Nationalism & Globalism

  • Thread starter Biggles
  • 52 comments
  • 3,152 views
Biggles

Biggles

6,047
Simcoeace
I'm not sure that 25 years ago there were many people who anticipated that radical Islam fundamentalism would emerge to play a major role in international politics. Similarly, I'm not sure that many people expected to see the re-emergence of nationalism as an important factor in international politics. I've been struggling to understand why anyone would see increasing nationalism as a positive force in the world. Trump, in his clumsy, crude way has been a major spokesman for nationalist sentiment, but the philosophy behind it is exemplified more by Steve Bannon, who I think has been a major influence on Trump.

Earlier this month Bannon took part in a debate in Toronto on the topic of populism/nationalism. His debating opponent was David Frum, former speech writer for George W Bush, well-known political commentator, "establishment conservative" & current editor of the Atlantic. I would suggest anyone interested in the subject (& it's become hard not to be) might want to watch the debate:

https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/The-Rise-of-Populism
 
It seems to me that nationalism and populism are epiphenomena, often transitory, of nation states. Nation states are the way the world has generally been organized for several hundred years, often based on some form of unifying legal document or constitution. Islam is an older, more global form of organization which uses religion and tribes as a basis which crosses or precedes national boundaries. Empire, as expressed by the Romans, Spanish, Britains, Japanese, Nazis, Soviets, etc., is another form of organization which is more global and crosses, transcends, supersedes or precedes national borders.
 
When nationalists from different countries come together and unite to defeat the forces of globalism, my head explodes.
 
Liquid
When nationalists from different countries come together and unite to defeat the forces of globalism, my head explodes.
Click to expand...
Why? National states are the prevailing paradigm. Experiments in globalism (Christianity, Islam, secular Empires and soviets) are seen as historical failures and anathema to the aspirations of individuals.
 
Dotini
It seems to me that nationalism and populism are epiphenomena, often transitory, of nation states. Nation states are the way the world has generally been organized for several hundred years, often based on some form of unifying legal document or constitution. Islam is an older, more global form of organization which uses religion and tribes as a basis which crosses or precedes national boundaries. Empire, as expressed by the Romans, Spanish, Britains, Japanese, Nazis, Soviets, etc., is another form of organization which is more global and crosses, transcends, supersedes or precedes national borders.
Click to expand...
Dotini
Why? National states are the prevailing paradigm. Experiments in globalism (Christianity, Islam, secular Empires and soviets) are seen as historical failures and anathema to the aspirations of individuals.
Click to expand...
... and they all go hand-in-hand, hand-in-hand through their...
 
Biggles
I'm not sure that 25 years ago there were many people who anticipated that radical Islam fundamentalism would emerge to play a major role in international politics.
Click to expand...

Really? There's any number of areas in which fundamentalist Islam played a role, they're just not traditionally taught to western children as it's not their heritage. Look at the history of countries in the Middle East through the 20th century, and tell me that you can't see the effects. Fundamentalist Islam has always been a force, just as fundamentalist Christianity has always been and continues to be a force. It's just that before the internet and the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, this stuff was a lot less apparent to those in the west because it was on the other side of the world.

Also, communism was the default boogeyman of the day, not Islamic fundamentalists. Communism and communist countries still exist, but how much do you hear about them now? Not much, because they're not the flavour du jour.

I think you're just perceiving a difference in how information propagates in the modern age. Islamic fundamentalism has had it's impact on international politics for much longer than 25 years, you just didn't necessarily see it unless you were looking.
 
Imari
Really? There's any number of areas in which fundamentalist Islam played a role, they're just not traditionally taught to western children as it's not their heritage. Look at the history of countries in the Middle East through the 20th century, and tell me that you can't see the effects. Fundamentalist Islam has always been a force, just as fundamentalist Christianity has always been and continues to be a force. It's just that before the internet and the rise of the 24 hour news cycle, this stuff was a lot less apparent to those in the west because it was on the other side of the world.
Click to expand...

Of course, of course, I agree. I should have written:

Biggles
I'm not sure that 25 years ago there were many people IN THE WEST who anticipated that radical Islam fundamentalism would emerge to play a major role in INTERNATIONAL politics.
Click to expand...

However, that was just a preamble. The topic I was introducing is nationalism/globalism, which with the emergence of Trump & certain other international figures has very much become the "flavour du jour".

Nationalism makes as much sense to me as fundamentalist religion, however, it is now enjoying a resurgence in popular consciousness. Bannon is a prominent spokesman for nationalist thinking. I was hoping that some here would take the trouble to watch the Munk debate to weigh in on it.
 
Imari
Also, communism was the default boogeyman of the day, not Islamic fundamentalists. Communism and communist countries still exist, but how much do you hear about them now? Not much, because they're not the flavour du jour.
Click to expand...

