demands, US citizens may
12
provide financial support along with political support to encourage decision making and a
specific policy, which would then allow the political environment to support citizens demands
and supports. Also, other countries may demand more financial aid from the US, supporting
us with alliance promises or global partnerships.
Lasswell’s theory helps to discuss why the US trends point to more foreign aid. One
could attribute the increase in US foreign aid to Lasswell’s deference values of, power (we
have the capital to do so), respect (we respect the other countries and view their financial
struggles as legitimate), or rectitude (we are morally bound to do so, due to our power and
status). In reference to Leo Bogee, the current US policy is one of a more dominant leader
approach, tending to take action then evaluate the outcome and think about future action. My
goal is to encourage the US to take a more easy-going stance, However, easy-going doesn’t
mean submissive, instead by Bogee’s stance it means being more attentive to a situation, and
then taking action only after careful evaluation of the specific situation.
Section B
Again, from the perspective as the CFO of the United States, there are many demands
likely to be asked of me. Using Easton’s model, I will be asked to produce a current press
release stating our countries foreign policy. Other countries, as well as my own, will need to
know our solid commitments to issues of foreign policy. Our foreign policy, as previously
stated, will be to encourage a multipolar system with the US remaining slightly “on top” of
the global scene. As Easton’s model suggests, the demands we will encounter, such as a push
toward a more equal global system, will then encourage similar decision making, and
ultimately, our policy. From the policy we will create, the political environment will be
affected, allowing for a more equalized global power system and thus, supports from the US
13
and other countries will influence the continued decision making of our country. I should
expect financial support from my own country (to continue and even increase our foreign aid,
consistent with the graphs above) and political support from other nations, who will
appreciate and enjoy rising in the global power structure. Ultimately, we are following this
policy because we would like to see the global economy and power struggle become more
equalized between traditionally less powerful and more powerful countries. Through all of
this change, the US will remain a strong player in the global system, continuing mostly with
our current foreign policy, as outlined by Wikipedia.
Goals of US Foreign Policy

Protecting the safety and freedom of all American citizens, both within the United
States and abroad.

Defense policy and procurement decisions related to force posture.

Promotion of peace, freedom (most notably of speech and enterprise), and democracy
in all regions of the world.

Furthering free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic
barriers, and furthering capitalism in order to foster economic growth, improve living
conditions everywhere, and promote the sale and mobility of US products to
international consumers who desire them.

Bringing developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need1
I will expect authority from my government, and funding to commit to foreign aid and
maintaining security in the US. I am expecting cooperation from the rest of the countries in
the simulation, as well from my own country, in response to some actions we are
14
contemplating. For example, we are contemplating recognizing Taiwan as a legitimate
government unto itself, as well as continuing to recognize China as its own legitimate
government. Though, we may encounter problems with China. As far as the graph projection
demonstrates, our simulation ideas are on par with the predicted outlook of the US.
Section C
The United States would like to promote a similar foreign policy as the US currently
has, with a few alternations.
Goals of US Foreign Policy

To protect the safety of all Americans

We strongly promote peace in all regions of the world

We incourage free trade in order to foster economic growth, improve living conditions
everywhere.

We will bring developmental and humanitarian aid to foreign peoples in need.

We will promote other nations in their betterment for their success in creating a
multipolar system.
We expect to work diligently in the promotion of peace for our world, under all
conditions. We will be following the Easton model, and thus we are also working
towards this goal because of the global inequality conditions between Global South
and Global North. We are going to recognize Taiwan as a legitimate government unto
themselves. We expect China to pull away from the US in response and as an expected
consequence to our action. We will be demanded to relinquish some of our power in
order to continue with our goal of a more equalized global system. We will need
support from our nation and its citizens as well as support from other countries that
15
should work diligently at preparing themselves for a more important power role. We
expect the long-term effects on the political stability of the US to be good, creating a
more equalized system. We expect that other countries will begin to support the US’s
foreign policy more so.
