Good afternoon, readers. I know without a doubt that every one of you is wondering why I’ve neglected the blog so long. Well, I’ve had a very long and trying semester. I’ve had a lot of academic, personal and professional trials come my way, and I’ve learned from them—or at least I hope so. Despite the negatives, however, my semester in Washington taught me a great deal about, among other things, my limits and my professional interests.
My article today, appropriately, is on this very subject: the value of experiences in human development. At one point in my life I was convinced that one could learn everything simply by reading and researching. While this is true to some extent, it’s not completely factual; humans, being mobile and creative beings, need to pursue their interests to live wholesomely. That is, experience—whether positive or negative—is necessary to the purpose of positive human development. To illustrate, we can take the example of the reclusive individual. As animals can only develop as is appropriate to their respective species, so must humans interact to develop. Reclusive behavior, depending on the intensity thereof, can slow one’s development of social skills necessary to progress in life.
I went to Washington for three reasons:
1) To gain a firsthand understanding of the influence of non-governmental organizations on the legislative process.
It’s hard to understand how national policy is developed without actually seeing the process itself, you know?
2) To break away from the everyday college grind for a semester.
To be sure, I love college. I wouldn’t be there otherwise. However, I wanted to experience what real life in my profession was like. Hence, my decision to leave for a semester.
3) To find out why foreigners, to varying extents, dislike the “Washington Consensus”.
I understand that the researchers at DC policy firms, and the legislators that support them, are literally experts in their respective fields, and deserve—and indeed, have—my utmost respect. However, it seems that in recent years other countries have come to increasingly dislike the overall nature of the policies set out by Washington. In my first week in Washington, I visited one of the leading policy firms in DC to hear an expert talk on the recommended course for the Obama Administration to take following its establishment. Throughout, I slowly became aware of an underlying and quite significant preoccupation with America’s image in relation to the subjects raised—subjects concerning Middle East policy, human rights issues and nuclear disarmament. From this one could infer that some of America’s leading policymakers might be afflicted with what some students have come to call “resumé syndrome”—doing things, either wholly or partly, for the sake of appearance, instead of or only in part for their utility to US citizens. One might also contend, however—and quite rightly—that the current administration’s recent initiatives and pursuits, which, of course, must lend themselves to the guidance of policymakers of both the left and right—including the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the initiation of a nationwide community service program to pay off college debt—are indicators that citizen well-being doubtless matters to US policymakers, and likely more than the US’ image. Still, the fact that such a preoccupation exists within some of the nation’s leading policymakers, even in spite of Obama’s election—though doubtless the majority do not express this with the fervor of the previous administration—might be slightly unsettling to some. Nonetheless, the past 8 years, combined with my experiences in Washington, have given me somewhat of a better perspective on why Obama has pledged to “change business as usual in Washington.” The Obama Administration’s recent pledges to increase and improve positive interactions and relations with countries it was previously hostile towards is an indicator that things are indeed improving. Before Obama’s election, however, as we all remember, Washington politics were, in some ways, going towards the exact opposite direction of the current Administration. In some ways I understand why US policymakers are concerned with improving the nation’s image. However, positive actions lend themselves to positive outcomes, and certainly engender respect within others. The United States only need trust in the current administration’s positive intentions, yet still hold it accountable for any behavioral deviations from said intentions. It’s highly unlikely that the Obama Administration will repeat the Bush Administration’s mistakes—however, those interested in politics might be well served by involving themselves in whatever way as would help to further decrease this possibility to zero.
