Let’s Talk About (((Globalists)))

Among the many disturbing features of far-right rhetoric today is the invocation of the “globalist.” The term clearly is meant as a pejorative. Moreover, it almost always used in opposition to the idea of placing one’s nation’s interests above all others. Here is Trump using the word in 2019 in his speech to the UN General Assembly:

The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

Globalists thus are not patriots, and globalism is antithetical to “sovereign and independent” nations.

Of course, language like “the future belongs to…” reminds me of something. Now what was that? Oh, yes. This.

There are two things that need to be said here.

The first is that in this highly interconnected world, it is very much in the interests of a sovereign and independent nation to cultivate alliances and friendships. Economically speaking, autarky is nearly impossible, but perhaps the United States, given its sheer size and resources, might pull it off. That said, given the importance for the United States of foreign investment, foreigners’ buying American debt, and the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency, one wonders how exactly that might work. Moreover, for better or for worse, decades of pro-trade policies have gutted American industry. I’d rather that not have happened; I’ve always been a protectionist and never understood why for so many years America’s leaders (Republicans especially) thought de-industrialization and inviting China to eat our lunch was a good idea. But it happened. Not only do we no longer make a lot of stuff, but we lost the ability to make a lot of stuff. Could that be reversed? Theoretically, yes, but slowly, and certainly at a cost in terms of the ability of people and industry to buy the things they need and want. Everything will be more expensive.

In terms of diplomacy and power, however, going it alone is crazy, and frankly there is little precedent for it. Nineteenth century America had no formal allies but absolutely benefited from the shelter provided by the British Empire, which not only was a major trading partner but also kept any real threats to the United States at a distance. Americans must never underestimate the extraordinary blessing it has been not to have to fortify or defend our border with Canada, which I believe remains the world’s longest undefended border. It is to Britain that we owe our ability to pursue or “manifest destiny” and carve out our vast continental empire stretching to the Pacific. So even if it felt to Americans that they were going it alone, that was only because Britannia Ruled the Waves.

This situation more or less endured until World War II. Then, in the immediate aftermath of that war, which really was the first time the United States ever opted to maintain a large peace-time military, it was true that the United States was so dominant that it needed no allies or partners. Not only were we immensely strong, but everyone else was in ruins save Britain, which at this point was exhausted, broke, and content to pass the mantle of hegemony to the United States.

America’s post-war leaders wisely acted to revive its friends and former enemies alike out of the recognition that it served American interests to do so, even if that meant re-arming Germany and Japan and blowing oxygen into the smoldering embers of their industry. There were many motives for doing this, but one was the sense that confronting the Soviet Union was something best done with partners who could help shoulder that burden. Only acting together could they stem the Communist threat. And it worked.

Since then the Soviets declined and fell, though Russia remains a threat. More importantly, China has gotten back on its feet after more than a century of decline and quickly became a giant. And then there are regional powers anxious to undermine the global world order, countries like Iran and Turkey. America’s preeminence in objective and relative terms has declined. Meaning, we are less capable than we’ve been since before the war of being able to take care of ourselves without friends.

Globalism really means embracing the necessity and value of acting in concert with other countries. Rejecting globalism means retreating to policies akin to that of the United States between the two world wars, only without the protection of the Royal Navy. But even Britain could not shield us from revisionist countries of the day, i.e. Germany and Japan. The result was Pearl Harbor. I’d argue that rejecting globalism is tantamount to rejecting reality.

But then there’s the second thing that needs to be said.

“Globalist” more often than not historically has been used as code for “Jew.” Anti-globalism almost always has been synonymous with antisemitism. That does not necessarily mean that any MAGA who invokes the specter of “globalists” has Jews in mind, but it sheds light on the way anti-globalism functions as an ideology. It combines anti-modernism with conspiracy theories and establishes an alien and threatening Other. “They” are to blame. “They” are the threat. “They” are not us. “They” are traitors. “They” must be stopped. Even if no one has Jews in mind, it’s easy to see how poisonous and idiotic this kind of rhetoric can be. But here’s the icing on the cake: Very often people really do have Jews in mind, or making that shift from an abstract threat to targeting real people, i.e. Jews, becomes an easy mental shift to make. A half step. It only takes someone with influence to make it.