Today, I am going to write a post PRAISING George W. Bush. That’s right, you heard me correctly. I am going to praise him for something wonderful he has done. Something that is so close to my heart, and my life’s cause, that I can’t let it go by without acknowledgement. Does this mean that I think that this nullifies all of his other fuck ups? No, but it does mean that I can definitely see good where it truly shines; and today, that is in Bush’s recent requests from Congress.
Yesterday, Bush requested that Congress authorize $30 billion dollars to combat AIDS, and to provide medications for those afflicted with the disease. This money would go towards stopping AIDS worldwide, and providing medications for those that cannot afford it, in areas that are too poor to afford outrageous pharmaceutical mark ups. This is in addition to the $15 billion that he asked for back in 2003, and shows a clear and concentrated effort to truly help those afflicted with AIDS worldwide. This is amazing coming from the president, especially when you consider, that Reagan never even said the world AIDS during his presidency. Truly a monumental achievement to have our president focused on such an amazingly humanitarian effort.
I am honestly speechless that this amazingly large support for ending AIDS worldwide comes from a president that still touts abstinence only as the only method we can use in teaching our children how to prevent HIV infection in the states. At least somewhere in him, he realizes that the need for more than that is real, and as such, he is actually working with world leaders to make this a global effort.
There are critics to his plan, that focus on the fact that this is not enough money to truly make the type of dent that is necessary to take control of the epidemic. While I do agree that it is not enough, and while I see where they are coming from, I think that Bush has the right idea; it is important for every nation that can throw money at this thing to throw money at it. It can’t be something that the US does alone; if we want to stop it worldwide, we have got to use the rest of the world to do it with us. I for one, am excited to see what comes out of the upcoming global summit, with regards to what other top nations are going to offer as well. I will also have my attention focused on what Bush says about climate change, but we won’t get into that today, because I want to focus on the positive.
Bush, you have done a great thing. Even if one of your main motivators is giving the US good face, since we have been responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, it is STILL a good thing. I do, however, find it extremely odd that Christians, and Christian conservatives are so willing to embrace these efforts to help those that need it most in developing nations, when they continue to turn their backs on the people right at their doorsteps. I also find it weird that the focus on ridding the world of AIDS seems to be solely focused on the developing world, when it is still a real problem here in the US. I know that you can’t always have your cake and eat it too, and I certainly don’t want to look a gift horse in the mouth, so these are things that I will just silently ponder; because while they are still important points, I don’t want to shit on the good that is being done with this initiative.
Again, THANK YOU Mr. Bush for showing that you have a compassionate bone in your body. Perhaps, this effort for the US to provide more generosity (even if it is only for the sake of saving face) will spill over into other issues, and we can continue to do more good in the world; perhaps so much, that we can stop doing the bad things, and focus solely on the good things. This is the direction we need to be going in as a nation, and I for one, am glad to see that not only are we capable of doing it, but there is at least some momentum that is going in that direction; even if it is only a little bit. If we want to have a great nation, we have to have it in a great world, and the only way we are going to make that happen, is through leadership, support, and compassion. The only way to make ourselves truly great, is to help those that we can, and do what is right.
duane, you and I really are oil and water. I’m adamantly opposed to this. This is not the role of government.
DPB, I would love to hear your argument for whose job it is, if not the government. I only have a problem, it about where the money is ACTUALLY going..as someone who studies extensively the role of corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa, I always worry about the accountability and transparency of such large amounts of money going towards USAID programs. In a world of spend now blame later, I fear that Africa will not see half of this money. In addition, to give Christian Organizations a plus, while I worked in Africa for 4 years, I would say they Christian Aid agencies are the most effective NGO’s in program and policy initiation. They say they don’t preach condom use, but thats just a ruse to get more money from HIV/AIDS prevention pot-o-gold.
I believe this is a role of private charity.
So I guess Universal Health care in America is a bad thing?
To say the least!
What the hell!? I just came in the kitchen and see this empty can of worms laying on the floor… OH! Nevermind! *backs out quickly*
I read this story when it came over the feed and thought, “I wonder what Duane thinks about this”?
