Nationalism Gains Momentum
 
After 70+ years of incremental globalism, the world has unexpectedly been shoved off-balance.  As recently as 3 years ago, it looked as if globalism was an unstoppable force.  Multi-lateral treaties and trade agreements had become ubiquitous.  Multi-culturalism was on the ascendancy almost everywhere outside the Islamic world.  And transnational entities like the UN and EU were becoming more powerful.

Then suddenly, the globalist ascendancy began to unravel!

We’d felt rumblings since the financial crisis undermined confidence in the Euro, but it was on June 23, 2016 that the avalanche started: Brexit, the UK’s decision to exit the European Union was a shocking repudiation of globalist values.  Then, to the total shock of elites and media pundits, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign triumphed over Hillary Clinton’s globalist agenda in the United States; with control of Congress and a majority on the Supreme Court, nationalists suddenly had control of the world’s most powerful state.  This news emboldened nationalists around the world including Duterte in the Philippines, Al-Sisi in Egypt, Duda in Poland, Zeman in the Czech Republic, and Orban in Hungary, who needed a superpower ally who understood what they are fighting for.   Next, nationalist candidates Le Pen in France and Gilders in the Netherlands made surprisingly strong showings in elections.  Already, Russia and China had quietly and progressively morphed from spreaders of international communism, into champions of Orthodox Russian and Chinese nationalism, respectively.  And, at the end of the first quarter of 2018, it looks as if this shift is far from over, with nationalist sentiments rapidly gaining ground in Germany, Italy, Brazil, India, Japan and China.

Potentially even more disruptive than these existing countries asserting their nationalist autonomy, are the ethnic regions struggling to break free from the countries into which they were absorbed in prior eras.   For example, the people of Kurdistan are an “emergent nation” with a common ancestry, religion and language that is now divided between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria.  Similarly, Catalonians, who have been part of Spain for centuries, are now struggling to break free.  

Just as with the conflict between capitalism and communism, the conflict between nationalism and globalism is rooted in fundamental assumptions regarding society, humanity, and priorities.

Nationalism is defined as “a feeling of unity among a group of people, born out of their common values and history, giving them pride in their nation.”  Nationalists, by definition, support national sovereignty and self-governance; they oppose unrestricted migration; and they support preserving their respective national cultures and demographics.  These nationalists oppose forming international regulatory organizations, if the end goal is suppressing national autonomy and creating a de facto one-world government.

This form of patriotism has occasionally gone to extremes, leading to hatred of non-members of the nation.  And that potential downside has led to the demonization of nationalism by some globalists who believe that having any pride in one’s country is evil.

In general, nationalists support localized government where individuals have the freedom to set policy for their communities.  In the United States, nationalists generally support “state’s rights” over Federal dominion.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau echoed these views when he argued that freedom and democracy thrive best in small nation-states and that monarchy and dictatorship thrive best in large nation-states.

Nationalists such as John Bolton, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ted Cruz also oppose policies such as open borders and mass migration, which prevent the nation from determining who enters the country and effectively assimilating new entrants.  Whether it’s in Hungary, the United States or Israel, they tend to support policies such as building border walls and maintaining border security.
 
Because of nationalisms support of limited and localized, self-government, people who label themselves conservatives usually support nationalism or at least “lean toward nationalism.”  Conservatives typically see nationalisms support for maintaining independent nation-states as the best avenue to maintain and promote individual freedoms, such as those provided in the U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, Globalism, in its purest form, rejects the role of sovereign nations in protecting values and encouraging productivity, preferring transnational governance structures for regions as well as the entire planet.  In its strongest form, globalism is inherently “anti-American,” because it encourages Americans to see themselves as “citizen of the world,” rather than “citizens of the United States.”

By definition Globalists such as George Soros, Barack Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Hillary Clinton oppose nationalism, and seek to minimize national sovereignty, and self-governance.  Instead, they favor open borders, unrestricted trade, multi-lateral interventionism, foreign aid, and interpreting the U.S. Constitution in ways that conform to international standards. They oppose strong border security and the building of border walls.

Within the American political spectrum, globalism is typically favored by people who call themselves liberal, because globalism favors centralization of political power in government as opposed to the private sector.   Supranational organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, World Trade Organization, and the Paris climate agreement, are seen by many as forerunners of this de facto worldwide government.

Doing away with national sovereignty and eventually creating an over-arching worldwide government is the long-term goal of most “globalists.” However, for the past 70 years, those who actively advocate a system of worldwide governance have pursued a long-term strategy aimed at slowly and incrementally merging all the countries of the world under a single set of laws and powers.  Zbigniew Brzezinski, an advisor to presidents Johnson, Carter and Obama, admitted this, stating that "we cannot leap into world government in one quick step.  The precondition for genuine globalization is progressive regionalization." Structures like the EU and NAFTA are intended to facilitate this "progressive regionalization." Their objective is to erode sovereignty bit-by-bit until all the countries of the world are so integrated that the establishment of worldwide governance becomes a de facto reality.

