'international law' is putting me to sleep! why did i ever think that i'll love it during my undergrad years? i was thinking about why i found it boring- then something struck me: 'international law really does not hit us on a daily basis; it doesn't impact me'. well, i used the same argument when i was studying computer science. i loved programming as long as i could come back home, code, and see the results right away; i had created something tangible. the moment my courses started yacking off on how to improve performance and started grading me on numerical analysis on the dos and donts of coding, i lost interest. it wasn't something that i could "hold on" to. hmn, this idea took me somewhere else.
last semester, i completely surprised myself when i was researching for one of my assignments. i chose to evaluate trade agreements between nations and was supposed to scrutinize them through the lens of ir theories. i simply could not find one sound liberal argument that would best help explain these trade agreements (specifically, nafta and us-china). imagine: not one sound argument to support cooperation among nations! isn't liberalism in ir all about opening up borders and tackling humanitarian issues that go beyond geographical, racial and socio-economic borders? but, all the liberal theories about nations getting together for 'mutual gains', 'taking a hit in the name of cooperation', etc, seemed so completely moot. all i could find was literature with sound realist arguments that best explained trade agreements. the history behind nafta and the politics behind the formation of nafta were completely machiavellian in nature. the same was true for us-china.
ok, fine. but why did this surprise me? and why is this 'revelation' of sorts even relevant? that's because i tend to call myself a liberal at heart. i thoroughly support liberal policies and causes in america. let me put it this way: it'd be extremely hard, nay, impossible for me to date a pro-life woman! so, when i couldn't find any literature that i could "hold on" to, to support the opening up of economic borders, i was not only shocked, but was also upset and disappointed that there were no liberal scholars with the gall to explain cooperative models with proper real world examples (history and politics), with proper liberal scholarly work to back them up, and with proper liberal arguments as a precedent. well, at least they weren't as good as the realists! at the end of the paper, i had become a realist. i got a good grade on the paper and my prof (a thorough liberal) acknowledged that it was a solid piece of work.
this took me right back to brown v. board of education. i remember discussing this in 'judicial politics'- the members of the scotus played politics to get a unanimous decision to end racial segregation in public schools. but now i question: did marshall accurately use sound legal arguments that one can "hold on" to when he argued for racial desegregation? or was it just a loud cry of humanitarian injustice that had been spread across centuries? what about the affirmative action case in 2004? do liberal politicians have sound arguments that they can "hold on" to, specifically, when they talk about 'labor protectionism', or 'universal health care'? or, are they just crying out loud? in essence, when it comes to my political beliefs, am i just crying out loud because i have nothing to "hold on" to? i should have a better reason to be liberal/a liberal, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment