Even if I'm wrong, I will still feel both angry and ashamed.
(This is a test, this is only a test. I am neither wedded to the following, nor do I think I've finished playing with the concept. It is presented for the thinking pleasure of anyone who has not already made up their mind that there is a single neat solution to our problems.)
The TPP will most certainly screw over this country. And maybe, globally, that's what has to happen in order for the whole bloody world to rise up and scream for a more equitable system. A good chunk, if not a majority, of the money and power that exists today is concentrated in the hands of a few large multinationals and a few greedy individuals. But because we think in terms of governments having power, the concomitant responsibility for using that power has never had to be one of the things the corporations think about.
I'd never thought of myself as a global citizen, mostly because the world is such a damned big place, and my house, my neighborhood, and my city mostly take up my attention. With the immanence of global warming, I've realized that it has to change if I can manage it, but even so, it's still mostly a theoretical citizenship.
But something occurred to me this morning, and I'm still feeling a bit stunned by it. And angry as all hell, and very much ashamed of not being able to cope with it. If I want to be a global citizen, do I have the right to condemn a majority of the poor in this world to living in greater poverty than the poor in this country? Whether I have that as a right or not, am I even capable of keeping myself from fighting to keep what I have? I doubt it.
Okay, I'm waffling about saying this. Is there any way at all to bring wages into some kind of balance globally without getting rid of the protectionism that is keeping our own wages artificially high with respect to underdeveloped countries? And does anyone think this can happen without a major reshuffling of economic priorities, and a lot of unhappiness for anyone not independently wealthy? As long as companies are driven by profit motives, they have to have a certain level of relatively affluent people to sell their goods to, and at this point it has not, I think, occurred to them that they are in the process of sabotaging their bottom line by undercutting their consumer base. That's for government to worry about. Right.
So, what if the governments abdicated their responsibility? Not covertly, the way the Republican party has been trying for the last forty years, but overtly. Say to the corporations: "You own us, so it's on your head if something goes wrong, and your lawyers will be useless when the people they're arguing with are the ones who are managing your balance sheets. We will no longer pretend we are representing the people, or any country - we are doing your bidding, and we will say it to any poor sucker who complains they can't earn enough to eat. How long will it be until your customers rise up and begin a revolution against your practices, do you think?"
Now, I don't want this to happen. I would really, really like to continue the fiction that government holds power in this world, and that corporations can be restrained by actions of governments. But I'm beginning to think that really isn't possible, and the only long term alternative I can see is to force responsibility upon those who are currently hiding behind the skirts of government, by openly placing the responsibility into their soft, weak hands.
So I think President Obama may be being a good global citizen here, and thinking about the workers in all nations, and about how many of them don't have much of a chance at even limited equity unless there is a major change in how power is perceived around the world. I can even see that in the long term it's possible this will be a best solution for this country, so I can't actually say he's violating his oath of office. But I wasn't ready for a revolution (I suppose nobody ever is), dammit, and I'm not sure I can handle the changes that would have to happen for this to work.