rsterling17-blog - Tumblr blog

[rsterling17-blog]

As an American, certain elements of the German lifestyle have stuck out to me as ways in which people from varying countries have different ways of living than my own. The first category of difference is between American and German daily lifestyles. In general, Germans stay awake much later into the night (especially on weekends) than their American counterparts at all age levels. In Germany (or at least in Mannheim,) it is common for people to still be out and active around midnight and young people are awake until 2 or 3am regularly. This is different to my experience in the U.S. where people tend to be settled down for the night hours before midnight and parties usually end around midnight. Germans also generally conserve more than the average American. For example, in daily morning routines, it is expected to shower with removable shower heads with intermittent usage of water for conservation purposes. This is contrary to the American style of long, hot, uninterrupted showers which use more water. In my own morning routine, I always found myself taking significantly longer showers than my flatmates. This cultural difference may contribute to the stereotype that Americans are wasteful. The other significant difference in lifestyle is that of social convention and engagement. Even in southern Germany where people are seen as more laid back, people always seemed to stick to the rules even if it was counter intuitive. For example, even if there are no cars in sight, a large number of Germans will opt to stay standing at the crosswalk until the light turns green even if the crosswalk is only a few meters. Additionally, in my environmental politics class, we were tasked with a class assignment to make rules for a street as a simulation to reflect environmental protection compliance. After a rule was made, the professor asked the class (mostly Germans) who thought the rule would have a high compliance rate. Most of the class raised their hands except for a small group which included myself and the other American student. Although it may be a stereotype, I have definitely found truth to the rule-following nature of Germans. Another social element which I initially learned from a German history class at UMass is that Germans like public posters promoting organizations and events whether political or not. I have seen countless of the cylindrical advertisement boards (as shown in the picture) in every city in Germany which I have been to. The local advertisement boards are almost completely covered with new material which suggests that local social culture is alive and well in Germany. This sort of local, public advertising and social engagement is something that has been lost or dulled down in the U.S. from my experience. The continued usage of physical poster advertisements suggest that German culture is indeed still representative of a culture of local organizations which can lead to civic involvement. The ability to see just how Germans live was interesting because I was able to see just how much truth was in cultural stereotypes. Additionally, the differences in cultures and lifestyles helped to somewhat explain some common stereotypes that Germans (and other Europeans) have about Americans. Even a simple difference in how people shower could help to explain why people may think Americans are wasteful commodity driven group. As an outsider surrounded by people living a different lifestyle, it would be wrong to say that I wasn’t self-conscious of my decisions at times. Furthermore, I made sure to think twice about things I might do in the U.S. (such as crossing the crosswalk on a red light) which would either make me stand out as a foreigner or potentially help propagate stereotypes about Americans. Nonetheless, my experience living surrounded by a different lifestyle has been engaging and helpful in reflecting on my own habits.    

[rsterling17-blog]

As an American political science entering the final weeks of my study abroad, I believe that my ability to see and hear the firsthand reactions of Europeans towards current events has been one of the most interesting elements of my study abroad. As someone who has lived in the United States for my entire life, the ability to break out of my political bubble and hear outside interpretations (other than on the internet) has been fascinating. The most interesting approaches that I have heard towards international events and trends have been related to the issues of: an EU army, democratic peace theory, armistice day, the American midterm elections, and the (declining) role of the U.S. in the world.

The issue of the potential creation of an EU army is a unique political development which is certainly helpful to have varied European input. Before I arrived, I knew about the issue but I was not aware of much of the political background. However, due to a series of tweets from President Trump blasting the French government over recommending the idea, I was able to easily talk to people to discover their opinion on the matter. In general, people whom I talked to believed that an EU army was impossible. A Dutch person pointed out how French governments have been calling for an EU army for years with little expectation that it would actually get accomplished. He further suggested that France cannot rely on EU support for an army outside of increased coordination because of the seemingly impenetrable euroscepticism in member states such as the Netherlands who could defeat such a measure. When I asked if American anti-EU policy would drive down euroscepticism, he relied by saying that the EU can complain about the U.S. as much as it wants, but they still don’t want to pay for their own defense. Similarly, when I spoke to a German about the EU army, he replied by suggesting that it would be nice for Europe to rely less on the United States, but he said it wasn’t likely anytime soon. Naturally, the 2 voices of Dutch and German nationalities can’t be generalized for their whole country, but their negative perspectives as Europeans were a necessary point of view to hear as an outsider.

Another global trend that I have noticed discussed differently is that of the democratic peace theory. The theory asserts that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other because of the power of citizens over the choices of their governments. What I mean when I say “discussed differently,” is that (in Mannheim) democratic peace theory is comprehensively discussed as a given in international relations. In the United States and UMass in particular, I have taken a multitude of political science classes and the democratic peace theory was only briefly discussed in one. Even still, in the discussion it was suggested that the theory was not as important as other international concepts and was only briefly covered. However, in over half of my classes in Mannheim, democratic peace theory has been a basis for discussions on the history and development of the international order. The theory has been the bedrock for many discussions about: the actions of authoritarian regimes, international liberalism, etc.. This difference in academia on international concepts was not something I had considered, but I should have expected it. The United States is notorious for highlighting and pursuing realist theory in international relations. Even UMass, the school which often promotes international liberalist thought, still relies on realist theory in discussing international relations. The teaching of democratic peace theory is a good way to highlight the differences between the U.S. and Europe in their regards to international affairs. However, it should be self explanatory that a continent that has been renowned for large scale conflict would celebrate the ability for countries to live harmoniously through democratic principles.

One recently important event in Europe was the centennial of the armistice that ended World War One, or veteran’s day in the United States. Clearly, Europeans remember World War One better than most Americans; however, as someone interested in history, it was incredible to be in Europe for the centennial. Before I arrived, one interest I had was about how people in the losing countries of Germany and the former Austria-Hungary would memorialize the end of the war. During Armistice Day weekend, I was in Germany, Austria, and Czechia where I was able to gauge different reactions. In Germany and Austria, the mood was an expected somber remembrance of the lives lost during the war. Vienna however, took the date as a way to commemorate the Austro-Hungarian Empire through educational and (at times) celebratory posters and placards. While the end of the war is certainly important, one response which I had not fully considered was from the Czech people who celebrated the end of the war as a beginning of their (short lived) independence. In Prague, there were many monuments dedicated to Czech independence and the general mood was much more upbeat than in Austria. The reactions to the end of the First World War were interesting to see as a person from a country which routinely under emphasizes the importance of the war.

Before I came to Germany, I was interested to see exactly to what extent American politics were covered abroad. Luckily the November midterm elections were the perfect opportunity to see how U.S. politics are covered abroad. From my experience, my initial assumption that American politics would be persistently covered proved accurate. German papers, news stations, and other media all had references to the midterms as a way to see just how much Americans liked President Trump. However, one facet of difference in American politics that I found was during a conversation with a person about the specifics of the Massachusetts ballot. After covering the state referendum questions, this particular European began questioning me on the political correctness culture in the U.S. after hearing about the debate over transgenders. Although he was from a socialist party, he said the PC culture of the U.S. is absurd and that even Europeans opposed to the rise of right wing parties would not think of organizing in such a way. He said that he was shocked when (after a political debate where he suggested transgender people had a mental illness) the response was an attack on his character rather than an attack on his argument. He proceeded to tell me how many Europeans look at U.S. college political culture  with disgust because they PC culture is a potential path towards censorship. Rather than commenting on the debate itself, I will say that it was surprising to hear that a European socialist generally disapproved of the political leftism on American college campuses. I had always assumed that the liberalism of American colleges would match that of progressive Europe. Finding out that European and American progressivism diverged significantly was an interesting insight into the global response towards right wing groups.

The last major way that my worldview was expanded was by seeing the thoughts of Europeans into the potential decline of the United States. In the U.S. the idea that American power in the international system is declining is a contentious issue area. Thoughts on American decline range from nationalist repudiation, to internationalist pessimism, to anywhere in the middle. However, in my experience inside and out of European classrooms suggests that Europeans take American decline as a given. In my international relations course, American decline was presented as a given idea which was inevitable due to the rise of China in particular and the rest of the underdeveloped world in general. While I generally agree with the statement that American relative power is on the decline, it is interesting to me both how universal the idea is and where the discrepancies come from. What I have gauged from Europeans suggests that many believe that American decline has been determined by an abandonment of a leadership role in the international order. Others have succinctly suggested that American decline has been expected for a long time, but Trump was the final nail in the coffin. Nonetheless, it was interesting to see such a unified pessimism towards American power preservation. As someone studying international relations, it is imperative that I understand where people around the world think the true source of global power is and will be.

