Provoking Thoughts...

Kiva's Troubles...

Ahhh…global citizenship. What does that term mean? Defining the term global citizen affects the debate as to whether such a goal is obtainable, or reasonable. The strength, and weakness, of the concept of a global citizen, is that every individual has a different opinion as to what constitutes a global citizen, and how they should act.

I don’t define a global citizen as someone who puts others before themselves. Martydom is, by definition, an unsustainable economic model. What is important is a recognition that economics is not a zero-sum game and that responsibility for actions is not a concept that pertains only to individuals, but also to companies and nations.

Andrew Leonard posted an entry in How The World Works, on July 17, 2008 that illustrates some of the concerns about the idea of global citizenship. Kiva.org, an internet micro-finance company provides loans to individuals in developing countries and by doing so, makes it’s lender’s money (with risk) and helps to develop economic infrastructure in developing countries. However, Kiva has recently been having problems with loans defaulting in Africa:

“Kiva has been forced to shut down operations with five different local field agencies, three in Kenya, one in Cote d'Ivoire, and one in Uganda. The reasons have ranged from mismanagement and misrepresentation to outright fraud, but Flannery writes that there is something of a common theme:

'Behind each of these break-ups, there is a story. Usually, there lies a patriarchal figure who viewed his organization as an extension of himself and a Kiva which was way too naive.”

On the surface, it is a perfect example of starry–eyed idealists having their goals crushed by the harshness of reality. Yes, Kiva was naïve; it is an arrogant, and misguided notion to feel that a single idea or organization will alight in Africa and “clean up” all the problems that have accrued over 200 years of colonialization, corruption, and warfare. But Kiva was also correct. The concept of micro-finance as a mechanism for broad economic and social change can still be sound.

Any sort of progress will have missteps; life, unfortunately, is not a steady linkage of successes. Kiva’s ideas, however, can still ultimately prove transformational and an important step toward "middle-finance", or SME's.

So, what does Kiva have to do with global citizenry? I think they are an excellent example of what a global citizen can be, and the problems that a global citizen can encounter.

By helping others to succeed Kiva creates markets where there weren’t any previously, and promotes the creation of new products and ideas. Corruption and crime will be problems in all of the developing economies (and the developed ones) around the world. Kiva’s experience is unfortunate, but not surprising. Like any business, they will adapt to the environment, readjust their plans and proceed.

That is what is asked of any business, or any entity in this world; to behaving responsibly on a global scale...ie. to be a global citizen.

-SWL

Why Obama Will Win

Pundits, Politician, Wonks, and Columnists can dissect and analyze campaign platforms, values, economic and health plans ad nauseum and it won't do any good. In the end, a presidential election is too chaotic, too convoluted, and too complex for logic to win. People end up voting with their gut.

Although elections should be about substance over style, they haven't actually evolved past a sixth grade popularity contest. We learned that with JFK versus Nixon and had it proven again, and again by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. It's even the reason Bush Jr. was elected. He was the candidate the voters wanted to have a beer with. Obama is that candidate this time... well, a beer, or a cappuccino.

An ideal polling demographic for this "Friend Factor" is... children. Who has the "coolness" to captivate the kids? Between McCain and Obama, everyone knows the answer, and it doesn't bode well for McCain.

This link demonstrates it better than I can.

-SWL

In Defence of a Global Citizenry

James Poulos blogs at DoubleThink Oniline and wrote an entry about the logical and moral folly of Obama's call for "global citizenship."

His points are elegantly excoriated in a growing commentary section. Here is a paragraph excerpted from his post:

Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is an absurdity, the absurdity of the human condition, and the most utopian of all utopian ideas is the idea of a Brotherhood of Man: because the human race is not a family, just like it isn’t one big polity. We are stuck with differentiation; there is no metaphor that allows us to redefine humanity as a closer relationship than it is. That doesn’t mean we can’t be friends. Indeed, the only trope that allows us to develop closer amicable relationships with strangers is the trope of friendship, and the only way to close the relationship with a stranger is to make friends. Not to ‘make citizens’; not to ‘make brothers’. This is crazy European talk — the discredited language of the bloody French and German experiments in various kinds of border-busting solidarity

Nice, subtle reference to Nazi's at the end. Always a solid way to prove your point.

He misses on a couple points, first that friendship isn't the only trope, or metaphor, capable of accurately describing relationships with strangers, what about a "business partner." The world is more economically intertwined than during any other time in history and it becomes more so every day. Countries and governments try to slow this change with tariffs and other trade limitations, with incomplete success. It is this selfish, economic drive that will propel countries around the world to cooperate, not high falutin' moral goals of a utopian humanity.

His second shortcoming is in reference to "strangers" only being able to relate through "friendship." That doesn't make sense. Strangers would be more likely to be interested in a business partnership and less likely to want to be "friends." Even, for argument's sake, assuming he is correct, there are still a couple flaws with this.

First, he assumes that the people of the world will always be "strangers" with each other. That was true when the philosophers and politicians that Poulos emulates wrote their ideas. Even 25 years ago, communication and travel was onerous enough to make a "world view" a rare commodity. That is no longer the case. Secondly, once two people become "friends" their outlook on competition and cooperation with each other changes. This fundamentally affects how they will work together. He belief that strangers can become friends, but friends can not act as "citizens" doesn't seem to sense.

Perhaps, at the heart of this debate is the definition of "citizen." Poulos implies that a global citizen somehow sheds all personal concern and only looks at the world with an unselfish, idealistic view. Others (Reagan, Bush Jr., Obama) view a global citizen as an entity that continues to work in their own best interests, but recognizes that more can be accomplished working with others, than alone. Sometimes that may mean giving, in order to receive, after all, compromise is the heart of realpolitik.

-SWL

Obama's Speech in Berlin

I just watched Obama’s Berlin speech on youtube.com and I think we can expect more complaining from McCain’s followers about Obama’s empty rhetoric.

Unfortunately for McCain supporters the speech was, as we’ve come to expect, outstanding. In fact, the speech was so good, the only method they have for attacking it is to claim it is full of empty promises and unworkable solutions.

In just over twenty five minutes, Obama solidifies his position as a international political powerhouse with more than enough presence and prestige to shoulder the mantle of President of the United States. At the end, even if one disagrees with his views, there is no doubt that Obama can command respect on an international stage.

However, if republicans choose to decry Obama’s speech for its lack of prescriptive content, they won’t be wrong. The speech was not a “step-by-step” breakdown for international problem solving. However, what it did accomplish, in a very public way, was to extend a hand to Europe and to offer cooperation as a paradigm for the future.

It is this outlook that, interestingly, provides division between Americans. For many, Bush’s go-it-alone, “bring-it-on” style of diplomacy was, and still is, exceptionally appealing. It is the quintessential expression of American individualism, ruggedness, and patriotism all mixed together and poured for the media with a twist of Texan drawl. If it had worked, it would have made an entire nation feel drunkenly omnipotent.

However, it didn’t work and Obama, with some humility, spoke not just to Germans, but to the world, describing how today's problems are too great for any one country to confront.

I think he is correct. The increasing ease of transportation and the increasing ease of information flow means that all problems, including those previously considered local, such as the political deterioration of Zimbabwe, rioting monks in Myanmar, or the economic frailties of Latin America, are global ones.

We have moved into a new era, one where the world isn’t dominated by one or two super powers. Whoever is elected to lead the United States should, in turn, have America lead the world as a responsible global citizen.

-SWL