One of the defining questions in global political economy is as old as it is meaningless: what's more important-- politics or economics? You could have a more meaningful discussion of "nature versus nurture," or "structure versus process," or "the chicken or the egg?"
"Politics" and "economics" established themselves, in part, by walling off and ignoring the fact that they are both elements of a larger, codeterminative, whole. What was once "political economy" divided itself into artificial disciplines that maintained the orderliness of the university at the expense of messy, interdependent understanding. (And please don't get me started on sociology and anthropology.) Since then, theorists have emphasized one element over another, setting one concept or relationship as the key to understanding. And it does simplify things, at least in the short term. Marx could start with the mode of production, and everything follows. Morganthau defined the national interest in terms of power, and built his structure on that. Waltz attempted to simplify still farther, making the distribution of power in a system the key to understanding and prediction. Neoclassical economics still begins with the myth of the rational man, and builds an enormous artifice from there.
Reality is more than that. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal. When pressed, the best theorists admit that, and talk about necessary tradeoffs. But as we press those maps into our students, or repeat them in our speeches, or assume them in our editorials, we reify.
We pay good money to go to the best restaurant in town, and we eat the menu.
Which brings me to Tucker Carlson. As a rule, I don't watch his show, or pay attention to what he has to say. Anyone on Donald Trump's speed-dial is someone I don't want to know. In fact, one of my favorite moments of live television is when Carlson, "from the right," and his long-time debating partner "from the left" were called on their left/right nonsense in his show on CNN, by none other than guest Jon Stewart:
The show went off the air soon thereafter. Carlson eventually moved to Fox, and polished his act.
But sometimes even Tucker Carlson gets something important. His critique of the American "elite" is on point.
And in the process they shoot themselves in the foot. The elites still game the system. They have the resources and the motive to do it. If the balance sheet tips, they leave and take their assets with them. Even in the most "favorable" circumstances, if there was no place left to go, the people would round up the elites, form a circular firing squad, and shoot everyone.
Fortunately, some of the elites are figuring out that's a solution that hurts them, too. Eventually. So it boils down to how much they discount the future. Can they "cash out" before the casino collapses? "In the long run, we're all dead," Keynes joked. But it can get very unpleasant for everyone before that happens.
Unlike Carlson, I don't think the goal should be to move backwards. We need to have a sense of community, yes, but that community shouldn't be--can't be--Mayberry. It has to have room for everyone. Everywhere. Our telos can't be in preserving the past, but in exploring the future, together.
So how do we do that? American progressives talk about a "Green New Deal," long on goals and short on details. That can be one of the starting points. Trump rallies his troops in opposition to American "socialism" (as if he had any idea what the word means). That can be one of the starting points, too. But both are thinking too small. The economics of the world is global. The politics of these proposals is national. At least the progressive's vision has the potential to be universalized--certainly not now, maybe not soon, but someday. "America First," if it comes down to "America Only," means we've lost before we've begun. And by "we" I mean everyone--Americans and the world.
I seem to have drifted somewhat from the original point. Oh, well, the advantage of a blog is you can post a first draft. Maybe it will prompt a discussion, and I can better figure out what I'm talking about.
"Politics" and "economics" established themselves, in part, by walling off and ignoring the fact that they are both elements of a larger, codeterminative, whole. What was once "political economy" divided itself into artificial disciplines that maintained the orderliness of the university at the expense of messy, interdependent understanding. (And please don't get me started on sociology and anthropology.) Since then, theorists have emphasized one element over another, setting one concept or relationship as the key to understanding. And it does simplify things, at least in the short term. Marx could start with the mode of production, and everything follows. Morganthau defined the national interest in terms of power, and built his structure on that. Waltz attempted to simplify still farther, making the distribution of power in a system the key to understanding and prediction. Neoclassical economics still begins with the myth of the rational man, and builds an enormous artifice from there.
Reality is more than that. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the meal. When pressed, the best theorists admit that, and talk about necessary tradeoffs. But as we press those maps into our students, or repeat them in our speeches, or assume them in our editorials, we reify.
We pay good money to go to the best restaurant in town, and we eat the menu.
Which brings me to Tucker Carlson. As a rule, I don't watch his show, or pay attention to what he has to say. Anyone on Donald Trump's speed-dial is someone I don't want to know. In fact, one of my favorite moments of live television is when Carlson, "from the right," and his long-time debating partner "from the left" were called on their left/right nonsense in his show on CNN, by none other than guest Jon Stewart:
The show went off the air soon thereafter. Carlson eventually moved to Fox, and polished his act.
But sometimes even Tucker Carlson gets something important. His critique of the American "elite" is on point.
Our leaders don’t care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They’re day traders. Substitute teachers. They’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can’t solve our problems. They don’t even bother to understand our problems.
_______
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy. Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined. Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies possible.
_______
You’d think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they’re not. They don’t have to be interested. It’s easier to import foreign labor to take the place of native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
_______
There’s no option at this point. But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You’d have to be a fool to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.Of course, he can't help but get into an anti-immigrant, culture-war theme as well. But this particular point is correct: market capitalism (which we don't really have anyway, but we pretend that we do) is too often treated as a religion. And in a globalizing economy, if maximizing profit is the goal, there's no reason for any elite to place the interests of "their country"--the locals, the nationals, whatever you want to call them--ahead of what pays them. People recognize this. And they react: with Trump, with Brexit, with the rising tide of nationalism and protectionism.
And in the process they shoot themselves in the foot. The elites still game the system. They have the resources and the motive to do it. If the balance sheet tips, they leave and take their assets with them. Even in the most "favorable" circumstances, if there was no place left to go, the people would round up the elites, form a circular firing squad, and shoot everyone.
Fortunately, some of the elites are figuring out that's a solution that hurts them, too. Eventually. So it boils down to how much they discount the future. Can they "cash out" before the casino collapses? "In the long run, we're all dead," Keynes joked. But it can get very unpleasant for everyone before that happens.
Unlike Carlson, I don't think the goal should be to move backwards. We need to have a sense of community, yes, but that community shouldn't be--can't be--Mayberry. It has to have room for everyone. Everywhere. Our telos can't be in preserving the past, but in exploring the future, together.
So how do we do that? American progressives talk about a "Green New Deal," long on goals and short on details. That can be one of the starting points. Trump rallies his troops in opposition to American "socialism" (as if he had any idea what the word means). That can be one of the starting points, too. But both are thinking too small. The economics of the world is global. The politics of these proposals is national. At least the progressive's vision has the potential to be universalized--certainly not now, maybe not soon, but someday. "America First," if it comes down to "America Only," means we've lost before we've begun. And by "we" I mean everyone--Americans and the world.
I seem to have drifted somewhat from the original point. Oh, well, the advantage of a blog is you can post a first draft. Maybe it will prompt a discussion, and I can better figure out what I'm talking about.