Although my world view has not radically shifted due to this study abroad, I did learn and better understand many new global outlooks. In particular, the European attention to democratization coupled with EU skepticism exceeded what I had expected. Additionally, the European views into particular facets of American political culture such as campus activism were completely unexpected. While the viewpoints I came into contact with can never fully represent the ideas of all respective European groups, the ability to hear different interpretations of events and trends is something special about the study abroad process.

[rsterling17-blog]

       One of the main reasons why I am a political science major specializing in international relations is because I believe that accelerated globalization and the rapid integration of societies and economies on the global stage is one of the largest challenges of the post-Cold War world. In general, globalization is the increased interconnectedness of different groups of people through international political efforts, economic integration into the free market, and through increased interpersonal communication through improved travel and communication. However, globalization and globalist efforts are challenged by groups of people (particularly in developed nations) who stand to lose relative power and prestige due to the “rise of the rest” as developing countries experience massive growth. Globalization and globalism are international issues in which relative status and perceived threats to security, identity, etc. cause international actors to retreat into isolationism for their own self-interest.

        Pro-globalization advocates are typically found among liberal and urban consumers in developed countries and among a majority in developing countries. Not surprisingly, these groups support globalization because they have the most to gain from it. Globalization under the liberal world order established by the United States after World War Two had the cornerstones of promoting free trade, democratic governance, and human rights. The first tenet, free trade, has been hailed as one of the greatest successes of globalization due to the consumer and political advantages seen as growth has correlated to access to free markets. According to the World Bank, global GDP in 1961 was $1.41 trillion and by 2017 it had risen to $80.68 trillion. Even conservative estimates put global GDP at over 50 times what it was in the 1960s due to the increased access of the developing world to the free market following decolonization. The global GDP growth rate has also been accelerating despite setbacks in 2008 and 2015. The developing world loves globalization because they are the ones reaping the benefits of free trade through the rapid economic development and increasing standards of living in countries in Africa and Asia. Free trade is also appealing to economic liberals and urban consumers in developed nations because of economic trends of cheaper goods through the benefits of comparative advantage and other free trade principles. Economic interdependence also has the possibility of reducing the likelihood of war since, as American University professor Joshua Goldstein says, “historically, wealth came from land, so conquest was profitable. Today, wealth comes from trade, and war only hurts.” Due to the trade linkages between powerful and prosperous countries, it appears unlikely that another great war will break out over territorial ambitions. Some liberals in developed nations (particularly the U.S.) also like globalization because they believe it diffuses liberal values of democratic governance and subsequent human rights through western international leadership and capitalism. Liberals in developed nations support globalization because they reap the direct benefits and see globalization as an irreversible process that should be steered to maximize benefits. Concurrently, people in developing nations widely support globalization since they see the direct benefits of economic growth and development.

       Although globalization has many clear advantages, groups in the developed western world stand to lose either economically or socially through the “rise of the rest.” In particular, the main opponents to globalization have been brought to international attention through the successes of the French Marine Le Pen, the Dutch Geert Wilders, the Italian Five Star movement, the German AFD, and of course by American President Donald Trump. These groups and people all rely on political constituencies of those who feel threatened or left out of the benefits of globalization. The movements all rely on a hostility towards the usage of international means to solve problems due to either their perceived inefficiencies or because they make bad deals. Many anti-globalists believe that international bureaucracies are inept at handling global issues such as the destabilization in the Middle East and the subsequent refugee crisis. The groups also tend to be highly nationalistic and see globalization as the rapid movement of foreigners to their country from the developing world. In general, anti-globalization groups seek to preserve their national identity from the cultural encroachments from the developing world and take policies anywhere from closing the border (as done by Hungary in 2015), or through proposals to build a wall along the American southern border. While many of the concerns of anti-globalists can be seen as hateful or conspiratorial by pro-globalists, anti-globalists have many rational reasons to distrust international efforts. In particular, the benefits of globalization in terms of economic growth disproportionately affect certain groups and leave others worse off than before. One of the greatest factors in the election of president Trump was his ability to curry favor with American voters in the rust belt whose main source of employment (factory labor) left for the developing world and lowered the living standards of the now-unemployed Americans. While globalization increases the total GDP of the world, its benefits affect certain groups differently and rust belt voters were simply not willing to accept unemployment so that goods could be marginally cheaper. Particularly in the United States, anti-globalists also believe that internationalist policies and the rapid growth of the developing world curtails global American hegemony and threatens its international interests. Trump’s America First policy appears to be an isolationist step to preserve American power and prestige as the developing world grows to challenge American interests. Anti-globalists do not support globalization because they see it as a security, identity, or economic threat.

