Globalism on the whole is negative. It’s expanded poverty and concentrated great wealth in the hands of transnational business and political elites with no loyalties to People or Place, nor anything but the pursuit of profit. The only possible way globalism could succeed in a world of distinct peoples, cultures, and civilizations, is by replacing these things with a fake global monoculture. People all over the world are increasingly resisting this which is encouraging from my pov. Understanding the motivations of idealistic intellectual supporters of this destructive ideology is the key to subverting and defeating it in the long run. It is also quite enlightening to track the money trail and network of elite institutions funded in support of such globalist propaganda.
There are certainly downsides to globalization. But most harms that people point to are fixable. For example, if megacorps are causing more harm than good, there are ways to regulate them to keep competition thriving. But as a general rule, open trade makes everyone richer, not poorer. Throughout all of human history, wealth has been generated in regions that opened themselves up to trading goods and services with other places. This principle is true even on the micro level in our day to day lives. For example, imagine each time you published an essay, you had a choice of three "Publish" buttons. Button A would limit the essay to be available to people in your town. Button B would limit it to people in your country. And Button C would allow it to be read and shared around the world. All things being equal, I'd be willing to bet you'd push Button C each time. And each time you pushed it would be a vote for globalism.
Thanks for the article. It does literally say it's Republicans who are becoming more enthusiastic about trade opportunitues and simply because they trust Trump more than they trusted Biden. That's not some anti maga force swinging it. It wouldn't make sense to have a reactionary swing like that. People have real values; polls just try to capture those values in specific contexts (when the poll was taken). There's no reason to believe Republicans gave up on business and trade nor to characterize maga as anti globalist. These are just buzzwords and headlines for political attacks. There's something underneath it that has to be mapped to understand what's happening.
Edit: Trump is quite literally a businessman. There're too many "hot takes" clogging the discussion. It doesn't make sense to slice the pie these ways.
Edit: If you're interested, there's no such thing as globalization. It's just an abstract concept somebody made which isn't grounded in anything. Using those terms are never going to come down to other people's viewpoints. It drives me nuts still, but some republican journalist made the maddening distinction that liberalism was against free speech compared to democracy. It's just absolutely nuts and eventually becomes conspiratorial. It's just crazy. In any case, there are better ways to characterize what's happening. Maybe the "real" Democrats (the Republicans) will maybe take up neoliberalism as neodemocracy.
Globalism on the whole is negative. It’s expanded poverty and concentrated great wealth in the hands of transnational business and political elites with no loyalties to People or Place, nor anything but the pursuit of profit. The only possible way globalism could succeed in a world of distinct peoples, cultures, and civilizations, is by replacing these things with a fake global monoculture. People all over the world are increasingly resisting this which is encouraging from my pov. Understanding the motivations of idealistic intellectual supporters of this destructive ideology is the key to subverting and defeating it in the long run. It is also quite enlightening to track the money trail and network of elite institutions funded in support of such globalist propaganda.
There are certainly downsides to globalization. But most harms that people point to are fixable. For example, if megacorps are causing more harm than good, there are ways to regulate them to keep competition thriving. But as a general rule, open trade makes everyone richer, not poorer. Throughout all of human history, wealth has been generated in regions that opened themselves up to trading goods and services with other places. This principle is true even on the micro level in our day to day lives. For example, imagine each time you published an essay, you had a choice of three "Publish" buttons. Button A would limit the essay to be available to people in your town. Button B would limit it to people in your country. And Button C would allow it to be read and shared around the world. All things being equal, I'd be willing to bet you'd push Button C each time. And each time you pushed it would be a vote for globalism.
Yall can't just randomly call vibe shifts when you want to change the narrative
Fair point, but check out the chart in this Gallop article (which partly inspired my article) about Americans' views on foreign trade. Definitely a clear shift that's pretty unprecedented. https://news.gallup.com/poll/657581/americans-foreign-policy-priorities-nato-support-unchanged.aspx
Thanks for the article. It does literally say it's Republicans who are becoming more enthusiastic about trade opportunitues and simply because they trust Trump more than they trusted Biden. That's not some anti maga force swinging it. It wouldn't make sense to have a reactionary swing like that. People have real values; polls just try to capture those values in specific contexts (when the poll was taken). There's no reason to believe Republicans gave up on business and trade nor to characterize maga as anti globalist. These are just buzzwords and headlines for political attacks. There's something underneath it that has to be mapped to understand what's happening.
Edit: Trump is quite literally a businessman. There're too many "hot takes" clogging the discussion. It doesn't make sense to slice the pie these ways.
Edit: If you're interested, there's no such thing as globalization. It's just an abstract concept somebody made which isn't grounded in anything. Using those terms are never going to come down to other people's viewpoints. It drives me nuts still, but some republican journalist made the maddening distinction that liberalism was against free speech compared to democracy. It's just absolutely nuts and eventually becomes conspiratorial. It's just crazy. In any case, there are better ways to characterize what's happening. Maybe the "real" Democrats (the Republicans) will maybe take up neoliberalism as neodemocracy.