« Bill Richardson Has A Cramped Writing Hand | Main | Addressing The Climate Crisis: US Not Leading Or Even Following »
March 17, 2007
The Best Idea In The World
I'm so happy to see John Edwards saying this:
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Thursday outlined his plan to tackle global poverty that calls for educating 23 million children in poor countries and creating a Cabinet-level position to oversee other initiatives.
Seeking to link poverty in other countries to U.S. national security, Edwards argued that militant extremists in nations torn apart by poverty and civil war have replaced government educational systems and are teaching young people to hate the United States.
"When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States -- it is a national security issue for the United States," he said at Saint Anselm College.
"If we tackle it, we have the chance to change a generation of potential extremists and enemies into a generation of friends," Edwards said.
You can read the rest of the address here.
Like the Cold War, our struggle against Islamic extremism isn't going to be won by miring our troops in a sequence of latter-day Vietnams, but by cultural engagement and 21st-century versions of the Marshall Plan. When we win, it'll be by feeding the hungry, healing the sick, and teaching those who would otherwise grow up in ignorance. Actions like these are respected in all human cultures, and for every Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, there are tens of thousands of ordinary Muslims who care a lot more about their children's prosperity than about killing Americans. For them to take our side, we have to take theirs.
I hope what we're seeing here is the beginning of a distinctive Democratic approach to the problems posed by radical Islam, with its own grand story about how we're going to win. Being able to promise that you'll lead America to victory is very important in rallying people around your foreign policy, and one of the reasons why perceived Republican advantages on foreign policy lasted as long as they did, even in the face of wanton dishonesty and catastrophic blunders, was that Republicans kept making the promise of victory in Iraq. Democrats had to face up to the truth that Iraq was collapsing into disaster, and they were too conscientious to make any similarly grand and impossible promises. But plans like the one Edwards expresses here credibly promise victory in the larger struggle of which the Iraq War was supposed to be a part. It's how we triumphed over Communism, and it's how we're going to triumph over Islamic extremism too.
The reason I've given this post such a grandiose title is that global poverty is the biggest problem in the world. Serious though they are, our problems with militant Islam pale before the enormous scale of suffering due to malnutrition, preventable disease, and the other consequences of crushing poverty. Getting America to devote some share of its massive resources to this problem as the best means of waging a general campaign against anti-American extremism would change millions of lives, and be an event of great significance in human history.
March 17, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
But... but... but... educating 23 million children might cost somewhere around 120 billion dollars...
Incidentally, the cost of the Iraq War now may be reaching 2.5 trillion, according to a new study.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Mar 17, 2007 6:56:45 AM
It's much too early on a Saturday morning. I read this:
John Edwards on Thursday outlined his plan to tackle global poetry that calls for educating 23 million children in poor countries and creating a Cabinet-level position to oversee other initiatives.
And it made sense, and I was nodding my head in approval, and then I had to stop, shake my head, and read it again...
Posted by: Adam Piontek | Mar 17, 2007 7:45:13 AM
While I agree with the goal, I hate the idea of creating new cabinet level offices for every new idea that comes along. There's already a cabinet level post to handle this. USAID is the obvious place to start, and they report up through State. Well, theoretically they're independent, with "foreign policy guidance" from State, but it works out the same.
Of course many people around the world believe USAID sometimes also reports up through CIA, but that's going to be the belief about any US agency, whether that's true or not.
I understand the symbology of creating a new cabinet position, but really, 15 is enough.
Posted by: MikeJ | Mar 17, 2007 8:04:32 AM
Absolutely worthy goal and worthy undertaking. Now, the turd in the punchbowl.
We've got a fiscal elephant in the room, it's called Iraq and dammnit, it wants money. Chances are, whoever wins in '08 will not only gain office, they'll get to be codpiece in chief for george's war. Oh, and they'll have to pay for it. Oh, and they'll be saddled all the other buckets of shit george has strewn through our national house. So frankly, while national security is enormous issue and I agree with your take that this measure would go a long ways to addressing that, do you really think that we'll be spending billions on it before we clean our own schools, our own VA hospitals and well...everything else?
Posted by: ice weasel | Mar 17, 2007 9:03:04 AM
-I think Edwards has been pretty clear that he may well be running a deficit. I think there's a good case to be made that America's problems (and hte world's problems, many caused by America) are so pressing right now that strict deficit reduction does not have the force of imperative that it may have had during the 90s. When you have to clean up after the worst presidency at least since Wilson, you're going to need cash, and lots of it.
-Given that we haven't seen the budget, it's really hard to know how much this will cost. I think that as a political matter, it behooves radicals and liberals not to fall for the neolib trap of "no, this idea is socialism! expensive socialism!" When things resembling budgets come out and people start really cruching the numbers, we should make sure they add up. but let's not go in ahead of time with the assumption that the neolibs are right, and grand projects of economic justice are ipso facto untenable.
Posted by: DivGuy | Mar 17, 2007 9:09:50 AM
It's always a popular ploy to propose an increase in government. Few get elected by stating that they will be saving money or shrinking government.