       Globalization is an imperative and unstoppable force in international politics and it is essential to understand why different groups feel the way they do about it. As an American, I have a very unique set of beliefs and interests when it comes to dealing with globalization. American politicians and American society are faced with how to manage declining relative political influence abroad. American society has revolved around being a global superpower and hegemon for at least 70 years. Personally, I am torn between whether it is best for the U.S. to act to preserve its hegemonic status through bold realism which could make or break the country, or if it is better for the U.S. continue to relatively deteriorate in power and lose many of the diplomatic advantages of being a global hegemon. I am excited to go to Germany to learn about this issue from a similar but different perspective since Germany is a developed, regional power, but without the global influence of the United States. German and European societies are working out similar issues, and I am eager to see how the interpretations vary on the ground. I hope to use my study abroad as a way to obtain other different personal perspectives on an essentially important international issue.

[rsterling17-blog]

       In my preparations to study abroad in Mannheim, Germany, I have given a lot of thought about how I will be perceived as an American while abroad. Undoubtedly, preconceived beliefs and stereotypes held about Americans will structure every conversation I have. Therefore, I believe it is essential that every American (including myself) best understands how they will be expected to interact with the local people before they even open their mouth. To rely on extremes, much of the world perceives Americans along the lines of fat, simplistic, gun-toting cowboys. While most Americans can see that that is clearly a gross exaggeration with huge cultural variation even within the country, many people abroad have a singular, individualized belief on what it means to be an American. However, I believe that most stereotypes about Americans can fall into the categories of Americans being seen as: commercial, dumb, and friendly.

       Throughout American history, Americans have prided themselves (and developed an international reputation for) being shrewd and oriented towards commerce. To quote former president Calvin Coolidge’s famous phrase, “the business of America is business.” As has been made clear from Rockefeller to Bezos, American society has been characterized by its commercial advancements and consumerist society. This trend has led to Americans abroad being stereotyped as solely focused on the material world and constantly in pursuit of the almighty dollar while sidelining certain environmental or cultural pursuits. While I disagree with the stereotype, it is often subsequently believed that Americans are shortsighted, greedy, and indulgent. Particularly in Europe, this translates to an assumption that Americans are all fat because they indulge in material goods without looking for self-improvement. Since the United States made its name on the global stage for being economically and commercially dominant, Americans abroad have to deal with how that is interpreted by locals abroad.

       The second most common stereotype of Americans is that are dumb and unwilling to see the merits of science and education. While the argument can be made that the United States underfunds science and education, it is better to understand what differences make people (particularly Europeans) think that Americans are stupid. One main difference is geography. The United States is so large and regionally different that Americans do not need to travel abroad much. As such, Americans do not prioritize multilingualism or learning about foreign cultures since they have significantly less contact with other cultures than the average European. Americans are also largely more religious than Europeans which likely contributes to the stereotype that Americans fear science because it is incompatible with religion. Nonetheless, due to this stereotype Americans abroad run the risk of being automatically characterized as non-worldly, shortsighted, or uneducated by the local population.

       While many of the stereotypes of Americans abroad are absolutely negative, Americans are also seen as unnaturally friendly to peoples abroad. American friendliness can be interpreted anywhere from completely positive which makes them great company, to suspicious friendliness where it is seen as unnatural and a way to take advantage of someone. Regardless of the discrepancies, American friendliness, which can be as simple as saying hello to strangers, represents the informality of American culture. American social culture since shortly after colonization has been one of welcoming the migrant whether they are moving within the country from west to east, or from abroad to the United States (with notable exceptions). American culture developed as a response to European social culture which was based off of hierarchy and social stratification. Although there are significant caveats, the United States has presented itself as a welcoming land of opportunity free of European absolutism in favor of honest cooperation. The extent of which American hospitality and acceptance have been extended can be debated, but Americans have fostered a culture of friendliness to the stranger which is seen as strange by many foreign societies.

