Tag: Globalism

2024 Election, Nationalist Theory, Politics

The Realignment Continues

Bob Claude |

President Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 election caps a distinguished career in public service sadly marred by the circumstances of its end. Conspiracy theories have swirled around the events of the last month since his disastrous debate with former President Trump. However, Biden’s speech to the nation last week on his decision may hold the key to understanding it and the impact on future American politics.

In his speech, the President claimed that he was physically and mentally capable of campaigning in the upcoming election and serving a full four-year term. He justified his withdrawal on the basis that it was “time to pass the torch to a new generation”. However, he could (and should) have reached the same conclusion last year before the primary season. What changed between then and now? 

The Israel-Hamas war is what changed. It laid bare the fissures in the Democratic Party between the traditional liberal leadership and the growing democratic socialist or “progressive” base. Biden had desperately tried to paper over this divide with federal largesse (see this previous post) but belatedly realized that the debate was about much more than relative budgetary priorities. It was part of a slow realignment of American politics. The post-war Democratic Party went from the progressive nationalism of FDR, to Bill Clinton and Biden’s corporate globalism and now may be in the process of moving into an identity politics form of socialist globalism (more on the history and basis of these ideologies later). It remains to be seen whether presumptive nominee Kamala Harris will complete this transformation. Her ideals and ambitions may cause her to adopt an identity politics form of the party’s previous corporate globalism. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is in the process of rediscovering its nationalist roots, though in the form of a sometimes ugly form of ethnic nationalism.  

In the end, Biden concluded that he was too old not so much physically, but ideologically.  His combination of domestic progressivism and a globalist foreign policy was dying and could not be resurrected in today’s world.  He passed the torch out of frustration and sadness, undoubtedly laced with bewilderment and anger. It was an unfortunate end to a long career in American politics.  As Joe Biden rides off into the sunset, the rest of us will have to chart the nation’s course through the shoals of these new ideologies.  

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, 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 emphasizes 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. 

General

The Origins of the Trump Revolution

Bob Claude |

The 2016 election ushered in a realignment of the political culture from a debate about big vs. small government and social issues to a one between globalism vs. nationalism. Aspects of those old debates remain, but they are now best understood as a clash between globalist elites ideologically committed to free trade, immigration and relaxed social values versus those who believe that stable families and the preservation of a national identity and the American Dream are more important. The attached article from 2016 is thus still relevant, if simply because it explains why approximately 40% of the electorate remains devoted to President Trump in spite of his obvious personal failures.

Politics has become more caustic because neither side fully recognizes this new alignment and the realistic legitimacy of the other side of the spectrum. To avoid this reality, media and governmental elites obsessively recycle the old debates much as the politics of the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century degenerated into recycling old arguments about alcohol temperance, immigration, and responsibility for the Civil War (Rum, Romanism and Rebellion).

The rise of the Populist Party in the late 1800’s forced economic inequality, pernicious market power and the resulting crisis in democracy to the front of the debate. Eventually, the confrontational populist approach gave way to the Progressive Era, of which Theodore Roosevelt was a leader.

Donald Trump clearly is not that leader. However, his election will hopefully open the system to a new more constructive approach to the same kinds of issues that exist today. Whether this will require a new political party or an ideological shakeup of the current two parties still remains to be seen.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/03/08/the_25-year_tide_that_gave_us_trump_129902.html