I will be conducting analysis on the United States, President Elect, Donald Trump. Most specifically, I will be going over Trump’s 2016 campaign techniques, his recent cabinet appointees, and his potential political policies, among all other factors contributing to the Donald Trump story. The main three political theorists I have chosen are John Locke, Machiavell, and Marx. I will be touching on Plato and Thomas Hobbes throughout my discussion as well. I believe strongly that each holds great significance in studying Donald Trump — each offering a reference point of great knowledge in helping understand the enigma that is Donald Trump. I will also be attempting to understand how each theorist might perceive the many happenings relating to
…show more content…
That man is reasonable and moral die to the ability of man to make rational decisions. This lead Locke’s to his principle belief that humans are born with “natural rights” in which are inalienable, and given at birth. Some of such “natural rights” are the right to “life, liberty and property” and can be quoted in saying “all mankind being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Locke felt that it was the governments responsibility to the people to uphold, and protect the rights of people. Locke did not believe that the governments duties should expand much beyond protecting natural rights. In fact, in a proper government, he felt the governments responsibilities do not stretch beyond simply protecting natural rights. In the case that a government, or supreme leader fail to protect the natural rights of its people, Locke believed the citizens of the nation could/should overthrow the government/supreme leader. It was a strong belief of Locke’s that good and evil deserve reactions, or a certain reward/punishment. In the case of the government failing to uphold its citizens natural rights, Locke believed there should be punishment in turn for the government. That, essentially, the government always be held responsible. At the same time, Locke’s view did not always have to …show more content…
Locke talks so greatly about how he sees humans as being rational beings, but in honesty this does not seem to hold true in regards to the 2016 electorate. Trump supporter or Hillary supporter, I believe that from any non-bias/bipartisan point of view it is more than fair to say that the electing of Donald Trump is a far from a rational decision. The incredible amount of unknowns surrounding Trumps forthcoming presidency, mixed with the unpredictable nature of he himself, make for a great lack of rationale or pragmatism in electing such a figure. I believe there should be a significant distinction between Trump’s potential success as president, and who he has shown to be to the point. Regardless of how one feels about Trump, whether they support him, or do not, whether they like his policies or do not, I believe it is early impossible to make any case for Trump being a rational politician. With that belief in mind, it would seem that those who elected Trump did not do so in a rational manner. I believe in looking at Locke’s theories, it seems as if there was a breakdown, or failure in the logic use by Locke. I am left to wonder how much 2016 American voters might differ from the model of people Locke was looking at during his
That man is reasonable and moral die to the ability of man to make rational decisions. This lead Locke’s to his principle belief that humans are born with “natural rights” in which are inalienable, and given at birth. Some of such “natural rights” are the right to “life, liberty and property” and can be quoted in saying “all mankind being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” Locke felt that it was the governments responsibility to the people to uphold, and protect the rights of people. Locke did not believe that the governments duties should expand much beyond protecting natural rights. In fact, in a proper government, he felt the governments responsibilities do not stretch beyond simply protecting natural rights. In the case that a government, or supreme leader fail to protect the natural rights of its people, Locke believed the citizens of the nation could/should overthrow the government/supreme leader. It was a strong belief of Locke’s that good and evil deserve reactions, or a certain reward/punishment. In the case of the government failing to uphold its citizens natural rights, Locke believed there should be punishment in turn for the government. That, essentially, the government always be held responsible. At the same time, Locke’s view did not always have to …show more content…
Locke talks so greatly about how he sees humans as being rational beings, but in honesty this does not seem to hold true in regards to the 2016 electorate. Trump supporter or Hillary supporter, I believe that from any non-bias/bipartisan point of view it is more than fair to say that the electing of Donald Trump is a far from a rational decision. The incredible amount of unknowns surrounding Trumps forthcoming presidency, mixed with the unpredictable nature of he himself, make for a great lack of rationale or pragmatism in electing such a figure. I believe there should be a significant distinction between Trump’s potential success as president, and who he has shown to be to the point. Regardless of how one feels about Trump, whether they support him, or do not, whether they like his policies or do not, I believe it is early impossible to make any case for Trump being a rational politician. With that belief in mind, it would seem that those who elected Trump did not do so in a rational manner. I believe in looking at Locke’s theories, it seems as if there was a breakdown, or failure in the logic use by Locke. I am left to wonder how much 2016 American voters might differ from the model of people Locke was looking at during his