Mike Navigates Reality

It is only in the past few years that the media has caught up to the idea that globalization is not an issue to support or oppose, but it is instead a truth to accept or deny. The conversation has shifted from protectionism/internationalism debate to one about how best to manage the inevitable changes that we are incurring. Society is changing on many fronts, not only toward a global economy, but also in the physical makeup of cities. Even the corporate news outlets are picking up on urbanization.

With this in mind, I found Dan Koeppel’s piece on bananas a fitting illustration of the times to come. As the market for bananas represents a shockingly backward artifice, so too does the current arrangement of the global economy, in which everyday necessities produced thousands of miles away are more accessible than comparable things produced within walking distance. This is changing in a painful way. Another parallel to be drawn is the susceptibility of bananas due to homogeneity. The same can be pointed to the state of affairs in the global economy, which has hinged so heavily on the consumption of the US. Now it would be easy to view this as a bleak forecast, especially considering the fate of the Gros Michel banana, but, as we’ve come to accept globalization, we will also accept regionalism as an agent of greater diversity. In fact, while we worry about the price of bananas and other perishables from abroad, we could just as easily see these price hikes as a much-needed counterbalance to the woes of the globalizing economy.

Regionalization, by which self-sustaining economies exist within national and global structures, is not an abstract solution never to be realized, but instead something of imminence. Unfortunately, some places are much better equipped for this than others, due largely to the intellectual capital they’ve accrued and the adaptability of their respective populations. Bill Bishop’s discussion on bloggingheads offers some insight, as he outlines the growing disparity between cities and regions in this clip. Of course, this seems to be obvious when you look at the direction of the economy for the past 30 years. We are far beyond believing that the US can return to being a leading exporter of low-tech goods and produce. To the contrary, we’ve been steadily heading the opposite direction. We get more of our goods and food from overseas, while the industrial base withers at home. Some cities are still feeling the sting of this, lacking the social mobility and political wherewithal to adjust. Other places have moved quickly to embrace the global economy, almost to a fault. Now, as the weaknesses of an over-connected system become apparent, we are ebbing some and seeking to strengthen local economies, though certainly by different means than in the past. Successful cities in the future will export knowledge and technology while self-sustaining in terms of low-tech goods and food. These places will shift away from buying trinkets and mass-farmed produce from overseas as energy costs make unfettered international trade less lucrative. Because of these truths, the quality of life in regionally-nourished, but globally active cities will continue to improve. In cities still dealing with industrial withdrawal, the question will not only regard whether they can accept globalization, but whether enough regional coherence can be achieved to cultivate and attract the intellectual capital to be a global partner.

Like so many things, the fate of cities rests in the organization and passion of its citizenry. Fortunately, the mayors of major cities are more aware of the pressing need for new infrastructure than is the federal government. As we emerge from recession in the coming years and, hopefully, attempt strengthen regional economies, nothing will prove so important as the maintenance and development of our transportation infrastructure. Of course, the push for more government investment in transportation becomes increasingly palpable as oil prices inflate and ridership balloons for metros across the US.

Who’d have thought bananas would be such an apt window into emerging economic realities?  Mr. Koeppel’s book, Banana: The Fate of the Fruit that Changed the World, is officially on my list.

In the wake of bitter partisanship during the majority of the Bush years, it’s been politically popular to tout bipartisanship for the campaign season. This is an interesting development considering that there are few substantively effective examples of bipartisanship. Representatives Tom Davis (R-VA) and Barney Frank (D-MA) sat down with fora.tv to discuss the current state of affairs in Congress.

The ever-outspoken Rep. Frank provides a different window into the frustration that is House politics. What struck me as particularly poignant was Frank’s belief that most people judge the legislature by the messiness of the process rather than the effectiveness of the results. This is not to say that things have been messy yet effective most recently, but that messiness doesn’t necessarily preclude productivity. The question that I draw from this is whether it makes sense to abandon the messiness of partisan politics if it means passing more legislation, even if it is less effective.

