Can we please stop calling people like Mulvaney and t rump conservatives; the same for the "freedom caucus", the only thing they want freedom from is the duty to act responsibly in the democracy they live in. A vast complex machine this Nation is, too.
We should call it the fascist nationalist party.
What is it these so called patriots love about their Country? They seem to despise our government; the only regions they think count are the deserted areas of former small farms and the towns that sustained them; they don't want to pay their share to sustain the Nation; and they want to hoard guns to protect themselves from that government.
These folks need to understand that they only thing that makes America Great is our government; our Constitution and our body of laws. And the notion that no man, not the president and certainly not t rump, are above those laws.
What made America great was not John Wayne myths, Ronald Reagan patronizing, or battles won. It was, and is, US; We the People and the founding documents that do sustain us.
119
If America is such a bad country, why are people arriving here legally and illegally? I have traveled extensively and just returned from London, and there is no other country in which I would prefer to live. When I mentioned that I resided in New York, everyone was so envious. They love the United States which is the land of opportunity for millions upon millions. I also discovered that Londoners still love us. They want to all come here for a visit.
We are not without our problems but we still are a great nation. We can criticize our leaders and not be imprisoned or murdered for our opinions no matter how derogatory they may be. We have freedoms that other countries such as China and North Korea lack.
It is wonderful to travel but I will always call the US home. It still is a marvelous place despite its flaws.
35
The most relevant point the majority of opponents to globalism miss is that it is not globalism in of itself that is the problem, it is the greed governing the benefits of globalism going to a few elites and the people are left with the crumbs. Basically the GOP but on a global scale. Global mindset that we are all in this together is the only way forward to peace and prosperity for all. So it is up to us the people to elect responsive and responsible governments. Just because this will be a long arduous journey doesn't mean we should not rise to the occasion, it demands that we do just that to honor all of those who sacrificed themselves to reach this point.
22
Like "cosmopolitan," it's an accusation of treachery, of not adhering to boundaries set by people who seem to resent others' education, travel, and diversity of life experience. Odd, that the Trumpian economic version seems to require the entire cabinet to attend Davos and embarass us.
23
When I first read the story with the italicized word ‘globalist,’ I thought it referred to people who were opposite of ‘nationalists’ or ‘protectionists.’ I am happy to learn of my mistake, that the word is another rude, crude word used by the non-politicians at the ‘White House.’
10
Regarding Gary Cohn's globalism:
Anti-Semitism differs from other types of prejudice because practitioners of it have convinced themselves over the course of centuries that Jewish people are smarter and more financially astute than they are.
That is why it has persisted so long over time and that is why it appears in odd places like Poland, Greece and Japan where very few Jews live.
The fact that Jewish people frequently are smarter and more financially astute than other people compounds the difficulty of solving the problem.
16
There is an element of resigned sadness in Stephens column, perhaps half of what is in David Brooks, "Understanding Student Mobbists." Only the illusioned can be disillusioned. Stephens, though, explains right up front much of the reason immigrants keep wanting to come here, America-bashing by many commenters notwithstanding. As he writes, "I grew up in Mexico City and remember vividly the things that impressed me most as a child whenever I visited the United States. Water you could drink straight from the tap. Cops who didn’t demand bribes. Competitive elections."
Stephens' tentative equation of Mike Mulvaney's use of "globalist" as a euphemistic dog-whistle for "Jewish conspiracy" reminds me of an apt West Wing episode, where a highly politicized, extremely conservative evangelical operative tries to get Josh Lyman fired and refers to his intolerable "New York sense of humor." When Josh points out to her that he is from Connecticut, Toby breaks in to say to Josh that what she really meant was Jews.
Ted Cruz in his own cynical, hypocritical, and highly inept way tried that out in the primaries against, of all people, Donald Trump, as a possessor of "New York values", meaning too influenced, if not controlled, by Jews. You didn't need Bernie for that as "New York values" has been an anti-Semitic euphemism for a few generations.
"Globalism" is often an updated word for "cosmopolitan", an anti-Semitic "charge" one could find in Russia, France, America, and many other places.
14
We should hope that that this term, globalist, used as an anti-semitic slur, is among the many we see taking a much-delayed belabored final breath as it expires, finally.
7
If you read Breitbart or the Daily Caller or Stormfront you will see there is a language of anti Semitism that calls Jewish people globalists.
They used Hillary’s speeches to Goldman Sachs as proof of her pandering to those ((globalists)) which is another way of saying those Jews
Then they were silent when Trump hired 13 Goldman alumni for his Whitehouse.
Which means it is all about power and not about anything but it always goes back to anti semitism when they need to maintain power and find a punching bag. Racism is an old reliable friend to republicans
24
Let's be clear here. To republicans, the term 'globalist' is pejorative, and means Jewish, or somehow related to George Soros, the Jewish businessman and philanthropist who donates money to liberal causes.
24
The crux of this matter is that for the blue collar workers in the US the most visible impact of globalization is loss of their own jobs. We can debate attribution all day long but that’s the perception. So while the country as a whole benefits remarkably from globalization the key demographic niches that Trump plays like a drum don’t see it that way.
19
Hearing the word Globalist and thinking anti-Semitic dog whistle says a lot more about Stephens than the person saying the word. I'm also jewish and have run international business divisions. But I think that questioning whether or not globalist policies have be a net winner to the US over the last 50 years is perfectly legitimate. They have certainly helped reduce the number of people globally in extreme poverty but they have also hollowed out the industrial base of the US.
11
This was wonderful column. Like Mr. Stephens, I too was raised in Mexico City, and could not agree more with his statement that "...If you really want to fall in love with America, try leaving it for a while." Thank you, Brett, for reminding us that globalism isn't always about money, but rather about global understanding and the fact we are all neighbors on this planet. If that sounds naïve, so be it.
30
Isn't it ironic we ended up questioning globalism when a Queens native (New York City's borough of Queens) is the sitting president, the borough where more than 100 languages spoken? Those who still try to capture the essence of globalism I invite you to take a subway ride at my, and Mr. Trump's, borough, Queens. There you'll see the true human face of globalism, the extraordinary harmony of international faces from all across the globe traveling at a train car, with purpose, from point A to point B. My favorite is the #7 line's trains. Praising the globalists, in my humble opinion, in order to counter-balance Davos, Mr. Bret Stephens should have included the #7 train example to his article as well --unlike Davos #7 train are never boring :)
15
Further evidence that the rest the world is playing soccer and America wants to continue playing football.
10
Whether Mike Mulvaney's comments are thinly veiled Antisemitism is debatable, and more likely, the inference is a bit overdrawn. What they more accurately express and disclose is a most quintessential America trait: ethnocentrism. One can be well traveled, yet remain most parochial in outlook. This is exhibited in the ugly American, loud and demanding, angered by how the rest of the world isn't exactly like the USA---and I've seen these tourists in Canada and Europe. Similarly, I coudln't help but notice how maps of North America on Weather Channel forecasts were confined to the lower 48, while traveling in America last year. I hate to say it, but this "informed" view of the world is all too common in the USA.
As other commenters have noted. Mr. Stephen's definition of globalist defines not what the term actually is, but what it's not. Likewise, he defends nothing here, but attacks what isn't in consonance with his world view.
1
"... I coudln't help but notice how maps of North America on Weather Channel forecasts were confined to the lower 48, while traveling in America last year."
Weather forecasts are location-specific, so that is a ridiculous complaint.
In fact, the weather.com web site lets you set your location to anywhere in the world, so that makes weather.com a "globalist" web site.
6
I guess it has to be pointed out, again and again, and then again, that "globalism," is inherent in the logics of capitalism: you can't have one without the other, because markets and businesses that aren't expanding are dying. You also can't have the trucks, jet-skis, chain-saws, and assorted plastic junk that Trumpists endlessly consume without globalism, at least not at a price they're willing to pay.
Guys like Mulvaney are a real problem when they get power, because pretty much everything they do is some kind of work-around for economic reality; that's dangerous, because all the work-arounds involve some kind of racism, xenophobia, and saber-rattling. You know...the problem is the IMMY-grants, the problem is the CHI-neses, the problem is them collitch kids, the problem is...anything but that we're going through a massive set of econmic developments, so let's recognize that and deal with it as best we can.
It was not a Good Thing when conservatives stopped reading, "Locksley Hall:" you know, "the parliament of Man, the Federation of the world." But then, the Trumps and Mulvaneys are radical wackos, not conservatives.
5
Lets not confuse Globalism, with global trade. The second we cant live without, the first...well...its not exactly clear what it means, other then making money at all costs...mostly costs to the working classes...profits to the 5%.
Fixing the domestic issues of Global trade, and Globalism's influences, needs precision on our parts. Surgical precision. Instead we have a guy wielding a weed-wacker in a topiary garden. He's so not a skilled artisan with a chain saw about to turn a raw tree-log into something cool.
I support the aggressiveness, where we have had too much treading softly, and trepidation in previous Admins. And I'll credit Trump for being very capable of getting other nations attention. At that he's the master, and its not a bad thing...until it is. As he has no strategy. Its like a coach who yells an obvious play from the sidelines, but his players dont know he's trying to trick the other team. There is no "code" worked out to let them know he's baiting the other team, and they are actually going to run another play.
He has often claimed to like chaos, desiring the conflict among his staff. Maybe that's why he's been bankrupted, and sued (and settled) so many times? The Team isn't being managed, isn't "in" on the strategy, but is expected to mind-read him. As he doesnt have an agreed upon play book. Which might work, albeit it suspiciously, in his RE biz...but is an amateurish and idiotic way to run the US of A!
I expect We can only expect more bad calls.
4
"If you really want to fall in love with America, try leaving it for a while." You got that right, brother Stephens!
4
"In praise" of 20th century world history, Stephens misses the larger point and the more relevant point: Globalism was always Lenin's greatest unrealized dream. Stalin's stomping didn't work. Seems with the help of "news" organizations like NYT, it's back on the march.
1
“Water you could drink straight from the tap. Cops who didn’t demand bribes. Competitive elections.”
Flint Michigan’ water.
Los Angeles, New York, a dozen other police depts polluted with corruption and the “blue wall.”
Elections on Pennsylvania where districts are so gerrymandered they’re unrecognizable.
13
You know he meant "overall."
And you know he meant over the past 40 years.
Geesh.
4
As Mark Twain wrote a few years ago....... “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth." Put the kids in the back seat of your car and take a road trip this summer. Do not take a plane from point "A" to point ." If you fly from A to B you'll miss the whole point of what Twain said.
4
"I am convinced of the overwhelming benefits to ordinary Americans of free trade and immigration (both skilled and unskilled)."
Mais, bien sûr, the NYTimes selected this op-ed by Brett Stephens.
Globalization, open borders... according to the NYTimes, that's allegedly what most Americans really want...about as factually accurate as days before the 2016 Presidential election, when the Times insisted Hillary had a 98% chance of winning the Presidency.
The smug elite (Mr. Stephens and the out-of-touch editorial staff of the Times included) can pontificate about their imaginary certainties all they want. It doesn't change reality. Unfair trade deals, jobs going overseas, open-borders and having to carry the financial burden cradle to grave of millions of uneducated and unskilled illegal immigrants is not what most middle class taxpayers want. Trust me. I am one of them.
12
"Globalist" is a bad word because of the immense inequality that globalism combined with conservatism has created. Yes, free trade maximizes the wealth. But it is government that shields labor from capital. It is government that determines both pre-tax market outcomes and after-tax outcomes.
The great economic shift rightward of the U.S. since Reagan has weakened government to the point where it cannot do its job. Record inequality, the feeling of "falling behind" in conservative parlance, is pervasive now.
By weakening labor relative to capital (e.g., allowing offshoring of jobs without penalty, gutting unions, limiting anti-trust action, refusing to raise the minimum wage, preferential tax treatment for capital income, etc.) the top 1% now have 40% of the wealth, vs. 25% pre-Reagan.
While the "average" U.S. family has $760,000 in net worth, the bottom 50% average only $11,000 or so, as the wealth is concentrated so much that the average is a meaningless number.
Republicans are reaping what they've sown: a government too weak to tax the rich and use its anti-trust powers to return oligopoly markets to competitive markets.
9
Stephens: "In short, anti-globalism is economic illiteracy married to a conspiracy mind-set."
Yes, there is nothing to argue about this statement, but it is a cliché.
A more valuable article by Stephens would be not to say the obvious about Trump and his minions but to acknowledge that they are not necessarily always wrong and to discuss where their identification of problems may have substance. For example, China and Germany are mercantilist counties that deal with us and others unfairly. Also, the promotion of unfettered immigration has been a naïve concept which, among other things, has given rise to predictable dangerous populist pushback in many countries.
Obama looked good by ducking difficult issues (trade, immigration, North Korea, Syria, etc.) which Trump is now confronted. A more interesting article by Stephens would be to identify where Trump's diagnosis of a problem may be more or less correct, but to address whether Trump's style and incompetence will always lead to failure.
1
Actually I have the exact opposite affect when returning to the US after being abroad. I like it less and less. Especially the violence, trashiness and rude people. The infrastructure and public transportation is archaic as well.
We seem to have more in common with third world countries than we're willing to admit. We are certainly not first world anymore. It's disgraceful to see homeless people everywhere and drug addicts shooting up in the streets.
America is one of the least civilized places in regards to gun violence. It is becoming increasingly scary indeed.
23
Global corporations with transnational ambitions and no allegiance to anything but making a buck shouldn't be running the show. Some of these companies have budgets bigger than third world countries. Conveniently, they get their raw resources from Africa (without any environmental protection), their labor from Asia (without any worker protection), and their hoard their money in some bank on an islet in the middle of the ocean (beyond the reach of the taxman). And then they hire an army of pointy headed economists to explain how great everything is working.