16
Eric Nagata
Polysci 315
February 21, 2006
Nation Simulation
United States CTO representative
Section A
Graph 1 : United States projected GDP
As the United States CTO, my job is to monitor the economy of my country, as well
as the status of our trade internationally. In the above graph, I have gathered information
about the outlook on our future Gross Domestic Product. The GDP represents the value of
goods and services which were produced within our country’s borders over a given year. This
graph clearly illustrates the United States economy is strong and that we will continue to
dominate. Within the next ten years or so, our production will double and keep rising
exponentially. In each case, the graph shows that the GDP will rise from where it is currently
17
situated today. If we pursue a Market first policy, it will ensure that our economy will boom
and grow to approximately 10 times its current output. On the other hand, the US’s economy
will grow much slower if we engage in a Security first policy. Due to our current pressures of
terrorism and the war in Iraq, I am concerned that the war will become a prolonged battle and
we will be too apprehensive about national security that it will reduce the productivity of our
economy.
Graph 2 : United States Imports
The primary concern over importing goods into the United States would be the
outsourcing of jobs that could have benefited someone in the States. As seen in the above
graph, the imports into the United States will continue at its current rate, which is until
approximately 2025. If we engage in a Market first policy, the graph above indicates a large
increase in the amount of goods imported into the country. This suggests lowering trade
18
barriers between countries and creating a much more “free” market would attract foreign
commerce. There are a few possible ways to curb this outsourcing: The first is to enforce
harsh penalties on companies who setup factories outside of the country. The second is to
increase tariffs on imported goods. The third is to stimulate the domestic economy enough
that the increase in production would create more jobs on its own. Since the third course of
counters outsourcing, as well as increases the job market, we hope to think of new ways to
fuel the economy by 2025.
When comparing the above graphs, it clearly indicates the best policy for the future of
our economy and GDP lies in Market strategy. If we lower the trade barriers between
countries and aggressively import and export goods, the US’s economy will noticeably
strengthen, as well as the overall welfare of the world. If our country becomes overly
concerned with the global issue of security due to terrorist movements and war, it will attract
attention away from other aspects of life. Maslow’s theory of basic needs suggests that if we
can’t meet our safety needs of security and freedom of fear, then we will not be able to satisfy
our general sense of community, responsibility and fulfillment.
Section B
As for my role as the CTO, I will be dealing with the other CTO’s and hope to
establish new trade relations. According to Easton’s theory of political systems, there should
be no difference between domestic politics and international politics. Following this line of
thinking, we have decided to lower trade barriers in an attempt to standardize international
trade. By removing tariffs and setting world prices equal, we would be allowing for free
domestic trade internationally. With this done, each country’s demands for certain types of
goods would be met by the support of another since it could be bought on the international
19
market. We hope by doing this, that our relations abroad will strengthen which would allow
for a mutual sense of “security” as well as much smoother negotiations. I expect pressure
from my group mates to keep a friendly trade status with all nations since the economy is the
driving force behind the strength of the US. I was discussing with the United States CEO
about possibly investing in building new oil refineries in Indonesia to boost their economy, as
well as reducing the costs of producing oil. I expect the support and funding from my team
because without oil, our current lifestyle would collapse and we would be handicapped until
we discover an alternative. On the same topic, control of fossil fuel consumption would help
to postpone this dilemma; thus the United States will initiate a tax deduction for those who
own fuel efficient automobiles. We will also subsidize companies that are working on
possible alternatives to fossil fuels as well as producing more fuel efficient goods. I expect
other countries to also try to follow suit and invest in becoming less oil dependant in an
attempt to globally conserve our depleting natural resources.
Section C
As for our trade policy, we will reduce tariffs and lower trade barriers to allow free
trade. This hopefully will stimulate other economies and increase the overall wealth of
nations. I hope to trade freely with all countries, on the condition that they disarm and
maintain friendly relations. If there are any hostilities between countries, I plan on cutting off
trade with the instigator and hopefully that will be enough incentive in itself to maintain
peace. In the event that a country attacks, or threatens the US, I plan on cutting off trade, as
well as declare an embargo on that country. If other countries do not also cut off trade with
the aggressor, I will embargo them as well. This chain reaction would cause a worldwide
freeze on the economy, and so by using this policy we hope to maintain peace. I expect the
20
full support of my teammates, since it will be needed to enforce a policy as strict and punitive
as previously mentioned. Again, our overall goal is to engender the growth of the worldwide
economies to produce a greater welfare amongst all nations.
