In brief, Hilary Clinton proposes that the United States should remain the central power and continue its role as the world’s indispensable country. She claims that without the central power regulating the affairs, the result will be chaos and conflict (p. 11). She expresses her plans of how to maintain the role by utilizing all levers of powers. Her approaches include the use of technology, nonproliferation, economics as well as development and human rights.
In contrast, Ted Galen Carpenter disagrees claiming that the United States does not have the resources nor the will to …show more content…
Even though he does not a have a specific alternative country to take on the role of the new indispensable country, he does have a general idea, and acknowledges candidates are to be analyzed case by case for the best match. Hilary Clinton gave the speech as she was leaving, but I have no idea if her successor would carry out the plans she had in in mind. Even though the lever of powers she wanted to obtain will correct the issues we see in the word such as underdeveloped countries, human rights and monitoring terrorist attacks I need to have more information about what the plans will entail.
Extensive research needs to be conducted on other countries that would be candidates, as well as how they would be better or not be better. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject or global affairs, so I personally need to also research the United States and its contribution on regulating affairs. If I were to professionally vote on the subject I need to have accurate information and not be fooled by