Communism Downfall Essays - Eastern Bloc, Revolutions, West Germany

Communism Downfall The shocking fall of communism in Eastern and Central Europe in the late eighties was remarkable for both its rapidity and its scope. The specifics of communism's demise varied among nations, but similarities in both the causes and the effects of these revolutions were quite similar. As well, all of the nations involved shared the common goals of implementing democratic systems of government and moving to market economies. In each of these nations, the communist regimes in power were forced to transfer that power to radically different institutions than they were accustomed to. Democracy had been spreading throughout the world for the preceding two decades, but with a very important difference. While previous political transitions had seen similar circumstances, the actual events in question had generally occurred individually. In Europe, on the other hand, the shift from communism was taking place in a different context altogether. The peoples involved were not looking to affect a narrow set of policy reforms; indeed, what was at stake was a hyper-radical shift from the long-held communist ideology to a western blueprint for governmental and economic policy development. The problem inherent in this type of monumental change is that, according to Ulrich K. Preuss, "In almost all the East and Central European countries, the collapse of authoritarian communist rule has released national, ethnic, religious and cultural conflicts which can not be solved by purely economic policies" (47). While tremendous changes are evident in both the governmental and economic arenas in Europe, these changes cannot be assumed to always be "mutually reinforcing" (Preuss 47). Generally it has been theorized that the most successful manner of addressing these many difficulties is the drafting of a constitution. But what is clear is the unsatisfactory ability of a constitution to remedy the problems of nationalism and ethnic differences. Preuss notes that when the constitutional state gained favor in North America, it was founded on the principle of the unitary state; it was not designed to address the lack of national identity which is found throughout Europe - and which is counter to the concept of the constitutional state (48). "Measured in terms of socioeconomic modernization," writes Helga A. Welsh, "Central and Eastern European countries had reached a level that was considered conducive to the emergence of pluralistic policies" (19). It seemed that the sole reason the downfall of communism, as it were, took so long was the veto power of the Soviet Union. According to theories of modernization, the higher the levels of socioeconomic achievement, the greater the pressure for open competition and, ultimately, democracy. As such, the nations in Eastern and Central Europe were seen as "anomalies in socioeconomically highly-developed countries where particularly intellectual power resources have become widespread" (Welsh 19). Due to their longtime adherence to communist policies, these nations faced great difficulty in making the transition to a pluralist system as well as a market economy. According to Preuss, these problems were threefold: The genuine economic devastations wrought by the communist regimes, the transformation of the social and economic classes of the command economy into the social and economic lasses of a capitalist economy and, finally, the creation of a constitutional structure for political entities that lack the undisputed integrity of a nation state (48). With such problems as these to contend with in re- engineering their entire economic and political systems, the people of East Germany seemed to be in a particularly enviable position. Economically, they were poised to unite with one of the richest countries, having one of the strongest economies, in the entire world. In the competition for foreign investment, such an alliance gave the late German Democratic Republic a seemingly insurmountable lead over other nations. In regards to the political aspects of unification, it effectively left a Germany with no national or ethnic minorities, as well as having undisputed boundaries. As well, there was no need to create a constitution (although many of the pitfalls of constitution- building would have been easily-avoided due to the advantages Germany had), because the leaders of the GDR had joined the Federal Republic by accession and, accordingly, allowed its Basic Law to be extended over their territory. For all the good that seemed to be imminent as a result of unification, many problems also arose regarding the political transformation that Germany was undergoing. Among these problems were the following: the tensions between the Basic Law's simultaneous commitments to supranational integration and to the German nation state, the relationship between the nation and the constitution as two different modes of political integration and the issue of so- called "backward justice" (Preuss

