This is a continuation of the first and second assignments and uses your accumulated research. Imagine you are two different lobbyists, supporting two different sides of the policy issue you wrote about in the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy.
Submit your revisions from the Week 3 assignment, Historical Perspective and the Week 6 assignment, Analyzing Policy based on your professor’s feedback. You will be graded on your revisions. Then, write a 4–5 page paper in which you:
- Write a one-page position in favor of the policy.
- Write a one-page position against the policy.
- Write a one-page response to the argument in favor of the policy.
- Write a one-page response to the argument against the policy.
- Use at least two of the following arguments from Chapter 10 in your paper: normative, positive, anecdote, and evidence arguments. Clearly label each to receive credit.
- Include at least four peer-reviewed references (no more than five years old) from material outside the textbook. Note: Appropriate peer-reviewed references include scholarly articles and governmental websites. Wikipedia, other wikis, and any other websites ending in anything other than “.gov” do not qualify as peer-reviewed. Use Basic Search: Strayer University Online Library to identify references.
Requirements: 4-5 pages |
President Obama’s foreign policy was flawed, thereby making it a non-starter. This is because his foreign policy approach encouraged the country’s interference in foreign nations’ internal governance and affairs. This approach violates the long-held and deeply valued international law principle of sovereignty (Murphy, 2018). I will use normative arguments to support this claim. Generally, normative arguments focus on using the immoral or moral attributes of actions or their consequences as a persuasive tool. Additionally, these arguments are anchored on shared norms and values that guide or regulate a society’s decision-making and conduct. When President Jimmy Carter was elected, he also sought to center his foreign policy on promoting human rights (Søndergaard, 2020). Like President Obama, President Carter Carter wanted the U.S. to take the lead in advancing worldwide human rights (Søndergaard,