11
It's interesting to see all of the economic nationalists coming to the fore these days. Many of them were the same people during the Obama Administration who wanted lower taxes, budgets balanced, unions squashed, the public sector reduced, more lax gun laws, minimum wages kept to a minimum, a reduction in entitlement spending, and states rights. As a globalist who believes in a strong America, I'd like to ask them when they are going to get around to strengthening health care for all Americans, supporting strong public education, access to decent and nutritious food, a greater emphasis on solving the epidemic of drug addiction, better access to affordable housing, and, yes, developing a real plan for more and better paying jobs. The problem with the current crop of economic nationalists is that many of them are focused solely on the manufacturing and the fossil fuel sectors of our economy with little regard for the rest. Frankly, I don't even sense much of an appetite in the nationalist camp for a massive infrastructure plan now that they realize the federal government is going to put most of the financial burden on the state and local governments.
2
There are really only two natural constraints to maximizing economies of scale by minimizing the number of factories making something: the logistics of moving the raw materials and the product, and the risks of putting all of one's eggs in one basket.
One problem I have with global corporations is they get to operate outside the moral, legal and ethical standards we clueless consumers assumed.
Offshoring, sweatshops, bribes and payoffs (largely to politicians), money laundering and "sheltering" tons of cash to avoid taxes.
The best recoil that can come from the Trump Administration is the restoration of strict ethics regulation on companies and officers doing business in America.
How about we extend our “globalist” outlook to the field of health care and health insurance? All other industrialized countries have systems in which everyone is covered, for less than half the cost per capita and with better medical outcomes than the U.S. Obvious conclusions, anyone?
9
Leaving the US for more than a decade did everything BUT make me love it more. Instead, it opened my eyes to how insular and shortsighted this country is. We love to think we are so ahead of the rest of the world in myriad ways, but the truth is, much of the world is ahead of us.
9
Mr. Stephens deliberately chooses to be naive about the term globalist. If it only means what he says (globalists are people who live in different places on the globe), why is there such fierce left-wing agitation and demonstrating at conferences like Davos? Are they also deceived? Globalist really does have an economic meaning, which includes free trade, free immigration, free movement of capital, free everything for those who control vast resources and get to do whatever they jolly well please. It means that those who control global economic resources have no checks placed on them by national governments, who are (notwithstanding Mr. Stephens' never-Trumpism) elected by the people of those nations. What Mr. Stephens is not saying, and what the NYT is generally not saying, is how anti-democratic globalism can be. Big tech, big pharma, big banking, etc. love globalism, no tariffs hindering their free trade etc. Why does Mr. Stephens think more ordinary folks (e.g., steelworkers) don't like it? Mr. Stephens' globalism bears more than a coincidental resemblance to the economic programs of Ebenezer Scrooge (the workhouses, are they not still in operation?). Globalism is not the opposite of isolationism - the former has to do with economics, with very real consequences to working people in our nation - the latter has to do with disregarding the political-military operations of other nations. One can be skeptical of both.
26
"If it only means what he says (globalists are people who live in different places on the globe), ..."
You need to read more carefully. Stephens said the exact opposite:
'I suppose this makes me a “globalist” in certain eyes, though I’ve never seen myself that way.'
The phrase "in certain eyes" means that people other than Stephens use "globalist" in that way.
Is "freedom" just another word for being rich?
1
Let's make it simple for Bret Stephens because globalism and global trade are often confused. Globalism seeks an internationalized new world order and one-world government ruled by the globalist elite themselves. Globalism is antithetical and diametrically opposed to national sovereignty. President Trump believes in FAIR global trade and sovereign nations cooperating for their mutual benefit. President Trump is the arch-enemy of globalism and globalists like Soros, Obama, Zuckerberg, Schmidt etc etc etc which is why they are determined to destroy him.
8
A minor correction - Trump is the Arch-Enemy of America and stands for unrestrained self-aggrandizement, corruption and every possible evil imaginable in a national leader. The Globalism vs. Anti-Globalism debate is an irrelevant side issue, the central issue is Trump's total lack of anything resembling personal integrity, decency and a shred of intelligence.
8
"Globalism seeks an internationalized new world order and one-world government ruled by the globalist elite themselves."
"... globalists like Soros, Obama, Zuckerberg, Schmidt ..."
Post exact, sourced quotes in which those four use the phrase "one-world government".
4
Trump is the poster child for globalism. He in-sources cheap foreign labor for his resorts using H2-B visas, instead of qualified Americans that have applied for positions there. His administration has increased the cap on H2-B guest worker visas, and days after, the Trump organization applied to hire more workers through that program. Trump ties are made in China. He had his "MAGA" hats made in China. Trump, Koch, Wilbur Ross - these are the globalists that are somehow able to pull the wool over your eyes.
1
Globalism is great...
For the plutocratic class, our new pharaohs, who end up with at least two ways to end up with all the loot:
First, by shipping entire American industries and millions of jobs to China, India, Mexico, etc., where labor costs and environmental regulations have been "optimized" to pad their bottom-line. Second, by importing unlimited numbers of immigrants to depress wages even further in whatever jobs still remain here in the USA.
As a corollary to the latter, we have the greed-driven wanton destruction of Western culture made inevitable by a tidal wave of immigrants who harbor religious and social ideologies fundamentally inimical to secularism, tolerance, and equality for women (among others). Principles which were secured through the collective sacrifice and effort of countless generations in the West.
16
Jose, you almost had me...till you showed your hand.
Secularism has been long fought by the very Class, most likely to exploit immigrants. Capitalists. Or Pharaohs as you call them, used to build their pyramids. Secularism is anathema to the wanton greed of Pharaohs, as secularism breeds independence. Secularism means trans people have access to the bathroom of their choice. And we KNOW the Pharaohs in the US, supported by their Evangelical donors detest such advances.
And we know the current crop of right wing Pharaohs dont give a hamsters tail-hair for women's rights. If they did, they would not be so afraid of them, and have their advocates ridicule them on TV and social media.
And they would not be seeking to continue racist policing policies. Would not be attacking States rights (when they previously supported them!) Jose. If that's your real name. Nor would they be more concerned about a gun-club, and its illogical tenets, over school children's safety. They would not be beholden to so many lobbyists/donors.
1
Globalization has a very dark side to it, that part that moves its means of production from place to place to maximize profit, without regard to the human carnage it leaves behind. Unfortunately that is capitalism. Until people come before profit the abhorrent vehicle called "globalization" will serve its master capitalism.
Bret's use of the term "globalist" is extraordinarily broad encompassing people that do not use their position to injure others for profit.
10
Having lived a great portion of my life abroad in Africa , Scandinavia and in a good old fashioned egalitarian socially democratic Netherlands , I've always been demoralized at what an insular, little, knownothing country America is. And now we have trump running the place all by himself. As long as the economy is booming( and it will be for a good long time), we are stuck with him. He'll negotiate some mealy mouthed agreement with Kim( which will be the greatest agreement ever!) and we can watch a stupid military parade every September. Kneeling for the anthem, in our all white stadiums and selling each other our steel in our mercantilism paradise.
10
It's also possible that putting "globalist" in quotes like Mulvaney did was to underscore it as "some kind of anti-Semitic dog whistle" for the benefit of the more obtuse among Trump followers.
Try living awhile in one of the Western European countries. Then come back to view the USA afresh!
First, notice the ill-designed airports where baggage-laden passengers struggle between boarding gates and detached terminals. Next, experience the bumper-to-bumper, stop-and-go city traffic on pot-holed highways. Or, risk being shaken to a jelly on the rattling, careening subway (metro) trains of vintage-20s carriages.
Stay awhile in your land of birth to experience worry and struggle with the contingencies and necessities of life. Whereas the European social democracies offer their citizens hassle-free medical care and child care, and adequate unemployment, disability, and retirements benefits, the American social safety net is meager and piecemeal. Such social services that exist are administered by a double-layer of state and federal bureaucracies.
Venture into the hinterland to see a poverty of spirit and pocket on a scale unmatched by any Western European country. Many people live in flimsy metal trailers anchored in trailer parks, or in small prefabricated houses with junk-cluttered yards. Trash-food restaurants and fundamentalist churches dominate the townscape. The restaurants cater to a large population of overweight adults and children. The churches dispense spiritual opioid to those who aren't addicted to powders and pills.
But what really concerns the people and government? North Korea, military supremacy, party politics, abortion, LGBT, and insensitive men!
49
"If you really want to fall in love with America, try leaving it for a while." After living in Germany for two years, I realized we have a lot of room for improvement.
15
Stephens: 'Putting “globalist” in quotes suggests a jest or in-joke of sorts, so it’s at least possible this wasn’t intended as some kind of anti-Semitic dog whistle.'
The quoted word in Mulvaney's tweet could be interpreted as meaning "so-called": 'He is a so-called globalist.'
Thus, Mulvaney is mocking people who use the word "globalist" as an anti-Semitic epithet.
2
For me, personally, a globalist is pro-globalization. I am not a wordsmith and have no idea about its original definition. But thats how I understand it.
And btw: I am a left, liberal anti-globalist! Doesn't make sense for you? For me it does. I am social and I believe in a society with more equality for both income and sex. Globalization has many positives. But its impact, in especial in combination with the globalization cataclyst technology, is too rapid and tearing on every countrys social fabric. If one (take an idiot such as Trump) passes a law to worsen trade, and thus worsen economic efficiency, I think it could potentially lead to more jobs (the sum of jobs outside US and inside US, not necessarily inside US). And I think any gain in economic inefficiency is good in times of industrialization or even automation. Sorry for being an academic non-conformist layman economist that maybe is one of a few people seeing the truth.
2
If by “free trade” you mean the corporate managed trade which has permitted the rich and big business to ride rough shod over the American middle and working classes, while sucking all income to the top and cutting taxes on the rich I completely disagree with you. If by “free trade” you mean an open and fair process in which America has a level playing field and so-called American companies receive no financial windfall for offshoring their production and stealing American jobs in order to squeeze out the last possible nickel for the CEO and hedge fund operators then I agree with you.
10
As an antiquarian & minimalist, I like the one about the old single proprietor standing with packed bags in his shop & when asked by an arriving friendly customer what's going on replies, "The business has gone to hell & I'm going with it."
That is the antithesis of globalism.
2
Having worked in international tax for a global transportation company for 15 years and 2 manufacturing companies with operations around the globe for the prior 10 years, I get globalism. I appreciate what the connections among businesses across borders has done for the world and the US. The level of general prosperity has risen as has the overall interest, understanding, and empathy of humankind. To me globalism is this rather startling outgrowth of economic and human development that has resulted from the technological advancements of this age. I don’t want to see its retreat but prefer leadership to help it mature and formulate its future success. It may be easier to shrink back into our provincial ways, rather than address the problems (worker displacement, identity crisis, income inequality) and seize the opportunities (economic and personal growth, visionary education, unity in diversification) created by this modern, global expansion. But, we’d be missing the boat, so to speak. Globalism is the natural next step of centuries of exploration of this globe we call home.
8
Yes- love it or hate it, it is the new reality. Trying to stop it would be like Canute trying to stop the sea. It is almost a force of (economic) nature, and has no mind of its own.
But can it be modified somehow? Because another force is the idea of human rights, dignity of individuals, and community autonomy.
Is this really a Marxist zero-sum game- Davos vs. the Workers?
I'm a Dem, but I see no value in tariffs. However, the economy has changed, and we need to pay better attention to two things.
1. What businesses are up and coming? Where can we best compete? How do we support those businesses? This includes everything from recognizing the "next big thing" and all its down-the-line offshoots (such as building houses that don't need heating systems) to making higher education better quality and more affordable.
2. What do we need to do to ensure the average citizen thrives in this economy? This includes everything from ensuring that inequality doesn't get out of hand to great basic education that gets people ready for college to ensuring that people get medical care.
You can't go backwards. But going forwards doesn't mean the strong trampling everybody else in a race for the prizes. We too often don't bother with the big picture.
6
I don’t know what a globalist is either, but we all know what a globalist is not: a xenophobic, intolerant, racist, nationalistic, bigot average staffer of the White House.
23
Implying a globalist can't be the most racist or bigoted of them all, as if! This goes the same for domestic politics. Non-southern states seem content in bashing the South, when they in fact are the progenitors of an even more intense structural racism.
1
Bret allows that Mulvaney’s tweet might not be anti-Semitic. But it is surely of a piece with the ant-immigrant fever that is the guiding force behind much of the Trump adminstration’s conduct. Both involve scapegoating based on supposed racial difference. So if Mulvaney is not anti-Semitic, he might as well be. In the sprit of his tweet, let me say to Mulvaney, right after we get rid of the globalists, let’s kick out the Irish!
4
I also grew up overseas and I am also Jewish and so the Mulvaney remark strikes me as a glancing reflection of the old smear of Jews as rootless cosmopilitans. We still live in a time when congressmen can brag about not having a passport or when many Americans want to believe that pizza is a local invention.
6
Brilliant. Thanks.
1
Agree with this article 100%. Tell me where I can get my “Globalist” ID card!
5
Thor truth here the truth here is that Mr. Stephens has grasped that the cause he has served for years has no room for him because , simply put, he is Jewish.
3
We have a President who by temperament and career believes the size of the pie is always the same. There's no belief in the concept of win-win, thus we all lose.
4
The current system in America is that the rich always win and everyone else always loses.
5
Brett-implicit in your comments are the important concept that US expats get to see what other countries ARE doing right as well as an appreciation for AMerica. having just returned from an australian sabbatical, it's great to have real hi speed internet, abundant freeways, cheap food and yes housing, and great TV and culture in vast majority of our metro areas...and aussies certainly struggle with the immigration debate, BUT they try to address this seriously and head on rather than ignore (impressive given they really only started dealing with race issues in 1965, not 1865) but aussies certainly know how to do universal k-9, public transport, Medicare for all without stifling world class health options, and a minimum wage that works and has so many positive secondary effects. Most of all, they seem to have achieved a balance between the welfare state and a vibrant private sector.free market.
WE really benefit from being globally engaged even only to benchmark what we are doing at home. Interestingly they have NOT solved a deeply polarized electorate, though the parliamentary system seems to allow them to get more things done, despite throwing up Buffon pols like barnaby jones - arguably right up there with trump !
