Political punditry is not the primary purpose of this site, but the results of the 2018 mid-terms may be an important driver in the nationalist-globalist debate as we enter the 2020 presidential cycle. It was clearly a Democratic victory, but not without future risk for them.
The capture of the House essentially gives Democrats a constitutional and more effective podium in the national debate. It occurred because of Trump’s abject failure to mold a coherent and unifying nationalist program. However, the losses in the Senate of moderate Democratic Senators in Indiana and Missouri are a warning that rural and urban blue collar workers believe Trump’s conservative nationalist policies on issues such as immigration and job creation, as limited as they are, address their concerns better than opposing globalist policies.
Many political pundits are wringing their hands over the possibility that the relationship between the President and Democratic House will degenerate into a ugly investigative and ideological mud fight over Russian Influence and issues like immigration and climate change, but opposite is equally likely. We now have the opportunity for a spirited debate between three, and perhaps four, ideological theories of American social and economic policy. Trump will loudly (and sometimes crudely) make the case for conservative nationalism. Meanwhile, the Republican Senate will lean toward a corporate conservative globalist approach to trade, tax and immigration. The Democratic leadership in the House will have to choose between liberal globalist and liberal nationalist policies on these issues. Indeed, if the Democratic Socialist wing becomes more vocal and organized, House Democrats may be a source of debate and ideas on both liberal fronts.
If all of these four ideologies are fairly represented in the upcoming presidential election, the American people could finally resolve the debate and the decision then be implemented in public policy. The plethora of candidates on the Democratic side could encourage and feed ideas to this discussion. The risk for the Democrats is that the left-wing will drive the presidential contest toward the globalist approach in the Obama mold. Such a candidate could defeat Trump, but the underlying nationalist fissures exposed by him in 2016 would remain open and unresolved through 2024.
There was nothing that Theodore Roosevelt enjoyed more than a spirited debate. He would have been a forceful and eloquent participant if he were here with us. In his absence, this website will highlight and hopefully effectively contribute his nationalist perspective to this debate.