Jihad Vs. McWorld

Benjamin R. Barber, writing in the Atlantic Monthly in March, 1992, puts forth two conflicting world views; those views still persist:

The two axial principles of our age--tribalism and globalism--clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures--both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe--a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food--with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart and coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.

The tendencies of what I am here calling the forces of Jihad and the forces of McWorld operate with equal strength in opposite directions, the one driven by parochial hatreds, the other by universalizing markets, the one re-creating ancient subnational and ethnic borders from within, the other making national borders porous from without. They have one thing in common: neither offers much hope to citizens looking for practical ways to govern themselves democratically. If the global future is to pit Jihad's centrifugal whirlwind against McWorld's centripetal black hole, the outcome is unlikely to be democratic--

While parts of his article are now somewhat dated, as we contemplate new American foreign policy, these two world views are still very influential, and must be acknowledged. I recommend reading the entire article.

Barack Obama, John McCain on Foreign Policy

Senator Obama:

After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Senator McCain:

America needs a president who can revitalize the country's purpose and standing in the world and defeat terrorist adversaries who threaten liberty at home and abroad. There is an enormous amount to do. The next U.S. president must be ready to show America and the world that this country's best days are yet to come and be ready to establish an enduring peace based on freedom.

While now over a year old, the journal Foreign Affairs had a series of essays written by the various candidates, including both Senators McCain and Obama.

While the focus of most voters has turned to economic issues, it's still important to know what each candidate feels to be America's place in the world (especially since our economic leadership position may now be in question).

In looking over just the titles, I'm reminded of another quote I've seen recently in relation to the investment crisis: Losers focus on the risk, Winners focus on the rewards. Interestingly, during a time when the Dow was at 14,000, the Republicans were shaping their foreign policy based on the risks, while the Democrats were couching their essays in the language of the opportunities.