scritic — May 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Hi Poulos,

Exactly what part of Zakaria’s essay made you write this?

This isn’t just because I’m a nationalist; it’s because I’m convinced that the United States has, and depends upon, a globally unique system of government which is itself dependent upon America’s unique geopolitical, cultural, and religious heritage. The maintenance of that heritage demands a conscious effort not to regularize the American workforce into a system of migrant drones at the bottom and civil engineers at the top, two types of people with an affirmative interest in destroying citizenship and unmaking the American character.

Perhaps this is because I don’t read your stuff regularly, but I am truly confused: what is this supposed to mean? Strictly in policy terms, is this because Zakaria thinks that one of the choices America needs to make, to stay competitive, is a more open immigration policy, with more effort being made to attract high-skilled immigrants? Are you saying that the current policy — which, more or less, tries to regulate the influx of low-skill immigrants from Central and South America, and encourage high-skilled immigrants (technologically speaking) from Asia — is leading to a system with “migrant drones at the bottom and civil engineers at the top”, and even more catastrophically, “destroying citizenship and unmaking the American character”?

Why would you think that?

It doesn’t strike me that high-skilled immigrants (in particular, the engineers) are anywhere near the top of the power chain in America — far from it. Or are you just arguing against the fetishization of science and technology (and technologists) or when people consider science as humanity’s most profound achievement?

One way of knowing how much “power” technologists wield, is to look at all the bright kids in schools and their aspirations — what do they want to be? How many young boys and girls in schools here will tell you that they want to be engineers? I suspect not many (and I’ve asked a few). Bright kids here want to be lawyers, designers, writers, journalists, teachers, therapists, what have you. I was shocked to learn, when I first came to the US to do my Masters, that Columbia College received ten times the number of undergraduate applicants than the Fu Foundation School of Engineering, which was completely the opposite of what I saw in India.

(Now, if I asked the same question in India — 99% of the bright kids would answer that they want to be either doctors or engineers (not even lawyers). This doesn’t mean that engineers are at the top of the power chain in India either — but that is a topic for another time.)

Since the bright kids here shun science and engineering, America has to “import” its engineers and scientists. But this hardly places the technologists “at the top” (top, in terms of the amount of power wielded; in terms of income, engineers do very well), like you seem to think. The “top” in America — the real bastions of power — is where all the bright native born kids go — law, fashion, finance, journalism. These are the professions where the true “elite” come from, the ones who determine the policies, and who shape public opinion. Engineers make good money, true, but they’re almost always in the background.

But perhaps I misunderstand your point. In which case, I’d love to know what you mean exactly. And why, exactly, do engineers make bad citizens?

ps: And who cares what system is used to buy juice or milk or gasoline? But if someone is going to drop a statement that says that the metric system is based on “incorrect calculations” (even in jest) he has got to back it with at least a link or two.

alwsdad — May 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm

You have a very impressive vocabulary. Congratulations!
Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in your world?

PHB — May 7, 2008 at 9:28 pm

This analysis is as incoherent as the left wing anti-globalization screeds. I posted a rebuttal on my own blog which I won’t repeat here.

http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/05/deconstructing-globalization.html

Instead, I will, as an engineer, congratulate you for being one of the few people to realize that globalization is driven by technology and not merely capital.

There is no central engineering new world order where we plot the future of the world. At least, I have never been invited to join such a body. But that does not mean that engineering is an a-political process.

I became involved in the design of the Web in 1992 because it brought together my interest in computer systems and my interest in politics. It has taken fifteen years but the Web is now starting to have the effect on the establishment media that it was designed to.

Fox News apart, the establishment media is no more biased today than it was ten years ago. The sudden decline in its reputation is due to the fact that the Web has created a feedback loop that exposes its deficiencies. That was the original plan I discussed with MIT back when it all started.

You should oppose us. The parochial nationalism that your article represents is precisely the type of thinking that the Web is rendering obsolete.

Uncle Jeffy — May 7, 2008 at 9:53 pm

I work with a number of engineers and have others among my circle of friends, and I can guarantee you that there’s no hegemony - in fact, most of the time they can’t get the twinkletoes types with the MBAs to listen to them.

mattc — May 8, 2008 at 10:55 am

“My distaste for migrant labor and the hegemony of engineers, each taken separately, is already almost incalculable because of my judgments about what ruins a healthy republic.” - James Polous

First and foremost, I’m another engineer responding to this post, so let’s get that out of the way (you sure do know how to make us miscreants of the republic emerge from the shadows).

