11.22.06
Posted in Theory, Politics at 5:23 pm by diantus
           In response to some of the comments and questions that were raised by last week’s posting, I’m going to engage in some speculative work here. The question posed was this: what sort of reforms do I feel are necessary to allow the process of globalization to work to its potential. I interpret this requiring an analysis of how to best enable globalization to promote human flourishing, happiness, and individual freedom – all of which are far more important to me than any other concern.
           Globalization is a fascinating phenomenon. It simultaneously forces an increase in competition and cooperation, while also driving governments into power sharing arrangements with one another. It also would appear to have a homogenizing potential, in which societies and the structures that they embrace are forced to adapt to more predictable forms for the sake of economic competitiveness. Fortunately, this form is one in which there seems to be an upswing in personal freedom, multiculturalism, and openness. More and more, closed societies are failing to remain adequately competitive and are re-evaluating systems of education and tradition; usually with some pain and agony on the part of more reactionary elements in any given community.
           This is not to suggest that these changes should be forced, nor should we expect them to happen quickly – but they will happen, and should be encouraged. As a result, major reform number one for any society/group looking to reap the maximum benefit from globalization is a focus on education.  People must be willing to engage the new world with a certain hopeful curiosity. The best way to allay our irrational fears of one another is to have a coordinated program of understanding. Think how important it is for the average American voter to really understand something about Islam today. After all, our elected officials are running for office based off of both our ignorance and fear of an entire section of the world’s population. In order to actually make decisions, we must understand a whole cultural realm that may be completely alien.
           Additionally, improving education also can promote in increase in personal responsibility. The task of making our way through an increasing interconnected world cannot be left to government. Nor can we count on employers to honor their agreements. Economic security is increasing fleeting today, and workers must be able to adapt quickly to an ever changing terrain. The duty of any national government is to ensure that their workers are positioned to transition and adjust whenever and wherever the wild fluctuations of capital demand.
           Trade policy must be regulated and equalized as well. The first world monopoly on technology and cutting edge development is slipping. The Chinese and Indians are making steady headway into industries previously reserved for the advanced economies of the West. The best response of the west has been to batten down and hide behind tariff walls. For their part, these developing economies have not played fairly either. They manipulate their currencies and suppress labor movements in order to keep themselves competitive with each other and the West. Only by accepting open trade can we being to see the vast inequalities between the two groups begin to dissipate.
           However, the previous notion must be accompanied by careful regulation of labor markets. Labor standards must be universal and engineered based on the needs and grievances of working people. If workers are unprotected, the spoils of global production will simply go to the least scrupulous. It is important to ensure that the engines of global production are at least protected by similar laws. The only serious attempt in history to do this was foiled with the creation of the WTO – which is staunchly anti-labor. Nevertheless, when workers are afforded the same basic workplace rights, such as the right to organize, strike, and to basic work conditions, they can accomplish a lot. Compound the notion with relatively porous borders, free trade, and a free flow of information; you are talking about an international labor system that is capable of policing global trade policies from the bottom up.
           Of course, this is all suggestive of a reduced role for government in international and domestic trade which means two important reforms. First, is the question of tax reform. It would simply be unacceptable to allow the current system of complex, loophole laden, and regressive taxation to continue. I believe that government has a responsibility to provide some kind of safety net to people, and that this is the principal purpose behind a just tax system. As such, this also necessitates a method of taxation that both progressive and capable of limiting the unlimited acquisition of capital without redistribution. While there is something appealing about the notion of a progressive consumption tax, I have reservations about the complete lack of oversight into investment capital. Traditional savings are one thing, but investments and investment income is the real seat of wealth generation today. Perhaps a compromise arrangement can be reached between the simplicity of a consumption tax and the absolute necessity of an investment tax, though I ask my readers to allay these fears.
           Secondly would be an absolute commitment to information neutrality and/or freedom of speech. In order to keep a system honest, the notion of government would have to be stripped of its “personality,†and made into a neutral arbiter of the local populations. Personal freedom and responsibility must be tantamount for a truly globalized economy to work. This means that the business of government is no longer the maintenance of power, but the regulation of law and order alone. It must no impede the free movement of capital, labor, or information – especially information. Without information, no company or worker could ever make an informed decision. The greatest danger to any global transfer of power is the control and selection of information. This point cannot be emphasized enough. People must have access to the truth to make any kind of decision – especially economic. For globalization to work, the notion of nationalism must die.
