creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
brian till
Brian Till
27 Jan 2010
The Dysfunctional Marriage

In April 2001, a green and inward-looking American president had to deal with his first foreign policy crisis:… Read More.

20 Jan 2010
It Gets Loud

It begins modestly enough, with Jack White, a famed if not infamously gritty rocker, rigging together a piece … Read More.

13 Jan 2010
Martin Luther King Jr. Day

If there's anyone out there arguing about the impact of electing a black president on this nation's African-… Read More.

American Perestroika

Share Comment

SAN ANTONIO — Mikhail Gorbachev has been on a relatively quiet tour of the United States over the past two weeks, stopping through Florida, Illinois and Texas in addition to the more frequented New York and Washington, D.C. He's come on this trip, which included a day at Reagan's alma mater, Eureka College, with a clear message: The United States needs its own perestroika.

It's a message he's brought to the president and vice president, a lunch with nearly half of the U.S. Senate, and the thousands that have attended his events.

I met him here in Texas, where he spoke before a petrochemicals conference and supported his Global Green Foundation's work to push Texas alongside California as a leader of the green movement in the U.S.

The term perestroika, of course, is associated with the reforms to the Soviet system that Gorbachev first advocated in 1984, and then implemented over the course of his leadership from 1985 - 1991.

Though there's clearly a significant difference between our own dynamic economy and the archaic, managed system that Gorbachev sought to rebuild, there remains an important message that should not be dismissed.

Part of the restructuring that Gorbachev is advocating is cemented by a shift to a green economy, but part of it deals with a deeper pattern. "We must expect that the outcome of this crisis will be the replication of the same old economy we have had for the past 50 years," Gorbachev said. "Let us not hope that the old model will be replicated."

Gorbachev, it should be noted, has been a believer in the free market and a proponent of democracy since days well before his climb to power; these comments are not a communist's ideologically steeped condemnations.

But liberalization and deregulation of the U.S. economy — while important in their historical context, Gorbachev noted — today "results in overconsumption and hyperprofits at any cost without regard to social or environmental needs."

He contends that a model in which the U.S. consumes so voraciously while exporting so little is rather dangerous, creating the gross trade deficits and massive imbalances that plague globalization today — and afflict the planet to a perhaps irreversible extent.

Gorbachev's also speaking to a change of values, to some degree.

The American system that we've exported to the world for years — through the International Monetary Fund, diplomatic pressure, and other means — puts the free market on a sanctified pedestal, while decrying government influence and social spending.

I agree with Gorbachev and will go a step further: There's an unequivocal decline of humanism in the hue of capitalism that America now exports. In my mind, there are simply places in which the free market — for all its power to innovate and generate wealth — is not a perfect end.

Shouldn't our outrage — those of us that can afford astronomical health care — be anchored by the fact that so many are forced to go without, as opposed to by the dent that such services make in our own pockets? And isn't it alarming that despite the economic logic of living a more efficient lifestyle — in terms of the investments we make to our homes and the cars we drive — we instead remain locked in the hydrocarbon era?

We've been rather enamored by unrestrained capitalism for decades, fascinated and tranquilized by the comforts and technologies it brought to bear. But it's important that we recognize something that our own politicians are failing to tell us. Once they're done chastising and vilifying Wall Street a difficult truth will remain: We cannot return to the way we lived before; we can't afford it, and the planet can not endure it.

At 78, Gorbachev remains both sharp and active. As a young politician he was noted for his energy, and the intensity remains. He spent Sunday, one of his few days off on the trip, rehashing a speech with his longtime aide and translator to incorporate more ideas he feared Americans weren't hearing reverberated.

He, as a young Soviet politician, had the courage to speak about a stiff reality other pols preferred to look past. Two and a half decades later, he's once again compelled to speak, as our own leaders illustrate their preference for show trials in the face of the incredible overhaul our nation needs.

Brian Till, one of the nation's youngest syndicated columnists, is a research fellow for the New America Foundation, a think tank in Washington. He can be contacted at till@newamerica.net. To find out more about the author and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
I like Gorbachev for liking Free markets and democracy. But Regulation is popular tool for socialist, communist, and soon to be USA conforming to EU international regulation. Thanks for making the US look like idiots to Britain again Mr President. Mrs First Lady, if they tell you not to touch the queen, don't. You guys can't keep blaming Bush for being a bully, but he was at respectful to leaders he met.
This is one part Gorbachev and many people do not understand about advantages of deregulation of industry. Remember how ATT with government assistance to be the cartel to run communications in US. Calling across the USA was EXPENSIVE! When it was deregulated, remember 1800 COLLECT or 10-10-321 or MCI competed for the best price because the market was deregulated. Then cell phones became practical. Companies were forced to provide better, cheaper service to survive in the market. In fact the business that wants the money, will do a better job in any industry, instead of someone who takes a third of your money to work for to pay for someone else medical, dental, Social Security who doesn't pay that person in the first place who is able to work. To do a job, they don't care because they are promised certain amount by taking of third of what I owe. If I knew that was going to happened I would of never spent the past year working any overtime.
Look, if a company could do a job better then anyone else, remain big, and do a good job, what's the problem? Its like the 80s all over again. The decade of envy. Name a few companies that are big, do better in deregulated market? Wal-Mart, Amazon, Airline Industry(remember tickets used to very expensive), Proctor and Gamble(I buy Gillette double edge(swedes) razors from them). Or America's hate relationship with sugar(Bush made this worse by extra tax, but taxing sugar dates back sugar deals with Cuba that busted). Because sugar is so expensive in America, sodas use corn syrup instead(didn't anyone notice) which I can tell the difference in taste. That's why I go my local Sarr's to the ethnic aisle to get a coke made in Mexico to the original formula made with sugar. A free market works best because people get to vote more, and the more people vote, the easier, better price, better service transactions will take place across the world.
Can anyone answer this: If companies make hyper profits, why? Are they pulling strings, lying to people, using the government to back their dirty business. Maybe because they are the best at what they do. Then make the consumer happy. If you bust on companies for making hyper profits, will this mean the usual consumer has to go the next best thing? Where is the humanism lost in deregulation? Wouldn't it be first step in humanism is to listen to people/customer wants? Going in the other direction of regulation is what killed humanism, as former and current communist countries, or socialistic ones where kids and immigrants can't get jobs, change jobs, or fire incompetent people or make sensible business choices. People regulated and with the power abused it easily. Then gave people no choice, or maybe one. If Americans believe in individual responsibility and award success, why contradict ourselves and tell these hyper profit companies they are evil? Then award companies who can't take responsibility for failure: GM, Chrysler,AIG, Freddic Mac, Fannie Mae. The government money should of went to companies doing well to further their success and make everyone's life better.
How about that scene of Robin Williams in Moscow on the Hudson. Where his character becomes overwhelmed and passes out when there a a whole isle devoted to different choices of coffee.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Jim May
Fri Apr 3, 2009 1:05 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Brian Till
Jan. `10
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 18 Feb 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 17 Feb 2012

10 Dec 2008 I Am the Murderer of News

24 Jun 2009 A Cricket Nation

25 Feb 2009 Back to Obama -- Where Do We Agree?