Neorealist Theory of US Politics

Neorealist Theory of US Politics Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics. Great powers, the main actors in the realists account, pay careful attention to how much economic and military power they have relative to each other. It is important not only to have an important amount of power, but also to make sure that no other state roughly shifts the balance of power in its favour. For realists, international politics is synonymous with power politics. They are, however, important differences among realists. The most basic divide is in the answer to the simple but important question: why do states want power? For classical realists  [1]  like Hans Morgenthau, the answer is human nature. Practically, everyone is born with a will to power, which effectively means that great powers are led by individuals who are determined to having their state dominate its rivals. Nothing can be done to change that force to be all-powerful  [2]  . For Neorealists or structural realists, human nature has little to do with why states want power. Instead, it is the structure or architecture of the international system that forces states to pursue power. In a system where there is no higher authority that sits above the great powers, and where there is no guarantee that one will not attack another, it makes good sense for each state to be powerful enough to protect itself in the event it is attacked. In essence, great powers are trapped because they have little choice but to compete with each other for power if they hope to survive  [3]  . Neorealist theories ignore cultural differences among states as well as differences in regime type, mainly because the international system creates the same basic incentives for all great powers. Whether a state is democratic or autocratic matters relatively little for how it acts towards other states. Nor does it matter much who is in charge of conducting a states foreign policy. Neorealists treat states as if they were black boxes: they are assumed to be alike, save for the fact that some states are more or less powerful than others.  [4]   There is a significant divide between structural realists, which is in the answer to a second question that concerns realists: how much power is enough? Defensive realists like Kenneth Waltz (1979) maintain that it is unwise for states to try to maximize their share of world power, because the system will punish them if they attempt to gain too much power. The pursuit of hegemony, they argue, is especially imprudent. Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer (2001) take the opposite view; they maintain that it makes good strategic sense for states to gain as much power as possible and, if the circumstances are right, to pursue hegemony. The argument is not that conquest or domination is good in itself, but instead that having overwhelming power is the best way to ensure ones own survival. For classical realists, power is an end in itself; for structural realists, power is a means to an end and the ultimate end is survival. In a widely discussed essay John Mearsheimer  [5]  (1993) use the neorealist argument of Waltz  [6]  (1979) and applies it to both the past and future. He says that neorealism has continued importance for explaining international relations: neorealism is a general theory that applies to other historical situations besides that of the Cold War. He also argues that neorealism can be employed to predict the course of international history beyond the Cold War. The question poses is: What would happen if the bipolar system were replaced by a multipolar system? This question can be justly discussed with the study of the last War in Iraq. Indeed, the Iraq case throws light on the determinants of war, exposing how far decisions are driven by systemic factors. Kenneth Waltzs defensive realist image of systemic constraints shaping a prudent defensive use of power does not appear to correspond to American behaviour. Offensive realism, predicated on the notion that great powers can never have enough power in an insecure world, might seem more relevant, but even this is doubtful: its main proponent, John J Mearsheimer (2001) views hegemony as merely regional and hegemons as acting as offshore balancers outside their own regions. Seeing the Iraq War as going well beyond that, he denied that it was necessary to US security (Mearsheimer and Walt 2003). So, ultimately, How the US invasion in Iraq can be interpreted from neorealists points of view? First, in order to answer, I will study the works of Waltz and Mearsheimer in identifying their similarities and their differences. Finally, I will apply their perspective to the US invasion of Iraq. Defensive Realism versus Offensive Realism: How much power is enough? The leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). Waltzs Theory of International Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. In Waltzs view the International relations theory is a neorealist theory that focuses centrally on the structure of the system. Actors are less important because structures compel them to act in certain ways. Structures more or less determine actions. According to Waltss neorealist theory, a basic feature of international relations is the decentralized structure of anarchy between sates. States are alike in all basic functional respects in spite of their different cultures or ideologies or constitutions or personnel, they all perform the same basics tasks. But the structure of the system changes with changes in the distribution of capabilities across the system units  [7]  . In other words, international change occurs when great powers rise and fall and the balance of power shits accordingly. A balance of powers between states can be achieved, but war is always a possibility in an anarchical system. Waltz distinguishes between bipolar systems, such as existed during the Cold War between The United States and the Soviet Union, and multipolar system, such as existed both before and after the Cold War. Waltz believes that bipolar systems are more stable and thus provide a better guarantee of peace and security than multipolar sys tems. With only two great powers, both can be expected to act to maintain the system  [8]  . That is because in maintaining the system they are maintaining themselves. According to that view, the Cold War was a period of international stability and peace. Waltz assumes that the fundamental concern of states is security and survival. He also assumes that the major problem of great power conflict is war, and that the major task of international relations among the great powers is that of peace and security. Nevertheless St ate leaders are prisoners of the structure of the state system and its determinist logic which dictates what they must do in their conduct of foreign policy. There is no room in Waltzs theory for foreign policymaking that is independent is the structure of the system. Waltzs image of the role of state leaders in conducting foreign policy comes close to being a mechanical image in which their choices are shaped by the international structural constraints that they face. Thus, Waltzs neorealist approach does not provide explicit policy guidance to state leaders as they confront the practical problems of world politics. That is presumably because they have little or no choice, owing to the confining international structu re in which they must operate. Waltz does address the question of the management of international affairs  [9]  . Waltzs argument is at base a determinist theory in which structure dictates policy. However, just beneath the surface of Waltzs neorealist text, and occasionally on the surface, there is recognition of the ethical dimension of international politics. For example, he operates with a concept of state sovereignty:To say that a state is sovereign means that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems  [10]  . For Waltz, all states are equal only in a formal-legal sense; they are unequal, often profoundly so, in a substantive or material sense. But that means that a norm of state exists which all states without exception are expected to observe in their relations with each other regardless of their substantive inequalities of power. Waltz also assumes that states are worth fighting for. That, too, indicates that neorealism is imbued with normative values: those of state security and survival. Waltz operates, as well, with a concept of the national interest: each states plots the course it thinks will best serve its interests  [11]  . For Waltz, however, the national interest seems to operate like an automatic signal commanding state leaders when and where to move. Waltz sees states as structures that respond to the impersonal constraints and dictates of the international system. Mearsheimer builds on Waltzs argument concerning the stability of bipolar systems as compared with multipolar systems  [12]  . These two configurations are considered to be the main structural arrangements of power that are possible among independent states. As indicated Waltz claims that bipolar systems are superior to multipolar systems because they provide greater international stability and thus greater peace and security. There are three basics reasons why bipolar systems are more stable and peaceful. First, the number of great-power conflicts is fewer, and that reduces the possibilities of great-power war. Second, it is easier to operate an effective system of deterrence because fewer great powers are involved. Finally because only two powers dominate the system the chances of miscalculation and misadventure are lower. They are fewer fingers on the trigger  [13]  . In short the two rivals superpowers can keep their eye steadily fixed on each other without the distractio n and confusion that would occur if there a larger number of great powers, as was the case prior to 1945 and arguably has been the case since 1990  [14]  . The question Mearsheimer  [15]  poses is: What would happen if the bipolar system were replaces by a multipolar system? Mearsheimer  [16]  that the demise of the bipolar War order and the emergence of a multipolar world will produce highly undesirable return to the bad old ways of anarchy and instability and even renewed danger of international conflict, crises, and possibly war. Mearsheimer differs from Waltz whom characterizes as a defensive realist: someone who recognizes that states must and seek power in order to be secure and to survive, but who believe that excessive power is counterproductive, because it provokes hostile alliances by other states. For Waltz, it does not make sense, therefore, to strive for excessive power beyond that is necessary for security and survival. Mearsheimer speaks of Waltzs theory as defensive realism. Mearsheimer agrees with Waltz that anarchy compels states to compete for power. However, he argues that states seek hegemony, that they are ultimately more aggressive that Waltz portrays them as being. The goal for a country, such as United States, is to dominate the entire system, because only in that way could it rest assured that no other state or combination of states would even think about