If I was forced, on the spot, to decide how to change domestic content rules, I would say they should be loosened, but gradually over time and not by an overly large amount.
The first point I would consider is the nature of putting more cars into the world. To the best of my knowledge, personal transportation vehicles make up a significant percent of world oil use and world greenhouse emission. Strengthening domestic content rules would lead to an increase in car prices, reducing the number of new cars entering the road each year, and perhaps reducing some amount of carbon emissions from these vehicles. This prospect is appealing, yet at the same time it is important to remember the value cars can contribute to people's lives. If domestic content rules were loosened and new cars dropped in price drastically, people who otherwise would have spent hundreds of collective hours walking or taking the bus will be able to buy a car, freeing up otherwise wasted time too be invested in the economy or themselves. This goes without mentioning the increased safety of newer vehicles, and the inevitable loss of life that would result if purchasing a car became prohibitively expensive. Cars may hurt all of us on a global scale by adding to climate change, but they remain crucially important for people of all backgrounds to make a living. The pure technical sophistication required to produce a commercially viable car should not be overlooked. Doors are stamped out entirely by machines in a matter of seconds, and cars go from nonexistence to functioning vehicles in less than 24 hours as they proceed along the factory line. These feats of modern engineering should not be taken for granted, because they may not have happened without fierce competition between Japanese, European and American auto manufacturers in the past 4 decades. I believe this sort of competition not only makes industrial processes more efficient, but the resulting products safer and more in line with what consumers want. If the domestic content rules were gradually reduced, it would give American companies time to look for the innovations that would maintain their competitive advantage, without greatly hurting their sales or their long term growth. I'm not sure these comments point to any particular decision, but overall I feel like the personal benefit of cheaper cars and innovation in the industry outweighs the environmental downsides and the strain placed on American companies. (Also I've driven a Subaru Forester for the past 3 years and it has been great so maybe I'm biased)
2 Comments
I have followed far-right internet forums online for most of the last 10 years. One trend I have witnessed that I was reminded of in class this week is what I would call the "internationalization" of radical conservative discourse, by which I mean the formation of a global sphere of far-right consciousness, along with a unitary narrative that could explain transnational problems in a way that was consistent with, and a direct extension of, the American political experience. In class, I was reminded of this phenomenon by the Lake and Reynolds reading, when the authors talked about the paradoxical nature of a movement that was "at once transnational in its inspiration and identifications but nationalist in its methods and goals." (4) I think this exact description can be used to describe the populist movements sweeping around the world today. Whether in the United States, Britain, or Italy, a common thread is a sense that one's country needs to put its own interests first, and protect its own people even at the expense of others. A few assorted points on this topic:
The supreme court of my home state, Washington, ended the death penalty this week, citing racial bias in its application. One study found that Black defendants were more than four times as likely to be handed a death sentence, when compared to Whites in similar legal positions. (1)www.npr.org/2018/10/11/656570464/washington-state-strikes-down-death-penalty-citing-racial-bias
Importantly, the racial discrepancies cited by the state didn’t emerge from the conduct of prosecutors, who sought the death penalty equally across races, but rather from the decisions of juries, who approved the death penalty for Black people far more than White people. African Americans, as individuals in the judicial system, were supposed to be afforded equitable, impartial justice in front of a jury of their peers. Yet they were denied this position, treated unfairly because of the stereotypes they were ascribed by their supposed “peers.” Not only is this horribly reminiscent of the farcical White juries that sentenced Black people to death in the Jim Crow South, it exemplifies the impossible state of existence that leads to double consciousness. Consider the family members of the people unfairly sentenced to death. They are expected to respect the justice system as law-abiding Americans and allow whatever verdict is handed down to be carried out. At the same time, they know that four times out of five the person they love is being killed because of their race. They are forced to put their faith in the justice system while knowing they cannot truly access it, creating double consciousness. While ending the death penalty does not end double consciousness or unjust sentencing of African Americans, I believe the court made a good decision, and I hope that the racial dimensions of other laws will be subject to similar scrutiny going forward. In class Thursday we discussed the overlap between realist and constructivist thought. We focused on Machiavelli's idea that leaders should appear to have whatever virtues are necessary to maintain power.
