New posts are planned for Saturdays and otherwise randomly as something of interest happens. I maintain an author page at Facebook. If you are interested in more on the writing, it's at https://www.facebook.com/RainTrueax/.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Globalism or Nationalism

It's truly a shame that this election has become so mired in the mud. It's nearly impossible to discuss real issues without being dragged into accusations of this or that unfaithfulness-- whether economic, legal, or social. We watched Bill Maher on Friday night where he was interviewing Ann Coulter, a hated name in liberal circles. All Maher wanted to discuss were the sexually titillating details while Coulter kept trying to get him back to issues. Issues were why she was supporting Trump despite his personality defects. 

One of the biggest of those issues, which Americans should be seriously considering is globalism or nationalism. This issue impacts a lot of the rest of them. The first link is a general overview, put out in May-- when it was still hoped it could be seriously discussed in debates.



             Liberals and Neocon conservatives tend to agree. [globalism] 

Tea party conservatives have another view [battle against globalization-- Sanders and Trump on same side]  

A firm libertarian view was harder to come by. On the one hand they appear to be against big government but on the other hand, they like economic exploitation as a way to profit. When I think about the libertarian view on anything, not hard to understand why they don't have a consistent policy. Here's their [political platform] on it but if you do a search, you find a lot of arguments either way. Just the Ron Paul forum can have a reader's head spinning.

Green Party says this about [globalization].

When you go evaluating what economists think about globalism, remember most came out of economic departments which have a very heavy bias toward it. That can occur when donations from corporations influence curriculums. It is a problem today with our university system, where pure thought is not easy to find-- nor is real analysis.

Hillary is being coy about what she believes but she has been quoted, in a wikileak hack, as saying in one of her lucrative speeches to private groups:
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

In her remarks to Banco Itau, Clinton also denounced the idea of putting up barriers to global trade, a statement which will likely raise concerns with grassroots and working-class voters in her own party. “We have to resist protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade,” Clinton said.
If she said that in speeches at her rallies, how would that go over? With the liberals-- great. Neocons probably also. With working class Americans, maybe not so much given how that would impact jobs and wages. 

When Trump, as a nationalist, says the opposite, that he wants to close the illegal crossings at our border and control immigration to be sure terrorist supporters are not among them, the media accuses him of being a racist, xenophobe and downward.

Nationalist or globalist would be a good debate but it isn't even asked. I guess they figure Americans can't understand the concepts. The pros and cons could take up the whole debate. Why it doesn't come up is likely because some would prefer it be presented as a fait accompli. Do it and talk to the people later about it. You can learn the details later. Trust us.

To be a globalist explains why the Clintons would believe our troops should be engaged around the world and go to war to defend places where it does not impact American interests. To a globalist, there are no American issues. Globalists are good for business and explain how we ended up with the long war in Vietnam. It explains Kosovo and Libya. It is also why Jill Stein said Clinton is likely to get us into a nuclear war. Think a major war is unlikely? With a global view, we are putting ourselves out there; and it's a real risk maybe even before Clinton gets in there [Turkey warns WWIII is inevitable if Syrian conflict continues].

We are in Syria for global interests even though some would say oil in the Middle East is an American interest. Actually today with the tar sands in Canada and our fracking, that is probably not true. We export our oil because oligarchs determine a lot of our policies. The idea of keeping that oil, storing it for American needs, is nationalism.

Nationalists are where we find 'American exceptionalism' and where we find a reluctance to go to war other places. Nationalism is about making your own country good first and then helping others. Nationalists can believe in charity overseas but would not see it as required but rather as spiritually needed.

There is a bumper sticker we used to have on a van-- Think Globally! Act Locally! That actually would fit a nationalism concept. Care about the world but take care of your own backyard. Our crumbling infrastructure is evidence we are not doing that.

Nationalism would favor a solid border to prevent illegal entries. Nationalists could also favor a strong policy of green cards to allow workers, who are needed, to come in legally.  Globalists would say we have no need or right to a border as the world  is one big family of humans.

Nationalism favors traditions and rituals unique to your cultural history. Globalists would see those pushed aside as too often divisive. Through PC, we are constantly trying to eliminate a lot of culture that isn't correct.

Businesses often benefit from globalism as it enables them to take their factories where workers are cheapest to hire and where environmental standards don't make their products more expensive. Nationalism tends to do more for richer countries than poorer.    