going to war against the United States. In the Western Hemisphere, for example, the United States has long been by far the most powerful state. No other state, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, would even think about threatening or employing armed force against the United States. All major powers strive for that ideal situation. But the planet is too big for global hegemony.The oceans are huge barriers. No state would have the necessary power. Mearsheimer therefore argues that states only become the hegemon in their own region of the world  [17]  . Regional hegemons can see to it, however, that there are no other regional hegemons in any other part of the world. They can prevent the emergence and existence of a peer competitor. According to Mearsheimer, thatis what the United States is trying to ensure. That is because a peer competitor might try to interfere in a regional hegemons sphere on influence and control. According to Mearsheimer, all states want to become regional hegemons. That is why he refers to his theory as offensive realism which rests on the assumptions that great powers are always searching for opportunities to gain power over their rivals, wit hegemony as their final goal  [18]  . There has always been conflict, there is conflict, and there will be conflict over power. And there is nothing that anyone can do to prevent it. This is why the title of one of his books is The tragedy of Great Power Politics. In sum, there is disagreement among structural realists about how much power states should aim to control. Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power and should do so whenever it seems feasible. States should maximize power, and their ultimate goal should be hegemony, because that is the best way to guarantee survival. While defensive realists recognize that the international system creates strong incentives to gain additional increments of power, they maintain that it is strategically foolish to pursue hegemony. That would amount to overexpansion of the worst kind. States, by their account, should not maximize power, but should instead strive for what Kenneth Waltz calls an appropriate amount of power  [19]  ; The War in Iraq and the neorealists : a troublesome case States operate in a self-help world almost always according to their own self-interest and do not subordinate their interests to the interests of other states, or to the interests of the so-called international community. The reason is simple: it pays to be selfish in a self-help world.  [20]   The decision made by the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 can both be fit into neorealist theory, while some things also complicate neorealist theory. Realists believe that power is the controlling force in politics, and especially international politics, and power is defined as the ability to control outcomes. This is a hard thing to prove but the US certainly have shown that it is able to control outcomes, when US forces invaded Iraq without the consent of the UN or most other nations. Other countries like France also tried hard to persuade the US not to invade Iraq, which is also a sign of wanting to control outcomes. However, the US turned out to be a lot more powerful in this case. Mearsheimers theory of offensive realism states that the unrelenting pursuit of power means that great powers are inclined to look for opportunities to alter the distribution of world power in their favour. This means that the US, which is by far the greatest power in the West, will always be looking for opportunities to gain even more power at the expense of other states. Neorealist theory can explain the Iraq war in 2003 by saying that the US saw invading Iraq as an opportunity to gain even more power at the expense of foremost Iraq  [21]  . The invasion of Iraq can also be seen as a way for the US to prove to the world how powerful it is by not letting the US be taunted by Saddam Hussein, and by defying the opinion of the UN and other states  [22]  . The invasion of Iraq can be analysed as a strategy for gaining power or as a strategy for checking aggressors. By using war as a way of increasing their power, the US can exploit Iraqs economy for their own benefit and gain power by confiscating natural resources such as oil and foodstuffs  [23]  . Also, the US can gain strategic important land by gaining an ally in the new Iraq, which the US has helped rebuild. War has been used as a way of checking aggressors, which is basically a way of preventing other states from gaining power at their own expense. In reality this is done by deterring the aggressor, who in this case is Iraq. When the US did not think that Iraq was deterrable they had no other choice than to invade Iraq, according to offensive realism. This is because the structure of international politics forces states to be aggressive in order to survive. Before and during the 2003 Iraq war the US gave the impression that they were threatened by Iraq, which means that they were trying to deter Iraq, which was an aggressor. However, looking at the image as being just and democratic that the US clearly wants the world to think of them, it is hard to imagine that they would say anything different from what they did, no matter what their motives were. The conditions of international politics today for countries in the West demands them to be just and democratic or at least to appear that way and no state leader would say anything that could not be explained as being just and democratic, because it is the rules of survival in international politics today. This does not mean that states today in the West are only just and democratic, because they can do whatever they want to within reason. It just means that whatever they do will have to be camouflaged as just and democratic. However, the invasion of Iraq is hard to explain with offensive realism in some ways. According to offensive realism, the central aim of American foreign policy is to be the Hegemon in the Western Hemisphere and have no rival hegemon in Europe or Northeast Asia. How can offensive realism then explain that the US is invading a country in the Middle East, because this region should not interest the US enough to want to invade a country in other regions than Europe and Northeast Asia?  [24]  Mearsheimer has trouble seeing why the US have troops in Europe and Northeast Asia, and argues that they should be sent back, and therefore it is even harder to explain why they should have troops in a region in which the US government does not aspire to be a hegemon. Some of the most prominent realist scholars Mearsheimer and Waltz actually argued against invading Iraq, because they believed that it was unnecessary. All state leaders are rational according to realist theory, which means that Saddam Hussein is also rational although the US government kept arguing that he was irrational and therefore you could not reason with him  [25]  . Because realist theory holds that Saddam Hussein, like all state leaders, are rational, he is also deterrable because economic sanctions and threats of massive retaliation will always work on him, and they have in the past, realists argue. Therefore, neorealist theory tells us, that Saddam Hussein is not as big a threat to the US as the US government claimed and there was no reason to invade Iraq. If Saddam Hussein is rational he would acknowledge that Iraq is a weak state, and would never be foolish enough to attack such a powerful state as the US, because it is not wise to attack a state that has nuclear wea pons regardless of whether you have WMD or not. Conclusion It is impossible to create a theory about international politics, that is bullet-proof, because there will always be an element of unpredictability, which is unavoidable when humans interact. Neorealist theory has been able to predict the US foreign policy because a structural argument: the unipolar system and its instability. However, when the system level ceases to be the major constraint on behaviour, as expected by neorealism, there is much more scope for domestic determinants to drive policy  [26]  . Moreover, the war demonstrates the dangers of unipolarity in which the once-benign hegemon becomes malign  [27]  . It is no accident that small powers have traditionally put the highest value on international law and the UN and that the world hegemon uniquely deprecates the latter as unwanted constraints on its freedom to do as it pleases; their failure in the Iraq case makes for a less secure world for those at the bottom of the power hierarchy.

Billie Holiday Biography

Billie Holiday (born Eleanora Harris (1915–1959) was an African American jazz singer and songwriter. Her singing style, strongly inspired by jazz musicians, lead to a new way of using word choice and rhythm. A critic named John Bush once wrote that Holiday â€Å"changed the art of American pop vocals forever. † She only co-wrote a few songs, but a number of them have become jazz standards that many musicians strive to live up to.Some of these standards were set by songs of hers such as â€Å"God Bless the Child†, â€Å"Don't Explain†, â€Å"Fine and Mellow†, and â€Å"Lady Sings the Blues†. She also became famous for singing â€Å"Easy Living†, â€Å"Good Morning Heartache†, and â€Å"Strange Fruit†, a protest song  which became one of her standards and was made famous with her 1939 recording. In Harlem she started singing in various night clubs. Holiday took her professional pen name from  Billie Dove, an actress she admired, and the musician Clarence Holiday, thus was born â€Å"Billie Holiday†.The producer  John Hammond arranged for Holiday to make her recording debut, at age 18, in November 1933 with Benny Goodman, singing two songs: â€Å"Your Mother's Son-In-Law† and â€Å"Riffin' the Scotch. † The latter being her first big hit. â€Å"Son-in-Law† sold 300 records,  but â€Å"Riffin' the Scotch,† sold 5,000 records. Hammond was very impressed by Holiday's vocalization style. He said of Holiday that, â€Å"Her singing almost changed my music tastes and my musical life; because she was the first girl singer I'd come across who actually sang like an improvising jazz genius. Hammond compared Holiday positively to Armstrong and said she had a good sense of lyrics at her young age. In early 1959 Holiday found out that she had  cirrhosis of the liver. The doctor told her to stop drinking, which she did for a short time, but soon returned to heavy drinking . Some of her friends tried to get her to check into a hospital, but she did not go. On May 31, 1959, Holiday was forcibly taken to Metropolitan Hospital in New York suffering from  liver  and  heart disease.She was arrested for having drugs with her as she lay dying, and her hospital room was invaded by the police. Police officers were stationed at the door to her room because of her drugs. Holiday remained under police guard at the hospital until she died from  pulmonary edema  and  heart failure caused by cirrhosis of the liver on July 17, 1959. In the final years of her life, she had been gradually tricked out of her earnings because of her drug and alcohol addictions. She died with seventy cents in the bank and seven-hundred fifty dollar tabloid fee.

