Thinking Globally
Listening to the head of Gallup this evening on NPR, I was more than a little disturbed about a recent poll's findings on how the average American believes we should fix the economy. Not surprisingly, both Republicans and Democrats who were polled cited job creation as the number one thing needed to get the economy moving again, with no other factors even coming close. It's hard to argue that this is a sensible position.
But then the poll moves on to follow up questions and here is where things get less sensible. A large number of Americans blame outsourcing for the lack of jobs and believe that addressing the outsourcing issue will be some kind of magic pill. This explains why the Obama campaign is focusing so much on Romney's role in sending jobs overseas, which isn't even the most important thing about the Bain Capital mess.
These polls reveal not only an astounding lack of basic understanding about how the global economy works, but also an incredibly backward and provincial mindset. This probably shouldn't surprise anyone, considering how many Americans have very little or no knowledge of other languages and cultures, have not traveled outside of the U.S., and have had limited (if any) interaction with people from other countries. For a country that's a world leader, an astounding number of our citizens do not even have a passport.
Economies run in cycles and at some point, a robust and sustained recovery is going to come. But there's something a lot more fundamental in play: whether Americans will truly be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that a recovery will offer us. Many people, it seems, have simply not come to terms with the economic realities of a more international and interconnected world. Backward, ignorant, and superstitious people holding onto 19th century thinking are not going to make an attractive workforce in an economy that is global, increasingly complex, and highly technological.
If you are a top executive of a company involved in aerospace, biotechnology, green energy, or any of the dozens of other "industries of the future" that are going to be the engines of future economic growth, are you really going to want to locate an office or lab or research facility in, for instance, Kansas, where the teaching of evolution and basic science are under constant attack?
Do you want workers who can't cope with diversity and are constantly paranoid and suspicious about people who are different? How about workers who spend their time gazing longingly back to the jobs of the 1950's instead of preparing themselves for the jobs of the 2030's? How about workers who reject climate change? What about ones who spend inordinate amounts of time awaiting the apocalypse as described in the book of Revelation?
Now imagine that you already have a promising career with such a company. Are you going to be in favor of the company moving its headquarters to a community full of such people, where maybe you have to worry about you and your children being ostracized or even attacked for having a different lifestyle or belief system?
When I think about such questions, I worry for the long-term future of the "heartland" that Republicans seem to worship so much. It's not exactly a coincidence that many of the most heavily pro-Republican areas are also among the poorest and most backward.
Perhaps the saddest part of all this is how Republican politicians are perfectly willing to play to people's bigotry and ignorance to advance their own careers. They're not doing these voters any favors. As for the voters themselves, they don't even seem to realize they may have a problem.
Another thing that definitely doesn't help is how the mainstream media has defined the debate over globalization and free trade over the past couple of decades. Contrary to the popular narrative, you can't be "pro-globalization" or "anti-globalization". Globalization is a trend that is apolitical. It is simply something that is happening and will continue to happen, due to advancing technology and a whole host of other factors. The debate needs to be about what we can control: how we create fair and equitable societies in the context of globalization.
By playing to the public's anger with outsourcing and neglecting to educate voters about economic reality, the Obama campaign isn't particularly helping either. But then, President Obama has an election to win, since a Romney presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. And he can't count on being able to make the voters see the light soon enough to help him.
So what's the solution? I honestly have no idea. I do know one thing: I'm finding a lot of reminders lately of why politics often leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
But then the poll moves on to follow up questions and here is where things get less sensible. A large number of Americans blame outsourcing for the lack of jobs and believe that addressing the outsourcing issue will be some kind of magic pill. This explains why the Obama campaign is focusing so much on Romney's role in sending jobs overseas, which isn't even the most important thing about the Bain Capital mess.
These polls reveal not only an astounding lack of basic understanding about how the global economy works, but also an incredibly backward and provincial mindset. This probably shouldn't surprise anyone, considering how many Americans have very little or no knowledge of other languages and cultures, have not traveled outside of the U.S., and have had limited (if any) interaction with people from other countries. For a country that's a world leader, an astounding number of our citizens do not even have a passport.
Economies run in cycles and at some point, a robust and sustained recovery is going to come. But there's something a lot more fundamental in play: whether Americans will truly be prepared to take advantage of opportunities that a recovery will offer us. Many people, it seems, have simply not come to terms with the economic realities of a more international and interconnected world. Backward, ignorant, and superstitious people holding onto 19th century thinking are not going to make an attractive workforce in an economy that is global, increasingly complex, and highly technological.
If you are a top executive of a company involved in aerospace, biotechnology, green energy, or any of the dozens of other "industries of the future" that are going to be the engines of future economic growth, are you really going to want to locate an office or lab or research facility in, for instance, Kansas, where the teaching of evolution and basic science are under constant attack?
Do you want workers who can't cope with diversity and are constantly paranoid and suspicious about people who are different? How about workers who spend their time gazing longingly back to the jobs of the 1950's instead of preparing themselves for the jobs of the 2030's? How about workers who reject climate change? What about ones who spend inordinate amounts of time awaiting the apocalypse as described in the book of Revelation?
Now imagine that you already have a promising career with such a company. Are you going to be in favor of the company moving its headquarters to a community full of such people, where maybe you have to worry about you and your children being ostracized or even attacked for having a different lifestyle or belief system?
When I think about such questions, I worry for the long-term future of the "heartland" that Republicans seem to worship so much. It's not exactly a coincidence that many of the most heavily pro-Republican areas are also among the poorest and most backward.
Perhaps the saddest part of all this is how Republican politicians are perfectly willing to play to people's bigotry and ignorance to advance their own careers. They're not doing these voters any favors. As for the voters themselves, they don't even seem to realize they may have a problem.
Another thing that definitely doesn't help is how the mainstream media has defined the debate over globalization and free trade over the past couple of decades. Contrary to the popular narrative, you can't be "pro-globalization" or "anti-globalization". Globalization is a trend that is apolitical. It is simply something that is happening and will continue to happen, due to advancing technology and a whole host of other factors. The debate needs to be about what we can control: how we create fair and equitable societies in the context of globalization.
By playing to the public's anger with outsourcing and neglecting to educate voters about economic reality, the Obama campaign isn't particularly helping either. But then, President Obama has an election to win, since a Romney presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. And he can't count on being able to make the voters see the light soon enough to help him.
So what's the solution? I honestly have no idea. I do know one thing: I'm finding a lot of reminders lately of why politics often leaves a bad taste in my mouth.