           In my next article, I will wander even further out and discuss options for the political and social design of the global future.
Permalink
11.16.06
Posted in Theory, Politics at 8:13 pm by diantus
           I am a proponent of expanding global free trade. Given the screwed up way in which politics are perceived in this country, this is something that may surprise many of my readers. After all, I am technically on the political left and that means that I’m supposed to be protectionist for the sake of American jobs or the continued virility of our auto industry’s pets or some such thing. Nevertheless, this is one point on which I disagree completely with my fellow American lefties. The expansion of globalization is not only imperative, it is inevitable.  A mercantilist approach to trade relations will only further damage the prospects of the United States in the future.
           As a result of this assertion, I am rather displeased with the notion of populist democrats who are currently busying themselves by torpedoing trade agreements and efforts to liberalize our relationship with developing countries around the world. One particularly sound-byte minded congressman commented on a recent bill: “Hasn’t this country lost enough jobs already?â€Â Well congressman, obviously not.Â
The fact is that the rest of the developed world is making great strides when it comes to economic integration. The recent addition of a number of Balkan nations to the EU is a great example of broadening the trade networks that are increasing the depth of integration across all of Europe, and the rest of the world could stand to learn a lot from the efforts being undertaken there. Somehow though, American automakers are asking the government for special favors in order to protect them from the unfair practices of their Japanese rivals. As the proud owner of a Hyundai, I can tell you that I would never own a Ford; partly because they are ugly, inefficient, expensive, and unwieldy. Could this be the sort of unfair competition that Ford is worried about? That the big Asian auto-makers are building better cars and they can no longer compete?
The fact is that competition between businesses is a good thing. The trouble with globalization is that it is unregulated. In order to build a prosperous international economic system, it must be subject to oversight, and it must be governed by international bodies that are subject to some form of democratic control. As it stands, the global economy is regulated strictly by the wealthy and the politically powerful. As I have attempted to establish over the history of my little venture here, these are two groups that do not necessarily have the best interests of the general population at heart.
The other trouble with the current system is related to the question of labor. Labor (you and me), must be able to organize in defense of its interests, and it must be as mobile as the corporations upon which it depends. Labor standards must be enforced across national boundaries, and it needs to be possible for labor to go to where the work is. As it stands, there is no recourse for an American or Mexican whose company decides to leave save the dole queue. If labor markets cannot be protected from the winds of economic change, but they could be given a fighting chance against the wiles of fate. Make business fight for good labor, not vice versa. As it stands we are living in a system in which those upon whom the system depends are completely at its mercy. Government should be taking a leading role by helping workers cope with change instead of trying to shelter them from it.
What it boils down to is this: we should welcome the opportunity to work close with the Vietnamese, Chinese, or Mexicans.  After all, we all want the same thing. Raise our children in peace and relative security. Unless you’re me; I want a pony.
I believe that the world is on the cusp of a dramatic series of changes and globalization is leading us all inexorably towards a terminal phase in our history. The massively bloated governments that repress human ingenuity and freedom for the sake of the few will have to give in the face of all these changes eventually. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a plan in place for when that happens?Â
Economic integration is deepening whether you like it or not. Isolationist thinking merely encourages a regressive attitude that will make it that much harder to adjust. As a people, we would do far better if we made a serious effort to head off the potential difficulties in an increasingly globalized economy and culture, instead of trying to stop its approach. If we do not adapt, then everyone loses. The bottom will fall out of the US economy, our biggest employers will leave, and we will be stuck with an increasingly impoverished and angry workforce. The best thing that government can do to help is to increase the chances of the average American to succeed in the global marketplace and make it possible for them to genuinely engage with the global forces that are otherwise threatening to sweep us all aside.
Permalink
11.10.06
Posted in Theory, Politics, Governance at 4:58 am by diantus
Now that the Democrats have taken control of government, it is time to get back to business. A rather cowed and embarrassed president, who claimed that a vote for the opposition was a vote for the terrorists, has made a desperate plea for bipartisanship. From this he hopes to maintain a functioning government and keep himself out of jail. Nevertheless, we now turn our election-wearied eyes back to the basic question of Iraq. After all, the war there was the single biggest issue on the minds of American voters. We want to know how exactly we are meant to extricate ourselves from this ugly and unnecessary situation.
