Dinesh D'Souza - America: Imagine a World without Her (25 page)

Even so, some progressives portray globalization as a form of exploitation of poor workers. The basic idea here is that large American corporations hire workers for a few dollars a day—vastly lower than the minimum wage in America. Moreover, they subject these workers to terrible working conditions, similar to those in locally owned factories. Yet Kishore Mahbubani, an Indian scholar based in Singapore, points out that local companies in emerging countries can no longer get away with low wages and sub-human conditions. It is no longer easy to attract people to work long hours in claustrophobic cubbyholes. The reason for this is the foreign companies pay more and offer better conditions. The American companies are at the top of the scale. Certainly the wages and working conditions are not what one would find in Milwaukee or Dallas, but they are nevertheless high by local standards. Mahbubani writes that $5,000 a year may be a scandalously low wage in America, but it is a small fortune to someone in Jakarta, Manila, or Kolkata. The people who take those jobs used to make $500 a year or less working in rural agriculture.
⁷
No wonder that there are long lines and long lists of applications when companies like Nike advertise openings. If globalization were a form of exploitation, one would expect there to be strong anti-globalization sentiment in developing countries. In fact, there is no significant anti-globalization movement in countries like China and India. That’s because the Chinese and the Indians know much better than American progressives what’s good for them.

Because globalization is good for workers in poor countries, it helps to reduce immigration from poor countries to rich countries. Largely as a consequence of globalization and free trade, Mexico is more prosperous today than it was a couple of decades ago. Consequently Mexicans have more opportunities in their own country, and
they are less likely to hazard the difficulties of illegally crossing into the United States. India, too, offers vastly better chances to young people than it did when I left in the 1970s. Many Indians of my generation were “pushed out” because of the lack of economic opportunity at home. There is no longer that same pressure to leave now; in fact, some developing nations now provide incentives for their talented runaways to come back.

In a way that is not often recognized, globalization is also a force for peace among nations. The simple logic of this was noted centuries ago by figures like Adam Smith, David Hume, and Montesquieu. They knew that countries that trade with each other become mutually dependent. Thus they are less likely to fight. This is clearly true of America and China today. We get along with China vastly better than we used to get along with the Soviet Union. One reason, clearly, is that we routinely do business with China. We need them for the stuff we live by, and they need us to buy their stuff. Global trade doesn’t just change the calculus of conflict; it also creates a new type of culture among people. As a result of the prosperity produced by globalization, for instance, many Indians spend less time grousing about Pakistan and more about their new business ventures. Across the world, globalization has people more interested in improving their lot through their own industry than through national conquest.

Like everything else, globalization has costs as well as benefits. Progressives are on stronger ground in claiming that globalization disadvantages some workers in America and the West. This is undeniable; the question is whether it constitutes exploitation. Consider a young person who has been raised in a steel town like Pittsburgh or an auto city like Detroit. For more than a generation, those places provided steady employment at a decent wage. Pittsburgh and Detroit were two of the most prosperous cities in America, gleaming illustrations of the American dream. And undoubtedly there were
fathers who told their sons and daughters that if they worked hard and played by the rules, in the manner their parents did, they too would have a stable and prosperous future. Yet today Pittsburgh is no longer the steel capital of the world, and Detroit has lost its dominance in the global auto industry. What can we say to the young man or woman who is trained in steel work or auto work but no longer has a good job available to him or her? Has America failed these people? Has globalization stolen their American dream?

It is a fact that today steel can be made more cheaply outside America. This is also true of many other products: shoes, shirts, toys, and so on. Cars are different—Detroit’s prosperity plummeted because auto executives made bad decisions and overpaid their workers. Consequently others figured out how to make cars better and more cheaply not only in Korea and Japan, but also in other states like North Carolina. There is unintentional comedy today in watching Michael Moore’s film
Roger and Me
, in which Moore chases around the head of General Motors to find out why he closed the Flint, Michigan, plant in which Moore’s father used to work. Moore thinks that the plant was closed because greedy bosses like Roger Smith wanted to keep more profits. He fails to mention that unions, like the one his dad belonged to, pressured GM to raise wages so high that GM cars just cost too much. Hardly anyone wanted to buy mediocre cars that were so expensive. Either GM had to keep losing market share, or figure out how to make cars more cheaply. So if Moore wanted to find the greedy fellows who caused the Flint plant to close, he should have started by interviewing his dad.

The bottom line is that in a globalized economy, the job goes to the people who can do it best and at the most affordable price. This is an iron law of capitalism, and it has been true in America for a long time. Globalization only changes the narrative in that the rest of the world also competes to provide the cheapest and best goods
and services. This is bad news for unions that want to bid up wages beyond what the market will bear, and bad news for American workers if they cannot compete in terms of price and quality.

One option, of course, is to protect unions and American workers by restricting or blocking globalization. Remarkably some progressives who style themselves as compassionate and defenders of the little guy support such measures. And so do some conservatives on patriotic grounds. The patriotic impulse to protect America’s workers and American manufacturing is understandable. Yet to block globalization is to block the greatest engine of global uplift that has ever been devised. It is to inhibit poor people from developing self-reliance and entering the middle class, not through handouts, but through selling things that others want to buy. So anti-globalization efforts are really measures to protect people who make $20 an hour at the expense of people who make a few dollars a day. Whatever we call this, we can’t say it’s helping the little guy.

I don’t think that anti-globalization is a form of patriotism, because while it helps some Americans it hurts many others. Consider the guy who used to make shoes in Cincinnati and got paid $20 an hour. Now that guy is in trouble, because Walmart contracts to make shoes in the Philippines or Thailand, and pays those workers $5 a day. Consequently shoes that would otherwise cost $85 are now sold at Walmart for $20. Who benefits from that? American consumers! So while globalization penalizes inefficient American workers, it benefits cost-conscious American consumers. Globalization hurts the overpaid worker and benefits the silent majority of American consumers.