5
I lived in Australia for a year and a half, and while I agree with some of what you say, there are protectionist and other economic policies in place that create hardships for most Australians. Compare their quality of life to New Zealanders
The opposite term to globalist in 2018 is populist, a term used by globalists expressing disdain for what they don't like. While Trump's cultural and economic philosophy leaves much to be desired, I think it's also foolish and naive to merely dismiss it as retrograde. Yes, isolationism isn't new to America, and has almost always proven deleterious to the USA. Nevertheless, should we not also examine the context in which it arises in 2018?
We've hollowed out manufacturing in North America, and replaced it with what exactly?; why is it that America's economy still can't function properly without illegal immigrants, even when their numbers have decreased? These are negative consequences of globalism, and merely choosing to ignore them is as bad as the nativist reaction it produces.
7
"Almost," always? Try always. And as for the bit about "hollowed out," manufacturing, that's just silly.
Here's a tidbit from Globalism Central: things change. Much of this is because of, wossname, capitalism.
What is "globalism"? Even Mr. Stephens declares not to know.
What to to do? A case for Wikipdia the never ending source of encyclopedic wisdom in the digital age.
The English edition told me - after a solid warning not to confuse it with "globalization" - that Paul James defines it this way, Manfred Steger the other, John Ralston Saul very differently and Joseph Nye has an absolutely different concept.
Somewhat helpless then the author switched to an historic approach:
"The word itself came into widespread usage, .. in the United States, from the early 1940s. This was the period when US global power was at its peak: the country was the greatest economic power the world had ever known, with the greatest military machine in human history." ...
"Globalism emerged as a dominant set of associated ideologies... As these ideologies settled, and as various processes of globalization intensified, they contributed to the consolidation of a connecting global imaginary."
Dear author, you told me not to confuse with globalization but now it´s the only consistent element of your own definition?!
The French Edition traces "Mondialisme" back to the French philsophers André Camus, Henry Coston and others. Oh those French. Whatever it is - they must have invented!
The German Edition refers to a comprehensive criticism by a German social scientist Ulrich Beck. Doesn´t know it either.
Last rescue: Trying to figure out what all these Mulvaneys actually mean when THEY say "Globalist".
2
Could trappers selling beaver skins that reached the Paris markets be called globalists? I believe Globalism has been going on for a long time.
4
C'mon, Mr. Stephens. Isn't there middle ground -- a sweet spot -- between globalism on one hand ... and Smoot Hawley on the other?
No one wants a return to the Smoot Hawley era. Surely its possible for thoughtful, intelligent progressives to question the benefits of free trade without having their ideas labeled as "hokum" and "economic illiteracy." That's the Fox News approach: denigrate the dissenters. Those of us who write for and read the New York Times are above that.
2
I see many commenters here sneering at Stephen's comment about globalism and anti-semitism. All one has to do is peruse the comments section of Breitbart or similar tabloid to see this common association held by many Trump supporters.
5
The globe will keep spinning with freer movement of goods, services, science and technology--and capital's finding its most efficient use--whether America pulls a blanket over its head or not. And the countries who take advantage of it, adapting their own economies to it, will be the ones who rule the world.
So Trump's fanning of economic nationalist fires is not only giving those rust belt voters who put him over the top false hope, it is shooting the longterm American economy in the foot. Putting big tariffs on steel is never going to bring the steel industry roaring back any more than deporting all those brown people is going to restore all those manufacturing jobs lost to technology. And what's worse, it will hurt far more Americans than it helps. The overwhelming weight of economic opinion is that while the tariffs may bring a hundred thousand jobs to states like Pennsylvania, it will destroy literally millions in states like South Carolina. And it will likely hurt the sales of our own goods overseas, raise the prices on foreign goods sold here--and assure that China takes the catbird seat in the global economy.
What would actually help those voters is not divisive and blatantly political promises to reverse the spin of the planet, but training for 21st century jobs and incentives for 21st century industries to locate in those communities most hurt by the loss of 20th century ones. But that requires forward vision and all Trump has is a rearview mirror.
6
How is it anti Semitic to challenge global corporate trade systems. A lot of assumptions in this article that are as far out there as anti globalism.
This snark about the US being better than anywhere else? Generally around the world where the US has been leaves exploitation for the local elites to salve the greed gene in the US.
Would be helpful if the US grew up. You are insulting to the species!
5
When Stephens writes, "Maybe it’s time now to make “globalist” mean something after all. An earlier generation of globalists — they called themselves internationalists — had learned the lessons of the 1930s and understood that the U.S. could not cut itself off from the world and expect to remain safe from it", he's only trying to load the word 'globalism' with positive rememberances between the time of the First World War of Empires and the Second World War of Empires.
Actually, as he posited earlier the term 'globalism' is strictly neutral --- like other terms, such as; technology, government, economics, et al.
And in fact, "globalism" only takes on real meaning when it modifies, qualifies, and characterizes other terms, such as "global democracy", or "global Empire".
Which one better defines the founding of America 243 years ago in our First American "Revolution Against Empire" [Justin du Rivage]?
But, more importantly, which is more favored by, and a goal worth understanding and working together for, by 'we the American people' today??
1
The term "globalist" is a code word for Jewish, cosmopolitan, often a financier, someone like George Soros, Robert Rubin, or Lloyd Blankfein. Its popular usage along with other signs indicates growing fear in the United States of decline of the middle class and national decline. Witness the rise of anti-Semitism, the rise of protectionism and economic nationalism, fear of immigrants. Two days ago, the Times ran an op-ed piece by Daniel McCarthy on the virtues of economic nationalism. It received a fair amount of criticism from Times commenters, but McCarthy seems to be a conservative of a similar kind to Pat Buchanan, who was a Trumpist before Trump.
History doesn't repeat itself, but the U.S. seems to be experiencing some of the negative aspects of the 1930s: isolationism, anti-Semitism, tolerance of dictators in Europe.
6
Although anti-globalists mis-diagnose the causes of America's economic problems, they attract support because those problems are real enough. The decline of the midwest industrial belt and the sharp increase in inequality both attest to a deterioration in this country's economic health. The popularity of Trump's narrow nationalism, moreover, reflects the failure of government and business leaders to devise any effective strategy to cope with this trend.
Corporate moguls, enriched by monopoly profits and a much lower tax rate, reject any proposals that might threaten their dominant position in the economy. Republicans, attached to the economic elite by the umbilical cord of campaign contributions, offer nothing more than their simplistic solutions of lower taxes and fewer regulations. The Democrats, having abandoned their alliance with the working class, focus on important but peripheral issues like healthcare and modest increases in the minimum wage, neither of which will change the country's income structure.
Like his role model, the pied piper, Trump traffics in deception, but his demagoguery will continue to attract support, unless the country's real leaders commit themselves to a realistic strategy for addressing the malaise that threatens America's democratic future.
4
Mr. Stephens, just because you are not part of the "in-crowd" don't think that no serious business is conducted by the participants at Davos, etc. People for whom time is money, lots of money, don't spend their valuable hours luxuriating. They make person-to-person contacts, getting to know persons of interest to them and to exchange confidences about how they see the future unfolding. If there are no banner headlines that emerge that offer columnists to claim inside knowledge - and , BTW, their own importance - the meetings are dismissed as meaningless. Meaningless for whom?
3
"It means the suspicion that Americans whose cultural and geographic horizons are broader than America's borders are deficient in patriotism."
Unfortunately the American election of Trump has legitimized a spreading nationalist, protectionist, xenophobic, mindset that is further balkanizing the entire world. Look at the success of similar politicians throughout western Europe. This fractioning will inevitably result in a far more dangerous world with individual nations no longer working together for a common good (addressing climate change, encouraging economic fairness, meeting global healthcare threats, maintaining a peaceful and cooperative coexistence), but rather raising walls, deepening moats, and adopting a zero-sum attitude that will only invite conflicts and intensify threats to peace.
3
First of all, using Mulvaney as a reference for anything is an automatic turnoff. Secondly, until we "globalists" will never understand the underlying human element that has, as its core, self preservation, something Mr. Trump and his minions understand all too well.
A true globalist is someone like Jimmy Carter, who shuns his political skin and chips in to truly help those who cannot help themselves, wherever they may be. Unless and until there are more Jimmy Carter's than the rest of us, fthe term wil be truly without meaning.
Let's face it, our iPhones have connected us to the world. What happens in Asia or Europe is on our little screen in real time. America never existed in a bubble and that remoteness disappears every day. It's not just events but the interconnection of money, commerce and culture which speed up every day drawing us into the world at large. The genie is Not going back in the bottle no matter how much Trump and his ilk would wish it to.
Trump is attempting to hang onto American exceptionalism (nationalism) in a deviant manner. Much like his personal assertion that HE alone has the best and only ideas that matter, he pushes America as he defines it as the only country that matters. Thus he constantly attempts to isolate himself and America from 'outside' influence in a zero sum game of win or lose.
After WWII America sought to engage with the world not with the destruction of bombs but the cooperation of diplomacy, economy and culture. We had seen first hand the devastation of war and had a vision for peaceful community.
To many Americans the word globalist does not mean isolation, it implies that a leader puts the interests of other countries on par with the United States. In this sense Barack Obama is a globalist. In some respects he cared more about what Europeans thought about him than than he did about many Americans. That is why the "America First" phrase resonated with many people. A globalist would praise NAFTA because it improved the lives of Mexicans, even though it cost millions of American jobs. Trump is loutish, but he doesn't care if the French like him.
6
The interests of other countries matter to the United States. In a global economy, what happens on other continents have impact. Recognizing that reality, as President Obama did, does not mean that a person rejects the needs of US citizens.
"America First" resonated with many people because there was an effective public relations campaign to manipulate public opinion. International trade and the agreements that govern it are complicated. There are benefits and there are costs.
We could do something to ameliorate the suffering of people who are adversely affected by changes in the world economy. Or we could, and have, resort to blame.
Trump cares very much about whether people like him. Yes, he's loutish, but he's also very susceptible to flattery. Don't think for an instant that foreign leaders and businesses don't recognize that and try to turn it to their advantage.
1
Regarding the last paragraph, this White House could use any virtues at all.
1
The opposite of globalism is, inevitably - war.
With diminished ties of trade, with proliferating rationales for sectarianism, it's only a matter of time and chance that nations come into conflict.
9
"Successive generations of Americans--military and foreign-service officers, businessmen and teachers, humanitarians and entertainers--went out into the world and sought to make it a better place." Well, they went out into the world, but the businessmen and the entertainers went out to make money. The military and foreign-service officers' may have had good intentions, but the results over the last 50 years speak for themselves. No one begrudges the relief work of humanitarians.
But globalism for businessmen has meant that most of the additional prosperity achieved through offshoring, for example, has gone into the corporation and not into an American community. A few scraps are thrown to the newly economically deprived (e.g., factory workers), such as lower prices of some products, and maybe a nickel or two in one's pension or 401k (if you are lucky). So one can make the case that globalism's primary benefit is to generate profits that do not have any positive externalities for most American workers. I lived in Mexico City too, for some years, but I was born in Flint. You ought to go there sometime, and get back to us.
14
Mr. Stephens should know that in his trade, especially at his level words are used as symbols as much to cover real meaning as to convey them.
Globalism is one of those words. Most commentators use the term to refer to global trade. Stephens adds for no particular reason one who has lived abroad and has a world view based on experience.
Globalism is a code word, but not an anti-Semitic one as Stephens infers. The globalist crowd are those that supported the gradual shift in the national and international economy to a global finance capital system. It has nothing to do with how many stamps are on your passport.
The term while used to refer to trade is really about the unimpeded movement of capital. International markets are connected, as are currency exchanges, central bank policies and monetary practices.
Globalism represents a dramatic power shift. It amplifies the influence of big capital and reduces checks previously established by states.
What if anything this has to do with anti-Semitism or where you've lived may have more to do with some inside information Stephens has about the inner workings of the White House than it does the term globalism.
Or, it might be another way to divert attention from what has become the new financial imperialism. Stephens does warn us that he really is a member of that club.
Either way readers are left with the same overgeneralized, innuendo laden trap of the real meaning of globalism. Maybe that was the point of this piece.
18
The richest and most powerful people in the world, with vast demands on their time and attention, gather every single year without fail at Davos -- to do nothing. It is boring. Nothing happening here. "Move along. This isn't the robot you're looking for."
8
"Putting “globalist” in quotes suggests a jest or in-joke of sorts, so it’s at least possible this wasn’t intended as some kind of anti-Semitic dog whistle."
"Globalist" is an antisemitic dog whistle? That's paranoid.
23
The term"globalist" glosses over considerable complexities, as does the more common term "globalization." Viewed critically, the present moment in the global economy, especially as it has developed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, can be viewed within the history of imperialism as the final trajectory of an empire of global capital. Like all empires, the stretch and control of that empire is uneven and complex, but the key is to understand that global capital has in many ways transcended the space of competitive nation states, achieving an unprecedented integration that relies more on the compulsions and hegemony of the market itself than the armies and direct political control of past empires. States are still relevant conduits for capital flow, as are armies and police forces, the IMF and the World Bank. But the violence of this empire is as violent, in a different way, than those past empires. The extraction of labor and resources, driven by the constant need of expanding capital accumulation is ruthless. especially when one factors in the horrendous future of global climate change. All of this is not to say that "globalization" is inherently destructive. The present empire of global capital is leading to disaster, but it is not the only vision of a global world. A vision of an "alter-globalization," that recognizes the interdependence of all life forms and the earth is possible.
12
"The present empire of global capital is leading to disaster ... ." Really? Not for China or South Korea, not for Germany or any other "winners" in the trade wars. The last thing needed now is a "Gaia" view of the world that ignores all the very real factors that divide humanity. Wishful thinking will not lead to betterment of humanity.
Sad to say, "climate change" always has been a factor in world history, with recurring periods of extreme warming and cooling experienced. The current warming trend apparently did not begin to be noticed until China and India, together responsible for 40% of world population, began to industrialize rapidly. Indeed, the two main drivers of global warming have been population growth and increased average incomes allowing for increased consumption and production. Of course, it's a no-no to mention this fact.