You may ask why things are so messy and polarized in the first place. The big catchphrase in legislative politics these days seems to be “permanent campaign”. Reps Davis and Frank agree that this atmosphere in which the party system is badly polarized stifles progress. In recent years, congressional districts have been redrawn to make for fewer competitive races by concentrating politically like-minded populations. This was done in a bipartisan fashion. The result is a republic less representative of its populace. Congressional Democrats can be combatively liberal and Republicans equally conservative because most don’t have to pander to a mixed audience at home. Combine this with the increased value of the few districts which are competitive, and the parties want nothing more than to besmirch the other’s credibility. This means that when there is not an overwhelming majority in both chambers of Congress, nothing gets done because the minority party wants to make the majority look incompetent by stonewalling legislation. When a clear majority does exist, legislation unrepresentative of the population can be passed too easily (see the early Bush years). Either way, the current state of affairs doesn’t make for a very representative government. Still, the onus is really on voters to demand that things change. When presidential candidates call for greater bipartisanship, it means very little. The incentive for legislators to work together won’t come because the President dictates it as such. What it will take is a redefinition or expansion of the party system to put the fear of being ousted back into our politicians. A more educated voting population would be great, but I think it’s more likely that we’ll see a shift in the parties that will shake-up the election cycle.

I once attended a presentation by a professor in the political science department at Cal Poly. She gave a grim forecast for the future of American democracy based on the effects of congressional redistricting. The sole hope she offered was in the growing number of Americans who register as independent during elections. As time has passed, I’ve come to view this as something more than hope, but rather inevitability. Our current political parties no longer represent cogent responses to the problems of the day. The Democrats look politically strong, but how long will it take for the diversity of interests to once again fracture the cohesiveness of the party once it comes to hammering out legislation? The Republicans are even more lost, offering nothing relevant to the challenges of tomorrow. In the meantime, state and local governments are picking up the slack and making good on the idea that government is by, of and for the people. On smaller scales, the better interest of society becomes more accessible to the individual. While regional governments are still far from being perfectly representative, things are improving out of necessity born from the federal government’s shortcomings. It is at these lower levels that new political identities are being formed and the future of American democracy will be decided. Looking forward, I am hopeful.

Listened to John Harwood’s interview with Candidate Obama on the Times’ website. You have to admire Obama’s self-possession. That said, the guy’s writing a lot of verbal cheques. It will be interesting to see if, provided he wins the election, Obama can actually turn any of it into meaningful legislation. His blueprint for change is just a little ambitious. Still, better to be ambitious than ambivalent.

Getting to the Oval Office is going to be difficult in the first place. While racial reservations are inevitable, Candidate Obama’s politics are also responsible for for his lack of popularity in some regions. Democrats from traditionally conservative districts are already distancing themselves from the presidential nominee for his decidedly left-leaning stances. Though I generally support Obama’s priorities, to say they’re liberal is no misrepresentation. Here in Oregon, at least so far as local punditry is concerned, Obama’s failure to captivate blue-collar America is due less to his politics and more to his ancestry. What infuriates me about these types of assertions is that they insult the intelligence of entire swaths of the population while at the same time exacerbating Obama’s problems in creating inroads. Surely some people see Obama’s race before anything else, but his aggressive, progressive politics are surely a greater reason for pause. While stately and articulate, his professorial idealism just doesn’t jive in places where desirable change means a return to the better days yore. To appeal in these places, Obama must step beyond the cult of personality that has formed in his wake and permeate an image of a reasonable, adaptable reformer. Though the candidate seems to understand the value in unity and pragmatism, he has been riding a wave of angry progressive supporters whose educated self-righteousness puts Obama’s greatest strengths at risk. Going toward the general election, Obama must shed his air of hopeful inevitability to truly reach undecided skeptics.

Paul Krugman wrote an insightful piece in the Times regarding race and politics at this juncture in US history.

In a related note, it’s curious that many of the people who were calling on Hillary Clinton to drop out earlier for the sake of the party now reject her as a VP candidate. Polling suggests that her addition to the ticket strengthens Obama against McCain, so wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the party that she run? Though Obama hardly wants the Clinton shadow lurking over him, how can he reasonably reject Hillary, with her 18 million supporters, as the VP candidate if that’s what will lock up victory?