Knowledge before Action: How the United States Must Learn before We Can Grow

Knowledge before Action:

How the United States Must Learn before We Can Grow

            In the new globalized society, in a society where we are both the hegemony and, at the same time, threatened to lose that hegemony, the United States stands in a delicate place with foreign policy. In the rise of new threats such as ISIS, whose tech savvy ways and terrorists acts do not fit into our understanding of warfare, and the rising power of China, the United States is presented new challenges never before faced. Our contemporary knowledge falls short of finding an answer to these problems (if they are to be dubbed as such). That is not to say the knowledge and wisdom on how to address these new concerns do not exist, but they exist in the hidden past and the complicated present.

            The problem of knowledge does not just fall on the politicians, though, it also falls on the general public. If the public is to elect officials able to represent our country on issues of foreign policy, then the public must have some knowledge to base their decisions on. The representatives, furthermore, even if they are not quite knowledgeable themselves, must have the knowledge on how to pick advisors and heads of the government bureaucracy in order for them to receive the best and most diverse knowledge possible to make the right decision for the future of the United States.

            What has worked in the past is not necessarily what will work in the future. A complete isolationist policy is impossible. Not only does globalization of economy and trade force us into interactions with other countries, but the expectations built by our hegemony creates situations in which we must act. Not acting is still acting in the end.

In the recent years, it has become drastically more evident the lack of knowledge we have on our neighbors.  Not only that, but the dangers of that ignorance is growing more evident. With misplaced aggression toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq, the growing animosity towards Muslims, and the mistakes which enabled ISIS’s rise to power, our respect as a world power, our legitimacy as one, and the lives of our citizens and others are at stake the longer we ignore our own ignorance.

How do we not only remove the apathy and aggression facing political knowledge, but then educate the United States citizens into citizens of a globalized society, rather than one of an isolated country? The first part involves technology. Whether we like it or not, technology has become not only an integral part of our individual lives, but also the life of international politics. Individual citizens need to know how to be civically engaged through technology and learn how to use the many tools for obtaining knowledge through technology. Politicians and others involved in the bureaucratic process need to change their ways to combat persuasive tech savvy threats such as ISIS, stepping up with their own messages that reach out to those same individuals ISIS do.

The second part has to do with interest. Apathy both in politicians and individuals disables from us being ready for the next challenge in our hegemony. Regardless of whether or not China will actually rise to power, politicians should be combatting that idea from the get-go. Individuals, meanwhile, need to be taught the importance of civic engagement, especially in the light of politicians who might be apathetic about doing anything other than winning partisan fights.

These are not simple, nor are they meant to be. They are a complicated process which must be done. We need to learn from our past but innovate from that past to fit the future. We cannot survive, much less thrive, in a world that is global if we are not global ourselves. 

Katie Madel