21
Dovid Kanarfogel
POLS 315 – Simulation Essay #1: CSO (Republican Party)
Part I: Three forecasts
As a non-executive player in this simulation, I expect my direct influence on intergovernmental policies to be far less than the officers of our country. Therefore, the graphs that
interested me most focus on domestic issues, although one is graphed in relation to other
countries as well due to its universality.
The Traditional/Secular-rational dimensions is a cross-cultural composite statistic with
values dependant on responses to surveys pertaining to the importance of God in the life of
22
the individual, church attendance, stance towards homosexuality, political disposition,
educational values, and others parameters. Currently, a large portion of active GOP voters are
members of various faiths, and both party membership and leadership include many
individuals who hold strong religious convictions. The party would likely, then, be
encouraged by the trend shown in the graph: traditionalist attitudes and belief will increase,
irregardless of the policy focus chosen. Although ‘Actual’ is currently lacking, in this case,
Drift matches Goal.
The relationship between overall beliefs and behavior is easily observed, but it’s
important to remember that terms like “traditional” and “secular-rational” are composite
statistics. As broad philosophies, they come prepackaged with values for all of Lasswell’s
welfare values, and generally include views on the proper role of government allocation of
these values. For example, education policies motivated by religious beliefs are more inclined
to favor teaching “intelligent design” than secularly-motivated policies. Thus religious beliefs
have some influence on the distribution of education. The above graph, then, does contain
implications regarding the future policy of the USA. Although the particulars of those
implications go beyond the scope considered here, the existence of this significance is
noteworthy.
23
This next graph relates to taxes. Republican platforms have classically favored smaller
governmental powers, especially relating to government’s intervention in economic planning.
Because the size and power of a given authority depends on the funds it collects, lower tax
rates are preferred.
What this graph indicates in a general trend towards higher taxes irregardless of policy
focus, with the most dramatic increase expected under a “sustainability first” scheme. This
makes sense, as sustainability initiatives tend to costly to implement (at least at first; it’s
arguable that the “sustainability first” scenario will lead to lower taxes past the event horizon
of this simulation, but that’s obviously beyond the scope of this analysis). Two things on this
24
graph, however, are somewhat striking. First, I don’t understand the initial dip in taxes around
2008. Second, the eventual lowest taxes value comes from the “security first” scenario. I
would expect that the expense of security efforts would require tax increases as least to match
a non-specified policy focus.
The final graph I prepared deals with projected rates of HIV infection, with values
plotted for each of the countries in our simulation. This problem has clear global implications,
although the projection seems to show that new HIV infections will disappear before the next
25
century. (I purposely cut off the graph where the values reached zero.) As a country generally
valuing human life and health (note that ‘life’ comes first in ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness’), founded in the Western philosophical traditions as well as input from religious
thought, and a general acceptance of the idea of a global humanity (coming from similar
sources), support is broad for fighting problems as potentially devastating as HIV. The
government has a social responsibility to address this problem, if possible.
We can think of this support as the satisfaction of Maslow’s five steps of social
psychology. HIV obviously treads on our survival and safety, currently affection nearly 40
million people worldwide, and has caused an estimated 28 million deaths.2 The next
Maslowian stage is community: HIV prevention and/or treatment serves the global
community in a very real sense. Responsibility is reflected in the fact that the US has
considerable research and implementation resources for fighting this battle against HIV,
despite the fact that HIV threatens far more non-Americans than Americans. The larger
motive, that of the US playing this lead role in addressing the needs of the global community,
is step five, self-actualization.
Reaching a solution to this problem more quickly than the graph suggests will require
international cooperation, but it is in the best interests of all parties. Given the magnitude of
its HIV infection rate, the Russians will clearly have to make a significant commitment of its
own in order to justify the cooperation of the global community. But I actually believe that
China will actually be a more willing (and thus more valuable) partner in fighting infection.
That’s because China’s rate of infection is much more dynamic than Russia’s, with a
projected 400% increase (Russia’s rate will only increase by about 60%). This will likely
make China’s problem more serious, in terms of its effect on China’s workforce, medical
2
Wikipedia. “HIV”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV
26
welfare, and society as a whole. The fact that the HIV infection rate in the USA is higher than
China’s is alarming, but it appears that the USA has had some time to adjust to this fact.
Part II: About my country
The basics of the relationship between the Republicans in the US Congress and the
executive officers of the country come from the Constitution. The Executive branch has some
decision making powers, but many policies require legislative action. These must be done by
Congress. The President does have veto power, and the current congressional makeup does
not give either party a clear veto-override mandate (two-thirds of Congress must approve of
an override).