The first component of Machiavelli's idea I would like to discuss is what it means to appear to have a virtue. I believe many interpretations of this term would create problems for Machiavelli's argument. For example, imagine Xi Jinping wanted to appear to be a non-revisionist, dutiful participant of the liberal world order. He might use multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organization to settle disputes, or allow the US to be present in certain discussion forums regarding the South China Sea. Yet these steps represent real contributions to the liberal world order, even if they were conceived as a way to create a desired image. Professional staff in the Chinese bureaucracy would learn the ins-and-outs of these various multilateral institutions, and might even partially buy into the norms they represent. Maintaining the appearance of the named virtues would involve constant examination of the way that China was situated within the liberal world order, as well as how other participants of the order conceived of China. An idea that was conceived from the perspective of realism might, in the end, involve a significant amount of constructivist thought and outcomes. Question
To explain why I agree with Shotter’s understanding of knowledge (from which the argument for persuasion follows without much difficulty), I would like to test it on the case of social science research. I am currently reading a book on the design of case studies in the social sciences. What has struck me so far is that the way experts should go about producing new knowledge — something I had assumed was self evident — is actually far from certain. Moreover, the way scholars decide which method to employ seems like any other social tradition. Graduate schools teach the practices that have been handed down from previous generations, students learn to make their own, independent contributions, and the surrounding landscape of thought is replicated with a new set of members taking their positions within it. What I had considered an impersonal category of knowledge appears to be partially ontological in nature. While this revelation makes social science research fertile ground for testing Shotter’s arguments, is it fair to apply his critique of the “Cartesian style of thought” (Shotter 166) to all scholarly work on the subject? What about research that isn’t neopositivist? I would contend that regardless of the design of a piece of research, it is necessarily conceived as a definite step forward in academic thought. The logic of identifying a “void” (or at least a point of interest) in the literature, aspiring to fill it, and then cataloging and producing the subsequent attempt at understanding displays the exact linear, instrumental conception of knowledge that Shotter disagrees with. If his argument is applicable, let us test some of the claims Shotter makes regarding his alternative explanation of knowledge on social science research.
Because this post is long already, I will spare you similar analysis of the other four points. After examining them myself, I found them all similarly sound as the two above. Thus, most forms of political science research, a prime example of knowledge that is commonly perceived to be objective and impartial, can be said to include the socio-ontological elements that Shotter predicts. I find this a compelling example, and a reason to agree with his argument. References: John Shotter, "Rhetoric and the Recovery of Civil Society" Book I mention - Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences Reflection week 5I. Love. Liberalism.
While I agree with many aspects of realism and constructivism, the core tenets of liberalism have a unique resonance with my understanding of the world. I believe skillful leaders can always find win-win solutions. I believe the negative aspects of human behavior can be combated by linking economic interests to peace and prosperity. Most of all, I believe that liberalization and globalization can make the world a better place. At this moment in American history, public faith in these beliefs is eroding. Both presidential candidates found it pragmatic to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, and Progressive and Trumpian pundits alike regularly inveigh against large companies and international trade (albeit for different reasons). These critiques are not without merit, but I would argue they ignore the benefits liberalization can provide. Admittedly, I come from Seattle: a place where the financial benefits of live-and-let-live capitalism are extremely visible. The combined market capitalization of the two biggest technology companies headquartered in the area (Microsoft and Amazon) is 1.854 trillion, or 1,854,000,000,000 dollars. Both companies have benefited extensively from the global economy, and the resulting wealth has benefited hundreds of thousands of people, many of them middle class. The public schools are constantly improving, construction and housing prices are lead the nation, several billion-dollar infrastructure projects are happening at once, and immigrants from all over the world are coming to be enriched by the booming industry. I know that most places do not see the same level of benefit from liberalization, and even within my city the distribution of wealth has been very unequal, but I believe growth improves people's lives in a very real way. The transformative power of self-interest that I have witnessed firsthand lies at the core of liberalism, which means the theory will always resonate with me. Should Locke's notion of tolerance be extended to members of the Flat Earth Society? Why, or why not?
I would like to circumnavigate the question before I try to answer it. Consider the case of Hinduism, a multi theistic religion. Given the common definitions of “Paganism” during Locke’s time (it might have referred to indigenous religions or polytheistic ones), it is certainly possible he meant for Hindus to be considered Pagans and, thus, tolerated. Yet this introduces ambiguity into what Locke sees as a clear distinction. While Hinduism may have many feature which entitle it to tolerance, it also cannot be entirely understood as a religion. In many Indic Languages, the accepted term for what might be called Hinduism is “hindu dharma (Hindu moral and religious law),” emphasizing the complex web of traditions and cultural practices it incorporates that would be outside the purview of a western religion. I find this disparity hard to reconcile with Locke’s arguments. Do the religious aspects of Hinduism entitle it to tolerance? Do the extra-religious aspects disqualify it? In both cases the line between Paganism and Atheism is blurred, but Locke’s phrasing suggests he includes Hinduism in his notion of tolerance. This discussion brings us back to the question of Flat Earthers. They do not claim to be a religious body of people, which, under Locke’s definition, makes them Atheists and entitled to no additional tolerance. But let me phrase the question another way:
If you think there is an answer, I would, of course, love to hear it. I found myself revisiting an earlier post on this blog while trying to write this weeks reflection. In our class discussion and blog posts this week, I realized that my peers were seeing Machiavelli's arguments through the lens of real life actions and experiences. I, on the other hand, was taking them as purely sterile and academic. When I read posts such as Vicky's, which drew part of her argument from ongoing events in her family's home country, or Blake's, which reflected on small acts of kindness shown to him by his friends, I began to realize that international relations theory cannot be confined to either international relations or theory.
