Mar 22, 2020 5 min read

Despite the rapid expansion of modern science and the new technologies of the information age, our nation remains subject to events that are unpredictable and catastrophic. These events can destroy decades of economic, political and social advancement with little warning and devastating results. They can challenge our democratic principles and send us into domestic tribal warfare as we begin to doubt who we are as a people.

In recent years, such events have led to the rise of populist nationalism. Many in the American middle class have rightfully felt threatened by these unexpected events and betrayed by the solutions advanced by the political elites. They have come to believe that retrenchment will offer them protection, limit the damage to their economic welfare and improve their social standing.

Paradoxically, turning outward toward international solutions would offer better solutions to these events for the vast majority of Americans than turning inward with an “America first” prospective. This commentary will explore my thesis.

First consider the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The early days of the George W. Bush presidency were an optimistic time of unprecedented American global growth and influence both militarily and economically. No nation was in a position to challenge our hegemony. Liberal democracy was on the rise. Protectionism was being replaced by free trade and transnational integrated systems. Then a group of extremists operating from one of the poorest countries in the world successfully hijacked four planes and everything changed.

According to a 2018 report from Brown University, the total cost to the United States from 9/11 was at that time $5.93 trillion. The attack also led to the War on Terror, the largest government spending program in U.S. history. In 2020 we continue to feel the economic and emotional effects of the attack as we attempt to negotiate our way out of America’s longest war in Afghanistan.

The next event to challenge the middle class was the great recession of 2008. Subprime mortgage loans and lack of financial regulation were directly responsible for this destructive economic disaster.

According to the Department of Labor, roughly 8.7 million jobs (about 7%) were shed from February 2008 to February 2010, and real GDP contracted by 4.2% between Q4 2007 and Q2 2009, making the Great Recession the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Unable to obtain financing, major financial institutions either merged or declared bankruptcy.

The country has rebounded in many ways from the Great Recession, but we are also more unequal, less vibrant, less productive, poorer, and sicker than it would have been had the crisis been less severe. Economists have found its aftermath remains most pronounced on the middle class where jobs were washed away, often by employers using the recession as an opportunity to fire workers and invest in alternatives.

In recent weeks a third unpredictable event has caused further economic and social pain as we have experienced the worldwide outbreak of the coronavirus. This epidemiological disaster has shut down large sectors of the economy, sent us home to shelter in place and placed unprecedented strains on our medical system. For the third time in two decades, the middle class is under pressure from unemployment and loss of retirement savings.

In the face of these three outsized threats – terrorism against the Homeland, economic collapse caused by profit seeking financial institutions and now, a worldwide viral pandemic – it is difficult to blame Americans for supporting more isolation.

Unfortunately, this approach is short sighted and will further cripple the country in the long run. Building a wall at our Southern border will not make our country safer. Fighting with our allies over funding against terrorism and withdrawing from international organizations and treaties will not help prevent the next attack. International cooperation offers the best prospects for homeland security.

On financial matters, it is impossible to ignore the integrated nature of the world economy. It is a pipe dream to believe that long gone manufacturing and industrial production can be resurrected within our borders to provide domestic employment. Tariffs and trade wars injure middle class consumers and farmers. Moreover, if Europe or China suffer economic reversals, the American economy will not escape the consequences of financial chaos.

Regarding the coronavirus, the first response of our elected leaders to isolate the country from a growing pandemic did not work. Infectious diseases do not honor national borders and by their very nature demand worldwide cooperation in order to limit their spread. Refusing to accept tests for the virus from the World Health Organization have place our response weeks behind the curve by making it impossible to target break-out areas.

My point in all of this is that the middle class has been harmed by a series of unlucky, “black swan” events. However, the way back is not to be found in attempting to turn America into a self-sufficient economy with closed borders. When the coronavirus crisis is over, nuclear proliferation, the displacement of millions of people into refugee camps and climate change are but three other issues that require immediate United States involvement on an international scale.

In the end open-mindedness on world events and leadership in international affairs will best serve the interests of the middle class and all future generations. I am not advocating an over-the-top globalist prospective that ignores the importance of love of country and the local communities that give our lives meaning. Nevertheless, to face the problems that threaten our way of life, we must also look outward and stay engaged.

In collaborating with other nations to save the world from terrorism, recession and pandemics, we will save America.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.