Globalization

Ooops ... The Financial Times reports today that China and India once again have rejected a cap on CO2 emissions -- and without these countries and the other large developing nations that will follow their lead, the world cannot seriously address the threat of climate change. China and India's response should be no surprise: as fast growing developing economies, their appetite for the energy that produces most of the CO2 increases sharply every year. Moreover, their modernization programs are concentrated in the most energy-intensive industries around - basic manufacturing and energy-intensive agriculture - while most of their own domestic energy supplies lie in coal, the most climate-damaging fuel. One way to move forward is to give them an alternative to a CO2 cap. Carbon-based taxes should be more appealing, since China and other fast-growing developing countries need more revenues to support the basic public goods of modernization -- infrastructure programs and greater access to education and health care. But that won't be enough: we will have to make it worth their while economically to join us, Europe and Japan in a global campaign to address climate change. That will mean offering them better and cheaper alternatives to the hundreds of coal-burning electricity plants they plan to build every year into the indefinite future. Better alternatives for the climate are widely available, for example, in hydropower or natural gas-fueled generating system, and perhaps soon, in solar and wind as well.

In the end, however, the United States, along with Europe and Japan, probably also will have to make those alternatives cheaper by providing large technology transfers at cut rates. And the United States is the only country that can make any of this happen, at least regarding China. As the largest foreign direct investor in China, its largest export market, and the guarantor of the sea and air lanes across which all of China's trade and oil supplies travel, China's leaders recognize America as the indispensable economic and military power for China's own progress. All we need is a president and administration prepared to use that position to advance the global agenda on climate change.

It's Friday afternoon in Washington, DC, after a pretty incredible week. The Democrats finally have chosen Barack Obama, the nominee of change, or so I believe. That's my disclaimer that today's blog will be a bit eclectic given this historic week, but what follows is quick run down of various issues and things I've been keeping an eye on-- 

The Shot Heard Around the World - I've enjoyed hearing about how the world is reacting to Barack Obama's rise this week. When the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, I was living in Mexico City and couldn't believe the extent to which the Mexican press covered our mid-term elections. Sometimes it seemed like my Mexican neighbors were more informed of U.S. politics than even I was. This week, we heard from our former intern, Oliver, who is in South Africa. Oli reports that South Africans, particularly black South Africans, seem particularly intrigued by the ascent of an American man with a Kenyan father.  At the same time, one of my best friends, Weijean, who is a political junkie, reported this week from Beijing, where she lives, on earthquake recovery efforts. No mention of Obama or Clinton. Sometimes, even U.S. news can't trump natural disasters, for the right reasons. Check out Wei's blog at http://beijingwei.blogspot.com/. Check out yesterday's Washington Post's article on Obama and the world, as well as Dave O'Donnell's blog on U.S. newspapers and Obama.

In Monday's Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby opined on how Barack Obama is the real pro-growth candidate, more so than McCain. Why? Because he understands that economic growth is not just about liberalizing trade and financial systems. According to Mallaby, Obama gets that "policies toward education, basic science, skilled immigration, infrastructure and the grotesque tort system" all contribute to growth as much as cutting taxes and deregulation. I look forward to hearing more about these pro-growth policies from Obama on the campaign trail.  

Yesterday, the Senate passed the farm bill, version 2.0. The bill now goes to the White House where Bush will veto it (again). Then Congress will attempt an override (again).

On the trade front, Rep. Mike Machaud (D-ME) unveiled a new bill this week that would overhaul U.S. trade policy. Fifty-two Members have co-sponsored the Trade Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, including five committee chairman. Ways and Means Chairman Rangel has not signed on. Sen. Sherrod Brown has introduced a similar bill in the Senate. The TRADE Act mandates, among other things, that all existing and new trade agreements include enforceable labor and environmental standards and requirements with respect to affordable medicines and essential services (e.g. health care and education), farm policy, foreign investment, government procurement, and food and product safety policy.

From Rep. Michaud's office:

The TRADE Act requires a review of existing trade agreements, and a renegotiation of existing trade agreements based on that review. It sets terms of what must and must not be included in future trade agreements, and expresses the sense of the Congress that the role of Congress in trade policymaking should be strengthened. A more detailed fact sheet on the TRADE Act can be found below.

Read more here.

That's it for today. Happy weekend.

The Washington Post's Robert Samuelson has a very strong op-ed today on what he calls the "most urgent present moral challenge" in the world: global poverty.

