Category: General

2024 Election, General, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Globalism vs. Nationalism

Bob Claude |

In every wise struggle for human betterment, one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations arise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege.

Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism

Politics has been most simply described as a contest between the “ins” and the “outs”. Those who are “in” eventually succumb to Lord Acton’s proverb that power corrupts. The “outs” then try to hold them accountable, while the “ins” desperately try to justify and preserve the privileges of their power. Monarchies tried to claim a “divine right” to their power and nineteenth century robber barons adopted the theory of social Darwinism to justify the inequality of the Gilded Age.  This quotation from Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism emphasize the importance, indeed the inevitability, of the defeat of such excuses for power and the outdated assumptions that underlie them. 

Globalism has become the latest ideological excuse used by international elites to preserve their privileges in today’s world.  This philosophy believes economic and foreign policy should be made on a global basis without regard to any particular nation’s needs or interests. Politicians thus have a duty to improve the lives of every person on earth equally regardless of national boundaries. Peace will occur when there is worldwide homogeneity in economic, political and cultural conditions and practices.  

In theory, these goals are laudable and its attraction has deep roots in Western civilization and history (see my series on “Nationalist Foreign Policy – A History” under the Foreign Policy tab above). It becomes particularly attractive during waves of economic globalization.  Here is where we need to clearly distinguish globalism from globalization. Globalization is a socioeconomic phenomenon involving a significant increase in trade and cultural knowledge across national borders. When Marco Polo arrived in Chinese Emperor Kublai Khan’s court in 1275 AD, he was part of such a wave of globalization made possible by stable and safe trade routes through Central Asia from Europe to Asia.  The history of this process has been brilliantly told in Prof.  Peter Frankopan’s book” The Silk Roads”, which describes how periods of global trade and cultural contact changed the world from ancient to modern times. However, these waves would prove to be temporary. Globalization could not survive a nation’s love of its own culture and desire for independence.

This latest wave of globalization began in the 1960’s with the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions, continued during the latter part of the Cold War and then took off after it ended. A new international elite whose disproportionate privileges arose from the benefits of this wave then proclaimed a “New World Order” dedicated to spreading their interpretation of democracy and free enterprise throughout the world. This became the basis of modern globalism and achieved a bipartisan consensus in American politics. 

Meanwhile, American elections continued to be fought over the increasingly vacuous divide between big vs. small government.  The debate over the domestic and international costs of the new order were incorporated into this old debate. Four ideologies, each with their own goal or god, emerged: 

  • Corporate globalism and the god of efficiency 
  • Socialist globalism and the god of equality
  • Ethnic nationalism and the gods of blood and soil 
  • Progressive nationalism and the goal of community

In the perfect world, each of these ideologies would be represented by four different political parties.  The real world of our two-party system requires American voters to research each candidate individually and determine which of these ideologies best matches the candidate’s philosophy and positions.  As we approach the 2024 election, the American people need to become familiar with the basic premises underlying each of these new ideologies, the political philosophy behind them and their current leaders.  My next four posts will undertake that task, starting with a survey of the tenets of corporate globalism. 

2024 Election, General, Nationalist Theory, Politics

We all must be in the Arena

Bob Claude |

The nation is relieved that former President Trump survived yesterday’s assassination attempt. However, an audience member was killed in the attempt and another injured. They and their families should be in our thoughts and prayers. The photo of Trump defiantly raising his fist before the flag recalls Theodore Roosevelt’s defiance of the attempt on his life during his 1912 presidential campaign, famously declaring that “It takes more than that to kill a bull moose”.

I lead, however, not with that quote, but with Roosevelt’s equally famous “Man in the Arena” speech, where he calls all Americans to embrace the risks of action and the kind of “dust and sweat and blood” that Trump defied. This call does not necessarily mean a call to enter politics ourselves, but to the kind of courage that those who fight for our country here or overseas live daily.  This injuries and deaths at the Trump rally now call us to a new fight for our political life here at home.