Maybe one day you can get over to Africa and it might change your mind. Its a human rights issues, a moral obligation, not a personal charity one. And before your write…whos morals…whos obligation, just think about the responsiblity of the american government in helping others in need, as an american society, and as a privilaged society who usually just do whats right only because it serves our national interest, not just because its right.
Jason, you are not going to change his mind. I agree with you that it is our responsibility, mainly because of a little thing called globalization, but dave does not agree. You are talking to yourself right now, unfortunately.
Jason, I’m not saying the people aren’t deserving of help. I’m just saying it’s not our government’s role to do so.
The government’s role is to ONLY do things because it serves the national interest, anything beyond that is the role of the people directly.
Our government is not what makes our country great, it’s the people. The people have a moral obligation to help others in need, not the government.
You mention how wary you are of where the money goes. Do you really trust the federal government do allocate that money in the best way possible? I don’t. It’s not their money they’re spending. If private charity were involved, they would be able to see that each dollar gets the most squeezed out of it and is able to help the people even more.
… and I hate that “it’s the right thing to do” argument. It’s so flimsy. A person must decide with ‘the right thing to do’ is for them self. The government is supposed to know what ‘the right thing to do’ is? That’s scary… have you seen what governments are capable of when they have that kind of authority/power?
Its cool that dave has his own opinion, i totally respect that. He might say something I haven’t thought about. Duane…when are we going to start our own NGO???
Um, today?
You know what Dave, I totally agree with you, the difference is that you give the American people a lot of credit, whereas I don’t. Unless it affects americans directly, i.e. their family or their wallet, do issues such as HIV/AIDS or genocide in Darfur and the Republic of Congo or female sex trade in Togo or civil war in Somolia, Chad and Equatorial Guinea, do people really care. Hence, I think, I hope, that the government would somewhat pick up the slack on issues that nobody cares about. As for the money going to where its not supposed to, i totally agree with you again. I trust the american government b/c i have to, but I don’t trust African Governments to say the least and what I do hate is that the American Government doesn’t hold them responsible b/c to insult a developing country on their policies is being a world bully.
The right thing to do argument is all I can offer you, it hasn’t failed me yet.
Good points you’ve made all the same.
Thanks Jason, I can totally understand your fear that the people wouldn’t stand up when needed to help out others, but I disagree. There are always fundraisers going on to help people in regions all over the world. Granted, those aren’t enough to solve every problem but neither will this funding to Africa that Bush is signing.
As we all know, this money Bush is sending over came from the tax dollars you and I pay. I think if we were able to reduce the government’s role in areas like this, we would be putting large sums of money back into the hands of the people. When people have more money, they’re willing to spend more. I think charitable contributions would actually go up … I have no proof of that but I know that if I didn’t feel like the government was funding charities already, that I would be willing to donate some of my earnings (something I don’t do now).
I haven’t given much thought to it until just now, but I don’t think I would mind a government agency responsible for identifying the areas of the world in need of charitable contributions and organizing the fundraisers to necessary to generate the money to send over. That would probably work for me…
I also have no problem with the US cutting off all involvement with any country that continues to abuse its people or does business with those countries. We’re the economic powerhouse (for now), let’s flex that muscle a little bit!
dave,
Your optimism is refreshing, as is your idea of trickle down economics. Maybe you are right, but i still have reservations.
Your last point is spot on. I am coming up with a theory of non-involvement, a development theory that states, “non-involvement in the issues of a developing country will actually develop the country”, sort of a prime-directive based argument.
You can’t argue with the Prime Directive… especially when it’s coming out of Captain Picard’s mouth.
WWCPD is a new braclet I am going to have made…What would Captain Picard do, you can’t go wrong with that.
I’d wear one. It’s a much better idea than those lame/pointless Lance Armstrong bracelets.
He would make it so, that’s what he would do.
No no no, Picard doesn’t make it so… others do, at his command!
hahaha, he does, not to get off the subject or anything, but i saw the episode the other day, yes on the spike channel, where Troi goes for her bridge command and all she did was F’ing whine the WHOLE episode, I wanted to punch her right in her Betazoid face.