The president says that “victory†is the only acceptable outcome. He has done a rather poor job of defining this concept. What does “victory†in Iraq really look like? Is it, like the great struggle of World War Two, determined by the domination of one global power over another? Is it a clear line drawn in the sand between us and them? Somehow, I don’t think that it is. There is no clear enemy here. After all, we engaged in a war of choice against an enemy that we were misled into believing posed a greater threat than they themselves could have hoped to ever be.
Now that the ashes are settling, we are only just now beginning to understand the ramifications of that decision, and beginning to see our enemies for what they really are. They are people. Simple people like you or I, thrust into a vacuum of power and attempting to make sense of a world that has seemingly betrayed them. They could no more submit to the authority of another dictator than they could to us. We have set loose a juggernaut of repressed feeling, fear, and sentiment such that we Americans, in our quiet and stable lives, could never understand.
So I ask again: what does victory look like when it is over such a foe? I think we will be disappointed. Like everything else in the pitiable century, this will be a postmodern victory. It will not be defined by any great battle or grand surrender. There will be no memorable speeches. Instead, the conflict in Iraq will fizzle. Eventually, our presence will simply cease to be relevant. It is my hope that this will be accompanied by a silence of the guns on the opposing sides of the Iraqi civil conflict, but I wonder if our withdrawal won’t be a thing to be forgotten. I wonder if the fighting won’t continue as we slip quietly back onto our ships and sail home. I wonder if our departure will be marked by none. For those of my countrymen who were hoping for victory to come in a resounding manner that could be celebrated, I fear that you will be grossly disappointed.
Nevertheless, we must be prepared for this eventuality. In the end, you and I, the American public, must be prepared for the lessons that Iraq will force upon us. Namely that American power is no longer as relevant as it once might have been. We are wanderers in an unknown land now. This is a land where the natives no longer fear our guns, but they might be made to fear of pocketbooks. We can no longer rely on the might of our armies to safeguard our futures. Instead, we must have faith in the strength of our knowledge. We can no longer seal our borders against the prodding fingers of the outside world. America, after a century of greatness, is finally joining the rest of the world.
Iraq is our lesson. The Iraqi people and her insurgents are not impressed by our flags or our ideologies. They responded to our efforts at liberation by turning voraciously on us and each other. This marks a new era for American power. I hope that the new leadership in Washington understands that the secret to greatness now lies in engagement with our neighbors and not in conflict. The world has wriggled free of our grasp and yearns to go in its own way. If we resist, we will find ourselves in the midst of a conflict that we cannot win; because, like in Iraq today, we will no longer be the object to be opposed – only an obstacle to be avoided.
Permalink
11.08.06
Posted in Current Events, Governance at 9:40 pm by diantus
           When I woke up this morning and plodded into work, I was exhausted by the late night, long lines, and crappy cheeseburger that I’d had for dinner the night before. It seemed that the Democrats had done well in the election and by commandeering the House has ensured a totally deadlocked government that might be able to drag some skeletons out of the closet and start cleaning up government a little bit. I was pleased, and with good reason.
           What I couldn’t have anticipated was the degree to which the Democrats managed to take control of the house. Moreover, as of this writing, the senate is deadlocked but it appears that the Democrats might scrape that last seat (albeit after a very heated and lengthy series of recounts). This really is wonderful news. The Democratic Party has an awful lot to do. They have painted themselves as the alternative to the absolutist, corrupt, and morally belligerent Republicans, and now they have the chance to prove it. Hopefully the weight of this assumed responsibility will help to usher us into an era of responsible governance.
           The signs are appearing as we speak. Already, Donald Rumsfeld has elected to resign as Secretary of Defense instead of facing down the firing squad that is coming for him. After all, the first thing the Democrats are likely to do is begin a sequence of investigations and challenges to the more odious of the Bush Administration policies. Mr. Rumsfeld knows all too well that he falls under that unfortunate classification. After all, he is one of the worst people alive today and no doubt should be tried (by an international court, then domestically… he broke everyone’s laws) and imprisoned for his criminally inept and illegal war, to say nothing of the mountain of lies from which any justification rose.