2
This should've been the top comment. Well articulated, thank you!
There is an element of resigned sadness in Stephens column, perhaps half of what is in David Brooks, "Understanding Student Mobbists." Only the illusioned can be disillusioned. Stephens, though, explains right up front much of the reason immigrants keep wanting to come here, America-bashing by many commenters notwithstanding. As he writes, "I grew up in Mexico City and remember vividly the things that impressed me most as a child whenever I visited the United States. Water you could drink straight from the tap. Cops who didn’t demand bribes. Competitive elections."
Stephens' tentative equation of Mike Mulvaney's use of "globalist" as a euphemistic dog-whistle for "Jewish conspiracy" reminds me of an apt West Wing episode, where a highly politicized, extremely conservative evangelical operative tries to get Josh Lyman fired and refers to his intolerable "New York sense of humor." When Josh points out to her that he is from Connecticut, Toby breaks in to say to Josh that what she really meant was Jews.
Ted Cruz in his own cynical, hypocritical, and highly inept way tried that out in the primaries against, of all people, Donald Trump, as a possessor of "New York values", meaning too influenced, if not controlled, by Jews. You didn't need Bernie for that as "New York values" has been an anti-Semitic euphemism for a few generations.
"Globalism" is often an updated word for "cosmopolitan", an anti-Semitic "charge" one could find in Russia, France, America, and many other places.
15
Thank you for your post, Mr. Fankuchen. I am, on the whole, fortunate to have led a life with little (obvious) exposure to anti-Semitism; the disadvantage is that I am often less aware of things like the euphemisms you mention, and thus of the ill their users may intend. I love The West Wing and remember that episode well--it was, in fact, the pilot--and if Toby had not broken in I admit I would not have connected the Mary Marsh character's comment to specific anti-Semitism, despite her odious personal version of Christianity. (But then again, I didn't learn "Shapiro" is a traditionally Jewish surname until I was 18 and my acquaintance's dad became president of the University of Michigan.)
2
Unfortunately, cops here DO demand bribes and are often very biased.
2
It was sickening to hear Trump also using "globalist" with its inherent anti-Semetic meaning. Anti-Semitism is rising throughout the world - again - and with the president, no longer a leader in the "free" world, who is going to stand up and address it. It's not only racism that is on the rise. We must acknowledge the hate that is becoming the norm.
1
After reading this article I still have no idea what a 'globalist' is.
But I don't know what a 'capitalist' or a 'communist' is either.
I gave up tracking labels concocted by I guess one would label 'social scientists'. These labels are vague to the point of meaninglessness.
It more useful to track individual players, what they do, and the money flows between them. I have no idea if Cohn is a 'democrat', a 'globalist', or whatever. The evidence shows he has absolutely no honor, that he got his cut, that he was not going to get the fed, thus he split for greener pastures.
52
The simplest explanation is strictly economic. A "globalist" is someone who views the world economy as inextricably interconnected and therefore economic planning needs to be done with a global perspective in mind. You can't plan what's best for the United States economy without considering the rest of the world and everyone in it.
I believe Muvlaney was attempting to liken the term "globalist" to something more traditionally held in conservative disdain. Something like "cosmopolitan." Regardless, the quote definitely comes across as derogatory. I can see where Stephens might catch a whiff of anti-semitism there. Eithery way, Mulvaney's usage appears to be cultural, or maybe political, rather than economic. Cohn apparently is not "America First. Whatever that means.
Stephens falls victim to the same sort of misusage though. He dedicates a decent portion of the column reciting his international pedigree and explain how American is sometimes best appreciated from a distance. His inferring a cultural, dare I say "cosmopolitan," significance on the term "globalist" as well. In reality, you never need to set foot outside the United States in order to be a "globalist."
You only need to believe the US economy does not operate in bubble. The world effects us and we effect the world. That's a globalist.
3
@Andy
Thanks!!!
At your first use of the word ″globalist″ it occurred to me that you meant ″cosmopolitan″. That's a good word to me in its straightforward sense, but If Mick Mulvaney had pulled it out of thin air to use in reference to Gary Cohn, I'd have considered the possibility of anti-Semitic intent. That's a dog whistle with a long pedigree. The term ″rootless cosmopolitan″ was Stalin's whistle of choice in his campaign against Jews after World War II.
However, when a director of the Office of Management and Budget refers to a presidential economic adviser as a globalist, I don't think it's too generous to assume that he's thinking about economic principles. The quotation marks probably mean he'd choose a more critical term on a different occasion.
Your call for internationalism is welcome, though. I particularly like your list of the things represented by expats that make America great:
″adventure, engagement, commerce, openness to new ideas, and a love of America honed by a combination of critical distance and a new depth of appreciation.″
If a ″real globalist″ has the qualities you ascribe to expats, I'd like to earn that epithet. Anyway, I hope I'm an internationalist. As for ″cosmopolitan″, I've always thought it would be a dashing thing to have carved on my tombstone. It suggests someone who might turn up at Rick's Cafe Americain, the sort of refugee who does not neglect to pack nice clothes.
6
Thank you for your post (especially coming as it did immediately after the one from Mr. Fankuchen). As I said in a reply to him, I am insufficiently aware of the euphemisms people may deploy with anti-Semitic intent, and wouldn't want to let such intent go unchallenged when I encounter it.
Trump's inner demons demand an isolationist policy. First, since he views business and politics as zero-sum games, he has to classify everyone outside his inner circle as a loser, either after the fact or potentially. Second, He can't abide disagreement and argument because he believes himself superior and infallible. Thus, since in his mind he's always right, anyone challenges his view must in fact be disloyal, even traitorous. He is in a constant battle to keep the walls of his defense systems impervious, and the only real way to do so is shut everyone out except sycophants and fellow kleptocrats.
6
Yes, and all this is done simultaneous with his “story” that he likes to have people argue with each other and then he “decides.” The Guy is a true con artist and the person he cons first is himself about his greatness and what a “stable genius” he is.
I don't know what a "globalist" is. I do know what a "Neanderthal" is. Dictionary definition: "an uncivilized, unintelligent or uncouth person, especially a man."
And the Trump administration has an extraordinary number of them.
(With apologies to the actual Neanderthal men, who lived in ice-age Europe 120-000 to 35,000 yers ago.)
8
Neanderthal folks have been getting an unfair bad rap for a very long time. Another case of history written by the winners. Recent paleontology shows Neanderthal Man was pretty damn smart - smart and attractive enough for Sapiens to have sex with, so we’re all a little Neanderthal, some more than others.
1
The earliest migrations and expansions of archaic and modern humans across continents began 2 million years ago with the migration out of Africa of Homo erectus,"
Would this not constitute globalization? Even Neanderthals became globalists.
So where does that leave Trump, Mulvaney and a handful of other nonthinkers?
We're in a lot more trouble than I thought!
3
Austria received a warm welcome back from her nest in South America, and we had an exchange of News, leaving out 'you-know-who', my curtailing the little 1000 histoires and getting to the heart of the matter, i.e., we don't know what is happening to the Country we love and that would be America now.
A friend just forwarded from Ireland a video of a short tour of Glenlough near Dublin, most enjoyable. A fine sprightly tour guide, he mentions the Vikings who came across the shores. My Irish-American father's offspring all have a flaxen complexion, his mother was Danish, and our name means 'Priest' in Hebrew. Naturally I would not be shouting this from the roof-tops during WWII. Jack developed a passion for archaeology and produced The Key, an impossible read for this daughter of his.
My Red Queen who was French, long divorced from her lively spouse, sailed pass like a ship in the night in Paris and announced 'your father has written a book saying that we are all Jewish'. In my uninformed mind, I gathered that there was a sense of shame to be found on my crown. I refused. The wars continued. 'Go and live in Mississippi for a year, she would shout, because you do not know what you are talking about'. She was right. It is White Americans who frighten me.
A Globalist here, thanking Mr. Stephens, and a note of appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Obama for giving this supporter a sense of what everything right an American Family should be. Stay with the Angels, I say.
3
While Cohn is no great warrior for the truth, it is sad to lose someone who is not captivated by conspiracy theories. International trade helps military peace, so Trump and his crew of fascists continue to make the US weaker by threatening the global community by attacking global cooperation.
2
We have always been globalists from the first expats out of Africa, to Marco Polo, to Jefferson, to astronauts in orbit. America was built from a globalist base of immigrants and knowledge from around the world. To say that we are hurt from globalists is like shooting outselves in the foot and head at the same time.
2
When I encounter “Globalism”, I think of fear, ignorance, and scapegoats. Bogeymanism, if you will. And there is the nexus with anti-semitism or a host of other antis. Surrogates for grievance, impotence, and fear. Tangibles targets of collective suspicion and doubt that are ripe for mustering hate and violence to falsely assure us that we can control our world.
Old as mankind. Just ask any woman.
4
"Even more so than the free trade champions at the Cato Institute or the foreign policy hawks at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, these expats are our real globalists,"
Nope. The 9 million living abroad aren't scheming to push US policy in directions that even the non-experts know is against American interests. FDD reason d'être is to push American foreign policy into servitude of Israeli interests. They couldn't care less if it hurts our jobs or bleeds American treasury or kills young Americans. That's why they are globalists. If they were to operate in the same way in favor of France, they would just as much be globalists. So perhaps religion has nothing to do with it, but putting the interests of a foreign nation ahead of ours has everything to do with it.
2
The United States started down this road before the winds of war cleared after WWII. Never an acknowledgement of the deaths of millions of Russians in the fight to defeat Hitler on the Eastern Front. Only that bull-headed "the Yanks saved the world again" attitude.
We never, ever acknowledge the value of any other nation's government and we never, ever see the flaws in ours. The Ugly American, an insecure bully using resources in a devastated world to attain wealth and power.
The era of economic greatness is gone, sold to the highest bidder by the Republican Party in a trickle-down fire sale of American assets to their loyal and rich backers. A party that pits man against woman, black against white, gay against straight and Christian against non Christian to retain power.
Mr. Stephens, if the remarks were anti-semitic (which is quite possible), they were pretty much anti-anybody who is not a rich conservative Republican, too.
7
Mick Mulvaney is probably the most up-front and articulate member of this administration. To even imply that his compliment to Gary Cohn may have been some sort of anti-jewish dog whistle is absurd and indicates Mr. Stephens carries an ugly bias himself. Similar to liberals who scream racism, sexism or some other ism anytime someone disagrees with their position, Bret tars those who have used the label "globalist".
There is plenty to be said about the benefits of global interaction for individuals and the nation, but the effort to label as bigots those who have legitimate concerns with the current trade situation is more than unfortunate. It seeks to eliminate dissent by putting unacceptable labels upon ideas and people. Not exactly great stuff from a journalist.
7
Chris, "It seeks to eliminate dissent by putting unacceptable labels upon ideas and people." I think that is what you have just done. I call it " calling a spade a spade". It encourages debate. That is good journalism.
If Gary Cohn is the smartest man Mulvaney ever worked with, he should have listened to him. Of course that would anger Trump since he thinks he's the smartest man in the room. The anti-globalist idiots who adore Trump may think differently when they have to pay five times more for that shirt they used to buy at Walmart, or the work boots they have to buy before going down in that coal mine. Steelworkers may be able to afford it but not the unemployed construction workers and automakers.
2
Not bad for you. But those attributes of America you mention first can be hard to find in black communities— clean water, decent cops and fair elections where black votes are allowed and counted. Funny thing though Brett you never mention that, which vitiates the rest of what you say. You do however lie about reverse discrimination and demand an honorable platform for the racism of the odious Charles Murray. Which is why you’re a trump enabler.
Charles Murray is not a racist.
If you think or say that, you could not have possibly read his books.
You can disagree with his theories, but not call him a racist -- that is untrue.
1
Defensive! Must have hit a nerve somewhere.
1
Let’s don’t forget it’s: “WE the people of the UNITED STATES....” NOT “....of the Global Order.”
1
Or it could be that you are suffering from something else.
Globalist has nothing to do with how many countries you lived in, where you were born or your religion.
In my eyes, Kristof is a globalist. Last time I checked he wasn't Jewish, but in his eyes, if standard of living has gone up globally, the fact that it has gone down in US is irrelevant. You are a globalist, because you favor policies that benefit the already filthy rich and you are willing to use foreign policy to achieve it. Case in point Ukraine and the oligarchs that want to invade its economy. You are also a globalist because you are willing to use military force all over the world even if it's against US national interest, such as Iraq in the past, Syria today and Iran tomorrow. That makes you a globalist in my eyes.
2
yeah...try leaving for Denmark or Holland...and let me know
Your insult of me says more about you than me. My insult of you also says more about you than me. Really?
1
"I never expected that the co-worker I would work closest, and best, with at the White House would be a ‘globalist,’"
Because Mr. Mulvaney, at the end of the day, you both had the same goals. To get yourselves and your BFF's, like Trump, more money and better tax cuts! All you care about is your portfolios, and funneling more cash into your accounts. Neither of you really gives a hamster tail-hair about the middle, lower classes.
If the results of these tariffs end in a general contraction of US industry, when, not if, US steel manufacturers inevitably fall complacent (as they tend to when protected) and foreign investors swoop in and buy them up - you and your ilk, and certainly Trump, will try and sell us that its the best thing for the US economy. Survival of the fittest, will be the marketing slogan.
I for one, among many do not trust this Admin to not screw up the economy by inflicting it with a thousand cuts, which are focused more on feeding Trumps base, and worshiping a regressive, White American male ego-centric view of the world, and "his" place in it. I don't expect Trump to ever listen to reason. I don't expect him to see catastrophe - or a host of smaller storms - from a distance, and have the guts to suck it up and not follow his outdated, fact-free POV's.
I trust that Trump and his sycophantic herd (what remains,and what will surely join for their 15mins) will stick to doing things impulsively even if it means driving onto the rocky shore.
