American Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad: It's About the Middle Class
By Ernest Wilson | bio
We've talked on this blog about a progressive foreign policy(PFP). Let's 'fess up- a PFP should focus on the middle classes, broadly defined. That includes the rising and newly assertive ‘global middle class countries’ in the global system; the rising middle classes inside other countries; and keeping the American middle class afloat in our own country. So what would a progressive middle class foreign policy consist of?
The first piece of a progressive foreign policy should help the American middle class protect its jobs and standards of living by providing adjustment assistance in the face of the growing costs of globalization.
Globalization is only good for the American middle class if our communities agree to allocate real resources to help people make necessary adjustments when unemployment threatens as jobs move overseas, or as wages fall. That means more money for education, money for re-training, money to move from one region to another, and so forth. Today, we give federal money via tax breaks to firms that export jobs and provide astronomical salaries to underperforming executives. Surely a better use of public resources is to give direct help to middle class Americans anxious to gain new skills and knowledge to provide a better life for themselves and their children. It really isn't rocket science - in a knowledge economy, if you educate more people, you are more successful as a nation both domestically and in your international standing.
The second piece of a progressive middle class foreign policy (I know, not a pretty term, but we can work on the euphonics later) is to promote the rise of middle classes around the world. It brings all sorts of benefits. -- enhances the chances of stable democracy; promotes stability; less likelihood for conflict; they can buy our exports.
Third, pay more attention to what I term the Global Middle Class Countries (GMC2) like India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, who are ‘middle’ in the sense they occupy strategic positions between the have-nots and the have-lots, and are important for American interests around the world.
There are problems with this approach – maybe it shifts too much attention from the very poor; and it sounds sort of elitist. However, poor countries and poor people are hardly at the center of our policies these days, neither at home nor abroad. And one would give a broad compass to the term 'middle class'. Also, it makes explicit what is whispered in our soft diplomacy and in the regular kind (think Fulbrights).
Despite the problems, maybe we should be more honest about what we are seeking in the world and at home – good ol’ bourgeois values of stability, fairness, and economic opportunities. And if the size of the middle classes continue to shrink in developing regions like Latin America and developed ones like the U.S. I can guarantee you that stability and fairness will be replaced by far less desirable conditions.
At a minimum, a broke, angry, increasinlgly underemployed and resentful American population is unlikely to support a progressive foreign policy of any stripe. So maybe “expanding the middle classes at home and abroad” ain’t such a bad slogan for a progressive foreign policy. After all, it's certainly better than the current one - "support the super-rich at home and abroad."
American Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad: It's About the Middle Class
By Ernest Wilson | bio
We've talked on this blog about a progressive foreign policy(PFP). Let's 'fess up- a PFP should focus on the middle classes, broadly defined. That includes the rising and newly assertive ‘global middle class countries’ in the global system; the rising middle classes inside other countries; and keeping the American middle class afloat in our own country. So what would a progressive middle class foreign policy consist of?
The first piece of a progressive foreign policy should help the American middle class protect its jobs and standards of living by providing adjustment assistance in the face of the growing costs of globalization.
Globalization is only good for the American middle class if our communities agree to allocate real resources to help people make necessary adjustments when unemployment threatens as jobs move overseas, or as wages fall. That means more money for education, money for re-training, money to move from one region to another, and so forth. Today, we give federal money via tax breaks to firms that export jobs and provide astronomical salaries to underperforming executives. Surely a better use of public resources is to give direct help to middle class Americans anxious to gain new skills and knowledge to provide a better life for themselves and their children. It really isn't rocket science - in a knowledge economy, if you educate more people, you are more successful as a nation both domestically and in your international standing.
The second piece of a progressive middle class foreign policy (I know, not a pretty term, but we can work on the euphonics later) is to promote the rise of middle classes around the world. It brings all sorts of benefits. -- enhances the chances of stable democracy; promotes stability; less likelihood for conflict; they can buy our exports.
Third, pay more attention to what I term the Global Middle Class Countries (GMC2) like India, Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico, who are ‘middle’ in the sense they occupy strategic positions between the have-nots and the have-lots, and are important for American interests around the world.
There are problems with this approach – maybe it shifts too much attention from the very poor; and it sounds sort of elitist. However, poor countries and poor people are hardly at the center of our policies these days, neither at home nor abroad. And one would give a broad compass to the term 'middle class'. Also, it makes explicit what is whispered in our soft diplomacy and in the regular kind (think Fulbrights).
Despite the problems, maybe we should be more honest about what we are seeking in the world and at home – good ol’ bourgeois values of stability, fairness, and economic opportunities. And if the size of the middle classes continue to shrink in developing regions like Latin America and developed ones like the U.S. I can guarantee you that stability and fairness will be replaced by far less desirable conditions.
At a minimum, a broke, angry, increasinlgly underemployed and resentful American population is unlikely to support a progressive foreign policy of any stripe. So maybe “expanding the middle classes at home and abroad” ain’t such a bad slogan for a progressive foreign policy. After all, it's certainly better than the current one - "support the super-rich at home and abroad."
americaabroad.tpmcafe.com |