It is worth noting though that there are far fewer communist countries today than 27 years ago. Even counting de facto autocratic countries as well as de jure communist ones.

But you're right, there's always some sort of boogeyman, a particular group or element that changes to suit the narrative of the time and the previous one becomes less of an issue. In terms of British immigration in the 20s and 30s, and before, it was the Irish; in the 50s and 60s it was blacks; in the 60s and 70s it was the Indians; in the 00s it was eastern Europeans; and now in the 10s it's Arabs/Muslims.

Of course there are overlaps there but you get the general impression.
 
Haven't finished the video yet, it's long.

All of these terms are so difficult to pin down, globalism, nationalism, populism, even socialism. Is capitalism globalism? Does the existence of large multi-national corporations count as globalist or do we need to have a global unification policy from our government to count as globalist? Brexit I would assume is nationalism, but the UK doesn't want to cease trade with other nations, so is it nationalist? If Britain is participating in the world economy through trade and the presence of multi-national corporations, and participates in Climate Change initiatives and NATO, but doesn't want to be in the EU, are they globalist or nationalist? I guess the answer is a little bit of both.

I don't really understand the differentiation of regions or people into nation states. I get how they came about, but it seems so arbitrary to me. Human rights apply to every government on the planet. There isn't a government that should condone slavery, for example, and on and on. In reality, it shouldn't really matter which country you're in. Your local government should protect and adhere to your rights, and that doesn't leave a TON of room for differences. Sure maybe one nation has a stricter punishment for murder, or has different rules on public property, but at the big picture, it shouldn't matter. If you're entitled to free speech in the US because it is a human right, you're entitled to free speech everywhere. If you're entitled to equal protection of your government in the US because it is a human right, you're entitled to equal protection everywhere. And that means that women should be able to show their faces in public, own property, vote, and testify with weight equal to that of a man's testimony everywhere on Earth.

So if that's true, then nationalism is relegated to more of a "I like regional sport Team" role.

To the extent that people would like the American government to put American interests before any other interests, I would remind those people that taking into account the rights of others and responsibilities of government is taking into account American interests. It's like saying that you have freedom of speech but you want the government to infringe freedom of speech of those who aren't part of your group. Protecting your freedom of speech means protecting theirs as well.

Beyond that, what are we really talking about in terms of Trump's nationalist policy? Renegotiation of trade agreements? I don't think the government should participate in such nonsense. A higher tariff on one country vs. another is unequal protection of the law against individuals, including Americans what want to trade with people of different countries. If one American country wants to buy goods from China, and another American company wants to buy goods from Canada, and the government taxes one of those transactions higher than another... that is unequal protection of the law. So there should be no such thing as nationalist trade agreements with nations that are willing to capitulate to US terms.

TL;DR If I had my way, and government were limited enough, there'd be no such thing as nationalism or globalism.
 
Danoff
If I had my way, and government were limited enough, there'd be no such thing as nationalism or globalism.
Click to expand...
How would you do that without controlling the population?
The government would have to control how the people think right?
I assume you mean a government that doesn't take into account their citizens and is forcing nationalism or globalism.
Or am I lost?
 
ryzno
How would you do that without controlling the population?
The government would have to control how the people think right?
I assume you mean a government that doesn't take into account their citizens and is forcing nationalism or globalism.
Or am I lost?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I'm lost. How did what I say imply the need for population control?
 
Danoff
I'm pretty sure I'm lost. How did what I say imply the need for population control?
Click to expand...
No where. I'm confused at how you'd eliminate them though?
A government voted by the people USUALLY do what the voting body wants.
If you want to remove that, you have to control the vote or the people.
Or again, I missing something.
 
Last edited:
ryzno
No, where. I'm confused at how you'd eliminate them though?
A government voted by the people USUALLY do what the voting body wants.
If you want to remove that, you have to control the vote or the people.
Or again, I missing something.
Click to expand...

Ah... yea with the exception of voting away human rights (check my signature) - which doesn't leave a lot of breathing room, and that's a restriction that should exist on all nations.
 
Biggles
David Frum, former speech writer for George W Bush, well-known political commentator, "establishment conservative" & current editor of the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention Frum was a key advocate for the Iraq war and regime change in Iran and Syria. A thoroughgoing neocon, warmonger and imperialist (globalist), IMO he is clearly one of Earth's greatest dangers to peace and to mankind.

As for Bannon, I've never bothered to listen to him for more than 5 seconds. You can send both of them to Mars for all I care. They can fight it out in a tin can. and never a global forum.
 
Dotini
You forgot to mention Frum was a key advocate for the Iraq war and regime change in Iran and Syria. A thoroughgoing neocon and imperialist (globalist), IMO he is clearly one of Earth's greatest dangers to peace and to mankind.
Click to expand...

Uuuuhhhh....

