Globalism vs Localism
Maybe we should forget left vs. right, socialism vs. capitalism — a much better paradigm exists
“It may just be an inevitable part of a trend, whereby the main political divide of the 21st century is no longer between socialism and capitalism, or even liberalism and conservatism, but internationalism and localism.”
And that was written before Brexit, which not only passed, but did so with the support of huge numbers of Labour, Liberal, SNP and Green party members in addition to a majority of Conservatives. Not only did the majority of people ignore their party leadership, but voter breakdowns in no way followed a clear left/right political split. Almost 40% of Labour voters voted to leave, and while we’ve endlessly heard that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain, the truth is that almost as many SNP voters voted to leave as did Labour voters.
Why is it that we saw so much collaboration between the party leaders in Britain, who almost all pushed a vote against Brexit, and the likes of Hollande, Juncker, Schulz and Merkel? These are the same people who are pushing the massive influx of migrants from Africa and the Middle East in combination with the absurd proposal that Middle Eastern Turkey should join the EU.
Now just recently The Economist, to all outward appearances a conservative-leaning rag, ran a story called the New Political Divide in which they map out the dangers of anyone opposed to the globalist agenda. They say it is a contest between open and closed, one so important that it transcends party affiliation:
Republicans who are serious about resisting the anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
People must have been shocked at how brazen the author was in publicly calling people globalists, as if it were some kind of compliment. Globalism — wasn’t that what the left was fighting against all through the 80’s and 90’s? Wasn’t that what the Seattle WTO protests were about? I remember talking to some (left wing) activists who had been there. They were ecstatic describing it. They said Seattle was their first major win.
Now as the US presidential election moves forward we see supposed conservatives like open-borders’ Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John McCain vacillating between tepid endorsements for Trump and open hostility. In fact, the former GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, no great friend of the American worker, just announced she’s supporting Clinton. This coincides with Obama publicly stating that Trump just isn’t fit to do the job. The ease with which Ryan, Obama, Whitman, and the Democrats can align their views would be difficult to explain with the classic left/right paradigm.
By the same token, if you view the result of the Austrian election with a supposed right-wing Hofer winning 86% of blue collar votes, that would seem odd. If you look at it from the perspective of a localist candidate (Hofer) against a professed open borders globalist (Van der Bellen), not so much. The white working class throughout the Western world is absolutely against globalism.
It is also clear that alignment between so many establishment leaders on the left and right who were against Brexit (and as it turns out the majority of voters) would be hard to explain from a left/right or liberal/conservative perspective. From the standpoint of localism vs globalism, it makes perfect sense.
I find a lot of European friends are confused by the American election. They don’t understand how Trump can be so popular when the MSM and establishment political leaders are so against him. Again, as localism vs globalism, it all makes sense.