Mobile Technology Evolution and Its Influence on the Society

Mobile phones have long ago ceased being mere means of communication. Nowadays they quite successfully perform a much greater number of functions and as they evolutionize their impact on the society grows. Over the past few years mobile technology has shown steady and significant improvement. Mobile evolution has introduced new revolutionary features, some of which were unimaginable not too long ago. Driven by the slogan â€Å"If you can dream it, you can do it†, the 3G mobile phone manufacturers strive to make their products as sophisticated as possible, constantly updating the software, features and multimedia services (Take, Sopan). At this point it seems that there’s always way to perfection. The fact that mobile phones at this point are already saturated with impressive features makes further improvement challenging, and therefore even more desirable. The fact that one can get seemless and fast Internet connection on his phone is very appealing and much appreciated by the mobile phone users. GPS service is also among the latest and the most popular features available in 3G mobile phones (Willison, Simon). Another feature which seems to be a must for any phone is built-in camera. The quality of the pictures and video taken with the help of a tiny camera integrated in the mobile phone seems truly extraordinary and at times can even beat the quality provided by bigger cameras. As mobile evolution continues, the phones become more and more compact at the same time providing an increasing number of fascinating features. Constant struggle for improvement manifests the desire of mobile phone manufacturers to keep up with the relentless progress, which brings under the spotlight the most revolutionary and innovative products. There’s no denying the fact that such impressive improvements in mobile technology infallibly evoke acute interest not only in those, who closely monitor every technological invention, but also in the general public. Efficient marketing programs and overall popularity of certain mobile phone manufacturers, such as Nokia, lead to strong enthusiam among the people when a new model is about to be released. An illustrative example of the ultimate excitement over a new mobile phone model is the release of the Apple iPhone (Barylick, Chris, Honan, Matthew). The fact that hundreds of people spent days and nights in the street led by the desire to be among the first to get the dream-phone is very telling of the great place mobile phones have secured for themselves in our hearts and minds. Nowadays, a mobile phone is far more that a way to stay in touch. It is a symbol of status, taste and fashion consciousness of its owner. A new impressive mobile phone evokes respect while an obsolete one may call status into question. In conclusion, as mobile phones become more and more complex, their influence increases. People depend on their mobile phones for much more than just calls and text messages. One can hardly deny the importance of mobile phones, which have become an inseparable part of our everyday lives. They have even gone as far as to define their owner as a person. Works Cited 1. Barylick, Chris, Honan, Matthew. iPhone release brings out the crowds. June 26 2007. 2. Emily. Samsung, Armani to Launch ‘Armani Phone'. July 24, 2007 3. Richardson, Michael. Mobile Phone Becomes Status Symbol. 6 May 1994. Herald Tribune/News. 4. Take, Sopan. Evolution of the Mobile Technology. July 19 2004. Science and Technology. (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-18-2004-56792.asp> 5. Wellman, Steven. Take 5: The Evolution Of The Mobile Phone User Experience. April 24 2007. The Information Week/Consumer/Personal Tech: Mobile. 6. Willison, Simon. New A-GPS service for Nokia phones. 6 August 2007.

