Helping citizens help themselves

If a country must choose between the economic opportunity of disembedded liberalism and the social benefit of imbedded liberalism, disembedded liberalism would provide the most opportunity for economic prosperity, which would, in turn, benefit common citizens. Imbedded liberalism often leads to a large, stable middle class of people who are kept employed by the internal buying and selling of their products and services, yet it also hinders technology and innovation. Requiring the country to put forth necessary services and materials, supplies, and expertise which cannot be obtained through trade in a free market puts a burden on all of society due to various legal restrictions and oppressive labor laws that prevent the necessary market flexibility to quickly react to economic change. If a country is not burdened by restrictive laws, it has the freedom to quickly adapt to global market demand and specialize in areas where it can excel, while trading for the things it cannot produce itself. As a result of the limited social protection afforded under disembedded liberalism, some of the country’s workers might find themselves unemployed, yet the consequences of a small percentage of the population living in poverty cannot compare to the trouble that results from a stagnant economy and an inefficient workforce protected by the government from the cradle to the grave at the expense of the taxpayer under embedded realism. Taking away people’s incentive to work and their responsibility for their own destiny, killing their ambition to create new technology that might be traded and produce fortune for the creator, results in an atmosphere where people feel safe and do not need to concern themselves about their future and that of their country, as the government will provide for them regardless of whether they perform to their potential. Such a system would choke off economic expansion. Yet, if it is innovation and trade that creates wealth for a nation and its citizens, but restrictive laws prevent such economic development while, in addition, the burden on society is increased due to the graying of the population, how can a nation hold on to its power and position in the world market? Taxing everyone equally does not reward an individual for going the extra mile, thereby feeding the lack of ambition that inhibits the very technological and economic advancement that is necessary to keep the needed revenue. A clear example of the failure of embedded liberalism can be seen in the overburdened social systems of The Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and most other northern European nations, who are now in the painful process of much needed reform to adjust to changing demographics and decreasing revenue, as their population is graying (more older people, who need more health care, social services, etc., than young people who work and pay the taxes to pay for them). Technological advance and flexible economic expansion means wealth and power in today’s day and age, and secures a “reservation” at meetings with other powerful nations, where the country’s interests can now be heard. The USA is an example of successful disembedded liberalism, as flexible labor laws and capitalism make for a quickly contracting and expanding economy, as required by the ever changing world market demands. The early bird gets the worm, as the saying goes, and the faster an economy can adjust, the greater the pay-off for the nation and its citizens.

While many might argue that under disembedded liberalism the rich and capable are rewarded with wealth they hardly need, this wealth might very well be spent in a way that would help the poor far more than simply handing them checks (taxing proportional to income). If the rich spend and invest their wealth and thus fuel the economy, more employment and advancement opportunities will be available for the poor to improve, educate, and support themselves. The economy must provide an atmosphere where capitalism can thrive and market forces are allowed to work freely, making it possible for people to better and support themselves, thus controlling their own wealth and destiny, largely independent of the government. As long as flexible laws and an open market make it possible for anyone to make his or her fortune, the economy will provide a source of income for a nation's long-term health and benefit its citizens.

embedded vs disembedded liberalism

In regards the question of rather I would prefer the political-economic system of embedded or disembedded liberalism for my country I would have to answer that I would prefer embedded liberalism. There are a number of reasons for this, the first of which being that as a citizen it would simply be to my benefit to be in favor of the system which serves social purposes. After all, if we are all so self interested, shouldn't we first be considered with how we ourselves fair from the application of each system? Second, keeping the previous reason in mind, people are more likely to comply with a government that works to their benefit. If people are more compliant with the government it is easier to get things done. If it is easier for a state to get things done, more time is allotted for relations with other states, and if more time is allotted for interstate relations then they will subsequently improve as well (in theory). Basically the entire line of reasoning for embedded liberalism being the more practical choice is the reasoning that you need to work from the bottom up. There is a saying " No whole is greater than the sum of its parts." strengthen the parts, strengthen the whole. That being said, not only does it benefit the country in question for them to focus on their domestic affairs and welfare of their people, but it also benefits all the other countries with which they have relations because by making their state more structurally sound from the inside they are increasing the potential for strength within interstate relations.