Our current President is a member of the GOP, but since the simulation puts students
in executive positions, I’ll consider it as if an independent holds that office. A same-party
situation lends itself to some interesting politics, as government branches may be at odds in
terms of policy, but compromise and/or present an image of friendship due to their expected
political affiliation. In this case, that dynamic will not be present (at least in domestic policy
decisions; presenting a united front to other countries may at times be politically beneficial).
But the President will have to convince me to pass legislation on those issues which require it
(such as declaration of war, changing existing legislation, etc.). This interaction is an example
of the left side of Easton’s decision making model. All decisions that require legislation must
account for the level of support by Congress, or the decision will not hold water as a tangible
possibility.
As part of Congress, I suppose I represent some public opinion as well. If I’m
dissatisfied enough, I can attempt to overthrow the government. However, this would require
27
a momentous, cataclysmic dissolution of the Constitution and the American governmental
system. I’m unlikely to undertake actions with such consequences, although of course the
option is there. What that means, though, is that the President doesn’t have to fear much for a
revolution; elections would take place well beyond the end of the simulation. However, if the
entire chief executive power resides in the CEO, then an assassination would probably give
me immediate control (as the Speaker of the House is third in line for the presidency, after the
vice-president). I’m doubtful that it would come to that, however, as domestic governmental
body in this country have generally preferred to exercise political and/or diplomatic control
rather than resorting to violence (at least in domestic issues, I should add), and Congress
annually allocates money to pay for the President’s security contingent (and their own!).
On account of that veto, I might have a hard time getting things done without
presidential permission. However, if I’m reasonably assured of the President’s interest in
cooperation, or if I can come to a tactical agreement with my Democrat counterpart, getting
legislation passed her desk won’t be too hard. Lowering taxes might be a hard sell, as most all
government initiatives run off that revenue. Tackling HIV infection will probably be easier, as
it’s hard to argue against its being a problem. But changing the extent of traditionalism in this
country is probably too large and nebulous topic to be changed dramatically by legislation, at
least in the short run. That sort of trend builds up over years. As Congress cannot (and, as I
explained, the GOP does not want to) change that, altering the course of this trend will not
happen in this simulation.
Part III – Policy Proposal
The Republican Party will propose two initiatives during the simulation.
28
The first involves introducing legislation to cover tax incentives for domestic business.
Keeping capital in the hands of those who use it to drive industrial, technological, and
innovative progress will have the effect of injecting our economy with the necessary money
needed to compete in the global marketplace. The tax incentives will amount to a credit on
economic activity relating to manufacture and labor expenses, two elements of business so
often outsourced.
The second proposal is calling for international support for research into a cure and
treatment for AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies will be granted the most additional funds,
with some percentages going to prevention programs to stem the tide as we search for a cure.
Legislation will urge the Chinese in particular to increase their foreign aid allotment to this
cause, given its economic size and HIV problems.
In general, however, the GOP will work to implement the various proposals put forth
by the CEO and other executive officers, as long as they’re consistent with party platform. We
are not averse to lowering military spending or supporting international cooperation as it
comes to solving global issues, as long as the means to these goals do not compromise the
country’s (or the CEO’s) ability to make the best decisions for itself.
We also look forward to working with the Democrats to reach consensus where one
can be reached through reasonable discussion. The GOP has no intention of being belligerent
towards our colleagues in government, and believes that a harmonious relationship between
all parties and actors in government will generally result in the best policy.
29
Michael Ganoot
Political Science 315-001
March 2, 2006
Nation Simulation – United States Of America
(Democratic Party)
Trends
As a representative of the Democratic Party, it is my endeavor to ensure that you
understand my party’s positions on certain issues. On the issue of economy, it is the belief of
the Democratic Party that in order to have a great, thriving economy, one must have a healthy,
clean environment (democrats.org…environment/). This is believed because “farming,
fishing, tourism, and other industries require a healthy environment. [Also,] we know new
technologies that protect the environment can create new high-paying jobs”
(democrats.org…environment/). Thus, I shift my focus to the following, environment: the
expected annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels in the United States until 2100:
Annual Carbon Emissions from Fossil Fuels
30
As can be seen, the scenario which reduces the annual carbon emissions the most is the
sustainability-first scenario. The reduction of emissions means an increase in the use of
renewable resources, which also translates to reduction in dependence on oil (of any kind).
