Nationalism vs. globalism
Some commentators have argued that nationalism vs. globalism is emerging as the main political divide in politics. Nationalism vs. globalism have also been described as the main political divide in elections such as the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with nationalist Donald Trump against globalist Hillary Clinton, or the 2017 French presidential election, with nationalist Marine Le Pen against globalist Emmanuel Macron.
- See also: Nationalism
Nationalism is a feeling of unity among a group of people born out of the French Revolution and Age of Enlightenment idea of worship of the Patrie, or one's national origins and a sense of pride in their country.
Nationalists today support national sovereignty and self-governance over creating a "one-world" society, preserving their respective national cultures and demographics over multiculturalism, and a border wall.
Sovereignty and self-governance
Nationalism can be considered a form of limited government. Rather than a global government either controlled by elites or, at least, requiring a massive bureaucracy to successfully operate, nationalists support localized government (also called subsidiarity), where individuals have the freedom to set policy for their communities.
As nationalists believe that individuals and their communities (whether local or national) should be sovereign, citizens should have the right to self-governance. Nationalists believe the two go together and cannot be separated. Jean-Jacques Rousseau echoed these views when he argued that freedom and democracy thrive best in small nation-states and that monarchy and dictatorship thrive best in large nation-states. Thus, nationalists oppose policies such as open borders, mass migration, and forming international organizations, at least with the end goal of one-world government. They also support policies such as building border walls and maintaining border security.
Relation to conservatism
- See also: Conservative
Because of nationalism's support of limited, localized, and self-government, conservatives usually support nationalism or at least lean nationalist. Most non-establishment conservatives see nationalism's support for maintaining independent nation-states as the best avenue to maintain and promote freedom, such as those provided in the U.S. Constitution. Also, as conservatives tend to be patriots and love their countries, they oppose policies that undermine national sovereignty and identity, such as open borders, mass migration, and membership in international organizations such as the European Union.
- See also: Globalism
Globalism is a liberal and authoritarian desire for a "one world" view that rejects the role of sovereign nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity. Globalism is anti-American in encouraging Americans to adopt a "world view" rather than an "American view." The ultimate goal of globalism is the eventual unification of humanity under a one-world government.
Globalists oppose nationalism, national sovereignty, and self-governance. Instead, they favor open borders, free trade, H-1B visas, interventionism, foreign aid, and changing the U.S. Constitution. They oppose strong border security and the building of border walls. Globalists can come from several political leanings, from the far-left to those considered on the right-of-center.
Liberals support globalism because it leads to centralized power, thereby providing liberals with an easier way to gain control. Liberals can more easily persuade a handful of people in centralized government to rule in their favor than convince everyone of their agenda in a decentralized form of government.
War on Sovereignty
Doing away with national sovereignty and eventually creating a one-world government is an ultimate goal of globalists. They believe in the concept that humanity is progressing for the better, and they want to create a utopia where humanity is unified and where there are no wars, conflicts, or borders (cultural and national). Supranational organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, World Trade Organization, and the Paris climate agreement, appear to be the forerunners to a complete one-world government. All these organizations are supported by liberals. A one-world government is the epitome of big government.
While many of those who either disbelieve or deny the existence of a "War on Sovereignty" imagine it as a very speedy attempt to instantly unite the world into a global government, those who are actively pushing for a one-world government are pursuing a relatively longsuffering strategy that will slowly merge all the countries of the world into each other prior to the official establishment of any world government. They believe this strategy to be the only way it can be successfully achieved. Zbigniew Brzezinski, an Obama advisor and member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, admitted this, stating that "we cannot leap into world government in one quick step. The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization." Organizations such as the EU and NAFTA are examples of this "progressive regionalization."
Additionally, Richard N. Gardner, a former State Department official, wrote in 1974 that a world government could not be established in one step. Rather, he argued that "in short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down," and that "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old fashioned assault." Gardner's strategy has been fully adopted by globalists, and international organizations such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, Paris climate agreement, and the numerous disarmament treaties are all examples of this strategy in action – eroding sovereignty bit by bit until all the countries of the world are so integrated by the complicated web of international organizations and treaties that the official establishment of a world government can be accomplished seamlessly and would rather be a mere recognition of de facto reality.
Globalists also have used the mass migration, such as the European migrant crisis incident, to advance their goal. As mass migration puts large numbers of people from certain locations into another country with different values, it causes much disruption, and this is able to reduce national pride and make the transition to a global world order relatively seamless.
- Eckman, Jim (January 21, 2017). Globalism vs. Nationalism: The Ideological Struggle of the 21st Century. Grace University -- Issues in Perspective. Retrieved January 7, 2018.
- The new political divide. The Economist. July 30, 2016. Retrieved January 7, 2018.
- Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide. TED. Retrieved January 7, 2018.
- Merry, Robert W. (May 4, 2016). Trump vs. Hillary Is Nationalism vs. Globalism, 2016. The National Interest. Retrieved January 7, 2018.
- Deen, Mark; Follain, John (April 24, 2017). France Braces for Runoff Between Nationalism and Globalism. Bloomberg. Retrieved January 7, 2017.
- The Social Contract: Book III, Chapters 3-7.
- Leahy, Michael Patrick (October 31, 2017). Paul Singer and George Soros: Billionaire Bookends of Globalist Opposition to Trump Agenda. Breitbart News. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
- Perloff, James (July 23, 2009). Council On Foreign Relations. The New American. Retrieved November 27, 2017.
- McManus, John F. (July 17, 2009). Hillary Clinton Lets CFR Cat Out of the Bag. The New American. Retrieved December 31, 2017.
- Newman, Alex (October 30, 2017). Deep State Behind the Deep State: CFR, Trilaterals, Bilderberg. The New American. Retrieved December 21, 2017.
- Gardner, Richard N, The Hard Road to World Order Foreign Policy, April, 1974