While it is easy to blame foreign workers for “taking” American jobs, let’s remember that the greatest thief of American jobs is not foreigners—it’s technology. Consider those travel agents who used
to make a good living booking airline flights. Now they are mostly obsolete. It’s cheaper and easier to book your own flights online. So should we “protect” travel agents by outlawing internet flight bookings? The very idea is absurd—no one has even proposed this. Similarly, there are now robots that can do things much faster and cheaper than human hands. Should we not build those robots in order to protect American jobs? China is already building millions of robots to replace human workers. So what happens to America’s global competitiveness when other countries use robots and other forms of advanced technology while we don’t?

Clearly there is no alternative to doing things in the best and most efficient way, whether it’s through technology or outsourcing. This is what capitalism does to societies, and globalization is just capitalism in a single global market. There is an answer to what should be done by American workers who find that their old jobs are gone—they have to get new skills and find new jobs. I admit this is not easy. For many, the concept of a lifelong career is destroyed; time’s arrow is bent if not broken. This may seem like an insufferable burden, but let’s remember that this is what previous generations of Americans have uncomplainingly accomplished for themselves.

Just a century ago, most Americans worked on farms. Agriculture was America’s leading occupation. Today less than 5 percent of America is employed in agriculture. What a sight it is to see a single guy in a tractor, with his headphones plugged in, farming a huge tract of land using the latest in modern technology and fertilizer products! So what happened to all those farming families that once lived off the land? They figured out that times had changed. They recognized that America no longer needs more than half its workforce to feed the American people. Instead of whining about it, they accepted that their old way of life was over. They got off the farm
and learned how to do something else. What we need today is the same spirit that enabled earlier generations not only to adapt to change but to thrive in it; that’s how America can compete effectively on the global track.

CHAPTER 13

EMPIRE OF LIBERTY

Americans need to face the truth about themselves, no matter how pleasant it is.
¹

J
EANE
K
IRKPATRICK

I
n 1946 the American diplomat George Kennan wrote a famous “long telegram” to the U.S. State Department proposing a strategy for dealing with Soviet expansionism. The strategy—subsequently elaborated by Kennan in a 1947 article in
Foreign Affairs
—came to be known as “containment.” Basically Kennan argued for drawing a tight cordon around Soviet expansionism so its growth could be stopped. Kennan’s ultimate goal wasn’t just to corral the Soviets; it was to bring down the Soviet empire itself. Kennan argued that empires require expansion in order to survive; contain them and they will collapse. Kennan urged America to “choke” the Soviet empire and, by doing this, to cause the empire to implode. And this is exactly what happened. In one of the most stunning events of the twentieth century, in the late 1980s and early
1990s the huge, seemingly invincible Soviet empire disintegrated. Containment worked.

Now containment is being tried again, by President Obama. Only this time the country he is attempting to contain is his own. Obama’s foreign policy may be neatly summarized by the phrase “self-containment.” I get this phrase from a recent article by Douglas Feith and Seth Cropsey.
²
It may seem odd for a president who is the commander in chief, who takes an oath to protect and defend the interests of the United States, to self-consciously and deliberately seek to reduce America’s power and influence. For Obama, however, it is good for America to have less influence. In tune with his progressive and anti-colonial ideology, Obama regards the American empire as the only remaining empire in the world. While America exalts democratic and universalistic ideals, in reality its foreign policy has been based on self-interest and plunder. America has used its power irresponsibly, to dominate others and to control their oil and other resources. Consequently Obama seeks to end America’s neocolonialism, its large-scale global theft. To do this, he has to end America’s tenure as the sole global superpower. Obama wants America to be a normal country, and to play a shrunken, more modest role in the world.

How is the Obama team doing this? One way is by sharply reducing America’s nuclear arsenal. Obama has taken America’s nuclear arsenal down from 6,000 to 1,500 warheads and now he wants to go to 1,000 and eventually to zero. He says he wants a world free of nuclear weapons, which seems like an admirable goal, except that no other nuclear power is interested, and the only country whose nuclear weapons Obama is in a position to dismantle is his own. As several leading strategists have pointed out, nuclear weapons are the main way that American maintains its global military superiority; by shrinking our nuclear arsenal Obama ensures that America’s
relative global strength is diminished. So is America’s ability to protect its allies.
³

Ultimately an alliance of, say, Russia and China will be able to checkmate America. This is not well understood; some people think it’s sufficient to have a handful of nuclear bombs because those are enough to blow up half the world. Anyone who has studied nuclear strategy knows how foolish this is. Here’s why. Imagine a scenario in which America has 300 nuclear warheads, and so do Russia and China. (Russia currently has more than 1,500 warheads and China has around 250.
⁴
) Russia and China make an alliance with each other, and each agrees to launch 150 warheads against America in a first strike. True, America’s entire arsenal won’t be wiped out; some of the Russian and Chinese warheads may miss, and some of our warheads are carried on submarines and bombers that are much harder to target.

Let’s assume America has enough warheads left to destroy a dozen Chinese cities and a dozen Russian cities. America can strike back, to be sure, but if it does, the Russians and the Chinese have an additional 150 warheads each with which they can level every American city. The point is that America is now deterred from striking back, because it fears a completely devastating second strike that would basically end America as we know it. These are not wild speculations; they are precisely the “war games” that the Pentagon has played since the dawn of the nuclear age. The Cold War is over, but the logic of deterrence has not changed. So Obama’s plan for self-disarmament is far more dangerous than people realize.