While I would like to hope that things like the Patriot Act would be eliminated, I’ll be happy if they just overturn the torture legislation. I’d also like to see a return to realistic diplomacy and a normalization of our relations with our allies. But I could go on for a while. I guess the point is, that after all of the bitterness of the last 12 years of Republican reign, after all the grotesque assaults on our liberties and freedoms, after the numerous hammer blows to the credibility of our government at home and abroad, I am actually hopeful for the future. It took a lot for that to happen. And I want to thank you, America, for not destroying the last of my faith in you.
Until the Right learns that the function of a good democratic government is not to dictate the lives of its citizens, but to safeguard their freedoms and rights to self-determination, they have no right to lead us. I just wish that my fellow citizens hadn’t found it necessary to violate almost all our national virtues and kill half a million people in order to realize it. Our country has taken the first steps to making it right again. Who knows, in a dozen years, maybe they will be a worthy opposition party again.
So here’s to the future. It’s suddenly looking a lot better.
Permalink
11.07.06
Posted in Politics, Current Events at 9:58 pm by diantus
           Election Day is here. I suppose it will come as little surprise to my readers that Tuesday is also the day on which I typically write my updates. Nevertheless, I have chosen to limit my commentary on the actual election itself. At this point in time, I’m sure that my views are quite clear to you all, and if they aren’t, then you simply haven’t been paying attention. If I say nothing else, I would simply ask you to go out and vote. A lot is riding on the outcome of today’s election. I hope for a successful resolution, though I’ve no doubt that I will be thoroughly disappointed.
           Instead, I’m going to turn my attention to other news; namely the recent verdict in the trial of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. I am not going to launch into a long winded explanation about what a bad guy Mr. Hussein is/was. I trust my readers to assume by now that I am no friend of tyranny and arbitrary rule. As such, I cannot approve of the actions of the one-time leader of that unhappy country. What I can criticize is the elemental dignity that should be afforded to all mankind – a fair and impartial trial – which was denied to Mr. Hussein.
           The question is not whether or not he was guilty of horrible acts. It is safe to assume that he was. Nevertheless, we must wonder what sort of trial a man in his position could get when offered justice by those over whom he had ruled. The answer is simple. Justice cannot be served when the guilt of a person is already established in the minds of the judicial system. Moreover, leader cannot be fairly judged when the wounds of war, rebellion, and sectarian conflict are so fresh upon the flesh of his polity. In such a case, Saddam should have been accorded the same treatment as other war criminals, from Nazis to the genocidal leaders of Yugoslavia. He should have been tried by the international community.
           A common theme that underscores a successful understanding of justice is that such a thing must be distinct from revenge. Justice is about enforcing the rules of behavior that bind us together and vengeance has no place in out understanding of the law or the arbitration of our social contracts. By allowing Mr. Hussein to be tried in the void of Iraq, his trial is an unfair sham carried out by people with a fully formed opinion of both his guilt and his punishment. Because of this, Saddam Hussein is about to be murdered without any recourse.
           What thinking person did not know instinctively, the moment that Mr. Hussein was charged and brought before a local court that he was not going to end with execution? Who would believe for a moment that there is anyone in Iraq who is capable of hearing his plea? Who here honestly believes that this court acted in accordance with the principals of impartial justice to reach its conclusion? There are avenues available to try men like Mr. Hussein. He should have been tested by the opinions of the world and not just those who he had wronged in the past. No Iraqi was capable of giving him the impartiality that justice demands simply because the stakes were so high and the burden of history so heavy.
           In the end, I suppose that it is irrelevant. Saddam Hussein is without a doubt guilty of crimes against humanity. Nevertheless, it should have been humanity that held him to account and not the narrow minded interest of his successor government under the thumb of an expansionist American regime. There is no fairness there; there is no justice. It simply underscores the lie of US foreign policy – that we are totally unwilling to bend, compromise, or work constructively with anyone to make it a more fair or just world. If we are to build a more just an equitable world, we must acknowledge that unilateral action is no longer a viable option and that our own leadership must be held to account. But I’ll make you this promise – when Mr. Bush is called before the court of world opinion for his own set of crimes against humanity, I will shout just as loudly for him to stand before an international court as well.
Permalink
« Previous entries