President Barack Obama

The primary focus of this article is to find parallels between the world of Politics and the world of Physics. It is widely established that the latter may have an impact upon the prior. This article will examine American grand strategy through the lens of International Relations Theory to confirm the assumption assumption that theory can impact policy. The field of grand strategy, as opposed to the field of strategy and tactics, remains in many respects the terra incognita – a discipline that is subject to heated debates. Furthermore, this strategy needs reinvention in unstable, geopolitical landscape. America has to follow a new, timely, strategic vision leading to global stability while investing in teams of leaders so that they drive change forward. One crucial lesson that global leaders may learn from norm-centred Constructivism is that political leaders have a capacity for critical self-reflection and choice designed to bring about changes in policy. There is a reason to think about leaders in novel terms owning to the presence of new circumstances. When these conditions are present leaders engage in self-reflection and practice specially designed to transform their identities and interests and thus change the political games in which they are embedded. This way by changing the mindsets of global leaders America could help the world to avoid a dangerous slide into international turmoil. This paper introduces the thesis that changes of identity of organised, Western societies planted by transformational leaders can have impact not only at the society or system level, but can equally, exert impact at the higher levels of grand strategy. For such change to be successful, there is a need for a goal that is sufficiently collective, embracing all international actors, such as making climate on the Earth more hospitable to human civilisation. If the thoughts and ideas that enter into the existence of international relations change, then the system itself will also change, because the system consists of thoughts and ideas, so soon international actors will create a climate community in which problem-solving will accelerate exponentially driven by Science, which is mainly Physics leading to achieving the ultimate goal. That is the insight behind the often interpreted as an illogical oxymoron, oft-repeated phrase by a constructivist, Alexander Wendt: "Anarchy is what states make of it" (1992: 394). How can orderly entities produce and reproduce disorder or anarchy in the international society? It seems like a self-contradictory absurd, but is demonstrated to be true. But if true, so equally true, can be a situation when its logic is reversed, i.e. going in the opposite direction. Imagine the situation in which states or non-state actors including cities, states, companies, tribes, and regions actually representing governments by bonding together create a community of the shared interest united in the name of solving a common challenge such as climate change. Or perhaps advancing a great idea, for example, one promising an enlightened progress on the Earth through more complex advancement. And this unproven thesis or a hypothesis perfectly reflects the chain of chemical reactions when one action leads to consecutive physical processes whereby one path-breaking action or actor influences the next action while attracting similar particles, then the next ones and so on without end, forming as if strong covalent bonds known in Physics that resemble networks between states that cannot be easily broken apart. Even the deep, great water cannot suddenly flood the world united in this way, because the bonding force is so strong - similar to the force between a pair of neutral hadrons. This is how a bright idea is born on Earth, lives through and finally wins. In truth, the most amazing facts humanity knows about the universe come from the light that reaches us here on the planet. And imagine that some ideas can be extremely powerful things that actually shape the predominant trends and events of the given time. And imagine a miraculous stellar magnetism between ideas resembling the still not completely understood by scientists magnetic reconnection, which is difficult to describe, but which can be defined as the merger of magnetic fields that releases an astonishing amount of energy. The novel idea is that if we understand stellar reconnection better, we can improve space weather forecasts thereby shedding more light on the nitty-gritty of the cosmic climate, and in consequence, on our planetary climate, here on Earth. Cosmic and big picture problem-solving. The problem of scale in the relationship between humanity and the environment has long been known and has been researched by Young (1995 quoted in Keohane and Ostrom 1995), who observed that "many of those concerned about climate change want to know whether models of the global climate system can shed light on the prospects for climate variability at the regional or even the subregional level." This logic could be reversed, since ecologists working on self-contained, local ecosystems are often tested if their knowledge of ecosystem dynamics applies at the landscape level or even at the planetary level. Indeed, much of the thinking underlying the Gaia hypothesis is based on the premise that "the Earth as a whole is an ecosystem that ought to behave in accordance with principles derived from the study of smaller scale ecosystems" (Ibid.: 28). Scaling up and down to understand better climate change at the systemic level and weather events the local level might be a part of a true quest for an ingenious solution. This way, a closer scrutiny in the under appreciated and unusual but unexamined area of study might possibly lead to a breakthrough in a completely new area of study which has more practical dimension. For example, insights from economics could be applied to climate science. Ostrom's (1990) work on governing the commons showed that polycentric governance structures offer more flexibility to match institutions with environmental governance problems. Thus "pollycentric systems do often outperfrom hierarchical top-down agency-based governance structures." (Ostrom, 2008; Ostrom quoted in Brousseau, Dedeurwaerdere, Jouvet and Willinger 2012: 103). The idea is that "when governance systems are arranged polycentrically from small to very large, collective-action problems at multiple scales can be tackled." (Ostrom quoted in Brousseau, 2012: 107). Our civilisation could collapse as a result of many things including climate change. For example, scientific studies show that ''by 2030, it is estimated that 40% of global urban land will be in high-frequency flood zones.'' (Brainard, 2019). Studies of the collapse of whole societies emphasise the phenomenon on a grand scale (Tainter, 1988; Diamond 2005). But our civlisation could survive as the global system can undergo evolution, as long as, there is creative problem-solving. Ellerman, for instance, using the case study of EU ETS showed that "the period of decentralised experimentation and incremental change played an important role for the success of the system, in spite of lack of harmonisation in the allocations of decision from the central government" (Brousseau, et al., 2012: 104). If our global civilisation is to solve collective-action problems such as climate change effectively, we must rethink the way we approach market and governmental institutions (Berkes 2007, Ostrom 2007). "We need to develop analytical approaches and general principles that are consistent with a public sector that encourages entrepreneurship and innovation at local, regional, national, and international levels." (Ostrom, 2008). Public entrepreneurs are motivated by the need to improve the bond within the community, sharing the burden for increasing benefits and the stimulus of innovation. While some stress the need for charismatic leadership in the public sector others acclaim the advantages of entrepreneurship. Perhaps, this way through experimentation and constructive bonding and thinking outside the box we might get to the bottom of understanding of our climate if we can ever talk of climate governance or some kind of climate management. However, in an effort to save the Earth we must not destroy the environment. As Mandle (et al. 2019) noted, ''The dilemma of our times is to figure out how to improve the human condition without destroying nature. If ecosystems collapse, so eventually will human civilisation. The genius of inclusive green growth lies in working with nature rather than against it.'' We must try to leave as much as possible a better world for coming generations. The strategy that a Great Power pursues can undergo change because the need of the countries to unite to solve climate crisis will be greater than what separates them apart. Maybe this way, our planet could be saved as a beautiful oasis that all could inhabit in the future.