2
"Globalist" can have many meanings. The bad version is a person who is a tourist wherever he lives. He lives in his bubble of other globalists and couldn't care less about the other people who happen to live at that place. His priority is lower taxes and he considers it a waste when the government invests in projects that will pay off ten years from now. Quite likely he will be living somewhere else at that point of time. And - democracy be damned - he cares just as much about the poor people at the other side of the tracks as he cares about the poor people in Africa. That is: not. The idea that we are all in this country together and should the make the best of it is strange to him. Davos has become the symbol of the bubble in which those people live.
It is this kind of people that has been breaking down Western democracy by tying governments to all kinds of rules that makes it hard to do things for their people. And it is that what "anti-globalists" fight against.
2
As usual, journalists and moderate politicians have a problem dealing effectively with Donald Trump. They try to apply traditional labels to Trump and to come up with conventional solutions to Trump’s whacky approaches to real problems.
These moderates are not quite as helpless when Trump identifies a totally imaginary problem or one that a sleepy Trump thinks he heard flagged on Fox News.
Donald Trump was bothered by a trade imbalance which does exist with China, though it is not the drastic and simple one he sees. His whacky idea of solving the trade deficit with across-the-board tariffs on steel and aluminum came when a loopy White House staffer, Peter Navarro, came up with an approach which matched Trump’s simplistic view of global trade.
Bret Stephens is a thinking conservative, which puts him into the pressure-packed position of being a living oxymoron. He is a smart guy with a nostalgic loyalty to a point of view. Mr. Stephens should keep calling things, including Donald Trump’s incompetence, the way he sees them.
Forget, however, unelected buffoons like Mick Mulvaney. Resist assigning bigotry to them as their motivator, Mr. Stephens. Even if it is true, you’re better than that.
2
America seems only to be global when it is in our "national interest". The rest of the world, whether embroiled in war, famine, or poverty is a nonentity.
2
If the November elections fail to throw Republicans out of both the House and Senate then I will seriously look into how to join the nine million Americans living abroad.
I am hoping America will come to its senses, that there are more decent, sane Americans than Republicans. November will say a lot about the future or demise of America.
1
My guess is that practically every single one of those “expats” looks in horror at the US’s current political situation. We are currently in Kenya, visiting some Dutch friends. I’m a Dutch native, who’s resided in the US for 34 years now. Most people I’ve come in contact with in Kenya assume I’m American, due to my American-English way of speaking.
When I entered a store the other day, someone held the door for me and snidely remarked “go ahead, sir, America first.” Thank God I was able to tell him I am Dutch. I was embarrassed for America.
America, the world is watching and it understands the selfish behavior of the American leadership.
5
The philosophy of globalism?
It seems to suffer from the same major problem which plagues all forms of political, economic order which imagine the concept of time and human progress divorced from religious, metaphysical world views, only more so, which is to say it is difficult enough to get people to sacrifice for any purely secular, non-religious political, economic order when obviously for all their sacrifice they will have no real place, no quality time and not much progress, in their own time and certainly will not exist to see the supposed glorious human future, but next to impossible to get people to sacrifice for a hypothesized global, world order they perceive as composed of people complete strangers to one another, literally an alien human future.
Place yourself in position of the average person gradually cut off from a religious point of view. Such a person is expected to sacrifice him or herself in secular society in name of "progress", a better human future, which is to say the person is expected often to sacrifice time and happiness, personal progress, for a hypothesized better future for all. Now imagine this person sacrificing time and personal progress, a quality life, for complete strangers, for some notion of progress toward a better, globalized, world for all.
You have to be quite a hardy, noble, intelligent person to sacrifice yourself in a world without religion in first place, and extremely noble to sacrifice for flora, fauna, strange human beings.
1
I don't agree with you about much, but when I got back to the United States from a two week Mexico City business trip in 1987 I literally kissed the ground when I got home.
I'd never been out of the U.S., unless you include Canada, so to say that trip was "eye opening" does not do it justice. Driving away from the airport in Mexico City and discovering the bizarrely painted neon shanty's on the hillside was at once enlightening and disorienting. It leaves no doubt that you are no longer in the U.S. I remember saying to myself "Whoa", like Neo in the Matrix.
As far as Mr. Mulvaney goes, anybody that can read probably seems like to him the most intelligent person he's ever met so far.
1
It cannot be called free trade if the U.S. is the only paying customer. So far the presidents business acumen has proven itself well for this country. Mr. Cohn is replaceable; he is not the solo economist. As for globalists vs non globalists: people believe and perform as to what they believe in; to each their own.
Cosmopolitan.
A globalist acknowledges that at some point the earth will reach some semblance of equilibrium, racial, economic, cultural. The laws of thermodynamics guarantee it. The question is, how painful will we make the progress. Will we, like William F. Buckley stand before it shouting “Stop!”? Will we, like 19th century anarchists try to shove it all down the slope at once? Or will we do our very best to use the brake, clutch and accelerator in thoughtful, rational fashion to move us along the inevitable path without catastrophe?
1
To those questioning if the term "globalist" could signify anti-Semitism, please visit the comments section of a rightwing or alt-right website. "Globalist" has been used as a slur since late 2015, at least as far as I've seen. Periodically it would become almost as ubiquitous as "cuck."
It's not that the word doesn't have multiple meanings. But it's odd to deny that it has been used in recent years in precisely the way Stephens suggests.
1
" Too bad globalists need not apply."
This is utter nonsense. There is no evidence that Trump is an "anti-globalist" in the way you describe him. Someone who goes to Saudi Arabia, then to Israel, then to the Vatican and who embraces Narendra Modi is hardly an anti-globalist.
But it is true that Trump believes, as I do that nations exist for a good reason and that undermining national identities without thinking of consequences is a very risky move. He DOES say, America first, FOR Americans, but he is also sympathetic to "Britain first", for the English. He even condemned Bush for undermining the Iraqi identity.
Imagine a chess game where the piece we call the queen, sometimes played the role of bishop and was sometimes a pawn, all according to some unstated rules. Such a game might be interesting but few would know how to play it.
It is far too early for real globalism. Its day will come but not yet.
3
Some anti-globalist Americans who have enjoyed cheat goods made by cheap labors of often exploited people in many other countries, will be hurt the most, if Trump really imposes the tariff, and sparks a trade war.
1
My son has lived in Great Britain for over 20 years. In this horror of the trump era he has the perspective to see how far his native country has fallen.
2
“... these (American) expats are our real globalists , representing the things that make this country great: adventure, engagement, commerce, openness, love of America honed by a combination of critical distance and a new depth of appreciation.”
While it is certainly true that most expats like myself still love America and try our best to be worthy representatives of our country in our adopted countries, I think many of us are being sorely tested by this president as never before. Trump has frequently belittled many of the countries we live in, and even as the world becomes a global village, tells his supporters to look inward to the kind of “Fortress America” we thought we’d left behind.
The “new depth of appreciation” Bret Stephens speaks of is also something we have for our adopted countries, e.g. Western Europe, when we see millions of Americans struggling to get the kind of decent healthcare, paid vacation and leave, and other social benefits that we take for granted, or when we see the ongoing slaughter of American schoolchildren because the NRA and the gun lobby own America’s (GOP) legislators.
When you have the “critical distance” Stephens also mentions, and that living abroad gives you, you don’t just see America’s strengths, but also it’s flaws and what it could do better. If being open to the wider world in all its infinite variety and possibility, means you are a globalist, Trump is its antithesis. #Not My President.
2
Mulvaney has probably forgotten (if he ever knew) that not so long ago, Irish immigrants were considered one of the lowest forms of humanity.
In New York City, the ‘hooligans’ and ‘shanty’ Irish were shunned the same way Mulvaney shuns today’s immigrants.
1
David G,
Today the Irish are considered some of the highest forms of humanity. They have reached heights that many can only dream of reaching. They have assimilated and are highly respected. I am a proud woman of Irish ancestry. We fit in everywhere. Do you?
1
Simple.
Some of us feel that the world is rightly made up of discreet nations, with their own national characteristics and history, also known as "culture". The idea is that through a process of diplomacy these nations get along and hopefully prosper.
Other people feel that this idea is in some way incorrect; that what's needed is a world-wide common government and culture, like in all the science fiction stories.
Those in the first group feel that this would lead to a loss of home and culture and a miserable flattening out of cultural diversity.
Those in the second group feel that if we just muddle along the whole edifice will come crashing down and we'll all die miserably. Soon. At least I think that's what they must be thinking. I've never actually heard an argument in favor of "globalism"; it's just assumed to be necessary.
None of this has anything to do with Trump, who is just a "lemon". We'll be stuck with him for a while and then we'll be rid of him.
Simple.
Another point that Trump and Camp (shrinking) fail to recognize. The other world players are no longer babes in the woods. China isnt some naive newcomer, that is ripe for bullying. They now understand how The Game is played,and have the tools to join in as equals, if not betters.
China, and India, and certainly not Canada or Mexico no longer need to lay back and listen to old man Uncle Sam lecture them, be subservient to him. They can forge ahead now and strike deals with each other, leave the US out, and likely do just as well. (plus, they have populations familiar,if not outright comfortable living with economic contractions. Where Americans are birthed on profligacy and comfort at all costs.)
China is still heavily investing in infrastructure, education, innovation, alternative energy, etc. Ditto for India. As is, has been the case for many EU members.
Most world players have figured a way to be actively looking inwards, while keeping their eyes and hands on the global stage. While the US cant seem to figure any way to fix, maintain the old or build new infrastructure, boost domestic investment in alt-energy, and be a better actor on the world stage - without it turning into an ideological wrestling match. Where one side now tries to out-tweet the other. Or doesn't involve the US military being involved in protracted, no-win, local blood-baths.
What Trump and band of shrinking sycophants fail to notice, is that isolating us is making us obsolete as a needed player.
3
I don't want to be a "needed player" who gets exploited all the time.
This is a huge country with vast natural resources. We need very little from outside. We can provide our own oil via fracking. We have 200 years worth of coal left. We have the world's greatest reserves of natural gas. We also can grow ALL our own food.
I'm tired of being played for a chump by globalism and other countries. I'm tired of lefty liberals trying to tell me what to do, how to think and what I am allowed to believe in -- what religions I can worship in -- and now, what I can eat or drink.
Trump was the beginning of the end to all of that. We are not through destroying lefty liberalism. Just wait and see!
1
Bret, another option is to simply look up the meaning of the word globalist: "A person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world." I would hardly say that calling someone a globalist is antisemitic.
This article says a lot, but overlooks a lot about globalism. I am a product of the globalist culture. I speak three languages, have lived in four countries and consider myself as American as Apple pie. But I also realize that I am distinctly a minority in this country, and that most Americans have not enjoyed the stimulating experience of overseas travel and assimilating foreign cultures. However, you do not have to be part of the globalist culture to understand that protectionism and immigrant bashing is simply unacceptable in an advanced developed country such as ours. Understanding our own culture and our own people does not require a passport filled with customs stamps from around the globe. Yes, many Americans have been adversely impacted by lower tariffs and immigration. But the same can be said about technological change. Do we have to ban innovation, robotics, computers, Iphones and erect barriers to trade in the name of protecting those who are adversely affected by change? Globalism has unfortunately been conflated with economic forces which we cannot control. Our challenge as a country is to learn to live with these changes and adapt rather than fight them. You should not have to be classified as an effete snob and globalist to understand that reality.
1
Globalism is not a threat to Americans. Lack of access to good quality & inexpensive vocational training is the threat.
76
And healthcare.
5
The column makes many good points. Still it is unfortunate that Brett cannot comprehend that our current state of affairs with the mostly free flow of capital was the intentional creation of a group of well meaning internationalists who found it easy to accept that the ability to purchase cheap consumer goods was more important than the jobs that were lost. Truth to tell, they could not imagine the technological and political changes that made Amazon the world's merchant and stripped main street of meaning.
In fact it was not entirely ok. Could we have done something about it? Maybe but it took decades before the rust belt collapsed. Can we do something now? Sure but what? Perhaps we need to burden global enterprises with costs so that we can pay for the social welfare of those left behind. Perhaps we can make what Boeing did (sending much of its manufacturing abroad) impossible or expensive.
There is an argument to be made against a portion of globalism - but it won't be made here. But trust me, it is not simple blindness.
1
Our daughter lived in Rome for almost a year after college. She left still our child in some ways but came back more of a woman. She still speaks Italian (my Italian grandparents would be pleased I think), she has friends there and she made sure that she "lived" as Italian as she could. I'm still learning things about her stay - like how she and her friend found a place to live, earned enough to stay etc. she loves to travel and is open to new experiences wherever she is. She is much more adventurous than I will ever be and I envy her that. And I think she is also more compassionate and understanding of the "other" at a much younger age than I. In fact she has taught me to be better at that too. I have watched someone grow so much because of her stay in another country that I know well the benefits of that experience and admire people who understand our interconnected world.
2
Living outside the United States has only made me realize that we Americans are far too complacent in our belief that the US is the "best" and the "greatest" nation in the world. Maybe that was once true. But other countries have moved forward and, I'm afraid, the US has moved backward. The US is still a very good place to live, but other places are in many ways better. Americans would do well to stop resting on their laurels and look more carefully around the globe to learn the many things that other nations are doing better.
6
In the 90's, the digital revolution created a lot of small and mid-sized businesses in rural areas--S. Dakota and Vermont come to mind. However, large US industries opted to "outsource" electronic manufacturing, so that most computers, phones, etc. are now manufactured outside of the U.S., and the resurgence of small-town businesses faded.
I'm not sure what policies are needed to encourage business in smaller and more rural areas. But it was happening, and then faded.
Andrew Biemiller
3
Our neighbors are letting small town businesses fade. The failure to recognize the hidden costs (welfare, crime, unemployment, and community blight) of those cheap imported goods with their "too good to be true" prices is the problem. Cheap is not always cheap.
2
My previous job had me traveling constantly and living in other countries. One year I came home to a small Michigan town just in time for the 4th of July parade, with all the Americanness that implies. I was standing by the side of the road and suddenly realized that I was crying.
