More photos at my Flickr page

About

  • I’m Miguel Centellas, a political science professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. Because of academic interests, I post frequently on Bolivian politics. I also occasionally discuss interesting books, pop culture, and daily life in Baltimore.
  • Send questions & comments by email.

The Coffee Table

The Reference Desk

Noticias de Bolivia

  • A selected list of Bolivian news media:
  • Blogroll

Latin America in the ’08 race

July 30, 2008
Tags:

MABB has a pretty good rundown of the current US presidential candidates’ positions on Latin America. Basically, it’s unclear what (if any) position McCain has beyond free trade. Obama, on the other hand, has a lengthy position paper on the subject.

It’s getting harder to argue the “experience” mantra. After all, experience can be overcome w/ careful study & deliberation. And lack of experience can be a plus if it frees one from harmful pre-conceptions.

Of course, presidents don’t really matter. Er, they shouldn’t really matter. I prefer my presidents to be ceremonial ribbon cutters, not policy wonks w/ detailed agendas. Congress should pass laws, not presidents (and not the courts, either). I’m always troubled by presidential pledges that start: “If elected, I’ll do X.” I’d rather hear: “If elected, I’ll ask Congress to do X.” But I guess the new imperial presidency is probably here to stay, eh?

My former colleague & department chair at Dickinson, Andy Rudalevidge, wrote a recent book on the subject: The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate. It’s based on the seminal 1973 book by Arthur Schlesinger: The Imperial Presidency. Finally, there’s also an edited volume by CQ Press: The Presidency And The Political System (which includes an essay by Rudalevidge).

Post this to: Digg del.icio.us Facebook Newsvine reddit Technorati Google


Comments

I know it's something our class talked about in PSCI 250, but do you think the U. S. should go back to isolationism? A friend and I were discussing that the other day. And while I understand the financial reasons why the U. S. has to help everyone to maintain its (however much is left) hegemon status, is it still necessary to support others? Especially other countries who sometimes don't want us around? I think humanitarian efforts should definately be left more to the people rather than to the states. Especially as of late when laws are passed, but there's no penalities if the law is broken or a timetable for when people need to start complying.

I kind of have mixed reactions to this. On one had the U. S. has helped eradicate some of the worst evils the world has seen (facism, Nazism, apartheid). Communism has had somewhat mixed results since it is still around. But, I question whether or not we will ever be able to "win" the war on terrorism.

Posted by Kara July 30, 2008 11:53 AM

    That's a good question. But I'm not sure isolationism is the best answer. Yes, the US will probably not maintain its hegemony. And, yes, the war on terrorism will probably go about as well as the war on drugs & the war on poverty. But the US is a major power, and should be engaged w/ the world (though perhaps on a more diminished role). For example, the Obama trip made it clear that while many in the world are unhappy w/ the Bush presidency, they want US president that's engaged in the world.

    Posted by mcentellas July 30, 2008 4:14 PM


      The Basics

      Search


      Categories

      Archives

      Posta Classico