Of all the controversial remarks David Horowitz made last Monday, one actually resonated with me. “You know,” he said in response to a critic, “I came up with this idea of a Fulbright scholarship for all you leftists, to send you to the radical country of your choice so you could live there and enjoy the rights of their people.” The guy was on to something. I would have preferred to one-up him — and rounded up every audience member, liberal and conservative, and put them on a direct flight to Kinshasa, capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “Here,” I would have said, handing them each a backpack of essentials as we landed. “Hang out for a while.” OK, so this deluded fantasy is a bit over-the-top. But it’s well known that a lack of international exposure severely undermines the ability of the American public and the people they elect to drive the most influential, far-reaching foreign policy in the world. Save the occasional all-inclusive vacation to the Caribbean or Mexico, most citizens have spent little time around the globe. The ignorance that results permeates even the upper echelons of our government — a reality most evident in the occupation of Iraq, whose strategic blunders were at least partially a consequence of U.S. policymakers’ inept understanding of the Middle East. Fortunately, trends are changing. Young people today are utilizing the accessibility of a globalized world in which it is easier, more affordable, and for many, professionally necessary to spend time outside U.S. borders. According to the Institute of International Education, the number of college students going overseas to study, work or volunteer has increased dramatically over the past decade. More importantly, nontraditional destinations in India, China and South America are becoming more popular. Studying abroad in Barcelona, Rome or through Semester at Sea — programs that typically amount to five-month vacations — no longer cuts it for students determined to obtain a more meaningful, life-changing experience by becoming acquainted with the harsh realities of the third world. While many hail the intangible benefits of these experiences on a personal level, no one suggests what the cumulative effects of citizens spending time overseas — especially in developing countries — could do for focusing and strengthening the political debate here at home. Last week’s Islamo-Fascism Awareness saga showcased people from all ideological leanings making judgments on societies they have never experienced in countries they have never visited. Yet no one pointed out that certain arguments by both “leftists” and “rightists” would have carried more weight if backed up by firsthand experiences. No one suggested that students would be more “aware” of the issues in the Islamic world if they actually went there — instead of relying on pamphlets, documentaries and the ramblings of political commentators. While it’s difficult to fully judge another part of the world if you’ve never been there, it’s nearly impossible to fully judge your own country if you’ve never left it. After spending most of the past year abroad in Uganda and Egypt, I realized something. A lot of people in this country are generally ungrateful. Ungrateful at the most basic levels. Those on the right persistently gripe about America’s tax burden without acknowledging that the projects taxes pay for — paved roads and highways, affordable public transportation, clean cities, public education and police protection — enrich their lives beyond comprehension. Those on the left accuse our government of being corrupt and oppressive without realizing that the rights they retain in America afford them a quality of life most people in the world cannot fathom. Day-to-day suffering has been minimized to such an extent in the U.S. that citizens actually have the luxury of focusing the political debate on relatively insignificant issues, whether abortion or gay marriage, animal rights or legalizing pot. The unappreciative conservative might recognize the importance of taxes if he experienced living without basic amenities like paved roads, running water or public sanitation services. The ungrateful liberal might get some perspective if he lived under a truly oppressive government without the rights that allow him to criticize leaders in this country. Both would be forced to confront myths and assumptions about other countries and the people who live in them, and discover that the complexities of the world do not fit neatly into the plain little boxes crafted by their oversimplified judgments. Imagine this in the aggregate. The left would be a little less naive. The right would be a little less closed-minded. Everyone would be a little less ignorant. And the political debate would be brought from the poles of extremity back to a common ground where actual, important issues are decided through real, intelligent debate based on informed, legitimate arguments and experiences. It could happen. Or maybe I’m just naive myself. Guess I better catch that flight to Kinshasa. Adam Lichtenheld ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and African studies.