       While abroad, I fully expect these stereotypes to personally shape my interactions with the local German population. In a period where Euro-American relations are straining and current U.S. political drama is covered by international media, I expect to be demanded to answer for why Americans are the way we are. In particular, I expect to hear the questions asked in an accusatory way since most Europeans (and many Americans) see President Trump as encompassing many of the negative stereotypes of American culture. I don’t realistically think I will be able to fully explain or justify American culture, but I hope while abroad I am able to blunt some of the negative stereotypes about Americans and help give the German people who I interact with a better idea of what an American is.

[rsterling17-blog]

       Global warming is a global problem that requires a global solution. As the most prominent country in the world, the United States is expected to lead when it comes to reversing climate change. The issue of global warming, however, reveals important political and social differences both within the U.S. and with the rest of the world that has made American leadership over global warming efforts fleeting. Politically, the U.S. exists in a unique position as a global hegemon with unique leadership options open because of its status. The Obama administration focused on international liberalism and cooperation within the international order to secure U.S. interests. The Trump administration followed hard realism to view issues as zero-sum with a goal to “win” every international issue. American global warming policy reflects on American society when compared with other countries as Americans as a whole are seen as science skeptics due to the national flip-flopping over the issue as new administrations come to power. Global warming politics are unique in the United States in how it is handled politically and its social results.

        In the wake of President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accords a little over a year ago, much of the world has been frustrated with the lack of American leadership on the issue of global warming. According to a 2015 Pew poll   when the Paris Agreement was being negotiated, the global median of people who said that global warming was a problem was 54% with 45% of Americans and 18% of Chinese people in agreement. While a global majority agrees that global warming is a real and present danger, in order for it to be solved depends on how well it is handled as a collective action problem. Global warming affects everyone, but not equally, and the costs to resolve it are unequally distributed. While many people worldwide blasted the Trump administration and its supporters as uneducated science skeptics and focused on their ideological differences, the political differences between the United States and other countries explain climate change discrepancies better. The U.S. under the Trump administration is unwilling to lead in global climate change initiatives because they believe that American commitments will weaken American international power. The reasoning is that the United States will have to front a disproportionate amount of costs while developing nations such as China and India have less responsibilities. A large amount of American unwillingness to lead in global climate efforts are because of a stubbornness to maintain American power in the face of rising rivals from the developing world.

       A common stereotype of Americans is that they are dumb and do not value science. The issue of global warming has helped to continuously popularize this belief as non-Americans struggle to understand how Americans can be climate change deniers when the evidence is clearly stacked against them. It is true that the United States has a large population of climate deniers when compared to the rest of the developed world. The United States also is seen as as a nation obsessed with oil due to its heavily reliance on fossil fuels and its auto-industry. However, even when considering anti-intellectualism in the United States, it is unsurprising that the U.S. follows a trend which places developed nations with less of an interest in global warming. The effects of global warming simply affect the developed countries in the Western world less because the immediate threats of rising oceans and decreased arable land affects the developing world more. Latin America and Africa are the two regions most-concerned with global warming, with 74% and 61% of the population viewing it as a major threat respectively. This is unsurprising since those two areas are likely to be the hardest hit by coastal erosion and agricultural interruptions. While American anti-intellectualism and unique interests in natural resources play a massive role in determining American skepticism and aversion to climate change governance, the relative lack of interest which Americans also have in climate change can explain social disinterest in the issue.

      Global warming and climate governance is a truly divisive issue which creates domestic partisan unrest as well as international distaste for American society. One of my primary interests in Germany has been over their green culture and their more modern efforts to connect with and preserve the natural world with an international context. In my classes I have researched and written about German sustainable energy culture and German environmentalist culture and how that influences their domestic and international decisions. It will be enlightening to travel to a very eco-conscious, largely developed nation which has responded to international issues in a way very different from the United States. Talking about climate change and discussing American skepticism with local Germans will likely prove to be an interesting conversation.