And while the goal to help world poverty is a nice thought, when Edwards says this, it feels like the answer Miss America gives when asked what she would wish for if she only had one wish.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 17, 2007 9:45:57 AM
Dems should heartily support such a move and provide funding amidst pressing other priorities, but because it is right, not just that it makes national security sense.
No proposal on poverty across the globe makes good sense however if it doesn't include a similar determination to greatly reduce the effects of poverty on our own children here in the US - where we perpetuate inequality of opportunity for generation after generation.
Health care is an obvious place to start, here and abroad, and the proposals of some congressional Dems to deal with the US health care issues for children through universal insurance coverage expansion are worthy of non-partisan support (although the Repubs will claim we shouldn't for various non-substantative reasons.) And we can't fail to address universal health care for adults, in one form or another, early in the post-Bush years.
The large animal in the room that noone wants to talk about (that leaves piles of crap of stupendous proportions in its wake), is that our national priorities are way out of sensible balance. We are way overspent on military affairs, even without the Iraq War, and underspent on the other aspects of our national needs. Who will finally make that case?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 17, 2007 10:28:19 AM
Good for him. I'm definitely leaning towards Edwards. What would seal the deal for him, or really for any candidate, would be support of the Sanders climate bill.
Posted by: Sam L. | Mar 17, 2007 10:30:22 AM
Maybe if you rich liberals should donate your own wealth to this cause instead of forcing all of us to pay it.
Posted by: joe blow | Mar 17, 2007 10:54:23 AM
BTW, I'm sure there are many 3rd world government bureaucrats that started rubbing their hands together and smiling when they heard about Edward's proposal.
If I'm some 3rd level govt bureaucrat in an african shithole making $5k US per year, getting my hands on those millions sounds pretty good.
Posted by: joe blow | Mar 17, 2007 10:56:20 AM
Sounds like a nice idea but I think he's got the wrong root cause. The cause of the problem is corrupted institution in these countries. Instill proper institutions, and proper education may follow.
Posted by: DM | Mar 17, 2007 11:04:44 AM
And how would you go about doing that, DM?
Having a financially independent and educated populace through building schools, increasing agricultural productivity for small farmers, empowering women through education and micro-loans and other extra-governmental uses of foreign aid would create a force for government reform, without giving money to the governments themselves.
The only other plan I've ever heard to "instill proper institutions" was executed in Iraq, and didn't go so well.
Posted by: Sam L. | Mar 17, 2007 11:16:38 AM
Don't we already give billions to the world's poor for food and education? And they are still taught to hate us. How would Edward's plan be any different?
I guarentee right now US taxpayer money is purchasing books that have Israel "wiped off the map" and the teachers leading those classes are praising terrorists and teaching the children that America is the "great satan" and the cause of all the world's problems.
I am sure they will take the extra money, but nothing else will change. Do you think they'll allow observers in the classes(if that was feasible) or change their curriculum to be more friendly to America?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 17, 2007 11:21:57 AM
Sam L.
I don't know.
I agree with your following point. I just don't think it will work. Unless there’s a way we can circumvent the corruption, the money is DOA.
Edwards’ has a nice idea in theory, not in practice, but it’s good for campaign season.
Posted by: DM | Mar 17, 2007 11:32:47 AM
The large animal in the room that noone wants to talk about (that leaves piles of crap of stupendous proportions in its wake), is that our national priorities are way out of sensible balance. We are way overspent on military affairs, even without the Iraq War, and underspent on the other aspects of our national needs.
I like Edwards, but I doubt very much that he has the cajones to say this, even though it kind of seems like he believes it.
The simple fact is that our military budget is out of control. And this is because it has no real check. Even self-proclaimed deficit hawks or small-government conservatives like Glenn Reynolds never complain about the ludicrousness of our military spending - no, we've got to cut down on pork-barrel spending! We'll call ourselves the Porkbusters! Yay! Just ignore the fact that the military is the biggest pork-barrel project on the face of the Earth, and that the other pork-barrel money that these people are going after is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall federal budget.
Posted by: Jason | Mar 17, 2007 11:35:11 AM
There is no question that poverty / lack of hope / poor education are major contributors to the ability of radical Islam groups to recruit new members. New members who will willing give their life for "the cause".
This said, how does the economic program address muslim fundamentalism when the economic factors are not the root cause or consideration:
- Why is it that when you look around the world, most of the current conflicts involve muslims?
- Why is it ok to murder people because of a newspaper cartoon? (Denmark 2006)
- Why is it ok to protest by burning cars and property because the overall economy is suffering (France 2006)
- Why is it ok to protest writings that offend you by threatening to kill the author (Salman Rushdie)?
- Why is blowing up nightclubs and trains and acceptable form of protest (Indonesia and Spain)?
- Where is the worldwide MUSLIM condemation of these acts? For all the countries that have large Muslim populations that are not economically depressed, where are these people in denoucing Islam fundamentalists or in helping their foreign brethren?
It appears that the majority of the democrats (and folks on this blog) believe that if we just leave the muslims alone and throw in a few billion dollars of economic aid, they will peacably go about their business. Based on the history of muslim fundamentalism, this is wishful thinking.