The government’s role is to ONLY do things because it serves the national interest
So what you are saying is that preventing the spread of disease and lessening the impact on those already afflicted is not in the national interest?
When it’s in another country, no. When it’s in this country, I think the nation is best served by privatized medicine.
Yet, dave, you neglect to acknowledge that because of the process of globalization, or actions have directly impacted the health, disease, and welfare of everyone in the world. So, we made a mess, and it isn’t our responsibility to at least help clean it up? I think that your argument doesn’t account for anyone that exists outside of our borders; whether we fucked them over or not.
That is wrong.
duane, what are you talking about?
dave, I am talking about how the process of globalization affects those very people that you don’t think that our government should help out. Interestingly enough, those effects come largely from us.
Learn more. I took an entire class on the process, and it is something that I learned a lot about, so it is hard to ignore.
Dave,
If I understand Duane correctly, I think what he’s talking about here is that the US is not just in isolation. An example of this is India, where many of our traditional US businesses are playing a large role in their economy, and many of our US citizens are actually over their participating in this process.
So, in isolation, should we help India? No. But the fact of the matter is, our own US businesses are there and our own citizens are also there, and we have an obligation to our businesses and people, even if they are in another country. Because if India’s economy suffers, so does ours.
Thus, if a pandemic were to occur in India, our own US citizens and US business would be greatly affected, socially and economically, despite the fact that this event was not specifically happening within our borders.
Duane, if I am completely off base here, please let me know, but I think this is an example of what you were saying above.
Dgb,
I don’t mean this as a strong criticism, because if I understand your critique correctly it is coming from a libertarian perspective and if I have any political philosophy it is as a libertarian, but saying that the government should only be involved in things that fall under the umbrella of the national interest leaves room for pretty much anything. National interest is a very loose term that can be interpreted however anyone wants to define it.
ok, why all the dog on globalization, seriously, there are different forms of globalization, i.e. hybridization, and not all things that affect the developing world come from it.
Read this. On top of that….globalization did not cause the problems in the developing world, colonization did. Also there are theories about modernization and dependency that should be approached here. Capital accumication is easiest in countries where labor and resources are cheap, and governments weak. This was and is the case with many newly independent Third World countries, especially those with whose economies had already been given an external orientation during the colonial era to fit the economic structures of the imperal center, i.e. colonization!
To blame the ill wills of developing countries on the expansion of Western society through Globalization is not only ill-informed but far mis-interpreted.
Oh, plus the author I gave you is an indian..so that should add to the debate.
Duane,
I have to applaud you for the positive blog on Shrub! I think it is great that you will take the time to blog about something positive concerning Shrub when I know you feel the same (or at least close to the same) way I do about him. You could have easily just chosen another topic and let this go!!
Titus, that is indeed, and excellent, albeit very American focused, example of globalization. You hit the nail in the center of the head. I would expound upon that, in saying that not only are our personal interests tied up with the process of globalization, but the consequences of our actions as well (which you beautifully personalized). It makes me sick when people say things like, “well, why should we care, it’s not our problem”, when it is definitely, at least in part, an effect caused by our actions. It really demonstrates an extreme lack of perspective. Thanks for the great example!
Jason, I am actually surprised that you were so positive! The only reason I say that, is because I know that anthropology really seeks to uncover the bad things that globalization causes, and teaches us mechanisms through which we can solve those problems. I say that, because I guess I “dog” on globalization, because it is easier for me to see the harm that it causes than the benefits. Yes, there are definitely benefits, but there are always consequences, and I guess I tend to fall more on the side of making sure that people recognize those consequences to the actions that we take.