This goal could possibly be accomplished with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol,
which would strengthen the reputation of the United States in the eyes of the international
community and fulfill Maslow’s value of belongingness (trying to become unified with the
group). However, there is speculation on the effects of the Protocol on the national economy.
Despite these speculations, we are still passionate about reducing emissions with resolutions
like S. J. RES. 5 which states that we would like to make attempts at abiding by the mandates
of the Kyoto Protocol (United States. Cong.). It is unlikely though that ratification of the
Protocol will occur unless the questions concerning the safety of the economy are answered,
because despite our wanting to belong, safety (in this case, economic), like in Maslow’s
hierarchy, is much more important than the desire for acceptance. However we go about it,
whether through implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, or through independent legislation, a
cleaner environment is needed.
If our reliance on fossil fuels is not lessened, than our dependence on oil will
jeopardize our economic safety, as well as general safety, considering where much of our oil
supply originates from. Hence, there are many questions as to our safety that comes up
through the discussion of greenhouse gasses emissions.
Now that a cleaner environment is established as a desired goal, I concentrate on the
economy because as it is already known to many, a stronger economy translates to a stronger
ability to influence others, thus more power (Hughes and Hillebrand’s definition of power).
31
The following is a graph of the projected government balance when taking into account
certain scenarios:
Government Balance
From the projected trend in the graph, we need to determine how to eliminate our deficit and
bring about a surplus sooner than 2021. With the national deficit becoming greater in the next
three years, our economic strength may be hindered, especially the value of the dollar in
comparison to other currencies, namely the euro. We, the Democratic Party, have strict
criticisms of the national deficit and of how it is being handled (democrats.org…defici.php).
Anything to bring about a surplus would be much needed if we are to improve the social
security program, increase healthcare, and help aspiring college students and working
families.
Once again, with little action to improve our national balance, our economic security
(Maslow’s security) will be in jeopardy, more so than it is now. As a whole, the national
32
balance doesn’t fully become a permanent surplus until nearly the end of the century from the
above estimation. Which means, until then, our country will be in a questionable state of
stability when it comes to our economic power and our ability to influence through trade.
This questionability of our general economic strength also places questions as to general
military capabilities and military strength.
Expectations of Myself
Well, taking into account that I am the Democratic Party, the minority in both the
House (201 of 435 seats) and the Senate (44 of 100 seats) (clerk.house…Profile.html), my
participation on issues is still needed if certain endeavors are to become reality. One such
issue is the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. First, understand that the Kyoto Protocol has
already been signed by the United States in 1997. However, the Protocol has not been ratified
by the Senate (actually, it has never been brought in front of the Senate at all) which means
that we do not have to abide by it yet. For ratification, 2/3 of the Senate needs to be in favor.
My party would be in favor if certain issues about the protocol were handled first: that the
leading carbon-emitting developing countries also be required to decrease their emission
volume, that a more viable time frame be determined in order to achieve the mandates of the
Protocol, and that a plan to ensure economic stability and growth during this process be
developed. Until these issues concerning the Kyoto Protocol are handled first, it is unlikely to
expect that my party and I will allow its ratification.
I’d expect a little disappointment from other’s towards my party’s reluctance to ratify
the Kyoto Protocol. While I have some of the power to ratify the Protocol, my party, as well
as congress in general, are unsure of whether ratification is necessary. The United States, as
well as “Australia, India, Japan, the People’s Republic of China, [and] South Korea” have
33
already made an agreement to follow through with endeavors for a much cleaner environment
in the “Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climbing”
(www.whitehouse....8.html). Under this Partnership, the action-oriented plan is as follows:
1. Accelerating the deployment of coal gasification and other clean coal
technologies, particularly in those Partner countries with plentiful coal
resources and rapidly increasing energy demand.
2. Expanding the use of renewables to provide lower-cost, clean power in areas
without access to modern energy services.
3. Encouraging the power sectors in each Partner country to improve the
efficiency and reliability of their electric power systems.
4. Developing and deploying advanced manufacturing processes for cleaner
aluminum, cement, and steel production.
5. Strengthening adoption and use of building and appliance efficiency
standards, using proven market approaches.
