In the first chapter of his book One World, Peter Singer poses the question "To what extent should political leaders see their role narrowly, in terms of promoting the interests of their citizens, and to what extent should they be concerned with the welfare of people everywhere?" Now, the government’s answer to that question seems to be that its citizens are the only people whose interests they should protect. One could argue that our current involvement in
The American citizens elect politicians to represent their views. The politicians will have very short careers if the decisions they make and the legislation they support while in office conflict with the views of their respective constituencies. While the politicians themselves receive the brunt of the criticism from human rights activists and other groups that fight for the good of the entire world rather than just their country, it is the citizens who are responsible for this shortsightedness.
For globalization to succeed, as Singer points out, we must get passed our nation-state mentality and adopt the view that all the peoples of the Earth are one. Of course, adopting that mentality may mean that some of our fellow Americans will experience poverty, at least temporarily, as the economy adjusts to the changes that this global mentality entails. Still, it is up to us as Americans to embrace this change and demand that our political leaders also adopt this global ideology. While this change is coming, it is more than likely that Americans will prefer to isolate rather than integrate. For the
2 comments:
I agree that it would be nice if all people thought in a global manner and acted out of the best interests of humanity, however, such action on a global scale I think is impossible. Would Singer or anyone else be willing to give up their job/pay/livlihood for the benefit of 10 people in Haiti? Will a 50 year old farmer voluntarily give up his farm so 20 poor farmers in Africa can improve their lot? It's not just a nation-state mind set, but an individual mind set for many people. The factory worker will always vote for a protectionist candidate if he believes the alternative is unemployment. Capitalism and the market economy has worked because people act out of self interest and try to improve their own condition.
Maybe I'm wrong and someday we will all think in a global manner and do what's best for others even if to our own detriment, but I'm not holding my breath.
Good points about the pragmatism question. Singer is an ethicist with a different style of argument from most economists and political scientists.
I'll try to bring in an article tomorrow about Singer, if I can remember. He suggests that if everyone who is relatively wealthy were willing to donate 20% of their income, world poverty could be eradicated. (And he does this himself.) It wouldn't mean poverty for many people, but it would, by definition, mean redistribution.
Post a Comment