 |
| Realism v. Climate Strike: The Effectiveness of Governments |
A self-identified realist may believe that the climate strikes last Friday was necessary. Throughout history, there has been numerous peaceful protest similar to the one that recently occurred. In history, we see that strikes led to change. A few examples are the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955, the Kent State Demonstrations in 1970, the Tiananmen Square Protests in 1989, and many more. Each brought about awareness for specific social and political issues. Hence, the climate strike represents a pressing issue that must be resolved within our government and beyond. Also, a realist might say that Greta Thunberg’s speech has validity to it; however, in reality, the United States’ government is not sufficient enough to immediately implement drastic policies. For instance, the Civil Rights movement began in 1954 and ultimately ended in 1968 with the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr—and Malcolm X the previous year. It took the United States’ government several years to implement civil laws that needed to be enacted in previous decades. However, how is it that a government does not recognize to necessities of such laws? Another example of young activists seeking change during a critical time would be protesting against the Vietnam War. What was the United States’ purpose in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos; other than attempting to stop the spread of communism? After the death of the four Kent State students, people began to listen more. The news of what was genuinely occurring in Vietnam come out into the light, and citizens were furious. However, the government did not respond until after the final peace agreement between the United States and North Vietnam (history.com Editors) which then led to formally ending the war in 1976.
Another example is the death of hundreds to thousands of students protesting for democracy, freedom of press, and freedom of speech. However, the Chinese government attempted to contain the situation. Overall, viewing previous protests, realists may say that change might not occur soon. The reality is that the United States’ government prioritizes social security, national security, and the national economy over a fundamental and consequential issue such as climate change. This leads me to believe that the United States’ government will not implement climate policies anytime soon. These current and past protests deserved to be addressed quicker. If it had been, we would be living in an active and progressive world. However, as much as I would like to disagree, in the eyes of a political realist, the change will not happen now. These climate strikes are bringing about awareness of the soon-to-be irreversible struggles that our world faces. However, as Greta mentioned, “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you [the governments] can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth” (NewsHour, PBS). Moreover, that is the reality we live in, selfish leaders seeking quick profits. ☼
Bibliography:
Bibliography:
History.com Editors. “Vietnam War.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 29 Oct. 2009, https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/vietnam-war-history.
NewsHour, PBS. “WATCH: Greta Thunberg's Full Speech to World Leaders at UN Climate Action Summit.” YouTube, YouTube, 23 Sept. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAJsdgTPJpU
What you wrote here is very interesting. Unlike the other posts I have read, you believe that a realist thinks the protests are a good idea and effective. Like a realist, you looked at history to figure out the practicalities. However, you also say that the US government is not sufficient enough to implement changes. Therefore I ask you this question: would a realist really believe that the protests are effective? I know you answered yes, but if the government is not able to make policies to fix climate change, then what is the point of protesting. Realism is all about practicality. If it is not practical for the US to create policies to tackle climate change, then are the protests much help?
ReplyDeleteDear Danielle_Bernstein,
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert in realism. However, from what I have gathered, a realist bases their opinions and thoughts on what occurred in both the past and the present. As I mentioned above, there were numerous protests that provoked change. People coming together advocating for justice. However, if you map when these strikes occurred and when the government implemented polices based on these protests, it is quite noticeable that it did not transpired rapidly. Change occurs slowly, especially in the United States. I think that in a realist's point-of-view, these protests are effective. If not, even necessary. I am not stating that the Climate Strike had no practicality to it, rather it pressured Congress to respond to their lack of collaboration in creating policies that will avoid ecological catastrophe. There are numerous Representatives and Senators that are ready to fight for our world and prevent irreversible damages from climate change. If you read though history, once a movement has been created, it produces a compelling voice that constantly demandes for change. The government simply cannot ignore that. Thus, this strike not only voiced our generation's concerns, but it also served as the initial step towards change. We, as citizens of the world, cannot turn a deaf ear to the cries of our deteriorating ecosystem. Moreover, a realist mainly views the world based on what has already occurred. In our past, it shows that when there is a movement, change is "shortly" to follow. Not immediately, but soon. Let us hope that the United States' government goes into action sooner than later, for our planet does not have much time left.
Sincerely,
AVQ.