Further, he recognizes many things about the new economic world order than Altman fails to address, but he omits consideration of the long-term impacts. He rests his conclusion on what he believes is the self-evident conclusion that promoting free trade is a winning policy. What I would have liked is for him to apply his understanding of the new world economic order to this conclusion. In what ways will the change in the world economic order impact the U.S.' ability to champion the free market?
The criteria that I set out for the evaluation of these papers reveals my biases -- I value facts over rhetoric, efficiency over preponderance, and I prefer at least the appearance of objectivity. Altman argues that the era of globalization is coming to a close, but concludes that the United States should take the lead in stemming the tide of protectionism and inward-thinking among major world governments. He backs his case with economic statistics that illustrate not only the trend he feels is a threat, but the negative impacts...
He assumes that the reader understands the benefits of the free market system, so expends little energy selling his side of the story. He merely analyzes the situation, makes a
diagnosis and issues a prescription.
Bremmer has a similar conclusion, stemming from a similar but more alarmist
hypothesis. He chooses weaker facts and does not tie them as closely to his arguments. He also spends too much time on tangential subjects, which fail to reinforce his central hypothesis. His biases are too obvious -- he assumes he is right rather than demonstrating it. All of these factors, to me, undermine the quality of his argument.
I generally agree with both writers. The world is changing and while I feel that Altman places current events in better
historical perspective, both writers see these current events for what they are. Their
prescription is the same, but Altman ties this directly to a pair of problems that he has identified, whereas Bremmer has simply stated a conclusion without such linkages to his arguments. He instead relies on the reader to agree with his conclusion. The problem is that the conclusion is weak, unsupported by the text and is practically pandering to a reader that he can reasonable expect to be a fan of free markets. That does not a strong
argument make.