Living in other places, and being a "globalist" made me feel more American, not less. I still believe in what y'all think is "globalism". I also believe in a more just and equitable distribution of resources and wealth, and that the best way to do that is progressive taxation. Pay your fair share.
12
What I see as we drive across the country is the loss of jobs from globalization that used to bind the small communities together. There is a common thread saying that people do not have the skills to be part of the new economy, but they never say what those skills are. I believe we need to define what they are and then I believe that our educational system would provide the teaching of said skills. As an educator, it frustrates to see the lack of solutions and instead constant criticism of our eductional system as well as our work force. .
34
Diana...those skills involve "higher" education. Mostly with some sort of tech background. Plus it now means continuing education. Upkeep that goes on long past high school, and college.
But when a whole demographic of displaced "workers", which in this environment mostly means white males, insist on leaving school, and then demand high paying unskilled jobs...we have a huge disconnect. These guys want the jobs their dads and grandfathers held...which ain't possible for such large numbers. Not enough need for guys who have only their muscles to sell. Machines can do that now...but the machines need technical knowledge to run, and maintain - not muscle. And that demands more education, but at the same time a lot fewer guys. Or girls!
Education is A key, but people need to want to get it and seek it out. Many Americans left high school and that was the end of their education. Many of which Trump and his ilk have found easy prey for his nationalist, protectionist, resurrectionist rhetoric.
1
The loss of jobs is not from globalization, that implies something bigger. It is from Americcn corporations deciding to decapitate small businesses and workers for their own 'BOTTOM LINE". Greed is at the center.
3
" There is a common thread saying that people do not have the skills to be part of the new economy, but they never say what those skills are. "
They never say what they are because they (globalists) are talking about computer/software/hardware skills and the fact is that many of those jobs have been outsourced, or cheap software engineers brought in through various visa programs, and they don't want to address the elephant in the room. Apparently it's more efficient to starve Americans, even the highly educated ones.
Davos isn't particularly boring, it's just probably the most high profile of an endless round of conferences and seminars directed towards the issues which as Stephens says largely determine the enormously complex world we live in. They're going on every week in NYC, London, Brussels and elsewhere.
"Globalist" is just one of those all purpose abuse words like "Liberal" which conservatives like Stephens are rather fond of using, or "Neo-liberal" which those on the far left prize highly. They all pigeonhole precisely the person that uses them. As to what "Cuck" and "Othering" mean I have no ideas which must say something about me.
6
As a moderate who finds many of the editorials and opinion pieces, like this, to have the same recipe, overstatement of the obvious with a little "red herring" thrown in, one wonders if we can ever find some common ground.
I am a globalist because globalism is the future.
We are in a global economy and it is only going to get "more so." Of course the people and businesses who/which benefit from globalism push it but much of globalism is the result of economic/technological change. Economic change has been going on since the beginning of time; it got faster with the invention of the steam engine around 1800; faster still around 1900 with electricity and cars; faster still in recent years with computers.
We live in a world where travel, communications, and shipping are faster and cheaper than ever before. Major companies such as the automobile manufacturers are global -- they have plants around the world and they sell their products around the world. Most new manufacturing in this country (and developed countries) is done by robots/computers. Manufacturing that cannot be automated/computerized is done in low wage countries.
This naturally rewards workers who have education/training and are mobile.
Our government should look out for American workers but to do that we need to be at the table and we need someone representing us who knows something about economics. Trump pulled us out of TPP; but notice that TPP is still going forward without us. And who is the leader of TPP -- China.
Many times when Mr. Trump is on TV talking he sounds like he thinks that we are still in the 1970 or 80's. HIs views on many things are terribly out-of- date and some cases just wrong.
13
The CPTPP signed in Santiago on Mar 8 included 11 countries previously partnered with the US - and agreement which tried to thwart China. The US withdrawal unintentionally strengthened China's power and influence in the region..
1
"This naturally rewards workers who have education/training and are mobile.
..... Our government should look out for American workers ..."
I keep hearing this 'education' angle which makes me angry. In the late 80s, we started outsourcing our software engineering jobs. I was a group leader in a major bank and was ordered to do just that. We are talking about people who made over 100k a year, with degrees in software engineering being laid off by the droves. Many were in their 40s and 50s and some never were able to find employment that paid as much or more because more and more of those jobs were outsourced.
So what education would you like them to get? Become brain surgeons?
As one of those 9 million Americans who lives abroad, I only disagree with Bret Stephens' very last point. For this ex-pat, any love of America has certainly not been honed "by a combination of critical distance and a new depth of appreciation." Rather just the opposite. Unfortunately, for all its potential and indeed some very special attributes such as a can do spirit, on the whole America is a very sorry place. It saddens me.
50
Having spent a small amount of time overseas, studied foreign languages, been born of immigrants, watched foreign TV and movies, I guess I'm a globalist although I live in the US. With all that, nothing makes me love America more than my global experiences. Cutting America off from the rest of the world means cutting off that which makes us love and appreciate our country and its people. Trump is cutting our throats.
27
Well, globalization is the second cause of job losses in America. The first is Automation. If we do not solve these two problems, our situation is going to get much worse. The refusal of Capital to share the benefits of productivity with Labor is the core issues for our society.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-sorscher/inequality---x-marks-the_b_7...
We could ameliorate the impacts by mandating that companies (1) pay those laid off due to these two events 50% of their straight time wages for two years while they figure out what to do next. (2) Those same people would also be eligible for unemployment benefits until re-employed at 75% or greater of their prior wage. (3) We would set up more thousands of skill-training schools thruout our nation. Tuition would be free or subsidized for those same people. And for students coming out of high school with zero prospects because they aren't, or can't, make college work for them.
A plywood plant used to employ 11 people on their greenend. Today, there are four. Recoveries from logs have risen from 2.4 sq. ft./board foot input to over 5.0. Technology matters. Sharing that would go a long way towards healing the massive split in our nation and re-invigorating the middle class without which democracy will collapse.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming...
21
Mr. Stephens, your piece is so full of non sequiturs and contradictions as to be meaningless. Both globalists and anti-globalists have their good and bad points.
And these misconceptions are compounded by your notion that the U.S. needs to continue leading and should not retreat from its God-given mandate to educate the world.
My own experience is that post-WWII U.S.A. had more good than bad features, but in a desperate attempt to project power and dominate every nation on Earth, by fair means or foul, the nation became a parody of itself.
Instead of targeting the symptoms (Trump and so on) you might wish to delve deeper into the cause of the current national and international chaos the U.S. has caused, and your such soul-searching may even and actually involve criticizing the national oligarchy as well as the Neocon-Zionist mass media of which you are clearly emblematic. But I doubt you would go so far.
20
Mr. Varzi, you sound like a true anti-Semite with your last paragraph. The US is not perfect and we have become involved in too many global conflicts, but the world still needs American leadership —not to the exclusion of our allies, but in concert with them.
2
Katherine Cagle, yours is the typical knee-jerk reaction to criticisms of Neoconservatism and Zionism.
I am totally secular, I regularly criticize the corruption exhibited by my own government, I believe religion does more harm than good and I have family members working for J-Street.
You should be ashamed of callously labelling people based on their opinions.
Americans can travel to Mexico City or the EU without distorted multinational trade agreements and wage crushing labor migration.
Bret is partially correct though. There is a dog whistle. But only cocktail party Republicans and neoliberal Democrats can hear it.
9
I’m an unabashed globalist, with the passports (from more than one country!) to prove it. One thing Mr. Stephens doesn’t address here is that Donald Trump, with his patronage of international beauty pageants, property development around the world, and financial ties to you know where, gets away with calling himself an anti-globalist. Oh, and about those “competitive” elections here that Mr. Stephens is so proud of. He should take a look at some of the comically gerrymandered districts across the country before trashing other countries.
40
Love that you refuse to honor the hypocrisy-free zone in which Trump operates. Here’s a family that preaches against regulation, but has always operated in some form of protected business, enjoying the benefits of government graft and freedom from competition (casinos).
2
"The problem isn't so much what you don't know. It's what you know that ain't so." This will be the lasting label of the slow-motion disaster that is the Trump "administration."
14
I’ve been to Davos. It’s not at all boring. The opposite, in fact. Unless you find smart people trying to address pressing problems like, oh, poverty, climate change, adequate food supplies, and refugees boring.
11
So the "Globalist" quote, especially in this circumstance and in Trump's usage is in no way anti-Semitic. You are connecting it to Elders of Zion type of stuff, and it's just not. Head globalist in the population's mind - and his - would be someone like Hillary Clinton, as far as public figures go, when the transcript was released showing she had supported open borders and she so awkwardly tried to spin it as "energy trading" across borders. Let the laughs begin. The fact is that there are a large group of people - backed by economic orthodoxy, whom truly believe that knocking down borders and further opening completely unabashed free trade is the solution. Yet all you have to look at is the record now. It didn't work. We hollowed out America. For no reason. It wasn't a requisite for the growth of the tech industry - we could have had both. And everyone is ignoring the stated reason for steel tariffs : national security. In other words, losing inefficiency is worthwhile, for the preservation of other gains. That goes beyond text book economics. Text book economics limits variables to profits. And because so many live the result of unabashed globalism, it has become an easy rallying cry, with complete, real merit. China was built on our money. It's a real enemy by its choosing not ours. And it all could have been avoided if things more than profit were important. So "globalist" is for the angry masses, but without any anti-semitism in this case. Yet completely real !!
8
Great article. The first two paragraphs explain why immigrants such as myself are the most patriotic of Americans.
5
I think the author needs to get in a car for a few months and drive to places in the Midwest and talk to people whose lives and entire communities have been destroyed by NAFTA and China’s entry into the WTO. He just might get a more balanced view that way. Let’s see, it’s official now that NAFTA and WTO have destroyed more jobs than The Great Depression. At least that event had an ending. NAFTA and WTO keep right on churning and ruining town after town even 24 years after Clinton signed this nonsense.
We are all getting very tired of hearing how wonderful NAFTA is for everybody except Americans. Free trade is just a code word for easy access to labor camps in third world countries. Let’s stop pretending it has ever been about anything other than this.
16
I lived in North Carolina when it was a powerhouse in the textile and furniture markets. Small hosiery mills and furniture factories dotted the landscape. That was in the sixties and seventies. Factory owners started to sell out to national companies and they soon moved production of goods offshore. That was long before NAFTA or TPP. It’s easy to demonize those treaties when the trend to move production out of the US actually started 40-50 years ago. Now North Carolina is full of unemployed factory workers and the only places that survived were the progressive cities that embraced change and found other means to prosperity. Winston-Salem is emblematic of those places, a city that lived off the largesse of tobacco, Piedmont Airlines, and furniture and textile manufacture to a lesser extent. Winston-Salem is now thriving without all those companies because we looked to the future and not the past.
5
David’s comment is typical of the anti free trade zealot who complains about jobs disappearing in the US but who also complains about raising the minimum wage because it will destroy US jobs and make things more expensive. Those people are not really against having “labor camps” making the things we buy but only oppose to them being in third world countries. I guess bringing them to the US is a way to “make America great again.”
1
You realize that NAFTA had wide Republican support, don’t you? And George H W Bush publicly backed Clinton during that debate.
No sir, NAFTA didn’t destroy jobs in the Midwest. Technology has made many human functions obsolete. Obama didn’t destroy coal — renewable and clean energy sources are taking care of coal’s demise.
2
Some of us have a problem with our military "going out into the world and making it a better place." American kids born when we first invaded Afghanistan are now over there dying, with no end in sight and our foreign policy experts apparently still determined that we should be the first since Alexander the Great to whip the Afghans. What a mess you guys have got us into.
21
The comment doesn’t strike me as anti-Semitic, but it definitely reeks of the conspiracy-minded economic and cultural illiteracy you described so pointedly. The anti-globalism movement is a home for the fearful, the ignorant, the untraveled, and the unimaginative. The world is a much better place when border walls are lower, distances are shorter, and the knowledge and ideas makes everyone smarter and better.
137
As you say, the world is a better place when it's parts are closer together. It should go without saying that America is better, as well. Unfortunately, with the Trump administration in the White House, it does need to be stated explicitly and repeatedly: America is a better place--stronger, richer, more secure--the more engaged it is with the world.
3
Well if you have ever been an expatriate, you know the penalty the US makes you pay, despite your informal ambassadorship for the country. FATCA, not being able to open a bank account when you come home, having your local bank abroad dump you as a client because they don't want to have to bear the cost of Uncle Sam's invasive regulations, having a bad credit rating, which shuts you out of renting, buying a home, simply because you have lived abroad and your American Express payment record overseas isn't good enough...
6
Economic illiteracy is manifested by the belief that a job is a possession or a commodity that one owns or to which one is entitled rather than human contribution toward a larger economic goal which earns a reward based on the character and quality of contribution and the competitive capacity of an enterprise to delivery value and achieve profitable return. A Conspiracy mind-set shows up when individuals or groups entrenched in a "this is as good as it gets" concept of life fantasize unknown others who have victimized them when change occurs. Elites? Globalists? Jews? Muslims? Immigrants? The two get married when there is a serious deficiency of self reflection on the choices they have made and the agency that is theirs in this country. Sadly it appears that 35% of public and 75% of the GOP who steadfastly support the POTUS reflect these married concepts.
8
Hear! Hear! Your first sentence should be posted as a prominent banner on every school in the nation, made Point One for every politician's economic agenda, and featured as one of Forbes magazine's pithy quotes.
I have become increasingly despairing over the language used in our society and politics, that seem to imply that goal of one's economic life should be to "Get a good JOB", as if nothing more need be done once that milestone is achieved.
I always have thought that America as the "Land of Opportunity" meant that it was a place where one could best provide for oneself, best earn a living. Yes, the vast majority of people will provide for themselves by trading their skills and labor in an employee/employer relationship, but I fear we are losing our sense of agency, of responsibility for our own economic outcomes.
