Commentary 1 - Globalization & Progressivism

These will be fairly lengthy posts, as they meet length requirements set forth by my instructor. Hopefully people enjoy these, as always, leave me some feedback. Thanks!

The concept of globalization is a complex one. The governments (or parent governments) of hundreds of countries are at play, learning to peacefully coexist with one another. Scott Sernau asserts that this is possible through a cycle of dominance, with the major powers each having a period of great success: with the Portugese flourishing in the 1400's, to the Spanish, to the Dutch, to the French, to the British, culminating with the Americans in the 1900's. His theory is that the American period of dominance has ended, and that the 21st century is up for grabs.


Sernau indicates the Far East as the place to look for the next global power, economic dynamos such as Japan and China. In the preface of Global Problems, he accuses the American education/textbook publishing system of a narrow, inward focus on our own country, and treating the outside world as a separate tangent that should only be explored in blue sidebars away from the main focus: our lifestyle. This trend of isolationism is disturbing, according to Sernau. We should accept the world around us, and learn about it to effectively accept it. Some agree, some disagree. Eitzen seems to be quite the progressive, as he firmly touts the Progressive Era, as well as progressive ideals and programs while at the same time bashing conservative movements to alter those ideal to no end. The GWB/Reagan Administrations were the two worst things to happen to America, and FDR and Woodrow Wilson were the two best. Eitzen suggests that the manner in which Reagan and later GWB killed social programs was through tax cuts and deficit increases, which inevitably led to cuts in nonessential programs like Medicare or the WIC program. Not surprisingly, Eitzen also condemns the “robber barons”, or the men who monopolized multiple industries: Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller for endless greed and pioneering self-reliant individualism. The creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority, a government entity that provides low-cost public services to a desolate region in the Southeast where there were no incentives for private companies to establish themselves to provide such services. The TVA survived the numerous attempts at blockage, despite “progressivism” that crosses over into socialism. Unbelievably, Eitzen also cites the Social Gospel as a driving force behind progressivism and the Progressive Era, a broad endorsement that is quite honestly disturbing.

To elaborate on the Social Gospel, I personally do not believe that religious leaders and congregations should mold or shape American politics. If those voices are loud enough to start their own organization or movement, so be it. They can do it. If they want to be a safety net for the underprivileged, there is nothing stopping them. But what's done is done. I also have to discount the notion that conservative hostilities are what eroded Lyndon Johnson's popularity; in all likelihood it was unpopular spending policies and progressive programs. Outspoken voices can only do so much, and in reality, it's a lack of production and delivering promises that the person (or his administration) made. While the monopoly instituted by the robber barons is definitely not conducive to economic growth, it establishes the fact that while capitalism is undoubtedly the best economic system, it's not without it's flaws and shortcomings and needs some free-market restrictions to strengthen the fundamentals. If a few individuals with a strong sense of self-interest can monopolize multiple industries, then economic reform is necessary.
The tone of Eitzen's writing implies that the conservative movement has it's roots in elitism; that it's a collaboration of rich white men who care only about making themselves richer. The people that REALLY “care” about America are the progressives that strive for social and economical equality, and create programs that allow you to not contribute to society and still reap benefits in the form of monetary handouts. Conservatives work for an honest, hardworking America where everyone gets what they deserve, and a society where morals are still present and government only exists for the most dire of scenarios. The piece is a demonization of the right wing by an idealist who values redistribution of wealth over hard work and a moral compass that still has a sense of magnetic north.

Sernau and Eitzen are both writers who tend to think more of countries that have equitable social programs that deal with globalization, crowding, and economic variability with progressive policies. The conservative surge in the later part of the 20th century that moved the entire country to the right on the political spectrum was the worst thing for America, Eitzen accuses, as does Sernau in a roundabout way. They're both convinced that American prosperity allegedly founded by the New Deal policies is over, and other more progressive countries will prosper, such as China or Japan according to Sernau.

I have to admit, Chinese prosperity is looking increasingly likely. We as a nation owe them trillions of dollars, and they have a clear purpose and are on the rise, while the U.S. is full of partisan bickering, political stalemates, and a once-in-a-generation recession. The U.S. has class divisions that are wider than ever, a degenerate political atmosphere, relatively high unemployment, and a general sense of frustration among the populace. The atmosphere here is not conducive to success, where the tight labor laws and restricted market almost try to force economic strength at the price of personal freedom.

One of the progressive successes was the G.I. Bill. The bill that gave veterans education, loans for businesses or farms, and insurance for hospital care. Our military is one of the greatest pride's of our nation, and we should make sure those that loyally defended us from enemies of our way of life should be assisted in any way possible when they return home. Social Security, while generally considered a success, is fundamentally flawed. The funds will run out within the next 20 years due to the fact that more people are taking out of the system than are paying into it. The system needs to be revamped, and privatization (a conservative policy) is the leading choice to fix it.