As for this:
I do not agree. I don’t think that the sum of all the problems of the developing world lie in the hands of American successes, but I do think that at least in part, many of the woes of the developing and poorer world are a result (even if indirectly) of where our place is, and what we do with that place, in the global system. I can think of an excellent example to be specific. Westernized medicine. We know it is based on science. Many developing nations don’t believe the science that we do, because they have other means for explaining how diseases and illness works. They call those illness narratives. Regardless, when we attempt to mold our western medicines, practices, and preventative techniques to fit their cultural explanations, definitions, and problems; many times, our trying to help causes a whole new slew of problems that they didn’t have before we intervened. Take Nestle for instance. They were so greedy in trying to push their formula on the developing world, that they didn’t stop to think of the amazingly beneficial effects of breast milk, and what breast feeding really meant to people in the developing world. In most cases, breast feeding can mean the difference between life and death. And when the formula is being mixed with tainted water (coupled with the lack of antibodies only received in breast milk), the baby is being bombarded by a new set of problems; all caused by Nestle, and the western way of thinking. That is globalization rearing its ugly head, and I can’t agree that our expansion, manipulation, and capitalization of the world doesn’t have a profound effect, because it definitely does. Even if that effect isn’t as concrete as this one, you can easily define the steps that lead back to western causes in many instances of devastation in the third world. Does that mean that we caused all of it? No. But does that mean that we may have set the ball in motion? You bet. I just don’t think that it is as simple as saying that we didn’t cause it, when in many instances we may not be the direct cause, but we are definitely a cause that is making some waves in their society.
Mitch, thanks! I was honest when I said, I don’t care if it is a Republican doing the good, so long as the good is being done, I will recognize it and acknowledge it.
Duane, I agree with you on all points. In fact, my thesis was a critical analysis of the World Bank and USAID using universalistic policies and not culturally relativistic ones toward development of third world countries. That being said, the idea of globalization and modernization towards developing countries are 2 different arguments. I was directly addressing that the idea of globalization continues to keep down developed countries. The Western idea of development is one of democratization= economic growth = modernity = western forms of policy, this is not globalization, this is modernization. The Rostownian form of thinking. I think there is a huge distinction between the two. Then I would ask, if a developed country becomes more modern are they then considered Western and part of the club that dictates all other countries?
Now if you only equate MNC’s or Multi-National Corporations with globalization, yes, there are definite negatives for which you argued correctly, especially in the case of Nestle, an evil conglomerate that should be dismantled, but, there are definite positives to Globalization and that is what I was trying to point out. I just don’t think its a one sided argument.
And as far as “Western” is concerned, I hope you group European Powers into this category, Americans did not colonize Africa.
Modernization is a part of globalization; as it stands in the current context of the way the world is being pushed forward. When I used the term “Western” I was simpling putting the face that much of the rest of the world puts on the pushing movement; America. In the case with what’s happening in the world today, modernization is part of globalization, in that the ways with which you described modernization are usually the ways in which we (or the top) try to spread out our influence globally. Do I think that that modernization is the best way to go about it? Not necessarily, but then again, no one really asks us, do they? (They should! :))
But it isn’t just America, as you pointed out. It is the top pushing at the bottom, to get what it needs from them, and in “giving back”, asking them to change. I definitely agree that there are good sides to globalization, but I think that there are bad sides that should be considered with slightly more weight; as they are often times destructive.
I think that your argument is not necessarily and argument against what I have said, but more against what I haven’t said, and merely inferred, which makes our arguments complimentary. It isn’t as simple as “America is evil and totally rapes the world!!!1!11!!!”, because that isn’t the case (as you pointed out), but it is part of it, and it does fall within the context of the argument I made in this post, as is why I am focusing on that the most.
And you silly boy! YOU of all people should know that I know better than anyone that America didn’t colonize Africa… Unfortunately, Anthropology had a wicked past, and we have been trying for a hundred years to make up for our mistakes!!!!
Oops, ya’ll! We didn’t mean to! LOL
Sorry, being unemployed has kept me quite busy and unable to reply in a timely manner … or something. Since so much has been said since my last comment, I’ll hit specific points.
Titus,
These are chances our companies took when they started conducting business overseas. Just as I don’t think our government should help/interfere with business operations over here, I don’t feel like we should help/interfere with their operations over there.
