Over waaay too many beers last nite, I think I stumbled upon a moment of clarity on my feelings for our current President. It didn't as much change my mixed feelings for him but helped me understand why I find myself curiously defending him in forums like this.
First, a confession. While I voted for him, I don't like Bush much. I don't really know if he's smart or not (not a genius but not quite as stupid as people make him out to be?), nor do I care if he did coke in college (jeez, I did) or dodged military service (jeez, so did Clinton). What I really don't like is his his attachment to the the religious right, and his clear bungling of post-war Iraq. So, if I voted for him, all that leaves is lower taxes - but I'm honestly not one of those insensitive capitalists who believe poor people deserve their fate. So, what gives?
Next, the epiphany. The only dogma I religiously cling to is globalism. What does this mean? It means I think our future economics are driven by free trade with in a capitalist, consumption-rich world. It means outsourcing, it means open economies, it means fewer farm subsidies. I think it also involves governments and peoples to make their societies more attractive to the outside world by the right rules but also the right protections (the "global straighjacket" as Tom Friedman put it). It even means that countries like France and Germany must preserve their romantic notions of culture but respect that their global role is much reduced in recent decades (something Chirac is very slowly doing).
Fundamentalist terrorism is decidedly anti-globalist. They don't "hate our freedom" as Bush puts it, but they do hate our culture and are jealous of our economics. The Chinese are a great example of a government who realizes that the global economy is their future but perhaps has taken a different path to participate.
Bush, in an odd way, perhaps unintentionally, is a globalist. His domestic and international policies, almost across the board, fall in line with the philosophy. I don't think he cares one bit about the Iraqis but I do think he believes that a western style system in the middle east might begin to reduce some of the anti-west sentiment (but make things worse in the short term). Open oil markets will help too. I also think his shameless flaunting of our power is in our best interest - and his lack of respect for "old Europe" is more pragmatic for the future world economy (notice how France has joined the party now).
OK, very oversimplified, but this catches the essence of my thought these days. Let the critics retort.
It means I think our future economics are driven by free trade with in a capitalist, consumption-rich world. It means outsourcing… ------------
I basically agree with your point (and I think that Kerry would too, some of the democratic rhetoric during the campaign was simply that); however, globalization—while inevitable—will probably lower our standard of living. We are rapidly losing our technological edge to China and India. The rise in intellectual capital in these countries, combined with their low wages, will mean that tech jobs will increasingly go overseas. Over the long term, their wages will rise and ours will fall (the LA Times had an excellent piece a month ago on tech industry workers who lost their jobs during the last recession and how the new jobs they found were at substantially reduced wages). I have often wondered why the US doesn’t offer fellowships and/or free (or heavily subsidized) tuition for any US citizen who can get into an engineering/science PhD program. Our long-term economic future depends on brain capital. ----
…they don't "hate our freedom" as Bush puts it, but they do hate our culture and are jealous of our economics. ------
They hate our politics in the Middle East. Simple as that. In general, culture and economics have little to do with it.
Its nice to hear someone that voted for Bush go beyond the blind support that I often see, that in a way reminds me of the way sports fans cheer for their teams, no matter how big of jerks the athletes can be. And not that this doesn't happen on the left too, but not to nearly the extent the right supports Bush (how often do you meet a true hard-core Kerry supporter?? lol). So, in that sense, kudos for stepping outside the box and voicing an opinion that I think we all can respect.
I am a little confused that you say that your support for Bush is grounded in your beleif in the virtues of globalism, but then say that Bush appears to you as an "unintentional" globalist. Anyway, to that point I think FatNHorny had a great reply about some of the downsides that accompany globalism. I also think that cultural conflicts are one of the side effects of hyper globalism. What we tend to see in our modern conflicts are "clashes of civilizations" (a la Samuel Huntington). For example, when countries that have been victimized and pillaged as a result of colonialism are then forced to change their means of production (meaning their way of life) to accomodate the West, we cannot be suprised when things get a little messy, such as things seem to do in Africa and the Middle East. Add to that the rise in power by multinational corp's, as well as NGO's etc., and we see that the world will become more and more complicated. No easy answers, but things to think about nonetheless.
What I meant about "unintentional" globalist is that I'm not certain of Bush's intentions, although I suspect he's an unabashed capitalist. Either way, regardless of motivation, I like the agenda.