Excessive nationalistic thinking leads to isolation and decline. Totally open borders and trade [mercantilism] also can cause decline bringing everybody down leading to chaos under the excuse of highest return for a few is 'really better'. Balance is necessary, but not easy and not flashy sounding.  

When the Hearst media empire wanted the Spanish American War, it served purposes far beyond Cuba and the Philippines. It began a system of global expansion of American military and invasive wars. No, we don't 'occupy' as such other countries. We put large bases there, and it lets our corporations go in for their profit and safety (if you ignore sporadic terrorism outbreaks).  

Globalization both creates and takes jobs.  Trade policies when they are fair can benefit a nation. But there is a downside to total open trading because with so much of the world in poverty, it will have to take down the richer countries-- not their oligarchs, of course, but the workers. For a globalist, that's a fine deal.

Americans need to think on which side, of what is a very real divide, they are. This election will not be decided on it. It is going to be decided on Trump's failed personality as a leader, but the winning side will move ahead on what has mostly been a hidden agenda. In my mind, Obama is a globalist. He's been moving in that direction by the ongoing wars, that never let up, and his TPP plan that would allow laws and trade policies to rule over US laws. Is that what voters wanted when they voted

Here's my take on this. Know if you are a globalist, nationalist, or something in between and then don't think for a second you can now ignore what government does for the next four years. Too much is at stake. Have a position. Care more about that then about who won Dancing with the Stars. Care because it's your children and grandchildren who this will most impact. 

Nations do not remain static. They are constantly changing. Make sure you know which way you believe yours, whether you are American or from another nation, should go. 

My next post will be on the environment and in particular water. It's a biggie that again many don't think about until their water is found to be dangerous-- or they realize someone big like a Buffett now owns it...    

5 comments:

Harold/AQ said...

I take a somewhat pragmatic view of the issue. There are more than 7 Billion people alive today on our little planet, about 325 Million of whom claim residence within our borders. I believe but do not know that every company represented in the DJIA and S&P indices is engaged in international business, and, of course, environmental issues are by definition global. We may choose to think nationally, locally if you will, but our local solutions need to at least make sense globally.

Tabor said...

The globe is changing very fast as poverty grows by leaps and bounds and we can think we can be focused nationally, but that is pretty naive. We are all interconnected now and interdependent. Not sure that I agree with you that Hillary would start a global war. She may be faced with no choice, but it is not of her making. No one is that powerful.

Rain Trueax said...

She has a globalist view as did Bill. It justifies foreign wars like Vietnam. I doubt we'd be in Iraq to this day if not for a globalist view. Neocons share a lot with liberals.

I am not saying one is right or wrong but just people should know the consequences. Some feel they are wealthy enough to be immune to economic issues that arise from cheaper labor-- in fact, it benefits them. Others feel their pensions make them immune. The idea of allowing in all who wish to come will definitely lower wages. I guess it depends on whose ox is gored how you see that.


Remember with Hillary she favored taking sides in Libya to unseat Gadaffi, who although brutal, like many of those brutal leaders, often their countrymen were better off then with what we left them. Some believe that was in a tit for that regarding arms to Syrian rebels. I always think with those who don't worry about foreign wars-- what age are your grandchildren? Do you want them fighting those wars or just someone else's? What about a draft again where our daughters can also be forced to go to war? Vietnam was our brothers and husbands, but this time, I don't think it would be all male. The trouble with globalist wars is often it's really hard to justify why there but not Africa?

vegahelp said...

"Excessive nationalistic thinking leads to isolation and decline. Totally open borders and trade [mercantilism] also can cause decline bringing everybody down leading to chaos under the excuse of highest return for a few is 'really better'. Balance is necessary, but not easy and not flashy sounding."

I was presently surprised by this paragraph and will chew on it awhile. I generally skip posts about politics and environmentalism.

I tend to lean Libertarian in philosophy, but not politically. To me, when they try to form a political party, their message gets lost; the "convention" was straight out of Jerry Springer.

Rain said...

I am trying to keep all of this from partisanship and more to explore some complex issues that unfortunately aren't getting enough coverage in the mainstream media. Finding balance in a changing world isn't easy and even harder when Americans don't have an interest. Thank you all for reading. This actually impacts every nation around the world as the very concept of nation is something that has been constantly changing especially in the past where one nation state or another took over vast tracts of land and peoples only to lose it to another. To have defined borders is historically a rather rare concept-- theoretically leading to more stability... I like the word theoretically as it works in a lot of situations. ;)