Review the Institute of Medicine's 2010 report "The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health." Write a 750-1,000 word paper discussing the influence of the IOM report on nursing practice. Include the following: 1. Summarize the four messages outlined in the IOM report and explain why these are significant to nursing practice. 2. Discuss the direct influence the IOM report has on nursing education and nursing leadership. Describe the benefits and opportunities for BSN-prepared nurses. 3. Explain why it is important that a nurse's role and education evolve to meet the needs of an aging and increasingly diverse population. 4. Discuss the significance of professional development, or lifelong learning, and its relevance in caring for diverse populations across the life span and within the health-illness continuum. 5. Discuss how nurses can assist in effectively managing patient care within an evolving health care system. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.  Berger 1st.pdfBergerBerger 1.pdfBerger 2 A Playbook for Taming Donald Trump Four strategies that other countries can use to deal with a suddenly unpredictable superpower. By Stephen M. Walt | August 13, 2018, 4:03 PM https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/13/a-playbook-for-taming-donald-trump/ Politicians, pundits, and plenty of regular citizens love to argue about U.S. foreign policy. These discussions usually revolve around the question of what the United States should do with its extraordinary power and the influence it still enjoys around the world. Should the goal be “America First?” To be the “Indispensable Nation?” or a “Reluctant Sheriff?” How about being an “offshore balancer?” Something else entirely? Asking what the United States should do with its power is important, but so is the flip side: What should other states do about U.S. power? If you were running Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Poland, Afghanistan, Russia, India, Iran, Australia, etc., how would you deal with the 800-pound gorilla that still looms large on the world stage? I wrote a whole book on this topic back when George W. Bush was president. It identified the various strategies that states could employ to tame American power, and I argued that the Bush administration was encouraging more countries to oppose U.S. primacy and making it easier for their efforts to succeed. But I never anticipated that the ship of state would one day be skippered by a man with the emotional stability of Capt. Queeg. (For the record: I’m not the first person to make the latter comparison). This makes the question of dealing with U.S. power all the more pertinent. Handling a powerful actor is always difficult, even when its lea ...

1. Review the Institute of Medicine's 2010 report "The Future of
Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health." Write a 750-
1,000 word paper discussing the influence of the IOM report on
nursing practice. Include the following:
1. Summarize the four messages outlined in the IOM report and
explain why these are significant to nursing practice.
2. Discuss the direct influence the IOM report has on nursing
education and nursing leadership. Describe the benefits and
opportunities for BSN-prepared nurses.
3. Explain why it is important that a nurse's role and education
evolve to meet the needs of an aging and increasingly diverse
population.
4. Discuss the significance of professional development, or
lifelong learning, and its relevance in caring for diverse
populations across the life span and within the health-illness
continuum.
5. Discuss how nurses can assist in effectively managing patient
care within an evolving health care system.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the
APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An
abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to
beginning the assignment to become familiar with the
expectations for successful completion.

2. Berger 1st.pdfBergerBerger 1.pdfBerger 2
A Playbook for Taming Donald Trump
Four strategies that other countries can use to deal with a
suddenly unpredictable superpower.
By Stephen M. Walt
| August 13, 2018, 4:03 PM

3. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/13/a-playbook-for-taming-
donald-trump/
Politicians, pundits, and plenty of regular citizens love to argue
about U.S. foreign policy. These discussions usually revolve
around the question of what the United States should do with its
extraordinary power and the influence it still enjoys around the
world. Should the goal be “America First?” To be the
“Indispensable Nation?” or a “Reluctant Sheriff?” How about
being an “offshore balancer?” Something else entirely?
Asking what the United States should do with its power is
important, but so is the flip side: What should other states do
about U.S. power? If you were running Germany, Brazil,
Mexico, Japan, Poland, Afghanistan, Russia, India, Iran,
Australia, etc., how would you deal with the 800-pound gorilla
that still looms large on the world stage?
I wrote a whole book on this topic back when George W. Bush
was president. It identified the various strategies that states
could employ to tame American power, and I argued that the
Bush administration was encouraging more countries to oppose
U.S. primacy and making it easier for their efforts to succeed.
But I never anticipated that the ship of state would one day be
skippered by a man with the emotional stability of Capt. Queeg.
(For the record: I’m not the first person to make the latter
comparison).
This makes the question of dealing with U.S. power all the more
pertinent. Handling a powerful actor is always difficult, even
when its leaders are not prone to boorish behavior and
incoherent rants. Dealing with a powerful state and an
unreliable leader may be even trickier, even if one can count on
them to make a lot of blunders and suffer plenty of self-inflicted
wounds.
What options do other states have?
Balancing
According to most realists, states typically respond to a
powerful and bullying state by trying to pass the buck to others
and get them to rein it in. But if that doesn’t work, they will

