Many consider this economic crisis to mark the beginning of the end of America’s reign as a superpower. Our profligate ways have been exposed unsustainable, our once commanding voice has attenuated in the global landscape, and our workers are losing their livelihoods to emerging countries. I agree that things will be forever different; that we have squandered our status. But I also believe we are on the precipice of a new age of American exceptionalism. An America that redefines how the world consumes energy; that restores justice and enfranchisement to its people; that is rooted by a world class education system. An America that is, once again, a beacon of hope for the world’s weary and a vanguard for good.
But the current state of the nation is a dire one. Emerging economies are growing rapidly at double digit rates buttressed by billion strong workforces. Our perennially poor performing public education system has increased the reliance on international talent to spur innovation and investment. But as the rest of the world catches up to the American standard, our appeal to the best and brightest slowly diminishes. And while the most ambitious and fortuitous American’s may be able to stay above the fray, those less so will no longer be able to succeed simply on the ethos of hard work, a long standing tenet of realizing the American dream. Without intervention, there is no reason to believe that America’s dominance can sustain into the distant future.
The most fundamental purpose of government is to protect and defend its citizens. Although many adhere strictly to the original drafters’ explicit definition of defense, I believe it carries a much broader interpretation. Our founding fathers did not consider the economic threat to American workers from low income Chinese laborers. They were not aware that a financial collapse could threaten the future of America. They did not imagine citizens could be denied the right to healthcare. Simply said, they could not envision the importance the government’s role to the continued well being of our nation.
Healthcare
The foremost definition of protection comes in the form of the healthcare. We cannot demand the best from our workers when they are burdened by the uncertainty of survival. For many, this means the inability to pay for past medical treatments; for others, postponement of necessary treatment altogether. While the government cannot and should not be the answer to every problem, neither is the free market. Though it is convenient to criticize the market in today’s economic climate, there are many instances in which the market seems to lack the requisite mechanisms to be the sole solution. One such instance is healthcare. It is my belief that healthcare is a right of every human being and that there is something fundamentally wrong about the intersection of profits and and an individual’s health. The corporations will always find a way to maximize the bottom line and in this industry, it is at the direct expense of the patient. It seems unconscionable that one could be deprived of care or excessively charged because of pre-existing conditions. Yet the market has no provision, no obligation to serve everyone in the market. Consequently, we need government intervention to ensures the right of access, just as the Department of Agriculture ensures the right to safe food. Still, for some the current, unreformed system remains financially out of reach. Many scoff at the idea of government subsidization of healthcare, but if the core purpose of government is to protect the people I can imagine no more appropriate use of taxpayer money than to preserve the right to health.
Investment in Education and Industry
Globalization has proved itself a harsh mistress. She pays no heed to the well being of one country over another nor gives any consideration to legacy performers. And during periods of peril, it is the job of a nation’s government to preserve and ensure the continued well being of its citizens. While there is only so much a government should do and will be allowed to do (by other nations) to economically shield its citizens from periods of transition, it can initiate public projects to promote domestic job growth by investing in new technologies. The precedence has been set by FDR in the New Deal, which led to one of the greatest economic expansions in US history and effectively created what we recognize as today’s middle class. Some may criticize this as unnecessarily meddlesome, but export controls, trade agreements and subsidies have long been instruments of the global economic tableaux. A federally funded “Manhattan Project” for alternative energy will simultaneously create thousands of jobs, staunch the flow of money to the petrol-dictatorships and sponsors of terrorism, and possibly reverse the sobering effects of global climate change. Furthermore, it will situate America as the leader of world’s next breakthrough technology.
But just as the automobile, personal computer, and internet revolution drove 20th century America, we will need a similar stream of innovation to propel America into the 21st century and beyond. But to continue the age of American exceptionalism, the government must do more to prepare its citizens to compete with their foreign counterparts in an increasingly fierce job market. Today, our secondary education system ranks near the bottom when compared against other industrialized nations. It is disingenuous to believe we can maintain our status when we leave posterity behind. History has proven that change will not come from the state level. The majority of public school funding comes from the revenue generated by local property taxes. Under this system, it is not hard to see why students from low income neighborhoods fail to close the achievement gap between themselves and their peers from more affluent households. Vouchers gained prominence in the Reagan era and their failures have relegated the idea to nothing more than a relic today. Though students may shift from one school to another, it fails to address the scarce supply of skilled teachers. Under the current system, public schools lack the leverage to attract the brightest to teach our children. The government must provide incentives for our gifted students to enter programs like Teach for America and provide funds to attract qualified graduates to teaching positions. Only with a strong educational foundation can we ensure generational success of this country.
How We’ll Do It
At this point, I hope I have made the case that the continued prosperity of America will rely on the increased involvement of the federal government. But it would be irresponsible and duplicitous to advocate these changes without acknowledging the source of revenue: taxes. While no member of society should be exempt from paying taxes, I do believe that people who benefit greatly from our system should be expected to contribute more than those who do not.
It is a truism that the individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own destiny, but I do not believe that the system is equally favorable to every individual. Economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman famously said, ”There is no excuse for an economic system that treats people like objects, except that, as Churchill said of democracy, capitalism is the worst system known except all those others that have been tried from time to time.” The current economic crisis is an excellent example of the inherent inequities of this system. A worker who contributes to his pension for his entire career can lose that money because of an fund manager’s greed and poor decision making. Yet, as evidenced by the $700 billion bail out plan, the rich can utilize society to share a disproportionate amount of risk to amass windfall profits. Economist Nouriel Roubini best summed it up with the statement, “We’re essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and…losses socialized.” Accepting that this is the system that we have used, currently use, and will continue to use, why is it so reprehensible to expect greater contributions from these members of society?
Some may make the argument that taxation is not limited to the CEOs and executives; that the small business owners will also be asked to contribute more of their earnings. Extrapolate that further and it prompts the most salient question of all is “Why should anyone forfeit any of his or her hard earned dollars to these programs?” This is a difficult question to answer and fundamentally divides the two major political parties. I find that war, especially given recent events, to be the most appropriate analogy. Many consider the War on Terror to be a necessary expenditure to preserve the well being of this nation. Could the same claim be made about our education system? Thomas Jefferson is often quoted saying “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Few would argue there is a nobler sacrifice than to send our sons and daughter in defense of our nation. Yet apportioning a part one’s income to protect and serve the welfare of the public is often criticized as unpatriotic or Un-American.
Nevertheless a fatal flaw in the argument remains. It assumes that government will actually produce the results as intended. This is the part where I ask for a leap of faith. Inherent in this leap of faith is the belief that I am no longer the sole benefactor of my labors; that my neighbor’s well being affects my well being; that my support of these programs is an implicit referendum on my fellow Americans. This is a crucial and necessary step to rebuilding our country. Its challenges will not be solved by funding alone. They require by a fundamental shift in the way Americans view one another. “United we stand, divided we fall.” Never has this aphorism rang truer.

