Untitled

[april-collette]

Reagan in statecraft?

Unlike the Cold War era, the nations involved in this ‘hot war’ power struggle within the world of Statecraft have almost no idea what their country’s powers or capabilities are. In his speech, President Reagan calls for world peace by appealing all nations to work together “against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos,” as stated by the Marshall Plan in 1947. At the time of his speech in 1987, Reagan was aware of the United Sates and the USSR’s positions as world superpowers and decided to use the US’s global political and cultural influence to spread democratic values and argue in favor of the USSR’s disbandment.

With this in mind, one major aspect that consistently influences international relations and events which Statecraft neglects is the role that culture and the press play in politics. President Reagan was able to make this speech in West Berlin calling for Berliners and others across the world to support the United States’ plan for world peace by urging Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall. If Queen Elizabeth Majure could give a similar inspiring speech to be heard across all Statecraft nations by all citizens, perhaps the Constitutional Monarchies, with the support of citizens and help of propaganda, could unite to inhibit the expansion of Militaristic Dictatorships like Country 5.

[april-collette]

@country 5, really?

Now that our PACIFIST nation has been almost entirely taken over by unprovoked Country 5, there is little we can do. If we invest resources into military resources and development, our citizens will become furious, and all our work and strategies to strengthen our approval rating and consequent political capital will be thrown out the window.

With such limited military power, the best we can do to deal with these changing power dynamics is seek assistance from our allies and the UN. Our nationalists are rioting, which follows their values, but, again, there is little we can do. To account for the nationalists’ declining approval rating, we are trying to appease other groups, especially the ones that have the heaviest influence on Candyland’s overall approval, while we also focus on domestic development.

If worse comes to worse, our monarch could call upon citizens to fight for their king and country in order to draft a militia. I’m not sure how our militia would compare to Country 5′s fighter jets, but perhaps our patriotism can be capitalized on when harnessed.

[april-collette]

economy or approval?

As we work to develop Candyland and increase its wealth, citizen approval and the associated economy should mandate every decision we make. As the approval rating dictates how much political capital is gained or lost each turn, and our country's current approval rating is disasterous, our main objective throughout this turn was to enact programs and prioritize research as an attempt to improve citizens' quality of life. Initiating these programs requires investments of political capital, which we are in low supply of, but funding the programs will supposedly increase the production of goods and enhance the quality of life.

During Turn 4, we made the mistake of joining the World Trade Organization. At the time, Candyland’s gold supply was significantly lower than our oil and steel resources, and joining the WTO would increase the amount of gold produced each turn. Although our intention was to improve the economy, our country’s largest faction condemned our joining of the WTO, and consequentially, our approval rating immediately dropped and our plan backfired. After a couple dramatic emails from citizens, we quickly withdrew from the organization and made amends by buying two theatres and hospitals for every city… The quality of life is now slowly improving, but our citizens still despise us for wanting to promote economic development.Much like Nigeria, Candyland has absoulutely no idea where to invest its limited resources or how to develop its economy, so we will concentrate on quality of life for now.

[april-collette]

why a constitutional monarchy?

For the statecraft simulation, Alex, Ellie, and I decided to create the Constitutional Monarchy of Candyland. As our country's quality of life index is a primary component of our classroom grade, we concluded that a Constitutional Monarchy's "vibrant, rich culture," according to the Statecraft manual, would yield a better quality of life than a society governed by a Communist Totalitarian or Military Dictatorship regime. As a result of this, along with Alex and I's non-militarist viewpoints, we were left with either a Democracy or Constitutional Monarchy. Although a Monarchy's history of elitism may create inequality among citizens, a Democratic country has increased crime, which would work against our aim to produce the highest quality of life as possible for our society. Yes, the strong sense of liberty under a Democratic government makes the populace happier, but a Monarchy could achieve the same happiness by dedicating resources toward education and welfare programs. Additionally, under a Monarchy, Queen Ellie, as head of state, has the ability to call on the population to sacrifice for her, which the manual tells us will produce increases in resource production and political capital. Playing-up our Constitutional Monarchy's already strong culture simply through the purchase of structures will allow us to focus on the safety, education, and overall health of our society, which will ensure the best quality of life for Candylandians and a hopeful corresponding passing grade for the country's rulers.

[april-collette]

altruism? survival of the fittest?

Considering the diversity of ideologies in our class and how those ideals steer our decisions, I expect the Statecraft simulation to show everyone’s ultimate values and motives, whether it be to ensure the health and happiness of global citizens or simply to watch the world burn. From my current understanding, some of my classmates, including myself, share a similar progressive, non-militaristic ideology that would lead us to avoid international conflict and follow ideals of altruism so that those x number of points will be awarded to each world leader and no student will be left behind scoring wise. By working toward the betterment of all nations, everyone in the simulation would benefit somewhat equally from maintaining peace, sustaining the environment, ending world hunger, and eliminating global terrorism through cooperative efforts and alliances. However, because these utopian goals would correspondingly boost every student’s grade, more competitive or egotistic leaders may be inclined to disregard these global goals and act solely to maximize their own country’s profit and success. Furthermore, although no single nation will want to make the first big move, igniting conflict will be inevitable due to the virtual world’s shortage of resources and technology.

[staff]

Don’t let this happen to your internet

The internet belongs to all of us. It’s an open, fair, democratic place that we’ve all helped to create, together. On February 26, the FCC is going to decide whether to leave the internet in our hands…or whether to turn it over to the cable companies.

You don’t want them to pick the cable companies. 

Join everybody on the internet and help the FCC do the right thing.

This is it, guys. We’ve been been fighting this fight together for a long time now. You did a sensationally good job back in September, making 135,343 calls in a single day and shifting the political momentum back toward real internet freedom. You been pulling more and more policymakers—including the president himself—over to the side of internet freedom. We’re almost there. Let’s bring this one home.