4. balance against it. States rarely bandwagon with a threatening
power, because to do so invites further predation and places
them at the mercy of the more powerful state. Instead, major
powers (and plenty of minor ones) respond to threats by looking
for allies that can help protect them or by mobilizing their own
resources to resist the stronger or more dangerous state.
Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS: Explanation
Given that the United States is far and away the world’s most
powerful country, one might expect other states to be balancing
energetically to keep Washington in check. Fortunately for
Americans, several factors have combined to mitigate that
tendency. The first is geography: because the United States is
far from other major power centers, lots of potential balancers
worry more about their immediate neighbors and are therefore
eager to gain U.S. protection instead. Moreover, the United
States has been tightly linked to allies in Europe and Asia for
many decades, and these states have been reluctant to disrupt
the security ties on which they have become dependent. Third,
any attempt to organize a large anti-American coalition would
face serious dilemmas of collective action, unless there was a
strong alliance leader (like the old Soviet Union) that could
organize, discipline, and subsidize the effort. Such a state has
been lacking since the early 1990s, however, and China has yet
to try to play that role. Lastly, potential balancers may be
hoping that the Trump administration is just an awkward
moment that will pass fairly quickly, thereby eliminating the
need for a sustained response. For all of these reasons, states
have “underbalanced” against U.S. power for quite some time
and continue to do so today. Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Disadvantage Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Disadvantage Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Disadvantage Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Disadvantage
Even so, there are signs of both overt balancing and what some
have called “soft balancing,” which occurs when other states
coordinate their foreign-policy positions to produce an outcome

5. the United States does not want. Expanded cooperation between
Russia and China, and between both states and Iran, is precisely
what one would expect given U.S. policy toward both countries,
and Iranian support for the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria is
consistent with this as well. In the economic sphere, states have
reacted to Trump’s abandonment of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) and his imposition of tariffs by pursuing
trade deals that exclude the United States and by coordinating
their positions in meetings of the G-7 (much to Trump’s
annoyance) and NATO. States such as North Korea and Iran
have also balanced either by building up its nuclear weapons
arsenal (as has North Korea) or thinking seriously about
acquiring one (as Iran has done), to gain a measure of
protection against U.S.-sponsored regime change. Comment by
Dr. Brad WILLIAMS: Examples
But unless the United States goes completely off the deep end, I
wouldn’t expect a lot of overt balancing behavior. Instead, we’ll
see plenty of hedging, as traditional American allies react to
diminished U.S. reliability by exploring other arrangements.
When other states have little or no idea what Washington will
do next, one could hardly expect them to act otherwise.
Balking
States that choose not to balance overtly can simply dig in their
heels and refuse to go along with U.S. demands. Even the
mighty United States is not strong enough to monitor what
every other country is doing and to impose its will on all of
them, which allows states to just say no when it is not in their
interest to do what the United States demands. Mexico has
refused to build a wall on the border or to pay for it (what a
surprise!), and Turkey is refusing to turn over an American
pastor who it claims was involved in anti-government activities.
Canada, Mexico, China, and Germany have generally refused to
cave in to Trump’s demands on trade, although compromises by
both sides may eventually produce new agreements with some
of them. Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS: Explanation
Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS: Examples