6. Capturing and using coal-bed methane as a clean energy source, and
adopting new techniques and technologies to improve safety and reduce
emissions in the mining sector. (www.whitehouse....8.html)
Thus, we six countries, while most are not constrained by the mandates of the Kyoto
Protocol, are still making strides to promote a cleaner, healthier environment.
On terms of military spending, my party is in support of two views, which you
could say contradicts themselves. One is to lessen spending so that the funding could be
put to better use, such as education, social security, etc. However, we are also in favor of
increasing spending as long as that spending is done in a beneficial way to our soldiers
and those abroad such as better technology (protective vests for example), benefits for
veterans and their families, and better organization in the intelligence and defense
departments (democrats…suppo.php). So actually, support on military spending and
budget is really flexible, but really depends on the intentions of those changes.
Regardless of spending being flexible, my party and I will not agree to military budget
cuts which could threaten our countries ability to protect itself, protect its citizens
oversees, or lower the status of the United States as being a major power.
Those are the major issues. Other than that, my party and I are really critics of
policies and treatises and we recommend policies when we feel they are needed. As of
yet, those are the only things that I feel need my opinion. Also, it is a fact that in order to
employ many types of policies in our nation, those whom wish to do so must propose and
receive approval from Congress, hence my approval (although, more from the
Republican Party).
Plan
To: Editors-in-Chief, Journalists, and the Rest of Whom comprise the Media
In the next few months, the Democratic Party will initiate major endeavors with
respect to environmental protection. In the United States’ partnership with India,
35
Australia, Japan, the People’s Republic of China and South Korea in the Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climbing, we set out to proceed with
development of cleaner technology, ones that use renewable resources and do not expend
harmful chemicals. Despite our endeavors like these that prove our wanting to protect
the environment, the United States still does not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Well, as of
right now, the Democratic Party does not favor a ratification of the Protocol anymore
than it did when the Protocol was introduced to the world. However, the United States as
a whole requires much more strenuous environmental regulations to decrease the volume
of greenhouse gasses emissions. Many states have taken it upon themselves to initiate
this type of legislation, but it is time for the entire country to say, united, that we wish to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions with new environmental regulations.
It is our expectation that many people will not be in favor of such legislation due
to its unpredictable effects it will have on many industries. Those of whom we expect to
oppose it would be the Republican Party and major businesses. Those of who would be
in favor would be those who have put environmental protection at the forefront of what
they do: the Sierra Club, the Center for International Environmental Law, etc. If we are
to succeed in any effort of passing more stringent environmental regulations, then it must
be as a cooperative effort. Mostly by an effort of both major political parties, as well as
major businesses since they are the most likely to be affected since industries are the
major source of carbon emissions in the United States.
It is our hope that through tighter regulations, technology similar to that sought by
the Partnership will arise, therefore allowing us to trade with the Partnering countries.
This will increase our exports and our profit. Also, respect from the international
36
community since we are making great advances to improve environmental conditions.
Lastly of all, the most obvious consequence would be a cleaner environment.
Since our current emission rate is 13.3% above that of the 1990 rate, the rate at
which the Kyoto Protocol compares its regulations, we then choose our goal, for now, to
be 9% above that of the 1990 rate. Due to this change, it is expected that industries will
need much time to comply with these regulations and obviously, due to these demands,
the economy will have a “transition” period as many businesses make preparations to
comply with the new regulations. To help with the transition, the Democratic Party is
willing to initiate a policy to help small businesses meet these regulations, such as
funding, if they are having a difficult time doing so.
Thus the Democratic Party is on a mission to improve our environment with new
emissions’ regulations and funding to small businesses that are finding it difficult to meet
these regulations on their own.
Works Cited
1. http://democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/ . Online. 20 February 2006
2. United States. Cong. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Expressing the
Sense of Congress that the United States should act to reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. Washington: GPO, 2005. http://thomas.loc.gov. Online. 20
February 2006.
3. http://democrats.org/a/2006/01/the_bush_defici.php. Online. 20 February 2006
4. http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.html . Online. 20 February 2006.
5. http://democrats.org/a/2006/01/democrats_suppo.php. Online. 20 February 2006.
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Pacific_Partnership_on_Clean_Development_a
nd_Climate. Online. 28 February 2006.
37
7. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060111-8.html