What's the world's greatest moral challenge, as judged by its capacity to inflict human tragedy? It is not, I think, global warming, whose effects -- if they become as grim as predicted -- will occur over many years and provide societies time to adapt. A case can be made for preventing nuclear proliferation, which threatens untold deaths and a collapse of the world economy. But the most urgent present moral challenge, I submit, is the most obvious: global poverty.

Samuelson highlights the recent findings of the 21-member Commission on Growth and Development that identified five common elements of success shared by countries with high-growth economies:

-openness to international trade
-political stability and capable governments committed to economic growth
-high rates of savings and investment
-economic stability
-a willingness to let markets allocate resources.

Samuelson makes two clear conclusions on economic growth: 1) globalization works by facilitating greater trade and openness among countries, thereby fostering transmission of new ideas, technologies, products, skills, and information; and 2) foreign aid plays a small, but important, role in relieving global poverty.

With all due respect, however, I'm troubled by Samuelson's final paragraph:

Globalization has moral as well as economic and political dimensions. The United States and other wealthy countries are experiencing an anti-globalization backlash. Americans and others are entitled to defend themselves from economic harm, but many of the allegations against globalization are wildly exaggerated. Today, for example, the biggest drag on the U.S. economy -- the housing crisis -- is mainly a domestic problem. By making globalization an all-purpose scapegoat for economic complaints, many "progressives" are actually undermining the most powerful force for eradicating global poverty. 

These arguments seem to miss the point on globalization -- there are many Americans, progressive and conservative alike -- who are seriously concerned about their economic prospects in a global economy. With wages stagnating and spiraling energy prices, it's hard to argue that globalization is just a scapegoat for new dynamics in the American economy. Criticizing Americans for complaining about globalization gets ourselves and our leaders off the hook from the harder task of making needed reforms to our national economic agenda, e.g. modernizing our health care and energy policies; investing in our children, workers, and infrastructure; and fostering innovation across all sectors of the economy. NDN, a progressive organization, offers some of the most serious and comprehensive analysis on globalization. It is here to stay, so let's face it and make it work for all of us, not just Americans, but for all citizens of the world. 

P.S. On the topic of global poverty, NDN recently endorsed the Global Poverty Act.  Championed by Rep. Adam Smith and Sen. Barack Obama, this legislation would compel the U.S. government to devise a strategy to meet the UN Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty by 2015. This bill seeks to actively engage the United States in the global community's effort to address this moral and economic challenge.  

NDN President Simon Rosenberg announced yesterday that NDN is endorsing the Global Poverty Act, which was introduced by U.S Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) and passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year.  U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has introduced similar legislation in the U.S. Senate.  Below is the letter NDN wrote to Smith and Obama:

Dear Congressman Smith and Senator Obama,

Today NDN is proud to add its name to those organizations supporting your far-sighted Global Poverty Act (H.R. 1302, S.2433).

In 2007, Congressman Smith, you argued:

Global poverty is one of the greatest moral and security challenges facing the world today. Nearly 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day and close to a billion live on less than $1 a day. This bill represents a major advance in our effort to address global poverty.

And Senator Obama, you added:

With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world,
global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces. It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

The Global Poverty Act is designed to help the United States achieve the United Nation’s eight Millennium Development Goals, which aim to eradicate extreme global poverty by 2015. 

NDN calls on President Bush and Congress to enact the Global Poverty Act this year. This legislation would require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the U.S. foreign policy objective of cutting extreme poverty in half by 2015.  To meet this objective and the other Millennium Development Goals, we urge President Bush and Congress to commit to increasing U.S. foreign assistance to 0.7 percent of GNP, the amount benchmarked for U.N. donor countries. 

In this age of globalization, our country’s economic and national security interests are increasingly bound to those of developing nations.  In our much more interdependent and connected age, a single fragile, failed or rogue state can do much more to degrade the earth’s environment and spread disease, terrorism, deadly weapons, and instability than ever before.  Thus, helping those peoples and nations struggling to build healthy, modern civil societies is not only the right thing to do, it is a true national security requirement for all free nations in the globalized world of the 21st century. 

In addition, raising just a small percentage of the world's people out of extreme poverty can help lift global incomes and contribute to the economic well being of the global economy.  As the economic success of countries such as India has shown, even the poorest countries can rapidly become important contributors to the global economy.