Justin,
Agreed, that’s where the Constitution comes into play. Public health is not in the Constitution and therefore is not a responsibility that we’ve given to the federal government and a responsibility that I would argue we shouldn’t.
duane,
I’m not saying it’s not our problem. Now let’s define ‘our.’ My definition would be ‘the American people.’ Your definition is ‘the American government.’ The American people have the power of the dollar. They can contribute to organizations that can help those in need overseas and they can choose to not purchase goods from corporations responsible for such conditions.
He was/is doing something very Democrat though, just thought I would toss that out there
Dave,
The problem is that it’s not true. Other countries already do interfere with us, and we happily seem to let them. Take our US debt for example. Who are in we in debt to? Other coutries: Japan, China, India, and so on. So we don’t want to help these countries but yet we expect them to shoulder the burden of our irresponsibility?
So using your logic, from the perspective of China, they have no responsibility to help us, so why don’t they demand their money back? Oh, that’s right, because the US has absolutely no earthly way to back this debt and would immediately default, thereby destroying the country overnight.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that you don’t want to provide good-will to other countries and yet expect them to do it for us.
Titus
dave,
I believe that you have an overly simplistic view of things if you really think that this will actually solve the problem (the problem we are a part of causing). The fact is, that a lot of people that have a lot of money are greedy, and will not do this. If the government says, “leave it up to them”, it won’t get done. Yes, charity, and other self-driven things like it, are good, but that can’t be the only answer to the problems that we as a society (that “our” is the US as an entity, which includes every person that lives here and works here; as well as our government) have contributed to causing. And when you say things like, “I don’t think we should interfere”, it is totally a moot point, because we have, and we continue to do so.
Titus makes a great point by turning it back around as well. Point is, we are all linked, as a player in this global economy, and in some part, we rely on each other. We require a lot more than some other countries do, and sometimes we take what we need at any cost. Sometimes, we make mistakes, and bad things happen to people that we didn’t plan. Does that mean that it isn’t our problem anymore, because it doesn’t directly involve us? Absolutely not. When you make a mess, even if you tripped little Jimmy, and he was the one that actually knocked over the trash can, you can’t turn a blind eye to the fact that you had some part in spilling that trash; especially if in this case, Jimmy isn’t physically able to pick up the mess on his own (which most of these countries can not).
I don’t know how to spell it out more clearly than I have, so if you still think that we don’t have a responsibility to help solve problems that we have had a hand in, I don’t know what to say. To me, that isn’t human; and thank goodness, the government agrees (at least a little bit, anyways).
The reason China doesn’t and couldn’t immediately recall their debt is because they need our markets.
“Agreed, that’s where the Constitution comes into play. Public health is not in the Constitution and therefore is not a responsibility that we’ve given to the federal government and a responsibility that I would argue we shouldn’t.”
So, you would argue, that the Centers for Disease Control is an illegal institution? Your point seems excessively reductive to me. George Washington died because his doctor bled him to death. The point is that the context of health care at the time makes no sense with where we are at today. They had hospitals, but it was where you sent crazy people or the destitute. Anyone could be a doctor, there were no regulatory or certifications. It just makes no sense to expect the Constitution to have specifically included health care.
But leaving aside the legality of the CDC and some of the attendant points raised above, the legislative section of the Constitution says specifically, “The Congress shall … provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and has the power “… To promote the progress of science.”
Again, how is controlling and mitigating disease not part of the general welfare of the United States or scientific progress? The founding fathers didn’t clarify what they meant by those terms.
Justin, I totally forgot to mention the public health/constitution thing; thanks for getting that. Yeah, dave, when I read that, I was like, SERIOUSLY?
Public health is arguably one of the MOST IMPORTANT things the government should do. Without health and vitality, you will have no economy, no capitalism, no work, and no society. They can’t work if they are sick and dying. It is definitely the responsibility of the government to oversee public health; constitution or not.
Jason,
General welfare and universal healthcare are not the same thing.
duane/Titus, I don’t argue that we as a country have gotten involved with shit that has spiraled out of control but that’s more of an argument for my position than an argument against it. We, as a government, should not have gotten involved. If a country is going to allow our companies to set up shop there and our companies decide to do so, they are both operating on their own accord and beyond the control of our government. duane, I’m not sure if it’s my interpretation of what you’re saying or if you’re really not understanding me. I have no problem with the people of the US helping out other Americans or people in other countries. I simply don’t think it’s a responsibility of our government to do so. WE are the country. The government is not the country.