I don't object to those in dying industries fighting tooth and nail to keep those industries alive. I may think doing so is harmful to our society as a whole (steel production jobs vs. jobs that use steel, for example), but I respect the fight because those people are acting with agency and responsibility for themselves.
But I do object to those who play the victim and want me (via our government) to act as if their "job" belongs to them alone, was bestowed by divine right, and should be passed down generations in perpetuity.
1
Isolationism, aggression through tariffs, the ugly corruption of a system that moves away from at least the aspiration of free trade, all out cyber attacks, conspiracy mind sets. All these will feed warmongering. American voters (and one crazy party) pushed and accelerated that wheel, and only them can stop its full descent into chaos. This is looking really bad.
1
What a strange idea that "globalist" might be a reference to Gary Cohn being Jewish. You really should get out of the country more. There are people all over the world who see the softening, or the bridging, of national boundaries as a strategy for peace and mutual benefit: the synergy of cultures. Parochial nationalism is the seed for division - almost by definition - and examples of this can be found in Israel as easily as in other countries.
5
In a nation where it’s so called political leaders embrace ignorance , religious fiction over scientific fact and outright tribalism, the reality is that the US can use many more “globalists”...aka thinking people....
9
If Mulvaney and all of the other 'anti-Globalists' took the time and energy to study global economics, they'd quickly come to several conclusions:
1. On the whole, Americans live better as a result of globalism through lower cost products made in countries with competitive advantages.
2. The problem is that as a country, we have not adapted quickly enough to the global world order that demands new and different skills among workers, allocation of capital to 'new' and emerging industries and total economic and political integration with the rest of the world. China and other countries appear to understand this.
3. We are deluding ourselves that our quality of life is better than in many other countries. Major industrial countries with educational systems focused on the 'new skills required' and universal health insurance provide their citizens with a better foundation to compete in the new global order.
4. Our infrastructure (or lack therof) is going to doom us. Poor roads, transportation, high speed internet are all critical foundational elements of being able to compete in the new global order.
50
Look, America is not immune from its co-existence with other countries, other people, other cultures, other interests. We are part of the world, and have to participate. You are a globalist, whether you like it or not, because you cannot pick the nation up and move it to Mars. We are earthbound.
Global trade is necessary and had a long tradition of improving the wealth of nations that engage. Columbus wasn't out looking for new shores for the heck of it; he was looking for new supply markets and trade routes.
Our big problem is that we must adjust to the idea that others can and will engage in manufacturing and supplying our market, and that the period of growth to dominance that we enjoyed from colonial times on is ending as we have run through a lot of raw resources, and seen the post war boom become nothing but history.
Globalism is vastly different from corporatism. Globalism recognizes the inevitability of competing with other nations. Corporatism puts the interests of owners of capital, large corporations, above the interest of any other type of individual. Globalism means we trade, we engage in diplomacy, we try to avoid conflict; corporatism means we exploit people for profit.
We cannot temper globalism. It is here to stay. But we can sure work hard to shape corporatism through policy so that the rewards are spread to labor, to the people who make up the market, and not to the shareholder alone.
12
Another excellent column Bret. However, I will note that while the Trump Administration often spews anti-globalist inanities, its actual record is better than the Obama Administration. Obama prematurely withdrew from Iraq, which led to the rise of the Islamic State. He led from behind in Libya, creating another failed-state vacuum filled by Islamic extremists. He blithely drew red lines in Syria that he lacked the fortitude to enforce, leading to a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions that continues to this day. He failed to show strength or resolve in countering the predatory evils emanating from North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia. Obama's ideological blindness prevented him from being able to understand that the projection of American force is one greatest forces for good in the world. Only at the end when faced with the potential of another Iraq-type debacle did he back off abandoning Afghanistan to the same entropy that had engulfed much of the Middle East.
2
Why do so many of you keep harping on Smoot-Hawley as if it were a bad thing? It, or its modern-day equivalents at least, is working perfectly well for the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, and the rest of the Asian Tigers.
5
I agree with Bret. Again. The problem with the idea of American "exceptionalism" is that it assumes that Americans have all the answers. Sent to a foreign secondary school at 14, I realised, for the first time, that other people knew how to live and had been doing it successfully for a long time. That lead to a lifetime of adventure, engagement, commerce, and openness to new ideas. It also made me appreciate the US warts and all when I returned. It's the warts part that the Exceptionalists refuse to acknowledge and thereby end up with a dangerous case of denial about the greater world. They assume everyone wants our way of life and the only reason they don't buy American cars (as an example) is unfair trade practices not quality or size. America has an important role to play in world geopolitics as well as commerce. The Trumpian agenda of bully diplomacy; zero-sum trade deals; and xenophobic immigration policies is bad news for American security, commerce, and culture. This is how great civilisations decline. Bring on the Globalists.
11
‘Globalist’ may possibly refer to people who have travelled the world like the insufferably smug Mr Stephens or perhaps even myself (I’ve lived in the UK for 12 years now). The usual intended content of the insult, however, has a lot of merit. People use it as a way to signal that they are against open borders and free trade. It is recognition, a dimming one among many elites, especially left-leaning ones, that borders do, in fact, exist, that they matter, and that we need to organise policy around the idea that a nation has more duty to uplift its own citizens than those of other countries.
The fact that free trade agreements have made it easier for manufacturing in the developed world to move to less developed countries and exploit their workers (while taking away the livelihood of ‘Western’ workers) is undeniable. Simply undeniable. It is the principle economic problem for many regions across Europe and North America. You cannot pretend this reality away. Likewise you cannot ignore that workers in Vietnam or Bangladesh have not become radically wealthier nor had cheap goods made the lives of people in the West noticeably better. All of the gain has gone to the very wealthy...the real people arguing for free trade and open borders.
I don’t think it is economically illiterate to say that an economy where the majority of Americans cannot afford a $1,000 emergency is not healthy and needs significant change. Some protectionist measures must be a part of that change.
5
Bret, the problem isn't globalism itself - but the style currently practiced.
In our era of encroaching climate change, humanity can and will only proper through extensive global cooperation, in every area including trade.
On the other hand, many mainstream corporations today seek to exploit low wage labor in far off lands, while simultaneously seeking to pay the lowest possible amount of taxation, in an effort to perpetually increase their profitability at the expense of the nation states within whom their management and shareholders live comfortable lives. This is not a politically sustainable approach.
The furious populism of our time is largely a reflection of this dynamic - even on the right, in a rust belt where a witless, incompetent, malevolent Trump excelled in 2016.
Bad things happen when bad ideas are allowed to prosper - and the idea that corporations owe no loyalty to the people with whom their management and shareholders share a nation state is one of those bad ideas.
Globalism is a reality of the modern world - but we must take up the burden of shaping it, rather than allow the race to the bottom, and to tyranny, that one style of globalism encourages, to shape us.
Trump and his ilk today represent the temporary triumph of the dark, pitiless forces in this struggle - but unless we collectively return our gaze to the better angels of our nature, he could also embody the likely future.
When good men and women fail to act, tragedy inevitably follows.
3
"and that 500 or so people run the world at the expense of everyone else. "
Actually, it is eight men. Not 500. Eight men have more wealth than the bottom 3.6 billion human beings. Don't know if those eight men are running the world at the expense of everyone else. Do know it is obscene...and it's not going to continue.
4
Whatever are Mulvaney's aspirations, the one absolute, is that no one's wages will be going up and the 400 Americans with more money than ever in the history of our planet cannot care about anyone in our nation, or the world. Our nation is the rest of us, and we must admit that the cost of clean water from the tap is our future, not theirs. Our future belongs to them, sadly, and all the curiosity and innovation left, in the rest of us, will be decades and generations in the making. The boulders and mountains of wealth are arduous to climb, over and over again with the same wages, year after year.
3
According to the ideology of Globalism, when the perceived "greater good" of universal prosperity clashes with the interests of national prosperity, the former takes precedence and the interests of national prosperity are subordinated.
This Globalist preference guides national policies in many areas including foreign trade, economy, immigration, employment, energy, environment, cultural identity, foreign affairs, and national security.
To the average American citizen trying to get a job or make a living, such an approach would appear not only self-defeating and misguided, but also clearly corrupt -- in light of major "pay for play" contributions from foreign parties with vested interests in these policies -- and even as a shocking betrayal.
But to true Globalists, nothing would be further from the truth. They view any inequality among nations as a basic injustice that needs to be redressed, and believe that by diminishing US power and wealth, and shifting it to other nations -- Mexico, China, India, the Far East, Iran are leading examples -- they would only be contributing to a more equitable and prosperous world.
1
Right now, in this country, there seems to be a lack of "adventure, engagement, commerce, openness to new ideas". Our country has become one of one-upmanship under the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress.
And it is the lack of engagement and openness to new ideas that is crushing us.
Also crushing us is the Trump Administration's attitude towards the rest of the world. We are fast becoming a pariah to the rest of the world.
And we are going backwards in our attitudes towards anyone in this country who is different, i.e. gender, race, culture, class.
Who can we look to now? I cannot come up with a name. Scary.
3
For quite a few decades now, well-read, well-traveled, rational people have been questioning the effects of globalization, neo-liberalism, or whatever you choose to call it. The free trade agreements have been well documented to largely offer more freedom to those at the top, while the average workers, farmers, small businesses suffer. The fact that the criticism of globalization has taken on a nationalist and racist element as well is extremely unfortunate and spurs politicians to divide us and people to write articles like this one which miss the big picture - meaning how can we use our economic and legislative powers to promote strong local economies, diverse businesses, and sustainable agriculture while not cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world by way of nationalism and racism? Questioning the effect of Davos on the workers and farmers in one's own region AND the workers and farmers in the countries you buy products from does not make one a nationalist - it means you want a more fair, equitable, and sustainable society. And that is about a "global" as you can be. Don't put skeptics of globalisation in a box.
6
As you remind us of the need to dimensionalize buzzwords- globalists/anti-globalists, which can and do have both serious temporary and more permanent consequences for individuals and for systems, a caveat is missing.We all live in worlds of ranges of continuums, not either/or's. Not binary banality. But rather, and in addition, and in addition...And in this reality, the differences between personally created, and sustained, as well as imposed Identity and known and hidden Behaviors-words and deeds- is not just semantic.For example, what are, what can be, the consequences of WHO Trump IS, and what he does, or doesn't DO daily? In what ways, if any, are they predictable? Understandable? Measurable? Controllable? "Globalists," their "anti's," and tagged "internationalists," are just labels, with or without nuanced violating meanings, of real people. Who can, and do, help as well as harm. Themselves and others. Knowingly or not! This includes those whom you noted who "went out into the world and sought..." That outer world, with its inner dimensions, all too often pays inadequate attention to our ongoing reality of uncertainties, which labels do not overcome. Of daily randomness and unpredictabilities. Of lack of total control notwithstanding the types, levels, and qualities, of our efforts. Just as the map is not, can not be, the territory, the label-word is not, can not be the actual person. What s/he does, or chooses not to do, in a range of roles and contexts.Label mongering?
Almost perfect: many of us who live abroad, I would say the overwhelming majority, don't see ourselves as "ex-pats". We vote and pay taxes but live outside US boundaries where dozens of very enlightened non-American states allow us to go about our lives peacefully. I would define an ex-pat as one who turns his/her back on the US; most of us just chose to live and work outside US borders - it's not a political statement.
1
We can be small fish in a big pond or big fish in a small pond. But small ponds too often dry up and disappear.
98
The United States is the third largest country in the world by land area, and the largest of those three to have a mostly temperate climate, although that could change. So the question is whether, as a denizen of the deep, it will be a right whale or a great white shark.
3
The difficulty modern anti-globalists have is that they have rejected notions of redistribution of wealth for decades, and now are suddenly recognizing the massive inequities in the world. They choose to see this along national lines. These folks hate the notions of US poverty programs or efforts at lessening racial inequality. The anti-immigration movement is the perfect illustration. Proponents of it talk a great game about how the government should stay out of the free market, but cry about the jobs lost to foreigners. The hypocrisy of it is stark, but never mentioned by many globalists who don’t want to have anything to do with recognizing a need to redistribute wealth. This country dealt with the injustices of the free market in the 50s and 60s with a progressive tax structure that worked, but became a little too repressive. We have moved in the other direction now to a point where Americans naively think that any tax is bad.
91
The average American's understanding of tax policy is nonexistent. Look at our Republicans who can't stand or understand anything other than the Gov injecting $$$$$ into their wallets.
3
If Americans want to see where this anti-tax orthodoxy leads, they should look to the failing states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Mulvaney's own Louisiana.
4
This is the type of reading that people who live on Facebook and Twitter would miss but book-readers enjoy.
This writing—it doesn’t even have a name—doesn’t solve any problems but creates the grounds for lively discussions among people who are friendly but not slavishly so; who seldom agree but are not disagreeable and look forward to the intelligent challenges of opposite points of view—where complex problems can get solved.
In other words, the way we used to do things
167
"Globalist belongs in a class of words (“cuck” is another one, as is “othering”) that tends to say a great deal more about the person who uses it than it does about the person he says it about."
I put "globalist" in the same category as "liberal elite." Note, you never ever say "Republican elite." But what's meant as political swear word, as with "globalist," shows more about the person saying it than the accused.
Both words represent open-mindedness, education, and a world view that doesn't end at our country's shore.
By damning "globalists" with faint praise, Mulvaney is revealing himself to be more than just a toady. It tells me he puts people into tidy little categories, which makes it easier to attack alleged enemies.
I'd venture to say that anyone who works hard both inside and outside the US should be called an "American citizen."
I lived and worked in Italy for ten years, in my 20s, and fancied myself an "expatriate." But unlike Mulvaney or anyone in the myopic Trump administration, I never lost my love of America, indeed earned my living by teaching it's spirit of free enterprise as well as its language.
Why do I get this funny feeling that we're about to repeat the same history that unfolded in the decades prior the year of my birth?
Tariffs. Cultural myopia. Distrust of anyone who looks "different" from you--xenophobia to be precise.
And, worst of all, a very narrow view of "patriotism."
