Save-the-world conferences are on the rise: "for the global needy, the fact that these conferences and similar ones are taking place shows that there is a new sense of worldwide caring.".

• Author: Wiesen, Jeremy
• Position: The World Today

IN SEPTEMBER 2005, New York was the site a trio of of save-the-world meetings: the United Nations' World Summit, former Pres. Bill Clinton's Global Initiative, and my own Global Goals confab. All were seeking innovative solutions to such dilemmas as extreme poverty, the greenhouse effect, and political corruption. As we enter the second half of the first decade of this new millennium, it is useful to examine the latest approaches to saving the world that these conferences are recommending:

Bi-partisanship. Hurricane Katrina's devastation has become a turning point in what Americans demand of their politicians. The funding of a highway in Alaska that leads to an almost deserted island, rather than building an adequate levee system in New Orleans, has shed direct light on the deadly effects of polarized politics and pork barrel grants. Moreover, the appointment of a friend of a friend of the President to head the Federal government's emergency task force will increase the scrutiny of government employees.

When Pres. George W. Bush teamed up his father (former Pres. George H.W. Bush) and Clinton to lead the Tsunami relief effort, many were shocked at the idea of sending this leading Republican and Democrat on a global crusade together. After all, Clinton beat the elder Bush for the presidency in 1992, and the latter's son won a sharply contested, still-questioned-by-Democrats election in 2000 over A1 Gore, Clinton's vice-president of eight years. Bush and Clinton then were reunited in the Katrina relief effort and no one was surprised by this bipartisanship union: in fact, Americans likely will demand less polarized politics in governance from here on out. Moreover, around the world there is a growing disdain for extremists in all countries, realizing that they aim to steal for their own purposes the rightful power of the majority.

Prioritizing. Polarized politics often has been antithetical to rational priority-setting in government. The invasion of Iraq became an anti--vs. pro-war argument rather than a focus on how Iraq would function after America's inevitable takeover. Furthermore, the question now is arising why the U.S. did not consider other national and global priorities before acting--the $200,000,000,000 a year cost of being in Iraq could have, for instance, been used to reduce U.S. unemployment and world hunger, strengthen the levee system in New Orleans, etc.

With 3,000,000,000 people living on less than two dollars a day while...