[rsterling17-blog]

             Around the world, people are inundated with news focused on the actions of, and within, the United States. This should be unsurprising due to factors such as: American dominance over media corporations, the role of the U.S. as the global superpower, and the recent news making behavior of the Trump administration. To a consumer of most media outlets, it appears as though the United States has its hands involved in everything. Indeed, the U.S. is predominant in many of the most important global issues today which makes it essential for people throughout the world to have a functional knowledge about the U.S. Two particularly important global issues with the United States as an essential actor are global leadership struggles and global economic inequality coupled with the rising power of corporations in the international economy.  Global leadership is an important global issue as the United States, the traditional superpower, has had its relative influence diminished by the rapid rise of the developing world. This trend has been popularly labeled as “the rise of the rest.” Concurrently, the recent political trends within the U.S. have ushered in an era of declining internationalism which leaves international relationships under question. Meanwhile the rise of multinational organizations largely based in the United States and the rest of the developed world have been criticized for contributing to global income inequality. Global issues are invariably connected to American society and foreign policy.

        One of the primary debates in American foreign policy is to what extent should the United States rely on international coalitions through liberal international institutions such as the United Nations to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Among the many changes ushered in by the Trump administration, likely the most lasting is the shake-up of American foreign policy and subsequent international politics. According to the Trump administration, the role of the U.S. in the world is to treat each international obligation as a zero-sum game in which the United States either wins or loses. This approach coupled with the tendencies towards realist policies and a general distaste for the perceived inefficiencies of international consensus has led to a restructuring of relationships in the international order through American policies. One such policy is the recent decision by the Trump administration to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council. While the Trump administration reasoned that such a move was necessary as the UNHRC was inefficient and hosted human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia on it, the move creates an impression among the international community that the U.S. is uncommitted towards international leadership and unwilling to maintain its role as an advocate for human rights abroad.

Another trend which restructures America’s role and impression abroad is the Trump administration’s goal to “win” on trade through abandoning free trade and pursuing high tariffs on many countries from Canada to China. America’s retreat from free trade policy has made it less of an international leader in global development that doesn’t directly benefit American interests. Additionally, aggressive American tariffs towards its traditionally close allies in Europe has helped to potentially alienate public opinion of the U.S. through self-interested decisions and renegotiations of popular free trade. While the current American policy of self-interested realism appeals to many groups within the United States, many recent decisions of the Trump administration are likely to alienate the United States and be detrimental towards the relationship with our allies.

        The international trend of growing global income inequality and the consolidation of influence of multinational corporations (MNCs) has existed for decades and threatens international development. While not all of the global 1% are concentrated within the United States, American multinational corporations heavily contribute to the rising rates of global income inequality as global profits centralize at the top of influential MNCs. According to a study done by Oxfam, 82% of money generated in 2017 went to the world’s richest 1%. Many internationally minded groups have protested against the overwhelming power of MNCs lamenting that the influence of western corporations in the developing world was akin to a type of neo-imperialism. Some of the most popular protests worldwide were against corporations like Nike and Nestlé who were accused of exploiting labor and resources in the developing world without providing any meaningful development to the region with the accrued wealth. The trend of neo-imperialist attitudes of MNCs abroad is neither tied to one particular American administration nor the United States alone. However, the unwillingness of American administrations to effectively curtail American MNCs abroad shows that there is an unspoken support of MNCs who exploit foreign land to bring profits back to the United States. However, while American corporations have fostered a reputation for being exploitative abroad, they do bring jobs and money to undeveloped areas. The role of American MNCs within the international community are to enrich the United States and to expand American influence abroad. International impressions towards American MNCs are understandably divided. Left-wing groups and factions within the developing world oppose MNCactions because of concerns of economic exploitation without meaningful local investment. Conversely, many supporters within the United States maintain that employment contracts are willing and that MNCs are a way to present American values abroad while providing jobs in the developing world. Regardless of the opinion, American MNCs are integral to American foreign policy and massively influential in how America is pursued abroad.

        As it maintains its role as the global superpower, the United States is central to understanding important global issues such as shifting trends in international leadership as well as in global inequality. As the head of many global issues, and with the dominance of the United States in international news media, the United States is likely to be the most polarizing nation among the international community especially in a tumultuous era of shifting American foreign policy. The division among the American people over their faith in the international system which the United States was central in founding has created a situation of uncertainty in international politics. The uncertainty of politics has created a situation where people abroad are increasingly unaware of whether or not they can trust the United States. While this threatens to harm American sentiment in the developed world, the developing world is still subject to the influence of American corporate influence which has been yet to be significantly threatened by political shifts. Regardless of how the U.S. is viewed, it is still paramount in understanding and working with to effectively solve most international issues.