State Policy and the Will of the People

I don’t think there is a simple yes or no answer to the question, “is public opinion, or the will of the people, a sufficient basis for state policy?” First off, we must take into account that we are a representative democracy, meaning that people elect the leaders to represent their views. However, it seems that this is becoming the case less and less. The people’s views are often drowned out by those of special interest groups, corporate lobbies, and self-serving politicians. Like Liz said, when public opinion turned increasingly against the Vietnam War, the government still insisted on trudging on, and the rest, as they say, is history. Not that anything was learned from that history, because today we are embroiled in Iraq, and the government is still ignoring the will of the people.

Although the will of the people must be taken into effective, there has to be a process of public discussion and review before a decision is made. If the will of the people were the sole basis for state policy we would run the risk of becoming a mobocracy, where minorities had no say and the will of the people, regardless of consequences, would rule. There is no such thing as infallibility, and if the people made a rash or informed decision, it could be disastrous.

Fortunately, there is a solution to these problems. First, there must be governmental reform so that the people’s views are accurately and fairly represented. Political corruption must be sought out and punished, and changes must be made so that citizens can more easily and directly participate in government. Secondly, the public must be encouraged (by each other and the government) to participate in government and inform themselves of the issues so that they can make prudent decisions. By fostering vibrant political discourse that involves the public and policymakers, our country can work towards becoming more democratic and building more state policy based on the will of an educated, informed citizenry.

-Gregory Proulx

Reflections VIIII

After Friday’s class discussion about commercials and the techniques they utilize to persuade viewers to think according to their ideals, I remembered the words of my wise Language and Composition teacher senior year. She repeatedly reminded us to “never believe everything that seems to be” as we read the slogans of advertisements and viewed countless commercials. Ms. Hassenplug trained our eyes to note ethos, pathos, and logos strategically weaved through every literary review or political article. We learned how any information that may impress an audience by logical, sympathetic, or ethical means may and often will be exaggerated to gain the greatest support. Fallacies and subtle manipulation of words and statistics are often the most popular methods exploited in a zealous attempt to control and sway the mind, feelings, and moral standing of an audience. Because of the tremendous power these tactics can have over the oblivious, especially, it is vital that information be sent through a “filter” that a person develops as they critically evaluate statements deemed to be facts. Just as overreaction to perceived threats might be harmful economically (Simplicity and Spook), media holds enormous power over our daily environment, and ourselves, if we allow information to squeeze past our “filter” and become spoon-fed fact.

Reflections on a week that shall remain numberless

When I first sat down to write this week's reflection all that I could manage was a blank page. With the hustle and bustle of parents weekend and the excitement of Halloween it was a little difficult to shift back into class mode. Luckily James suggested I read his blog "about Halloween", it served as a great bridge for my brain to come back to class and brought up some interesting information. Even though the article discussed was dealing with the banning of Halloween costumes in schools what immediately came to mind was the banning of religion in schools and the effect that this could potentially have on the minds of our nations youth.
When something is banned one would think of it as bad: explicit music, racy books, revealing clothing... these are all things that used to find their place at the top of a schools "no-no" list. Now look at what places at the top: weapons ( which of course have always been banned but did we see armed guards and metal detectors in schools in the 1950s?), Halloween costumes, and religion. Why does it frighten parents so much that another child dress up as a pirate for a 4th grade Halloween party? Why are people so offended if the words "under God" remain in the pledge of allegiance? Why are people so offended that they have to say the pledge of allegiance, should we not be loyal to our country and respect all those who died for us to have the freedoms we enjoy? I may not agree with our government, or with our wars, but I still respect the men and women who live and die defending us.
The ban on religion that is happening in our country's schools seems to go against the very ideal of religious freedom that this country was founded on. A child isn't allowed to pray in school....isn't allowed to pray, you work out the logic on that one. The refusal to say the pledge of allegiance just seems to further this abandonment of basic American beliefs. Then there is the spread of fear, hate, and bigotry. Before the desegregation of schools the separation of blacks from whites did nothing to stop the troubles between them, if anything it added steam to the idea. Why then do we find it so interesting that our children think every person they see of middle eastern decent is a terrorist. Any intelligent person knows that not all, or even most Muslims are terrorists out to destroy the US, but if children aren't allowed to learn about religion and are only fed the media's propaganda how will they ever come to learn this? In an attempt to make everyone "comfortable" more and more seemingly innocent things have become taboo. Yet at the same time the topics that were once off limits such as sex and drugs seem to be on the rise. A school is considered to be "ahead of its time" and "innovative" if they ban any form or mention of religion within its bubble of infuence, while they simultaneously tell their students to Go Ask Alice or read any other number of modern books with heavy themes of drug use, alcoholism, suicide and sexual promiscuity. This new trend of being so accepting that no one is allowed to express their views seems to be a breeding ground for widespread bigotry. Sure we will have a large population well versed in the terms of drug culture, but show a 3rd grader an image of Jesus and see how many even recognize him as any form of religious leader (not even a valid one , depending on their faith) and see how many can actually answer.