6. Balking sometimes takes rather subtle forms, and especially
when states want to avoid an open clash with Washington. To
do this, other countries can formally agree to take some action
that the United States wants and then proceed to do this as
slowly and unenthusiastically as possible. The idea is to do just
enough to keep the United States happy and to ignore or obscure
violations and shortfalls. NATO’s pledges to increase defense
spending often take this form, as do Israeli promises to slow
settlement expansion and Palestinian pledges to crack down on
“incitement.” If the United States threatens European Union
countries with secondary sanctions for doing business with Iran,
look for these states to do as little as possible to monitor what
their own companies are up to and to allow for as many
loopholes and violations as possible. They may claim to be
(reluctantly) complying with U.S. demands, but don’t expect
them to put much energy into the effort. Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Explanation Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Examples
North Korea is, of course, an accomplished practitioner of this
strategy, and Kim Jong Un seems to have mastered the playbook
in short order. Trump claims that Kim promised to denuclearize
when the two leaders met in June, but Kim never actually said
that he would, and he shows no signs of moving in that
direction. Instead, he’s saying nice words in public but balking
in private, a strategy that has reduced the economic pressure
North Korea was under, created new rifts between Seoul and
Washington, and gained Kim greater stature as a global
statesman. And he did all this without dismantling a single
warhead or reducing North Korea’s nuclear potential by one
atom of fissionable material. Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Example
How can he get away with it? In this case, balking works in part
because the United States doesn’t have a lot of attractive ways
to pressure Pyongyang, but also because Kim knows the United
States has lots of irons in the fire all over the world and that
Washington will inevitably get distracted by something else. It

7. makes sense for him to keep balking, therefore, and to promise
concessions that never get made. Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Advantage
Bonding
Instead of trying to counter U.S. power, some states prefer to
exploit it for their own ends. They may be seeking U.S. support
against some regional rival or trying to gain greater influence
over U.S. policy deliberations and foreign-policy initiatives.
“Bonding” with top officials—and especially the U.S.
president—is a strategy designed to influence how these
officials view global problems and seeks to shape the way those
problems are addressed. Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS:
Explanation
Over the past six decades, plenty of foreign leaders have
worked overtime to “bond” with influential U.S. leaders. British
prime ministers from Winston Churchill forward sought to
cement the “special relationship” with the United States by
establishing intimate ties with whomever happened to be in the
White House, and foreigners such as Helmut Kohl of Germany,
Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, and Yitzhak Rabin of
Israel clearly benefited from the personal connections they had
forged with their American counterparts. Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Examples
Given Trump’s belief that when it comes to foreign policy “I’m
the only one that matters,” it is hardly surprising that several
world leaders have tried to establish personal bonds with Trump
(or with insiders such as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner). Both
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi leader
Mohammed bin Salman appear to have done so successfully,
and the latter in particular seems to have carte blanche to wage
a brutal war in Yemen, pick fights with Qatar and Canada, and
jeopardize his own economic reform program without fearing a
rebuke from Washington. We are all still trying to figure out
why Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to elicit a similar
deference from Trump, and Kim seems to have used this tactic
successfully as well. All three leaders “bonded” by catering to

8. Trump’s ego and penchant for spectacle, and they seem to have
gotten a free hand to do whatever they wanted without much
pushback from the White House. Comment by Dr. Brad
WILLIAMS: Advantage
“Bonding” is hardly a foolproof strategy, however, as the
experiences of Japan’s Shinzo Abe, France’s Emmanuel
Macron, and Canada’s Justin Trudeau all demonstrate. Each of
these leaders went to considerable lengths to ingratiate himself
with Trump and to pander to his ego, and each one of them got
less than nothing for their efforts. Abe’s solicitude and fondness
for golf didn’t stop Trump from abandoning the TPP and
imposing tariffs on Japan, Macron’s macho bromance with
Trump couldn’t persuade the president to keep the Iran deal or
to stop bad-mouthing the EU, and Trudeau wound up on
Trump’s blacklist despite his own early efforts to bond with the
mercurial president. Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS:
Disadvantage
Their misfortune was disagreeing with Trump on matters he
really, really cared about, and no amount of personal charm was
going to overcome that. Nor could Macron’s appeals override
the advice Trump was getting on Iran from the Saudis, from
advisors such as John Bolton, and from wealthy donors such as
Sheldon Adelson.
And given Trump’s long history of turning on former partners
(not to mention the unprecedented rate of turnover in his White
House staff), this strategy would seem to be a less-than-perfect
way to guarantee a harmonious relationship with Washington.
Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS: Disadvantage
Delegitimization
As the dominant world power, the United States would like to
convince others that its favorable position is broadly beneficial
to them and that its actions are contributing to a just and
legitimate world order. By contrast, those who oppose the
United States will try to portray America’s role in much more
malignant terms. A strategy of “delegitimization” does not try
to undermine U.S. power directly but rather seeks to persuade