The Case for Rand Paul for President in 2020

The Case for Rand Paul for President in 2020 Though Rand Pauls bid for the Presidency in 2016 ended after the Iowa Caucuses, he has an opportunity to rebound in 2020. Rand Paul is the libertarian-conservative son of former Texas congressman Ron Paul who retains great appeal as an outsider candidate, the type of candidate that has been successful in Republican primaries in recent years. In his 2010 run for the US Senate, Pauls primary opponent was a hand-picked ally of US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Though his name helped him become a US Senator, Rand Paul would have to prove himself in the years that would follow. By 2016, Paul had even managed to become a strong ally of Mitch McConnell, proving that outsiders and insiders can work together. Seizing on an Opening In the first two years of his political career, Paul was not viewed as a major player in the political world. Fellow rising stars Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida received most of the attention and press and played a larger role in Mitt Romneys presidential campaign. Christie was the early favorite of the more entrenched and moderate politicians and voters, while Rubio was well-liked by everyone, but a clear favorite of the Tea Party. And then something happened: Rand Paul filibustered a nominee to bring attention to the federal governments droning program. Pauls numbers shot up immediately, and he was now gaining an audience. His libertarian-leanings made him a natural spokesperson to promote abolishing the IRS during the tea party targeting scandal and as a privacy advocate during the NSA surveillance scandal. As the Obama administration agreed to intervene in worn-torn Syria - in which that intervention could possibly once again lead to arming terrorist-supporting forces - Pauls opposition was sound. In 2013, nearly every breaking story was starting to play perfectly into Pauls political realm as Rubios ill-advised enforcement-free immigration push led to a quick erosion of conservative support. A Libertarian-Conservative Platform A Rand Paul candidacy could possibly shake up the field like no other candidate outside of, say, Sarah Palin. Paul would likely be the most fierce advocate for federalism and limited government. His states right approach on issues ranging from gay marriage to marijuana legalization is one in which the grassroots of the Republican Party is rushing to following years of being let down by big government Republicanism. Paul would be less prone to agreeing to big government programs out of fear of being attacked by the media. He would also likely have the least interventionist foreign policy of all the candidates. Foreign policy is an area where the Republican party desperately needs to have an honest talk about the United States proper role. After 8 years of what is turning into one foreign policy disaster after the next, 2016 may be the perfect time to have that debate. Too often, Republicans seem too afraid to just say not to supporting interventionist policies. The debate is needed. While Paul leans very libertarian overall, he is not a socially-liberal libertarian. He is very pro-life and has stood up for life. If anyone can make the argument that you dont have to hold Christian beliefs to realize that a life is a life, Paul might be that guy. On Economic policy, he is good on taxes, subsidies, and opposing crony capitalism. He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. He joined fellow tea party star Ted Cruz in opposing the Rubio immigration plan. Does Paul have flaws? Of course. But he is firmly entrenched on the liberty and freedom side of the GOP, perhaps more-so than any other potential candidate. Electability Which brings us to the most important question: is Rand Paul electable? While Paul became a viable US Senate candidate mostly because of who is father was, he is in many ways very different than his father. His father was never taken seriously by most observers. Whether it was his larger-than-reality personality or some of the positions he took (and the way he explained them), Ron Paul was just never a mainstream kind of candidate. Rand Paul is different on many levels. Paul is more measured in his approach. He is naturally gifted in debating points that most conservatives wouldnt touch. He knows how to pick his battles and knows how to not step into a trap. As a politician, Rand Paul is proving to be vastly superior to his father. His appeal can also be broad. He is now a grassroots conservative favorite, though he lost the battle of outsider to both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in 2016. He has had some trouble convincing the more interventionist crowd on his foreign policy, and would need to work on that portion of his platform before launching another bid. His argument does have some appeal: We are tired of funding nations run by people who hate us; We are tired of arming rebels who wind up being more extreme than the people we wanted overthrown, and then get attacked with our own weapons. Obama ran on change in foreign policy and has been no less interventionist or check-write happy than any of his predecessors. Rand Paul needs to find the right balance on foreign policy that both adheres to his beliefs and exhibits strength and resolve when necessary. Then there is the youth factor. In 2012, Mitt Romney won with people over 30, but overwhelmingly lost the 29-and-under crowd. While Ron Paul did not have broad support, he did have a lot of support with younger people. Rand Paul has positioned himself against both the Obama Administration and entrenched Republicans like John McCain on the governments US citizen data-mining programs. Paul even threatened a class-action lawsuit with the American people over that surveillance. His libertarian and hands off view of government can actually appeal to the age brackets that overwhelmingly supported Obama, and who have gradually become disenchanted with the direction he has taken. Rand Pauls electability is enhanced because he might have the best chance of persuading the age bracket the GOP does worst with.