I used to do a lot of radio and television. In the past few years, I have largely given up. The BBC no longer pays for appearances, instead expecting its contributors to drive to London or to remote studios for the love of being broadcast.
The first liberals (including English politician R. Cobden[i], the US President W. Wilson and the pacifist N. Angell[ii]), in their main theses, oppose realists as to them the political regime (to be more specific, democracy or non-democracy) is crucial in the analysis of IR. If the countries are democratic, they steadily evolve, aiming at the creation of the over-state system and appearance of special over-governmental institutions. Whilst the other countries democratize, they will be joined in these institutions. That’s why the principle of national egoism and “self-help” may be included in democratization process, which may be the basis of the civil societal world and different societies’ integration, being yet divided by national borders, in one democratic civil society.
The world echoes with cries of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. But do they mean the same thing to everyone? And could misperceptions about the two words have something to do with the state the world is in?
First, I should say that personally I have no problem with gay marriage. But there are people in my country who take a different view on this matter.
In 1944, against a groundswell of concern for the democratic process, FDR ran and won a fourth presidential term, because Americans did not want an untried leader in the midst of two war
Federalism is a form of government in which federal units want to achieve balance between a certain degree of unity and a certain degree of dissemblance.