36
"Join the Navy and see the world." At least that was what the ads told us. I did go to sea but in the wake of 9/11 port visits were less common and more circumscribed. When we did pull into port and from the perspective of an American who spent about another year in aggregate as a tourist in foreign lands, I can share Mr. Stephens' appreciation for clean water, clean cops and (mostly) clean elections.
When you are in dicey regions of the world, there is nothing more comforting to see than a squad of US Marines, an American flag and an embassy.
11
In taking university students overseas to debate issues in English and the language of the host country in a competitive format we found some years ago in France, a favorite topic is: The House believe: globalization is an opportunity and not a threat.
It is interesting to see how students in places like Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, France and Denmark respond to this topic when they have to be prepared to debate both sides.
It could be that debate is at the heart of democratic institutions and to see it practiced overseas makes me appreciate it even more as young people strive to be heard at place like Parkland Florida.
14
JT
Sounds like a fascinating endeavor. Would love to know more about the results.
4
Many thanks, PhilipofVirginia. We are a small non-profit and no member of our organization will take a salary or stipend for our work. We love debate, celebrate language acquisition by students in the ages of 18-26 and like Mr. Stephens obviously knows, going outside of the United States in a critical thinking environment makes one thankful for what we have here at home, even with the myriad problems waiting to be solved.
2
Globalism's free trade has brought regular Americans, at least those with decent salaries, incredible access to affordable and life changing products, but most of us take that for granted.
The United States as a country has benefited more than any other from open trade because the dollar is the currency of the world. The term "trade deficit" is a misnomer when it is measured in a currency for which you hold the printing press. The significance of this was made clear after the collapse of 2007, when "dollars" were virtually doubled over night by the fed without it suffering global depreciation.
Our investment banks created the collapse and yet the rest of the world did most of the paying for it.
The political problem with globalism is that Americans who benefit the most from it haven't shared their good fortune with union workers and towns that have been crippled by it. Trump made that worse by granting the investment class huge tax cuts- those gutted towns and former union workers will see no appreciable benefit from tariffs. It is a gesture to maintain blind loyalty.
101
It’s somewhat ironic to hear those who shop at China’s warehouse, Wal-Mart, be against globalization.
7
Your articulate, clear, accurate but for obvious reasons condensed expression of the reality of a changing World and what it has and will bring us should be the starting point of any rational justifiably self-interested discussions about "Making America Great Again".
Sadly in Trump World it will not be uttered lest rationally and scientifically fleshed out. To do that would put Trump World in conflict with GOP philosophy/propaganda and deny Trump easy red-meat to throw to a strategic electoral base.
The fact of the matter is the World has become richer 3 fold since 2000. So have we!! We remain by far the richest Country. We "own" about 33% of the entire World's wealth. We are about 4% of the population.
Any problems we have taking care of our own people in any condition and in any region is because we lack the will to take care of them. You want to find the enemy look inward.
Globalization hurts America (a relatively small segment) not because we make bad deals with other Countries but because we make bad deals internally for our people.
And the electorate - at least 42% of us - will just not care or not see it!
The other 58% better vote and vote like they really want to Make America Even Greater.
12
Responding to Megaducks. Beautifully written. Best column in this paper I've read for weeks. The readers bring me to the Times as much as the talented writers they hire. For all their talent, they sometimes seem to write out of a box devoid of big picture perspective. You've given the big picture simply and clearly.
3
Actually, there is a simple definition of globalists, people who believe in growing the world economy at the expense of people in their own country. Who "believe" capital created by American workers should be used most efficiently even if it means putting those same workers out of a job by making competitive foreign workers more productive. Those workers are often "anti-globalists" but they don't know or care what Davos is and they don't believe in conspiracies. They just think some folks are getting rich at their expense.
84
Ross,
Well, there are the economic Globalists, which is what you reference above, and I agree with that. But there is much more mentioned in this article and in comments.
Globalists and Globalism is a more noble sense that we each benefit from the exchange of ideas and commerce. Notice I put ideas first and commerce second.
4
Actually, your statement is entirely false, misleading and hyper partisan. As well as having the whiff of an anti-Semitic dog whistle. A reasonable non partisan definition of globalist would be "those who believe in the benefits of globalization and generally support greater interconnectedness between countries and free-market trade policies." This seems pretty mild and factual to me. Many globalist believe the net effect on this country of globalization is positive, even if some sectors of the economy are weakened. Many people who believe in globalism are not capitalists or wealthy. But the way you put it presumes evil intent in thoughtful people where none exists.
5
Ross, "some folks getting rich at their expense" has been a staple of class warfare for centuries. And there's no question that the phenom is out of control in the early part of the 21st century. BUT, there's no trademark on capitalist economics, which resides in all parts of the world now. It's easy to be the "greatest (richest) country in the world"----when there's no competition, as was the case 3/4 of the way through the last century. Now we find ourselves in a different dynamic with sparring partners that can economically keep up with the big boys, and now we cry fowl? That "greatness," an ego-saturated mythology from the beginning, evaporated with the corporations, whose true intentions became less than patriotic as they caught the last trains for the coasts. By the way, that started in the early 80s, NOT with NAFTA, and the evil Clintons. That, coupled with automation, coupled with inside-out and upside-down educational objectives in this country, are why we find ourselves here. If we're that great, then let's stop whining about the human condition's economic injustices, and get back into the ring. After all, isn't personal responsibility a staple of American strength? I guess that depends on what decade it is.
8
As a citizen of the Earth, I have to consider myself a "globalist," in that most nationalistic policies tend to be shortsighted, selfish, and long-term inefficient.
#WeAreOne and it's time we all started acting like it.
118
It's all so nice, but naive to the core
Our democracy experiment is so rare
Europe never really had it with its exemptions on speech
This kind of view is so nice, but so not real
It's what the Clinton's overtly stated as a goal/result: that China would somehow become nicer by draining our wealth into their pockets
Grow up America
C'mon
Human nature doesn't change
A single party system was destined
1
I think the elephant in the room in this discussion is that it is not just globalization but deregulation (neoliberalism) that has hurt average workers. So the perception to average workers who vote Republican and have been taught to believe that deregulation helps them is that the global elite are running away with all the money. They are indeed doing that, but with deregulation and the gutting of unions and our health care system, there's little to help workers. The result is that they hate 'globalists'. What they should want is more regulation of the financial industry and local support for higher wages and better health care.
269
"So the perception to average workers ... is that the global elite are running away with all the money."
And most of the evidence says they are right.
67
Again, you prove my point.
But they can't see that Trump is a member of the global elite, if anyone is, and he's playing them for fools.
5
"Othering" has a meaning for people who aren't right wing extremists like Stephens.
It is fun to read the panic among conservatives as Trump attacks neo-liberalism though.
22
Which is exactly Bret's point (othering is a word that says more about about the person who is using it...)
1
Max Deitenberck,
Let us not panic. Let us not be 'Kill-Joys'. Sending warmest greetings to East Texas.
1
Nothing I have read from Bret Stephens in this paper is even remotely "right-wing extremist", unless that word has also lost all meaning. Nor do I think the New York Times would give a real right-wing extremist a regular opinion platform.
"Othering" of course does describe a real dynamic of exclusion and disadvantage. I have worked in anti-discrimination law for the past decade, which means I was tasked with mopping up the spills from these social exclusions, and with seeing that marginalised people obtain their rights. That said, I don't think that I used "othering" and its cognates once in my written output in 11 years. It is a piece of leftist slang (and I am saying this as a proud leftie) which just denotes insufferable smugness and superiority and will certainly not help the guilty parties see the error of their ways in a constructive, resolve-to-do-better way.
So Mr Stephens is certainly spot-on with that observation. And besides, I would not assume that as a Jew, he has never been "othered" himself. Any bit of anti-Semitism will do just that, and anti-Semitism alas is far from dead.
3
What is a globalist today?
I would describe a globalist as a rather superficial person, one of those people optimistic about "progress", but revealed in superficiality by no real insight and perhaps even honesty about the term progress. The globalist is a person like Steven Pinker, finding evidence that progress is occurring, but it is progress usually measured in the quantity of people doing well rather than quality, and certainly progress defined as a line of human flourishing which does not necessarily mean more geniuses exist or that many poor people still do not die miserably, and which in final analysis amounts to a group in power saying progress is occurring when in actuality it is themselves, their type, which is living a decent life.
In fact the entire concept of progress is rather silly unless you mean by it whether you yourself are doing well. For all attempts to have every human doing well, many not only continue to have unfulfilled lives, many are considered flat out anti-progress, harmful people, by those who speak of themselves being most helpful to progress. What progress has ever existed for a person branded anti-progress, harmful, even evil by other people? Does not such a person rather live a horrible fate? Take Pinker. He never tires of speaking about progress, but also never tires of pointing out trends and people anti-progress. So what progress exists for enemies of Pinker? What place in globalist view exists for anti-globalists? What progress?
2
The "progress" that serious economists (and also Pinker) point to is the reduction in the number of people living on less than $1 per day. A full stomach is the most important kind of fulfillment. I agree with Stephens that the word "globalist" says more about the person using it (yes, this means you Daniel12) than it does about the person toward which it is used.
2
Daniel12,
This is known as a 'generalization'. Whether America recedes into an insular Superpower, and We become isolationists in time is another matter to ponder, while smiling at a short story by a late Canadian journalist, whose parent told her 'only a fool writes to the New York Times'.
2
So as I read it Mulvaney is saying Gary Cohn "is not a bad guy for a globalist".
12
Bret: anti- Globalists equals HICK. HIS people. Just saying.
17
One advantage of globalism, or internationalism if you prefer, is that getting out into the world teaches you that it offers lessons which, once learned, benefit you. I know that from direct experience. I built the more productive aspects of my career based on lessons I learned while living and working abroad.
Add to that the bonus that other worldly places offer a population of really wonderful and interesting people whom, getting to know, make us more interesting too.
163
What a smart comment. I totally agree. Part of my childhood was spent outside the US and my parents, both of whom worked for the UN, took me to no end of fascinating places. The human connections, the exposure to other cultures, seeing historical places, learning new languages, are invaluable.
How I long for our former president, whose years in Indonesia, whose parents' complex backgrounds, made him so empathetic, respectful, diplomatic and insightful.
Thanks, as always, for writing. Best regards.
216
Yes! You’ve expressed it so well. I’ve been living outside the US for nearly 11 years now, and it has enriched my life in all the ways you describe. It has also made me cherish my home state and my childhood there so much more. My parents don’t travel much, but they are smart people curious about the world, be it through newspapers, books, film/PBS programs, and trips to visit me when they can. Their attitude instilled an openness in me and, while I may be the one who got on the plane, they are proof that you can be a globalist without being a globetrotter.
65
I agree. Having lived in eight countries working with people from many cultures, I think one learns tolerance by thinking globally. Different isn't wrong, it is just different. A globalist view can be more than just economics. However, if one does look closely at the USA's role in global economics most small to mid-size companies fail to see their potential as providers to the rest of the world. So the impact of a foreign made part is seen as job loss rather than a small part of a larger value-added manufacturing stream that could create new jobs at higher wages.
12
You can argue that the notion that “500 or so people run the world at the expense of everyone else” isn’t fair or even properly rational, but anyone who questions it as reality is being rather foolish. It has ever been thus; and thus is shall ever be.
What “globalism” should NOT mean is that in an enthusiasm over a robust Pax Americana those vested in it should sacrifice our own economic interests and allow over decades the hollowing-out of our middle class for geopolitical objectives that have nothing to do with our economic prosperity. Unfortunately, it often does.
“Anti-Globalism” SHOULD apply to those who merely reject that unworkable definition of “Globalism”.
Sadly, most everyone has an ideological axe to grind, and to many anyone who disagrees with them is fit fodder for merciless demonization; and not someone with whom to find workable common ground.
A desire for balanced bilateral trade agreements that protect our middle class workers and support other key national interests does not mean that America must cut itself off from the rest of the world, and it doesn’t mean that one must be against “adventure, engagement, commerce, openness to new ideas, and a love of America honed by a combination of critical distance and a new depth of appreciation”.
It simply means that we’re BEGINNING to refuse to be schlimazels.
13
Richard, to judge from various headlines during the past 24 hours, it certainly sounds like the US economy has been doing very well without tariffs. Why risk everything by throwing up new barriers to international trade?
45
Richard Janssen:
The purpose is to keep it all going. We have so MANY challenges, including the creeping effects of automation on labor and the inimical intentions of adversaries who will use economic dependencies to strike at us, not to mention an already highly competitive world. In order to buy he time needed to address these challenges effectively and solve them, the world needs an America enjoying an extended period of economic prosperity -- that drives global prosperity. THAT'S Trump's job -- not to solve the greater issues, because that charge is beyond him, but to spark and maintain that extended prosperity so that other people have the resources to do the harder things.
Yet don't be so sure that the current trade insecurities will result in "new barriers to international trade". Hopefully, Trump's brinkmanship will result merely in adjusted bilateral trade agreements that will better support our interests, and not create those barriers.
2
@Richard
I completely agree. The whole notion that we need to accept a Manichean choice between "trade and globalization" (and I should include automation here) with a declining middle and working class is false, it's all been a matter of policy of how to redistribute the gains from trade so that the "losers" are made whole and can transition into new economy.
However, consider that a lot of the "redistribution" sorts of policies have been hotly opposed by the right side of the aisle, and not strongly enough advocated for by the left side. Plus, there are the entrenched industry interests in places like WV like coal that actively prevent the emergence of replacement industries (like solar panels for example) that could have replaced those coal jobs a long time ago and keep the population dependent on the blessings of Massey and company, just like the old company towns of yore.
The reality is that Trump and his Administration is not going to make the right changes either. Steel and aluminum tariffs will most definitely impact employment in other industries that depend on these materials. And the hard right ideology that is currently ascendant in the Administration will still lean hard against redistributive policy.
So many issues we face are the result of policy and entrenched interests that shape policy. Start by fixing the political system first, then solutions will start coming.
2