Nation must not accept simplistic solutions
Whether someone considers himself aligned with the left, right, or somewhere else along the political spectrum, there is at least one topic upon which we all can agree: our country faces intricate challenges. That seems to be the point at which agreement ceases, and finger-pointing starts. If there is to be any expectation of progress toward a more perfect union, there first must be a shared understanding of the situation we face, and how it came to be.
Following World War II, well-paying, unskilled jobs were plentiful, and the cost of living and inflation were relatively low. Industries like mining and manufacturing provided salaries sufficient to support middle-class families. But postwar prosperity did not endure. The 1970s demonstrated the danger of dependence on foreign oil. Debt was amassed in the 1980s, and developing nations became a more cost-effective location for many manufacturers. Combined with a revolution in technology and automation, manual laborers in America found themselves unemployed.
It has been said that success has many fathers, and failure is an orphan. So just as governments took responsibility for the good times, we have consequently placed blame upon elected officials for the bad times. Despite a diversity of approaches from a variety of people, postwar levels of prosperity could not be recreated in this new global economy. And events like the subprime mortgage crisis, the subsequent bailout of Wall Street, and protracted military adventurism in response to the 9/11 attacks only exacerbated a crisis of confidence in our institutions of government and the people who try to make the system function.
Our collective loss of faith in the political system may or may not be justified, but degraded confidence exists regardless. This has created the conditions for an overall mistrust of anyone considered to be an expert, a member of the elite, or part of the establishment.
As 19th century history shows us, this is the atmosphere in which populism thrives. Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, describes populism as pitting a pure people against a corrupt elite. Additionally, Jan Werner-Mueller, a political scientist at Princeton University, explains that populists are characterized by their assertion that a single narrative, of which they have sole control, is the only legitimate representation or voice of the people. The populist believes in a basic, black-and-white version of a world that actually exists in gray areas. The populist penchant for blaming bogeymen for a society’s problems is as convenient and easily digestible as it is counter-productive, inaccurate, and devoid of the essential and inherent complexities and interactions that define the modern world.
Populism feeds people’s legitimate – albeit causally misattributed – fears. Whether the folks peddling populism are deliberately employing it as an unfortunately effective political tactic, or somehow believe their unsophisticated solutions to be viable, they offer up seemingly suitable scapegoats to explain away social, political, and economic concerns: unemployment and poverty, terrorism, crime, corruption, or the perceived moral decline of society. But blaming individuals, or the groups to which they belong, is not the answer to addressing systemic shifts in the way the world works.
Just as fast food is quick and convenient but incredibly costly if overdone in the long run, developing the best options for the longevity of a society is akin to preparing healthy meals. Both require some research, effort, and an investment of time. In either case, whether it is buying groceries or crafting policies, the right course of action is not always the instant, discount approach. Anything but the deliberate and thoughtful input of energy and persistence is a recipe for disaster.
As a nation, we must not accept simplistic solutions to complex challenges, as enticing as they may be. Let us build bridges instead of barriers. Let us face the risk that the world is as dangerous as advertised, and still dare to commit to openness and inclusion, because that is what we strive to be and symbolize. For the sake of our economic and political longevity, this is not the time for the United States of America to retreat behind a literal or figurative wall.
Globalization is a fact, and a condition we must accept. We can greet it as an opportunity to lead innovation and adaptation, to rethink and relearn and reinvent and reinvigorate. Or we can futilely dig our heels in as it drags us along for the ride. We can invest in sensible public infrastructure, education, and immigration policies. Or we can invest our energy in assigning blame, perpetuating exclusionary thinking, and lazily accepting short-term solutions that will only exacerbate other issues. For the final line of the first stanza of the national anthem ends with an interrogation, not a declaration.
By allowing ourselves to be baited by populist fear, are we upholding the bold vision and intent of our country as the land of the free, and the home of the brave? As we ponder this question, let us remember who we are, and what we represent.
McCormick is a 2009 graduate of Washington High School and a 2013 graduate of Colgate University, with a degree in history. He is an active duty U.S. Marine officer, and his opinions are his own and do not reflect the views of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense or the Marine Corps.