Jason,
What exactly does China need from us? They have their own manufacturing, they don’t respect US patents of intellectual property. Are you saying that the US would decide to stop trading with them? Outside of food stuffs, the US doesn’t even have the facilities to make basic items like t-shirts, toilet paper, and silverware. We even import chicken from China!
I’m briefly searched online, but could not find items that China actually has to import from the US, other than crappy Hollywood films. I would appreciate it if you could find me a good link on this.
On another note, Dave talks about “not interfering with the business of other countries”, as if the US is one to talk. Aren’t we the ones trying to get the WTO to force China, Sweden, and Russia to enforce US copyright laws?
Titus
Ok, people, i said nothing of china, justin did……I got out of this convo a while back
Just one thing…its called dependency theory….explains a lot….
Oops, you’re right. I confused Jason with Justin.
Titus, I wish the US government would stop interfering with business here or there.
dave,
If OUR society does something that fucks up ANOTHER society, it is OUT responsibility to fix it. The government is what CONTROLS our society, and as such, should be involved with providing that help. And this goes beyond just “other Americans working in those countries”; because they aren’t the only ones affected.
I know that you are all about the “self centered” motivations for things, but this goes way beyond that, if I am truly interpreting what you are saying correctly. I really hope that you don’t think that it is at least in some small way, our responsibility to reach out to those we continually shit on. If you don’t, all I have to say, is one, thank God you don’t control the government, and two, please don’t ever run for office. The government is definitely responsible, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
And the whole, “we shouldn’t have gone there” is a totally MOOT point. Move on to what we need to do now that we have, and continue to go there.
No no no… We, the people, control the society. The government is merely an instrument we put in place to protect us. I believe this is the fundamental difference between your and my political beliefs. Look at the amendments to the Constitution. They don’t tell the people what they can and cannot do, they tell the federal government what it can and cannot do. We’re in control (or at least we’re supposed to be), not the government.
By that logic, you need to stop using the argument that we should have never gone to Iraq as justification for pulling out instead of staying and getting the job done.
In theory, you are correct. And in your second statement, you advocate for governmentally controlled and substantiated public health.
About Iraq, I concur. I think that reason is a good reason to develop a new plan of action; which includes leaving. These are similar, but not the same type, of thing. You must consider what it would have been like if we hadn’t gone there to solve part of a problem with regards to many of the issues related to globalization. To ignore that will prove disastrous, as you will make many more mistakes than if you considered what would have happened had we not been involved.
And what “job” are we getting done? Can you even define that? Because I haven’t seen a clear and concise reason yet as to why we are still there; especially when intelligence tells us that we are totally making things worse. Not to mention the intelligence that was declassified that said that what we decided to do would most certainly cause exactly what is happening; a shit storm in Iraq, Iran, and the middle east.
WHoah, dont accuse me of dragging China into this mess.
The only thing I said was, “The reason China doesn’t and couldn’t immediately recall their debt is because they need our markets.” in response to someone else asking rhetorically why China doesn’t demand we pay all our debt back at once.
It wasn’t me.
I agree with you, Dgb. The government is an institution of the people, for the people and by the people. How far we have come from that framework is a separate issue.
A government is useful for setting the rules of the game, enforcing those rules, and coercing collective action where it is deemed necessary by the people but would not arise otherwise. This is why we have massive public subsidies for research across numerous industries, public education, public pensions, health care for the poor and elderly, etc. We can and do quibble on how much effort should be spent on any one area, but in many cases the answer is not going to be found in the Constitution. They left much of it vague and open to interpretation to account for changes in our society and civilization. To claim that the general welfare of the citizenry does not include health care - in this case narrowly confined to combating an infectious, deadly disease - , as you said above, just doesn’t pass a smell test.
Oh yeah, to be clear, I mean an economic context above. I.e. by “collective action” I mean economic activities that don’t come about in a market such as technology with really high R&D costs.