My previous post I referenced above talked about the divide between personal experiences of international events and the highly-theoretical deliberations that often shape world events. What I realized during class this week, however, was that our opinions of even the most sterile theories are always-already shaped by our personal experiences. While Machiavelli or John Locke might speak in the grandest terms, it was very specific incidents brought on by specific trends that shape their ideas in the first place. Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 15: "Let us leave to one side, then, all discussions of imaginary rulers and talk about practical realities." What does he mean by this? Do you agree with him?
In Chapter 15, Machiavelli makes the pragmatic argument that rulers will either be described in the fondest terms or the harshest. He points out that it is essentially impossible to only acquire praise and not censure, and it is most important to focus on which negative traits can be assumed without losing power. Furthermore, he says that some positive traits would be a ruler's downfall if he pursued them, and some negative traits are necessary to stay in power. Given this rough summary, the simplest interpretation of the quote is that Machiavelli is framing his argument about negative traits by arguing that it is impracticable to try and emulate leaders that only exist in theory. This might seem self-evident in a book that is trying to be applicable to the real world, but I think the decision to abandon some "ideal form" of leader all together is actually quite interesting. Machiavelli is not offering a particular outcome that all aspiring leaders can hope to create, but rather a series of independent recommendations to be aspired to. One should seek to be loved or feared by one's people, to earn a reputation through conquest, or to build, in the right circumstances, fortresses. Each of these is an independent consideration, but combining them does not yield one coherent set of principles that could be followed in every case. I think this speaks to what some might call Machiavelli's "moral bankruptcy." His vision of power is amorphous, duplicitous, and yet courageous. He holds convictions about the primal strength and bravery a ruler should posses, but he also recommends self-consciousness and saving face. He talks about the foundational elements of being a leader, but never confines himself to one definition of what might be built on top of them. I agree with Machiavelli's approach in that is has clearly stuck a chord in the human spirit that never goes out of style, but I am skeptical that aspiring leaders could truly constitute themselves out of the disparate material Machiavelli provides. What I would like to reflect on this week is a contemporary example that helped me understand Machiavelli's point of view: Senator Warren's campaign for president in 2020.
I read the prince together with a friend, and we took special interest in Machiavelli's idea of the citizen-ruler. (Chapter 9) My friend is from a country where a far-left candidate recently won the presidential election, spurred to victory by the dissatisfaction of the poor, rural class. According to my friend, after this candidate took power he began to suggest bringing the army under his control and removing term limits. Two moves that can surely be described as Machiavellian. In America, Trump took power by appealing to poor, rural voters, and immediately began to target officials he felt were still loyal to Obama, attempting to capture the institutions of government by "eliminat[ing] the surviving members of the family of their previous rulers." (Machiavelli 8) Given that Trump's actions also seemed Machiavellian, I began to wonder if Machiavelli's understanding of power was inevitable. I considered the case of US Senator Elizabeth Warren, someone I associate with an ideological, optimistic interpretation of power. To summarize my understanding of her beliefs, Warren thinks progressive political action can create a country that is fundamentally equal and inclusive, but the ruling elite have corrupted the system in order to further consolidate their wealth and power. Yet, I had read an article that morning about the deals Warren was making in advance of her expected 2020 presidential campaign. The Senator, long known for her animosity towards Wall Street, has met privately with the heads of various Wall Street firms, purportedly attempting to win their loyalty or at least normalize relations. It occurs to me that this unsavory deal-making resembles Machiavelli's recommendation that new leaders commit crimes as early as possible and all at once. (30) Once again, the behavior of someone in power matched up with Machiavelli's expectations. I have not been entirely persuaded by Machiavelli's understanding of power, but I have come to realize he makes a very strong case. |
AuthorAmerican University Class of 2021. Interested in state-building and economic governance. Archives
December 2018
Categories |