Over the past few years, our political debate has coarsened and polarized to the point where violent rhetoric has become shamefully common. Only last week President Biden promised to put his opponent Trump “in the crosshairs”.  A poll in the New York Times revealed that 10% of respondents believed violence was justified against Trump and a similar percentage believed the same about President Biden. The rest of us have seen all of this and either shrugged our shoulders or remained silent out of fear.

We can no longer be among the “cold and timid” who assume this is someone else’s problem. It is time to summon the courage to confront calls to hatred and violence in the political arena and ostracize those who engage in them.  Media outlets that feature or promote them must be shunned and boycotted. Finally, each of us must have the courage to confront friends and acquaintances who engage in such hateful rhetoric and ostracize them as well.  If necessary, we should not hesitate to report them to law enforcement if they pose an imminent threat.  Otherwise, the hatred will not only worsen, but we will also then be complicit in what happens afterwards.

2024 Election, General, Politics

Congress Must Act to Avoid an Ugly Finale to the November Election

Bob Claude |

The Colorado and Maine decisions to strike former President Trump’s name from the ballot on Fourteenth Amendment grounds have injected a dangerously destabilizing issue in an election already riven with suspicion and rancor.  Trump has now filed an appeal of the Colorado decision with the US Supreme Court, but similar challenges are still pending in 17 other states. The American people deserve a quick and thorough resolution of the issue by not only the Court, but also by the Congress as well

The good news is that the Court has scheduled oral argument on the case for February 8, an extraordinarily expedited process that shows it is well aware of the importance of resolving the case as soon as possible. As a result, it will probably issue a decision by May.

The bad news is that any such decision will only resolve the main legal issues in the case and not the ultimate factual issue of whether Trump “engaged in insurrection” or gave aid and comfort to one on January 6, 2021 and thus should be barred from the presidential ballot. Former Attorney General Bill Barr accurately pointed out the deficiencies in the original trial at the district court, which lasted only five days and was largely based on hearsay evidence.  Any real trial that could develop a sufficient record for a final decision would take months. The record in the Colorado case clearly fails that test.

However, there are crucial legal issues that the Colorado case raises on which the Court can rule and help speed the resolution of this litigation: 

  • Is the office of President subject to the prohibition of section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?
  • Did the Colorado courts have jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the issue or is the prohibition essentially only enforceable by Congress after the election?
  • Is a conviction for insurrection required before application of the ban?

While not directly raised by the appeal, the Court should take the opportunity to state what the standard of proof should be for a suit under Section 3. Is it the preponderance of the evidence standard usually used in civil cases or the higher “clear and convincing” standard required in fraud and similar cases?   

I believe the Court will likely hold that (1) the president is subject to Section 3; (2) the courts have jurisdiction; but (3) reverse and remand the case to the Colorado courts for a full trial on the merits, hopefully with an instruction on which standard of proof to use. Thus, far from being resolved, this legal controversy will continue to fester through and possibly after the 2024 election.

Here’s where it becomes ugly. While the Supreme Court can eliminate these initial issues, this means the various challenges at the state level will continue through the election.  A final decision may not even be reached before the November election. Thus, in November American voters would have to choose between Joe Biden with all of his physical infirmities and unpopularity, and a candidate who may be disqualified from assuming office at any time during the election. If Trump nevertheless wins, he may then be refused office despite the results.  We would see an unprecedented constitutional crisis that deprives the new president of any legitimacy and cripples the nation during one of the most perilous series of domestic and international crises in American history.

This issue must be settled promptly and before the November election. Moreover, it is too important to be decided in piecemeal fashion at the state court level. Congress has the power to avoid this chaos by providing that Section 3 claims be brought exclusively before a three-judge federal court with any appeal going directly to the Supreme Court. This process already exists for certain civil rights cases under 28 USC Section 2284.  The applicability of Section 3 to a presidential candidate certainly involves a fundamental constitutional right. However, it would still require an amendment to the current statute to implement it.  Congress should immediately pass legislation to apply Section 2284 to Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 claims to save the country from the pain a prolonged, fractious litigation of this issue would inflict on our already fragile political system.