The “globalization” call by Zakaria is overdone, but your analysis of it is just as tasteless. You complain about “migrant labor” then blast politicians who (rightfully) state that America is lacking in science and math education at almost every level of schooling. What do you think this leads to in a society in the midst of technological revolution? You guessed it: MORE MIGRANT LABOR. I took classes for my engineering masters that were comprised of 50% foreigners with student visas. Do you see that in law school? Do you find that in an MBA program? I would wager that you don’t.

Having said that, I agree with you that having a government openly working to implement education policies that produce more technologists (or laborers of any ilk) is anathema to the republic (I refute all government-lead educational efforts). What is healthy for the country is to instill a desire for critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity that inspires people to find their own answers to life’s great questions. You are right that this is/was a primary component of the American culture and the exportation of this ideal lead to the current rise of competing global markets. We didn’t export our engineering colleges, but we connected inquisitive minds to an idea engine (American free markets and our university network).

However, I feel that you are subtely ignoring the point of this argument. many fans of globalization are not trying to “restructure” the American labor force as you put it, but many of them are crying (too loudly I might add) about the possibility that these changes are so rapid that an aging, industrial population might not fully embrace them in time to maintain/maximize our competitive edge. You see this in the current Presidential election, where the candidates are rehasing the merits of NAFTA to voters in the Rust Belt that don’t understand why there is a dwindling market for metal welders. How can we be having this debate at the same time we have people(domestic and foreign, but increasingly more foreign) working on tissue regeneration, smart A.I., nanotechnology, etc…

Do you think we still NEED people to manually operate a blow torch??

That’s the emotion behind people like Zakaria. It’s misguided at times, but it has some merit. Your “distate” for their stance and policy choices is also misguided, but indeed has merit as well. I would posit that you are correct vis-a-vis the culture and the republic, but you have no clue how we’ll keep a competitive labor force for the next generation of technologists. We don’t have one now.

Thaddeus Bell — May 8, 2008 at 12:56 pm

I think you miss what Zakaria is saying about globalizing America, though I have only read the Foreign Affairs article, not the book. I believe he is not calling for some “rigorously regulated process,” but more likely he is bemoaning the very real reluctance of Americans to foreign ideas. To make a cultural example, I’m an American living in Britain, and the televisions have shows from all over the anglophone world, and many French and American films can be seen in the cinemas. Not the case, of course, in America, where the vast majority of films are American, same on tv. There surely many foreign tv shows and films which would appeal to Americans, but for some reason we aren’t particularly interested. His point (correct or not) is applying this idea to more serious matters: Americans are reluctant to learn from the success of other countries, learn foreign languages, etc.

I haven’t read the book, but I’m pretty sure you’re wrong on this point.

worn — May 8, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Not being any sort of expert in the underlying subject matter of the post, I state without doubt that it makes absolutely no sense to me. “Civil engineers” are some sort of dangerous anathema to our country and its ideals? My goodness, these are the folks responsible for the roads, railways, dams, underground utility infrastructure, etc. of our nation.

That aside, as an architect, who has to deal daily with the wonderful measurement system bequeathed to us by the mother isle, the initial slag of the metric system is what caught my eye. Notwithstanding some of the historically oddball things upon which our system of units are based, please do tell me how having a measurement system whose sub-units change from a base of 12 to a base of 16* makes any sense whatsoever. It is also my understanding that the Imperial Foot has been defined as a percentage of the meter since 1958. So whatever that original (and unsubstantiated) “incorrect calculation” was, it’s in our units, too.

*Or more precisely, feet being divided first by 4 then by 3 to yield 12 inches, while sub-inch inch units increment by pure division by 4. And just as logical, moving from feet to the next unit, the yard, one must multiply by three.

conradg — May 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm

I think the “incorrect calculation” being referred to is that the meter was originally defined as being 1/10,000,000th of the circumference of the globe around the poles. This was back in the 19th century, and subsequently the measurement was discovered to be inaccurate by some small fraction. Rather than change the meter a wreck the system already in place, it was simply decided to redefine the meter, first to a bar of metal held in cold storage in France, and later to a certain number of wavelengths of a particular emission line of light. All that has nothing whatever to do with the actual utility of the meter, and is just Poulos’ way of asserting his cranky lack of understanding of all things scientific and modern.

Btw, this is an interesting blog post in that it appears to have not a single intelligent point made anywhere within it. Yet it’s being linked to around the web. Fascinating.