By adopting the Global Poverty Act this year, America’s leaders can send a powerful signal to the world that in the years ahead, the United States intends to reclaim its historic role as the world’s great champion of what we call the American formula: working to advance democracy, free markets, the rule of law, and personal liberty for all the peoples of the world no matter where they live, no matter how poor they are, no matter to whom them pray, no matter the color of their skin. 

We at NDN look forward to working with you in the years ahead to turn the Global Poverty Act from a visionary bill to an inspirational reality for billions around the world. 

Sincerely yours,

Simon Rosenberg
President
NDN

With the United States currently facing critical domestic and international challenges - a looming recession, debates over trade liberalization and immigration policies, the race for the White House, rising energy and food prices, and this summer's historic Beijing Olympics – a conversation on where the United States is headed is in order.

We hope that you can join NDN's experts - Dr. Robert Shapiro, Chair of NDN’s Globalization Initiative, and Simon Rosenberg, NDN President - for this far-reaching discussion on U.S. politics, the economy, globalization, and world affairs at large. NDN will host this gathering as part of the Bernard Schwartz Forums on Economic Policy on the evening of May 5 at the Harvard Club of New York City.

As some of you may know, Simon just returned from the World Economic Forum on Latin America in Mexico and was a speaker at the Herzliya Conference in Israel in January. And Rob just released Futurecast: How Superpowers, Populations, and Globalization Will Change the Way You Live and Work, a new book that charts the next dozen years of international progress and struggles, national triumphs and declines. President Bill Clinton has called Futurecast “prescient … insightful… a vital resource.” Rob is currently in London promoting Futurecast, meeting with members of the U.K. government, and taking part in a forum with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

We look forward to having you join Simon and Rob for this important discussion on U.S. politics, the economy, globalization, and world affairs.

Details:
Monday, May 5
6 p.m. - 8 p.m.
The Harvard Club of New York City, North Room
35 W. 44th St.
New York, NY
Click here to RSVP

For any questions regarding this event, please contact Dave O'Donnell at 202.384.1213 or dodonnell@ndn.org

The editorial board of the New York Times mulled over this big question yesterday. It's not an easy one to answer -- issues abound about how to measure trade in the first place and then how to isolate its impact on growth. But we do know that the trade causes worry and in some cases, very real disruptions of job and wage security. The Democratic presidential candidates have been quick to capitalize on this anger, the editorial asserts.

This editorial is worth a read as it addresses the major points made by trade's critics - that trade causes job losses; that trade drives down blue-collar wages; that trade contributes to growing inequality in pay; that cheap imports threaten U.S. production of similar goods.  The editorial concludes that "No matter how hard economists look for trade's fingerprints on these inequities, they find it plays only a bit part."

So what's going on, asks the Times? Well.... no surprise here.  The rising cost of college leads to a dearth of educated, skilled workers and outsized executive pay and "excesses" in the financial markets widen the income gap. The meat of the article comes at the end:

...blaming trade is not the right way to go. What the [Presidential] candidates need to do is respect the voters, and explan the economics and outline policies that will address the true problems.

That means expanding the social safety net to help workers displaced by trade.... The government has to invest more in education to help produce better-prepared, better-paid graduates. To help American companies compete, it must invest in better roads and ports and address the country's health care crisis. And it must move toward move progressive taxation to redistribute the spoils of growth.

And the kicker:

Blaming Nafta and other trade agreements for America's workers' pain may play well on the campaign stump. But it will not solve the country's economic problems. It will only make them worse.

For more information on NDN's work to develop a new economic strategy for America, check out Michael Moynihan's paper on investment in infrastructure; our series of papers on new skills for the 21st century economy (here and here); and Rob Shapiro's paper on globalization.

NDN has a very aggressive schedule over the next few weeks. I'll be involved in many of these events, and am excited to reconnect with many of you.

Today in DC, we host an excellent event on how the most important medium of politics, television, is changing. It will showcase a remarkable panel of experts, including the head of audience research for TiVo, who among other things, will be discussing the impact of DVRs on how people are now relating to their TV. You won't want to miss this one.

Next Monday, I will be in New York hosting a forum on the growing power of the Millennial Generation, the largest generation in American history. Joining us will be Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, the two authors of a critically acclaimed new book, Millennial Makeover, and the man who introduced us to the whole Millennial concept, something NPI has done a great job promoting the last few years. Also joining us will be two people who work closely with Millennials, Jon Schnur of New Leaders for New Schools and Alicia Menendez of Rock the Vote.

