The Flattening World: Good or Bad for America?

 I thought about titling this essay: "Friedman: Talking out of your @$$ to Sell Books", but decided to keep this PG. Now, I don't want to make it sound like I fundamentally disagree with everything Thomas L. Friedman, author of The World is Flat, says, but I do have several disagreements with his analysis of the flattening world and America. His comparisons and illustrations of American economic competition with China is inaccurate, in my opinion, and simply glosses over several problems that would be devastating to many American citizens. He states that the 20 unskilled workers in America (out of his 100 person sample) would have to compete with 920 unskilled workers from China (out of a 1,000 person sample).

Friedman makes it seem as though, since those Americans who would be negatively effected are a minority compared to the Chinese that would be negatively effected, that this economic devastation amongst lower class Americans is acceptable.  A flattening world, causing massive amounts of worldwide competition for business and trade, would be bad for America. Lower class workers in America could not get jobs, because they could not get a living wage when Chinese workers, or other groups, could do the same work for less.

 Another disagreement I have with Friedman is his emphasis on a liberal arts education. Believe me, as a History Education major, I have deep feelings for the liberal arts and understanding as much as you can about anything you can. But in a flattening world, a world where competition will be paramount, the very world Friedman espouses, a specified and focused education would best suit someone to get a quality job in a competitive market. Doesn't that make sense? Being well-rounded is what everyone should strive for NOW. But in the FUTURE, a world that is in constant conflict economically, one must focus on a specified field of study to be able to maintain a competitive advantage against other countries workers.

 Is it "shortsighted" to be concerned primarily for the United States rather than the entire world? To me, it really depends. Is it not the goal of government, particularly here, the United States Government, to protect and fight for its best interests? As an American, I find it perfectly normal to be worried about my countries place in the world and maintaining, sustaining, and improving that status. As a raging liberal myself, I find my goodwill directly at odds with my pocket book many a time. But, the American people have shown overwhelming ability and support for causes that warrant our attention. The tsunami and Hurricane Katrina showed America's ability to come together behind a cause and raise massive sums of money to help clean up the devastation.

 Perhaps it is time for the American government to focus its energies on helping sustain America's future by providing programs inside America, rather than getting bogged down in foreign wars, increasing foreign aid, and attempting to police the world. For once, I've found that I agree with Friedman. On page 364 of his "Best Seller" (whats that even mean?), he talks about the technological infrastructure, or lack thereof, in the United States. If we are lagging behind in the worlds most important industry as the world begins to flatten, that industry being technology, than we are in trouble.

 In a total outlook, I find it hard to consider a flattening, globalizing world as a good thing for the United States. As the sole superpower, being "attacked" on all sides by competing economic interests, the only place to go is down, because you can't get higher than the United States current role as hegemon. To stay on top, America must protect its own interests rather than fostering the acceleration of the flattening world. Unfortunately for all those Americans that will be affected by companies leaving to other countries, outsourcing, and layoffs, American foreign policy seems to be playing Russian-roulette with our pocketbooks and, quite possibly, our future.