The Affordable Care Act Obamacare - 1140 Words

The Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ObamaCare was signed into law on March 23, 2010. It has created a lot of controversy since its debut. The Healthcare reform will affect all Americans. The issue has many Americans believing it is a great thing for our country while others believe it is a terrible idea and then of course there are those who don’t know what to think. By Jan 1, 2014 Americans will be required to purchase a health care policy or will have to pay a penalty. Ready or not it’s happening. First you would have to understand the background information of the program. As with all things there are pros and cons to the Affordable Care Act. Because it is a new law it is not flawless there is room for changes and recommendations. Lets begin with the background information of the policy issue. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: It was created to provide affordable, quality health care for eligible Americans and legal residents. The act was created to reduce the growing number of uninsured Americans. According to PBS, there are 44 million Americans without health insurance. Just because it is the law to have health care coverage does not mean that every single person in America will have coverage there will still be some without coverage. It is just reducing the numbers. Undocumented aliens will not be covered under the Affordable Care Act and will be left uninsured just as they are now. The idea of health care reform was introduced in 1989, proposed by HeritageShow MoreRelatedObamacare And Affordable Care Act930 Words   |  4 Pagesfunctions. Obama’s Health Care Reform, better known as ObamaCare was signed into law on March 23, 2010. It is officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or Affordable Care Act (ACA). This act is meant to provide affordable, good quality health care to all Americans and to cut health care spending. The ACA has been on ongoing struggle to reform the health care system. Almost 50 million Americans still lack health coverage despite the fact that ObamaCare continues to help provideRead MoreObamacare : The Affordable Care Act1317 Words   |  6 PagesThe Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was passed in March 2010. This over-1000-page Act implements a number of reforms designed to increase the availability of health care for individuals. The Act created a Health Insurance Marketplace, a universal way to sign up for subsidized health care plans (which are cheaper), though you can only get certain plans from certain places, including an expanded Med icaid. It also creates an incentive to purchase health insurance-if you don t, youRead MoreObamacare And The Affordable Care Act1028 Words   |  5 PagesThe Affordable Care Act was created to make an attempt to reduce the amount we pay for healthcare. â€Å"Healthcare premiums were too expensive for many families to afford,† is a common issue among citizens today, and we have come to the conclusion that Obamacare can help reduce that amount. Ever since this has been put in place, many Americans deny this, but it says that even if you aren’t 100 percent healthy it will still cover you, unlike regular healthcare premiums opposed that. Another benefit thatRead MoreObamacare And Affordable Care Act Essay1564 Words   |  7 PagesPatient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded the 1965 bill passed under President Johnson that created Medicare and Medicaid (â€Å"LBJ Presidential Library,† 2015). While the Affordable Care Act, or â€Å"Obamacare† as it h as been dubbed by the media, has many components, the focus here is the expansion of Medicaid. Obamacare sought to expand Medicaid to cover those who earn too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid, but not enough to afford employer-provided health care. These people are said toRead MoreObamacare And Affordable Care Act997 Words   |  4 PagesWhite Professor Eastman English 1020 29 January 2015 Obamacare’s Healthier America Health care has been a controversial topic of discussion for all Americans since it was put in effect many years ago. Currently the biggest debate of Healthcare up to date is Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a Health care Reform that is a governmental attempt to make basic health care easily obtainable. However, there are no benefits without cost in situations like this,Read MoreObamacare And Affordable Care Act928 Words   |  4 PagesUnited States, Barack Obama, signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which is commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or familiarly the Obamacare (What is ObamaCare). President Obama created ACA to make health care more affordable and accessible for people in the United States. The Affordable Care Act guarantees most people will have health insurances as well as reduces the high cost of health care of individual and government. These are also two points that th e ACARead MoreObamacare : The Affordable Care Act1507 Words   |  7 Pageshealth care coverage for all; and that is called The Affordable Care Act ( ACA)1 or also known as Obamacare. This program provides standardized medical expenses/procedures to be made and allows everyone -- who is eligible -- to have coverage. However, I think that we need to take in account how Obamacare is negatively impacting the lower class, middle class, and upper class; therefore, we should remove it. This law became effective on March 23, 2010 (Key Features of The Affordable Care Act). ObamacareRead MoreObamacare And The Affordable Care Act1061 Words   |  5 Pages The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare or ACA, is the health reform law enacted in 2010 by Congress. The official name of this reform is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Many provisions of the law are already in effect and the rest are going to continue to develop until 2022. After a year of intense political wrangling, the health reform initiative was passed by Congress. Even though it falls short of providing universal coverage, it is unlike the Clinton proposal. TheRead MoreObamacare Or Affordable Care Act893 Words   |  4 PagesObamacare or Affordable care act (ACA) refers to the healthcare act introduced by President Obama in 2010 and represents one of the significant healthcare reforms since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The primary purpose of the reform was to increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, expand the reach of insurance, and reduce the costs of healthcare for both individuals and government. First, we will analyze the merits and disadvantages of Obamacare – PROS 1. CurrentlyRead MoreThe Affordable Care Act ( Obamacare )1604 Words   |  7 Pages Ever since Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) into law in 2010, it has been met by criticism from many people from many different ideologies. Although the law held promise for allowing all individuals to afford healthcare and all of its benefits, that is not to say it does not have its downsides. Since passing, both the conservative and democratic parties have found reasons to dislike the law. This essay will include a description of the law itself, criticisms from the two parties