Presidents do public speaking, of course, but how do presidents view public speaking? This essay examines public presidential remarks about public speaking to offer a view of presidential rhetoric about rhetoric.
This analysis reveals that presidents have offered evaluations (implicit and explicit) of public speaking, as well as specific advice about giving and writing speeches. Excerpts from speeches and other remarks are included, with representation from Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, H. W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama. Considering presidential remarks about public speaking provides unique material to further inform how we teach, view, study, and do public speaking.

One of President Barack Obama’s favorite solutions to reducing armed conflict in the world centers around his desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons.  While this simplistic formula has certainly been voiced by other occupants of the oval office, the world is, and always has been, an extremely dangerous place, and the machinations of competing spheres of power will always exist in human history.  Coupled with an aggressive Russia and China, the dangers associated with the new era of radical Islamic extremism rubricate the need to view the naiveté of President Obama’s vision of a planet without nuclear weapons with great caution, particularly when a large part of the Obama solution calls for the unilateral weakening of America’s nuclear arsenal.


Strong American leadership requires assessing the world as it really is, not how one wishes it to be.  A world in which the United States and other free nations do not possess nuclear weapons is both unrealistic and undesirable.  The Obama Doctrine, which seems intent on employing scare tactics and demonizing the possession of nuclear weapons, imperils both the world and America.  Unilateral reductions of America’s nuclear forces create a vulnerable and weakened nation that can be easily intimidated.  Furthermore, such action increases the promotion of nuclear weapon development in other nations. 


Obama’s desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons cannot be achieved.  Unfortunately, however, its ability to hamstring America’s nuclear capabilities is all too real.  When it comes to nuclear weapons, our policies must be fully rooted in the context of common sense.  Unilateral reductions in America’s nuclear arsenal are disastrous when confronting totalitarian fanatics.  The only established defense against nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons cannot be abandoned because of nuclear weapons.