reflection week 9

This week we discussed security and all that it entails both on a national and a personal level. The article we read about terrorism and fear tactics as relating to security struck me the most primarily because the whole time I was reading it I was nodding my head. This was because I agreed with everything that was written. I agree that there are dangers in the world and that we should take precautions to prevent terrible things from happening but I do not think that means that you should stop going about your everyday business. You could be hit by a car on your way to work anytime, anywhere but that does not stop you from going to work or doing the tasks you need to do. You could choose never to leave your room because something MIGHT happen to you but then you would spend your entire life locked away from the world without experiencing everything the world has to offer and you would eventually die, but would you have really lived? That should not, however, prevent you from putting on your seatbelt because you never know when something terrible will happen and putting on a seatbelt does not mean that you are cohering under your bed.
I think it is a similar situation for national security because we, as a nation, should not change or character as a free and democratic society in order to eliminate threats. We should take measures to protect ourselves but not at the expense of the things that make us who we are as a country because then we are ceasing to live our lives and we are giving those who seek to harm us a distinct victory over us anyway. Therefore we might as well stick to our guns and win honorably.
Furthermore, many times we cannot do anything to prevent threats and therefore there is no point in worrying about it. When the government raises the terror alert people get scared and worried but they do not have the power to prevent a massive terror attack and then their quality of life decreases even though they cannot do anything to mitigate the situation.
Erica Peterson

Parents and People

There is no black and white answer to the question posed. Public opinion is important up to extent and should definitely be taken into account when forming state policies, after all a government cannot truly survive unless it has the support of its people. On the other hand there is the "parent" theory: children know what they want, but what they want is not always what is best for them. In such cases it is the parent's job to do what is best for their children - even if they wholeheartedly disagree.
Let's take apart the issue of state policy using this family metaphor. For example, we'll say that in the beginning of the summer Jimmy sustained a serious injury to his left leg and had to receive surgery. When the soccer season starts in September Jimmy wants to play on his school's team like he has always done, but his parents forbid him to do so - at least for the time being. Jimmy will naturally be very upset with his parents because he wants to play, and may even feel strong enough to do so however, his parents know that his leg isn't supposed to be fully healed for at least another month. If Jimmy's parents based their decisions only on Jimmy's opinion and let him play he could sustain further injuries which would not be in any one's best interest. This is not to say that Jimmy's parents should not take his opinion into account, on the contrary it is something that should definitely be considered. However they must also objectively weigh the situation and see which choice of action is truly the most beneficial.
There are also cases where the child's opinion should be the most important. Let's say that Jimmy's parents are trying to enroll him in ballet class. If Jimmy does not take ballet, his well being won't be hurt. On the contrary if he is forced to enroll in class (let's face it) he could be put under harsh ridicule by his peers. Because no ramifications will directly reach the parents regardless of what Jimmy chooses to do, yet Jimmy will be effected either way - the choice should strictly belong to him.
If we think of Jimmy as the public and his parent's as the state, what I am trying to say is basically that public opinion is not a firm basis for state policy, however the role that public opinion plays in state policy should be determined on an issue to issue basis. Other things, especially how each decision would effect the state and its citizens on the whole should definitely be taken into account. Citizens should have more input on issues that involve them more directly and less on international policies that will never effect them (this of course is excluding decisions to go to war and the like).