I take issue with those who say that globalism dilutes culture in a negative way. One only need to look at the US to see how economics doesn't dilute culture and, once established, better economics can facilitate preservation of culture. I also find it interesting that its usually the rich people who are concerned about culture and the poor people who prioritize money. Coincidence?....yea right!
Having traveled extensively in the 1st and 3rd world, I can attest that most rice farmers in Cambodia couldn't care less about democracy, but they long for these "sweatshop" jobs in Nike factories that left wingers in their country and the US criticize. Those who fight globalism in countries like these are either on the economic fringe or those with alot to lose from the opressive system in place. As a Burmese rice farmer (really!) once explained to me, "I don't mind our government and don't particularly want American TV, but if a western style democracy helps me sell rice on the international market and make more money, then that's great."
We are rapidly losing our technological edge to China and India --------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, we are outsourcing the manufacturing and hard core programming, but isn't the design part growing here? And isn't that making software cheaper, thereby fueling the pace of innovation and profits of US firms? As I see it, programming and support are the lowest value add services in the software business and thus jobs we shouldn't aspire to do.
...tech industry workers who lost their jobs during the last recession and how the new jobs they found were at substantially reduced wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- To compare the late 1990's tech bubble to today is unfair. The huge over-valuation of the tech stocks combined with the Y2K bug created way too much artificial demand for programmers. As a result, programmers were in short supply and wages temporarily peaked. No way was that sustainable and thankfully, for consumers, we found a cheaper source of labor.
They hate our politics in the Middle East. Simple as that. In general, culture and economics have little to do with it. ------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, I agree that our Israel centric policy hurts us in these circles, but I think its more than that. Lets see, for example, if we can broker some peace between Israel and the Palestinians, whether than causes tensions to subside. Might be too much historical baggage, but who knows?
First world vs. third world in a microcosm. Ang San Suu Kyi (spelling??) is seen as martyr-like by the well educated urbanites in Yangon (capital city) who are well versed in western politics and are passionate about democracy. However, they are the minority.
The majority just go about their daily lives without much regard for political matters or "freedom." They are "guilty" if you will, of thinking short term - far more concerned about this year's crop than the potential long term benefits of democracy or the global economy.
So, while its hard not to support sanctions against their government, the reality is that they hurt rank and file folk and thus might make us unpopular. That is, of course, until we are kyat (local currency) toting tourists looking for buddha statues!
My influences in places like this (story is the same in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) make me conflicted about our globalist policies. Reality is, they DO hurt the local populace in the short term. However, we are constantly seduced by their potential long term benefits, even if day to day folks don't appreciate them yet. Or, is that condescending? Or, is our role to educate? You get the picture.
The same story is happening in Iraq. We all believe that an open Iraq with freedoms and pluralistic access to the economy will be good for Iraqis. But, in the short term, we've screwed things up big time (maybe worse than necessary). Is the long term worth the short? I'd argue its worth the battle but I'm obviously biased based on our selfish benefit from oil, mid-east balance of power, etc.
BTW: Burmese girls ROCK! If you find yourself in Yangon, the Continental Hotel is chock full of them. Nice break from the ultra professional hustle of Bangkok.
... I'm a big fan of globalization but not a big fan of W. Kerry matched and exceeded Bush in his personal instincts in that area. Further, he was not beholden to the the unions and could have worked his will in these areas. The war is at best a distraction and at worst a detraction at making the US more competitive in the coming century. Bush invested too much international political capital in his adventures in Iraq when the same funds could have been invested in so many other useful ways to increase global competitiveness. The middle east is a lost cause until the people that live there figure it out and start agitating on their own for change. Let them alone to stew in their own juice.
Countries actively involved in globalization will see real personal incomes converge over the next 1-3 generations. Other countries that resist globalization won't: these trends are already obvious from the data. Further, the fact that other countries get richer won't mean that we get poorer.
I respect your counter argument on the war. I guess I'm just more inclined to take action when you combine the economic issues with military ones as well. Either way, I see your point and its not worth repeating the debates in earlier threads. Let's start another thread on the "international political capital" concept because I think that is debatable.
My question is...how do you reconcile "Kerry matched and exceeded Bush in his personal instincts in that area" with Kerry's vocal position on outsourcing (too much of it) and minimum wage (not high enough) which was decidedly more protectionist than Bush. Also, while I agree that Dems are probably all unfairly stereotyped as pro labor (just as all Reps are for the christian coalition), I didn't see anything in the Kerry platform to suggest he isn't. How do you measure his "instinct" other than the highly controlled and scripted sound bites (and voting record, I guess)?