The following Monday, May 5, again in New York City, I will be hosting a Bernard Schwartz Forum on Economic Policy that will celebrate the compelling new book of our Globalization Initiative Chairman, Dr. Robert Shapiro. Rob's book is a far-reaching look at how the world is likely to play out over the next 15 to 20 years, and the forum will be a discussion you won't want to miss. It will also be a good opportunity to talk politics and look at what is happening on the national stage these days.

Finally, I'll be back in DC on May 9, where Peter Leyden and I will be hosting a day-long working session on the important new tools and new audiences critical to 21st century politics. This event will feature several plenary sessions but will also include 10 or so breakouts to help our family drill down further on specific tools or demographics you might want to learn more about. We've got a terrifc line up of speakers and panelists, which you won't want to miss.

Of course there is more than even all this. We are hosting U.S. Rep. Barney Frank on May 20 here in DC, and have many more events in the hopper that we hope to announce soon. Additionally, the able NDN/NPI team is producing a great deal of new and dynamic content each day, which is best viewed here on our blog.

So keep coming back here, and I hope to catch many of you at our many interesting events over the next few weeks.

The Education of Obama - Both the Times and the Post have stories today about Obama "sharpening" his attack against Senator Clinton. My view on this is this tougher rhetoric is long overdue from the Democratic frontrunner, for politics is both about making your own case while effectively indicting your opponent. One of our great strenghts in the 1992 Clinton campaign was our ability to indict President Bush without sounding too partisan and mean spirited. To win in the fall Obama will have to make a powerful and very public indictment of Senator McCain and the failed government of this era. In no way does this cut against his "bringing everyone together" narrative, and simply another tool in his tool box he must develop if he is to win, and to govern.

As I wrote recently I still think Senator Obama should have used the "bitter" flap as he did the Jeremiah Wright controversy. He should have taken the opportunity to give a major speech about the struggle of every day people, demonstrating he both understands how the lack of an adequate government response to globalization is making it harder for people to get ahead, and that he has a comprehensive plan to do something about it. His economic argument is still too political, too focused on attacking Senator Clinton over her NAFTA position than on offering a compelling argument on how he intends to raise the standard of living of all Americans. The inability of the Obama campaign to organize themselves around the struggle of the middle class has been, and continues to be, one of the great strategic weaknesses of this year's remarkable campaign.

For more on this read John Heilemann's excellent new essay in New York Magazine which features some commentary from the head of our globalization initiative, Rob Shapiro.

Not a big fan of McSame - Some of the early arguments coming from the Democratic/ progressive side attempt to make McCain into Bush. But I think this approach is bound to fail. McCain is his own man. He isn't George Bush. They may have worked together to bring about this disasterous conservative era. They have similar beliefs. But McCain isn't Bush. He has a powerful and compelling personal narrative. His take on Iraq is different. His economic plan is different. His position on immigration is different. It is time for those who have opposed Bush to let go of him as a man, and begin making the indictment against his beliefs, his government and the mess he and his team - with McCain's help - have left us. The country has written Bush off, and is turning the page. It is time for the progressive movement to do the same.

To that end I think the new DNC Ad is a good one. It takes McCain's own words and ties them to the performance of the conservative economic strategy now embraced by the Arizona Senator. An editorial in the Post today further disembles the inanity of McCain's emerging economic arguments, providing much more new material for those of us who have opposed the bankrupt and failed economic approach of the modern conservatives.

For more on McCain be sure to read yesterday's frontpage WaPo story on McCain's temperment, something that has been a constant discussion item here in DC chattering classes since the campaign began.

McCain and Immigration - Our very own Andres Ramirez has an excellent new post reminding everyone that during the heat of his primary battle John McCain abandonned his own immigration reform bill, and now repdudiates it on the campaign trail. It is an extraordinary example of McCain's maturation in recent years from virtuous outsider to hollowed-out, craven pol, willing to say and do anything to get elected.

Building on a post Simon Rosenberg wrote yesterday morning and a paper he co-authored a year ago advocating a one laptop per child program, I would like to elaborate on a theme NDN has been developing on the Democratizing power of technological developments. The argument is based on the assumption that making technology available to all people—across socio-economic delineations and geographic boundaries—is having a profound and world changing effect where previously disenfranchised peopled are becoming increasingly empowered. More and more, we are seeing a mounting body of evidence, as manifested in world events, to support this world-view.