Ok advocating for the Iraq war and regime change in Iran and Syria does not make someone a great danger to peace and mankind. These are not exactly bastions of human rights. Protecting people within those countries is a defense that any human or nation can legitimately engage in. It doesn't make you a war monger or a destroyer of peace, it makes you a protector and defender of peace.
 
Dotini
Everybody should be educated to know the very real dangers of neocons.
Click to expand...

This is an Association Fallacy or guilt-by-association. That because some people might want to do something bad, and they hold common attributes/positions with say, David Frum, that Frum is also guilty of wanting to do that bad thing.
 
The neocons want to install a global regime of American Imperialism, representing your worst nightmare of authoritarian globalism. They would destroy Russia, Iran and anyone else, and do it preemptively before we were disabled through an EMP attack, which is now looming as a possibility.

Neocons are embedded in high positions in the US Air Force, CIA, media, and in industry, especially defense. These people are extremely conservative and hold extreme fundamentalist views in religion, though they mask themselves as social liberals and shift back and forth from Republican to Democrat.

If you really want globalism, then be my guest, it's a free country. But be careful what you ask for. Know what it is you are buying into.

Populism and globalism are apples and oranges. Globalism is a long-term, one-way trip into top down authoritarian rule. Populism is a temporary "prairie-fire" at the grass roots level where downtrodden people with the vote occasionally rise up in protest and try to elect ideologues like Andrew Jackson, Huey Long or Donald Trump. They go away when they get a good job or get rich.
 
Dotini
The neocons want to install a global regime of American Imperialism, representing your worst nightmare of authoritarian globalism. They would destroy Russia, Iran and anyone else, and do it preemptively before we were disabled through an EMP attack, which is now looming as a possibility.
Click to expand...

So, specifically David Frum wants to destroy Russia and do it preemptively?


Dotini
If you really want globalism, then be my guest, it's a free country. But be careful what you ask for. Know what it is you are buying into.
Click to expand...

Totally depends on what you mean by globalism. There's a lot of confusion on that matter.
 
Danoff
So, specifically David Frum wants to destroy Russia and do it preemptively?
Click to expand...
I'm not mindreader, and I don't know his private motivations. But he is a neocon. He was an active neocon in the Bush administration. There and then neocons advocated for preemptive war. Read the published literature! The very worst neocons were the ones who authored and signed PNAC. Until Frum tells us in writing he doesn't want to preemptively attack Russia, then I think the default assumption should be that he does want to. I view him as a Trojan horse, an extreme danger to peace, prosperity and democracy.
 
Dotini
Were you for the Iraq war at the time? Are you still? Do you consider yourself a globalist? Do you consider yourself a neocon?
Click to expand...

Are you sticking with your assumption that Frum wants to preemptively attack Russia because of his position on Iraq?
 
I agree with Danoff on pretty much all his points. Dotini, as is so often is the case, you throw out wildly exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims. This thread is not about David Frum. I don't agree with many of the positions taken by Frum over the course of his career as a political commentator, nevertheless, he is clearly a very thoughtful, intelligent person with quite nuanced views on a lot of topics, not a "blatantly evil" neocon - a characterization that seems to hold a strange appeal in your imagination . Although Frum initially strongly supported the Iraq war, he later expressed regret for that support:

It's human nature to assess difficult questions, not on the merits, but on our feelings about the different 'teams' that form around different answers. To cite a painful personal experience: During the decision-making about the Iraq war, I was powerfully swayed by the fact that the proposed invasion of Iraq was supported by those who had been most right about the Cold War—and was most bitterly opposed by those who had been wrongest about the Cold War. Yet in the end, it is not teams that matter. It is results. As Queen Victoria's first prime minister bitterly quipped after a policy fiasco: 'What wise men had promised has not happened. What the damned fools predicted has actually come to pass.'"

I have had a hard time understanding the intellectual justification for nationalism. Bannon is a pretty articulate spokesman for the cause, but in my view Frum runs rings around him during the debate. This is partly because the poster boy for nationalism in Bannon's presentation is Donald Trump, somebody who throughout his life has never exhibited much concern for anything larger than his own self-interest. This seriously undermines his position, in fact it leads to frequent outbursts of laughter from the debate audience.
 
SestoScudo
I noticed how Monotheism and Globalism go hand in hand.

1 God, One Emperor, One Empire or State.
Click to expand...
Very apt and truthfully distilled to the essence.

The ultimate horror of globalism being an entire world governed top-down by one religion, one state, one authority. Kind of like Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer.

Thankfully, our multi-state system (nationalism) allows nations to be tailored more comfortably to differing religions, differing cultural values and differing individuals.

"We know what works: Freedom works. We know what's right: Freedom is right. We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on Earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state,” - George H.W. Bush, Inauguration Day, January 20, 1989
 

Latest Posts

Back