This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/opinion/us-economy-foreign-policy.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
In Search of Economic Patriots In Search of Economic Patriots
(7 months later)
This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.This article is part of David Leonhardt’s newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it each weekday.
Whenever I have heard military leaders argue that the biggest long-term threat to American national security is our national debt, I’ve had mixed feelings.Whenever I have heard military leaders argue that the biggest long-term threat to American national security is our national debt, I’ve had mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I’ve been glad that the leaders are willing to engage in important issues beyond military matters. On the other hand, I think they’re wrong on the substance — and that the debt is not the pre-eminent danger to American interests. I’d rank it behind climate change, the stagnation of mass living standards and the erosion of democracy.On the one hand, I’ve been glad that the leaders are willing to engage in important issues beyond military matters. On the other hand, I think they’re wrong on the substance — and that the debt is not the pre-eminent danger to American interests. I’d rank it behind climate change, the stagnation of mass living standards and the erosion of democracy.
In Foreign Policy magazine, Jennifer Harris and Jake Sullivan have published a piece urging not just military leaders but the entire foreign policy community to focus more on economic questions than they have in recent years. It’s happened before. After both the Revolutionary War and World War II, foreign policy experts saw economic policy as a way to strengthen the United States against foreign rivals, Harris and Sullivan point out.In Foreign Policy magazine, Jennifer Harris and Jake Sullivan have published a piece urging not just military leaders but the entire foreign policy community to focus more on economic questions than they have in recent years. It’s happened before. After both the Revolutionary War and World War II, foreign policy experts saw economic policy as a way to strengthen the United States against foreign rivals, Harris and Sullivan point out.
I think a similar challenge exists today, especially from China. And the United States isn’t meeting it. Economic growth has been mediocre, and the gains unevenly distributed. Americans’ frustration with the situation has fed our angry, dysfunctional politics and, in turn, the country’s retreat from global leadership.I think a similar challenge exists today, especially from China. And the United States isn’t meeting it. Economic growth has been mediocre, and the gains unevenly distributed. Americans’ frustration with the situation has fed our angry, dysfunctional politics and, in turn, the country’s retreat from global leadership.
“The time has come for foreign-policy professionals to develop a sharper and more systematic sense of what needs to change in their own economic assumptions, both domestic and international,” they write. “Today’s national security experts need to move beyond the prevailing neoliberal economic philosophy of the past 40 years.”“The time has come for foreign-policy professionals to develop a sharper and more systematic sense of what needs to change in their own economic assumptions, both domestic and international,” they write. “Today’s national security experts need to move beyond the prevailing neoliberal economic philosophy of the past 40 years.”
Harris (a Roosevelt Institute fellow) and Sullivan (a former Obama administration official) offer four specific suggestions for foreign policy experts:Harris (a Roosevelt Institute fellow) and Sullivan (a former Obama administration official) offer four specific suggestions for foreign policy experts:
1. Acknowledge that underinvestment — in education, technology, infrastructure and more — is an even bigger threat to national security than the long-term debt.1. Acknowledge that underinvestment — in education, technology, infrastructure and more — is an even bigger threat to national security than the long-term debt.
2. Follow the lead of Alexander Hamilton and Dwight Eisenhower, and make the case for a national industrial policy, especially to fight climate change.2. Follow the lead of Alexander Hamilton and Dwight Eisenhower, and make the case for a national industrial policy, especially to fight climate change.
3. Be more skeptical of the specific provisions in trade deals.3. Be more skeptical of the specific provisions in trade deals.
4. Remember that multinational corporations headquartered in the United States aren’t always acting in the national interest — and don’t let the federal government do their bidding. (The pharmaceutical industry is an example.)4. Remember that multinational corporations headquartered in the United States aren’t always acting in the national interest — and don’t let the federal government do their bidding. (The pharmaceutical industry is an example.)
The piece is well argued, and I found the historical analogies especially telling. After World War II, foreign policy officials like Cordell Hull and George Kennan pushed the government to adopt Keynesian economic policies so the United States could outcompete the Soviet Union. It worked.The piece is well argued, and I found the historical analogies especially telling. After World War II, foreign policy officials like Cordell Hull and George Kennan pushed the government to adopt Keynesian economic policies so the United States could outcompete the Soviet Union. It worked.
Today’s challenges aren’t the same, and the solutions should not be the same. But military leaders and foreign policy experts can again use their prestige and credibility to play a crucial role.Today’s challenges aren’t the same, and the solutions should not be the same. But military leaders and foreign policy experts can again use their prestige and credibility to play a crucial role.
“The foreign-policy establishment need not come up with the next economic philosophy,” Harris and Sullivan write. “The task is more limited — to contribute a geopolitical perspective to the unfolding debate on what should follow neoliberalism and then to make the national security case for a new approach as it emerges.”“The foreign-policy establishment need not come up with the next economic philosophy,” Harris and Sullivan write. “The task is more limited — to contribute a geopolitical perspective to the unfolding debate on what should follow neoliberalism and then to make the national security case for a new approach as it emerges.”
The Iowa debacle, continuedThe Iowa debacle, continued
A Quinnipiac poll yesterday showed that only 17 percent of Democratic voters nationwide thought that Iowa should continue to be the first state to vote in the nominating process. Fully 64 percent said Iowa should not go first.A Quinnipiac poll yesterday showed that only 17 percent of Democratic voters nationwide thought that Iowa should continue to be the first state to vote in the nominating process. Fully 64 percent said Iowa should not go first.
It shouldn’t. It should also switch from being a caucus to a primary.It shouldn’t. It should also switch from being a caucus to a primary.
In the Ames (Iowa) Tribune, the writer Dick Haws recently made the case:In the Ames (Iowa) Tribune, the writer Dick Haws recently made the case:
This was my seventh Democratic caucus since moving to Iowa in 1983. It will be my last.
I’ve long had gripes about the caucuses — that they were undemocratic because there was no secret ballot (Why should the employer know how the employee voted?), and unfair because they hugely favored people with enough time on their hands to spend several hours, starting at 7 on a February night, at the caucus (In an Iowa general election, by comparison, you can vote any time you want between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. It usually takes less than 10 minutes.) …
[Last week’s caucus] was awful. And I just hope the Democratic powers put a quick end to the Iowa caucuses so we can get on with getting ready for a primary in four years.
If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.