While the article in The New York Times Magazine that Simon mentions focuses primarily on economics, it is not difficult to see the link between the promise of aiding millions (if not billions) in pulling themselves out of poverty and engendering citizens with greater freedom, as increased wealth pushes them up the hierarchy of needs. But I would like to focus in on some of the many examples—some of which Simon alluded to—of ordinary people using what is becoming ubiquitous technology to make their voices heard.

Most recently, the protests in Tibet showed how even the Chinese government, infamous for it's ability to control the movement of electronic information, wasn't able to silence news of the violence.

Tibetan monks at a monastery in Sichuan province sent word to exiled monks in Dharamsala, India, that two monks were arrested after they e-mailed photographs of monks killed in protests to the news media. Internet and phone service has since been interrupted to the Amdo Ngaba Kirti Monastery in Ngaba County, the exiles told CNN.

Of course, the Chinese government continues to exert its control over digital information as is evidenced above and its move to block YouTube and other online video sites. Still, these efforts are not fully effective as is noted here:

Beijing's blocking of the Web sites was not 100 percent effective: Tests by researchers at UC Davis and the University of New Mexico showed that banned words reached their destinations on about 28 percent of the paths they tested. Filtering was least effective during periods of heavy Internet traffic.

Last week in Egypt, we saw the use of cellphone messages to organize strikes. Not only were people using the medium to congregate, but the messages also helped citizens unify their message.

What may have most spooked officials was the way technology, especially cellphones, was used to spread the word, political analysts said. Mass messages circulated listing “demands” that included increased security, no more inflation, housing aid for young couples and an end to “torture in police stations.”

These are not isolated incidents. During the violent suppression of protests in Myanmar, ordinary citizens equipped with mobile devices were able record video, take pictures and transmit this information outside the country fostering international condemnation of the Burmese government's actions. Cuba has seen the emergence of a vibrant blogger community, which openly questions the government. (Although this may amount to the spread of an unhealthy habit.) Looking a little further back, in 2006, marches for immigrant-rights were strengthened by new communication tools. One reporter in San Francisco notes:

What's equally clear is that the immigrant protests in recent weeks haven't been the result of a formal plan issued by pro-immigrant organizations. Rather they've been fueled by word of mouth reinforced by Spanish language talk radio and television, and a plethora of new technologies, including cell phones, instant messaging and Web sites such as myspace.com.

The examples listed above may simply be the portent of a much larger shift. A shift that isn't merely a suped up vehicle carrying the same forms of communication, but rather a change that fundamentally alters the nature of our communication. One such alteration could be what Simon referred to as the virtuous cycle of participation, where new tools allow for a dynamic and fluid kind of networking. One where the barrier to entry is so low that anyone with an internet connection or a cellphone can immediately become an active member of a muscular and potent organization.

As further evidence emerges of new technologies giving voice to dissenting views and pulling people out of poverty, I'll try—along with others and NDN and NPI—to document these developments.

At the New Politics Institute we have already done a great deal of work examining the power of these new technologies to influence politics. That work can be found here.

There can now be little doubt that Senator Obama's recent comments in San Francisco have become a major test for this candidacy. The ad Senator Clinton launched yesterday on the subject is one of the most powerful ads of this election cycle, and will require a sustained and significant response from the Obama campaign.

As Senator Obama demonstrated in the recent flap over Jeremiah Wright, every attack is an opportunity to offer a very public response. For the Obama campaign those words will never be able to be taken back, but what his campaign can do is to view this as a moment to better address the core of what is being discussed here - his understanding of the struggle of every day people, and to better clarify his plan to raise improve the lives of those facing increased struggle and hardship in an era when the standing of the middle class has deteriorated. As I have written many times, I have long felt this whole area has been a weakness for Senator Obama and his campaign. This moment is in essence an opportunity to correct a major structural weakness in his candidacy and thus if handled successfully could be a moment of great opportunity for the Senator.

Campaigns are a series of tests, some small, some big. For Senator Obama a few words spoken in private have begun to drown out the millions of words he has spoken throughout this long and grueling campaign. But that is politics, and this new test may be among the most consequential and important faced by Senator Obama so far.