Posted by: m | Mar 17, 2007 11:45:11 AM
I love that in Edwards but...
What really turns me on is that he and Elizabeth are
with a very high likelihood...civil libertarians.
This might well be a man both very skilled in Law but also willing to see - himself - to diminution of [his own] Presidential powers.
To find us more equity in governance, to make a GWB- style horror less likely ...no matter the idiot for whom American voters choose.
Posted by: has_te | Mar 17, 2007 12:04:03 PM
While I believe that education is the pathway to success, I think Edwards idea is sort of lame. First of all, do we think that Saudi Arabia is just going to let the US walk in and set up schools to distribute what they see as propaganda? Secondly, many of the terrorists are already educated in American universities. Third, how does his stance on global poverty jibe with his views on outsourcing? Shouldn't someone concerned with global poverty want these people to have jobs, even if they were once American jobs?
The reason these people hate us is not so much that they are uneducated but that they are frustrated by lack opportunity. Their frustration is easily directed at the US by the corrupt leaders of their own countries in order to avoid scrutiny or accountability.
Posted by: Just Karl | Mar 17, 2007 12:06:43 PM
I know the remark was less than earnest, Phoenician, but I just wanted to point out that because everything is cheaper in the Third World, we'd probably be spending a lot less than the American $4K per kid. Given the greater utility of Marshall Plans over Vietnams in our current situation, I'd be more than happy to eliminate some contractor-bribe-influenced defense pork to pay for it.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Mar 17, 2007 12:12:20 PM
Secondly, many of the terrorists are already educated in American universities.
One of my first thoughts when I read this post was "weren't the 9/11 hijackers highly educated?”
Frankly, when I first read this, I was thinking Africa, not the Middle East. I think he may be blending the 2 to be a bleeding heart while showing strength. Isn’t Egypt and Saudi Arabia full of highly education, unemployed young adults?
Posted by: DM | Mar 17, 2007 12:25:16 PM
It's always a popular ploy to propose an increase in government. Few get elected by stating that they will be saving money or shrinking government.
Apart from, you know, Reagan and Bush - who both increased the debt and expanded the government.
But the answer is fairly simple - take 10-15% from the military budget and dedicate it to "uplift".
So frankly, while national security is enormous issue and I agree with your take that this measure would go a long ways to addressing that, do you really think that we'll be spending billions on it before we clean our own schools, our own VA hospitals and well...everything else?
You're spending hundreds of billions on security already - literally. Most of this is in the form of things that go fast and kill people - and they're not solving your problems.
Maybe if you rich liberals should donate your own wealth to this cause instead of forcing all of us to pay it.
Tell you what, joe, how about a check-box in the IRS form allowing people to choose contributing to this or the military for their share of taxes? That way, liberals can pay for it all - and conservatives can pay for the army they love throwing about so much...
Don't we already give billions to the world's poor for food and education? And they are still taught to hate us. How would Edward's plan be any different?
The US is niggardly when it comes to overseas aid, and tends to lump in actual support with transfer payments to US companies and military/security "aid". One real thing it could do is retire Third World debt and start targetting activity to work that could be done by locals rather than US consultants - more bang for the buck.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Mar 17, 2007 12:42:02 PM
The promise to fund our commitments to the Millennium Development Goals, including universal primary education, is good, since we're already committed to them. The cabinet level thing doesn't mean much. I don't see much new here in substance, but it's good he's talking about it. I suspect that Edwards isn't going to be able to pay for all the things he's promising, not even with deficits. There isn't going to be that much appetite for raising taxes, which we'll have to do for several huge programs, and there's only going to be so much support for deficits.
Seeking to link poverty in other countries to U.S. national security
"Seeking to link" is a good way to put it. The link to terrorism is weak, and it's been shown to be weak so many times that I'm surprised to see it here. As JK points out, most terrorists do receive primary education, and many receive a good deal more. They aren't terrorists because they're poor or lack education. There would be some sense to trying to fund alternatives to madrassas in some countries, but that would be because we don't like madrassas, not because the kids aren't being educated. And, as JK mentions, the countries where most terrorists come from probably won't be all that free in letting us provide alternative education. The link to terrorism and national security in general is a way to try to justify this to American who might not otherwise be so enthusiastic, I'm sure, but I don't see it working very well.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 17, 2007 12:54:34 PM
When most Americans think 24% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, and still think that could stand an increase, either a.) as a nation we can't do math or b.) Edwards is onto something.
I'm surpried no one's asking why 24% of the federal budget doent have a 'Department of Something' spending it.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Mar 17, 2007 12:56:02 PM
"The US is niggardly when it comes to overseas aid, and tends to lump in actual support with transfer payments to US companies and military/security 'aid'".
It may be correct to say the "The US Government is niggardly ...", but when you add all of the private donations to the mix -- Red Cross, Outreach International, International Aid, church organizations, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. (the list is literally to long to list), the US moves well above niggardly. Some might suggest down right generous -- but that doesn't fit into the story of needing the federal government to "do something" you are looking for.
Posted by: m | Mar 17, 2007 1:21:00 PM
Good to see you back, m.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 17, 2007 1:25:23 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