I'm from Massachusetts and I have met the man several times -- no big deal.
If I remember Kerry's position on outsourcing, he wanted the government not to subsidize it (pretty reasonable). Increasing the minimum wage is not the economic disaster the GOP frames it to be. It also doesn't do as much for the poor as the Dems would like to claim for it. Given W's early position on Steel import tariffs, he was certainly willing to be protectionist to get votes in Ohio. Neither side comes out perfect here. I would look to some principled approach to the problems currently approached with protectionism.
I don't know what his voting record is on international trade issues is. My guess is that those kinds of things don't come up on senate bills often enough to get any real sense of a position here. Tarrifs and subsidies are parts of budgets, but they are subject to so many votes on various parts that you could probably cobble out any "position" you wanted from the record.
well, I didn't say that globalism always dilutes culture in a negative way, but I just don't think the rest of the world is as excited to shop at Walmart and eat McDonalds as some might think...
Also, of course poor people are going to prioritize money, because they need it! But I disagree that rich people don't value it as much. Few people become rich because they didn't work their ass off to do so, so it must be important to them too. I just think its not as absolute as you'd like to make it our to be. I also don't think it shouldn't be a bad thing that as we grow as capitalists we rediscover "culture". Do you really want to be reduced to just a "consumer"?
Anyway, I think globalism can have some great effects, BUT I think there are some dangerous pitfalls that need to be watched for...
I am in India a lot, and they certainly feel that the American culture is shifting them - especially sexual mores. I think your notion "if a western style democracy helps me sell rice on the international market and make more money, then that's great" is consistent with what I see.
I look forward to the day when clearer, broader and more compelling global visions emerge from the US presidency. This will be the challenge of our and our children's generation, and there is great opportunity and terrible dangers in it. To the extent we are Pat Robertson stupid and isolationist, arrogant and try to hold global consumerism down because of environmental concerns, or naive and think we can protect ourselves from global competition - well these are all powerful threads in our body politic.
Maybe here's my bottom line question: can a guy like Bush lead us through this complex a mine-field? I don't think so. But can we find a way to elect someone who can, or will we bog down in fundamentalism or fringe emotional issues like gay marriage?
Also, I think you misinterpreted my comment about rich and poor people (or I wasn't clear in the first place). I concur that rich people value money as much if not more than poor people. My point was that rich people have the luxury of promoting things like preservation of culture while poor people are more concerned about getting ahead. That's why you see rich cambodians (all 3 of them) campaigning for western style minimum wages priveleged burmese asking for international sanctions while poor villagers worry that these actions will threaten their next meal.
I think you've identified why no candidate in a 2 party system can be a true globalist. Too many left wing union jobs and rural red state farms not to mention religious right xenophobes and a general small minded short term thinking populace (whew!).
Do you agree with Harry, as he stated below, that Kerry was more of globalist than Bush? I just heard his pandering to the unions in bashing outsourcing and tuned out.
that what you were saying was essentially, based upon your observation, people who's primary needs are putting food on the table are more concerned about getting the basics for life and are not as concerned about "higher level" issues.
That falls in line with Maslow's hierarchy of needs rather nicely.
I have a few institutions I'd NEVER give money to:
1. universities (too much money goes to support lazy-assed tenured profs) 2. hospitals (see universities, substitute doctors) 3. politicians (rather watch em on TV anyway)
Kerry just wanted cheaper Mexican kiteboards, right?
Hmmm... Calling Kerry more global than Bush would be damning by faint praise - and I did not hear much from him that made me think he could or would begin to address globalization head-on - too much union.
This is what a President ought to make the main piece of his domestic agenda, not social security (which does deserve careful consideration, but not the core focus). Globalization impacts every aspect of our economic life, at a minimum. And we need to forge a deep consensus about things like the environmental impact of doubling/tripling first world consumers. We need our children to get it that they will compete with people with a college degree thrilled at $10 an hour. We need to educate our populus that it is in our best interest for these 2nd world nations to compete with us. Etc, etc.
No, I didn't hear Kerry answer the bell. I frankly wasn't all that thrilled about the guy. I voted against Bush, not for Kerry.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