9. others around the world to resent U.S. dominance, to see
America’s values as unworthy of imitation, and in general to
make it much harder for the U.S. government to win others’
compliance or support. Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS:
Explanation
Unfortunately, Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the White House
and his conduct as president have been a godsend for anyone
trying to undermine the U.S. image in most of the world and to
cast doubt on its moral worthiness. Consider for a moment how
easy this has become. Instead of trying to convince others that
U.S. foreign policy was good for (most of) the world, the U.S.
president has proudly and repeatedly proclaimed that his
“America First” foreign policy is intended to benefit the United
States and to take advantage of allies and adversaries alike.
Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS: Advantage
With Trump as president, portraying the United States in
unflattering terms is like shooting fish in a barrel, and recent
global surveys are unambiguous about these trends. According
to the Pew Research Center, a 2017 survey across 30 countries
found that 38 percent of respondents regarded U.S. power and
influence as a “major threat,” up 13 percentage points since
2013. An earlier survey of 37 countries found that confidence in
U.S. leadership had declined from 64 percent under President
Obama to a mere 22 percent under Trump.
To be sure, the United States has always been self-interested,
and its claims to great virtue were frequently hypocritical. But
it didn’t always act in an amoral (or immoral) fashion, and
where possible, it did stand for a certain set of political values
and tried to show a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
It is one thing to stand for certain moral values while
acknowledging that sometimes other considerations must take
precedence, and another thing to ignore such values almost
completely, as Trump has done.
Moreover, when a president is so impulsive, self-absorbed,
misogynistic, vindictive, and impolitic, and when so many of
his associates and appointees are visibly corrupt, it becomes

10. easy for foreigners to portray the United States in an
unflattering light. Indeed, making fun of Trump and the United
States has become an amusing diversion for foreign officials, as
this compilation from Maclean’s magazine makes clear. But one
must wonder how important world leaders talk about U.S.
officials and Trump himself in private, with reporters absent
and the microphones turned off. From what we do know, I’ll bet
it’s scathing.
To be sure, some countries are undoubtedly pleased to see the
disarray that Trump has brought to the conduct of U.S. foreign
policy. No wonder Chinese experts see his presidency as a
golden opportunity for Beijing, because “in terms of soft power,
Trump really undermined it substantially.” They may not like
his tariffs, but they can only be pleased by the damage Trump
has done to the U.S. position in Asia and elsewhere. Similarly,
Putin may have expected more from a Trump presidency, but
he’s not sorry whenever the president trashes longstanding U.S.
allies. As Napoleon is said to have told his soldiers, “When the
enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not
to interrupt him.” Comment by Dr. Brad WILLIAMS:
Advantage
The key takeaway here is that both friends and foes have many
ways of dealing with American power, either to defuse the
dangers it might pose or to turn it to their own purposes. A
chief task of U.S. diplomacy, therefore, is to recognize these
responses and do what is possible to mitigate them. Given
America’s favorable geopolitical position, this shouldn’t be all
that difficult. It mostly requires a certain degree of self-
restraint, a willingness to treat other countries and their leaders
with respect as opposed to contempt, and, above all, an ability
to act in ways that convince more people that U.S. power is, on
balance, a benevolent force in the world. If we’re as virtuous as
we like to think we are, how hard can this be?