On Veils, Pottery Barns, and Basic Human Empathy
Although some claim that higher income nations have the right to ignore harm to the Global South throughout the supply chain, democratic citizenry and leadership can and ought to account for workers’ rights everywhere through tougher regulation in order to act morally.
In defending a country’s voting body’s right to act purely selfIsh, many would allude to a social contract. They would argue that a citizen is only beholden to the nation that provides them with safety. Thus the electorate has no obligation to represent the interests of any other nation or group of people on their ballot.
If every person were to have equal representation and life circumstances, this may be a fair perspective, but the logic falters given that billions of humans face severely lacking living standards. Whether it be the refugees escaping from persecution and war-torn nations, or those increasingly being displaced by global warming, a stateless identity is too common to depend on nations to only protect their own citizens. If a social contract were to be the sole justification in guiding policy, then larger and capable nations like America would completely disenfranchise and disregard the stateless. Any American citizen willing to demonstrate empathy towards a fellow American should quite easily be able to grant empathy to a non-American. Once we look past our relatively arbitrary borders, there’s simply nothing that justifies us to ignore others outside our country.
One lens to gain greater empathy for people outside of our borders is to don John Rawls’s veil of ignorance. In this thought experiment, you have not been born, though you have a complete knowledge of everything going on in the world. You know every region’s conflicts, every family’s struggles, and every person’s living situation. The one piece of information you have no clue about is into what circumstance you will be born. Who knows, you might end up as heir to a billionaire’s oil fortune. Though you may also be born into labor trafficking, born female in a nation with hyper-oppressive religious laws, or born to a family on the cusp of starvation.
The question becomes, “Is this a world I would feel okay being born into?” Maybe the answer is yes, maybe no. Whatever your choice, we can use such ideas to guide our policymaking and make sure to boost the likelihood that someone would be comfortable being born into this world. This manifests as higher living standards across the board.
Furthermore, considering America’s widespread and often dangerous impact, many high-ranking military members have sworn to the Pottery Barn Rule. In short. “You break it, you buy it.” This mindset would implore America to provide assistance in certain regions such as the Middle East in which the US played a role in destabilization via occupation. This can sometimes be a bit problematic — situations like Afghanistan show us that even years of presence in the region may only delay the inevitable. Or worse, exacerbate it. But nonetheless, we should still be able to acknowledge the potential of acting empathetically in our policy.
Aside from military presence, there are many other methods that the US can utilize in an attempt to help other nations. For one, financial aid can play a huge role in assisting nations that do not have the fiscal clout to rely on debt-spending and bonds. This aid, when there are no strings attached, can go a long way in supporting the creation of infrastructure in regions desperately in need of roads, hospitals, schools, and other public systems. The US already gives out large amounts of aid through its USAID program, but such spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount we suck into our military. A reallocation of spending is more so the job of congress than the people, but a broad coalition of public support can certainly turn the tide in this area.
In addition, Americans can also acknowledge how US policies may adversely harm other nations. Being wary of the implications of our legislation is essential in ensuring we also recognize the best interests of those outside the country. For instance, currently the United States likely does not have enough doctors to support a single payer system like Medicare for All. As seen in nations like the UK, such a program would be built upon bringing in doctors from other nations — whether they be the only doctor in their village, or perhaps a professor teaching dozens or hundreds of young minds — through offering far higher salaries than a less-developed nation’s people could ever procure. Obviously, this by no means suggests we should not pursue universal healthcare. Instead, we must recognize this problem and address it through stronger and more holistic legislation. Perhaps this encourages the subsidization of more US-based medical students’ education, or increased support of STEM subjects on the primary level of schooling. Maybe more comprehensive support for residency students. So far, the United States congress has not addressed this issue in the slightest, making no mention of it despite publications like Foreign Affairs writing extensive pieces gesturing to the problem. Nonetheless, we have to understand that even the most promising and well-meaning policies can have the most adverse and counterintuitive impacts.
To conclude, we must not only recognize the consequences of our actions, but the potential of our choices. The United States has a fantastic and unique opportunity to aid our precious Earth in ways that few countries can. To shirk this responsibility would be morally repugnant. Whether it be the stateless, marginalized communities, or impoverished communities, our policies can assist those around the globe. By being global citizens, we can represent this potential in the way we vote, and do the best we can to fight for a good life for everyone. Everywhere.