In recent decades, globalists have used mass migrations driven by geo-political instability, to erode nationalism.  The best example is the current European migrant crisis.  As mass migration inserts large numbers of people from other locations with different values into a country without the time and institutions to produce assimilation, it disrupts the national identify, reduces national pride and makes the transition to regional and global governance, relatively seamless.

Ironically, the European migrant crisis, more than any other factor, has galvanized nationalism within the OECD countries.  And shifting attitudes within the rich industrialized countries have emboldened nationalists everywhere.

The result is a seemingly irreversible “chemical reaction,” as fragmented native populations are uniting against the external threat to the status quo.

The major fault-line runs between those who believe free markets are superior to a highly-regulated “industrial policy” and those who take the opposing view.  Here we are not primarily referring to the free market for goods and services, which almost everyone believes is superior; we’re referring to a free market of ideas!

When nations compete, they innovate in terms of legal systems, social services, taxes, regulations, philosophies, and values. Jurisdictional competition among political entities inevitably produces winners like Singapore and losers like Venezuela.  But, more importantly, it produces valuable innovations that others can adopt and adapt.  In the long-term, this leads to reallocation of global resources like talent and capital to those nations that have the best solutions.  That’s what Adam Smith predicted back in 1776, and it has has led to a better life for all.

Given this apparently simple dichotomy, why has globalism been so successful in gaining adherents since World War II?  At least two reasons stand out:

1. The fear of warfare in the nuclear age, has made people willing to give up freedom for security. And,

2. People have attributed the benefits derived from the policy of globalization to the ideology of globalism, implicitly providing evidence for its efficacy.

It is unclear whether multilateral arms agreements or even the United Nations have been effective in reducing warfare.  However, they may provide a context that makes bi-lateral negotiations between superpowers and others more transparent and therefore, more palatable.  Nevertheless, such entities give psychological comfort, which makes life in the 21st century less stressful.

The second reason for the rise of globalism is far more important. People tend to confuse the ideologies of globalism and nationalism with the policies of globalization and isolation.  Whether we’re talking about China and Japan 200 years ago or the U. S. in the 1930s, deliberate policies of long-term isolationism have failed.  On the other hand, the policy of globalization has, in the aggregate, been highly successful, despite the disruptions suffered by many.  That’s important, because the success of the policy of globalization, has made the ideology of globalism more popular by association.

Globalization is the term used to describe the diffusion of culture, technology, political ideas, and industries, from their “culture of origin” to the rest of the world.  Over the past 150 years, the vast majority of globalization originated in the United States and Europe and diffused to the rest of the world; Japan has also been a major globalization hub since the 1960s.  Consider the McDonalds company, which started out as a small American restaurant in 1940 and has since gone on to become the worlds largest supplier of fast food, operating in a majority of the worlds countries.  Similarly, the diffusion of mobile phone technology from the United States to the rest of the world suddenly enabled cheap voice and data services to explode in poorer countries, because it did not require any rewiring to operate and one cell tower could serve a large number of people.

Multi-lateral trade agreements supported by globalist policies helped accelerate this diffusion, but globalization would have also happened under more traditional bilateral agreements.  However, because of the association of globalization with globalism, many of the champions of globalization came to accept and promote the ideology of globalism, which also encompasses policies like multi-culturalism, open borders, and the so-called “green agenda.”  Yet these policies have little, or nothing, to do with the success of globalization.

Does this new nationalism represent a fundamental change or is it simply a short-term correction on the road to a globalist future?  No one yet knows for sure.  But this sudden clash of ideologies is likely to be the most disruptive geo-political factor in the years immediately ahead.

Given this trend, we offer the following forecasts for your consideration.

First, through at least 2023, nationalism in the United States will continue to surge, largely to compensate for the over-reach of globalism.

Over 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson argued that, “The happiness and prosperity of our citizens… is the only legitimate object of government.”  This doctrine formed the basis of the Declaration of Independence and then, the Constitution.  This simple argument embodies the rationale for nationalism and against globalism.  Because globalists consider themselves “citizens of the world” “the happiness and prosperity of our citizens,” is not necessarily their paramount objective.  Since only U. S. citizens vote in U. S. elections, nationalism most clearly aligns with a natural electoral majority.

Second, if U. S. nationalists fail to deliver promised economic and social outcomes, globalists will reassert themselves.

Because of the inherent alignment between their priorities and those of the average citizen, nationalists have an inherent advantage.  Identity politics succeeded because 60% of American’s were marginalized during the “economic transition phase.”  The slow growth, “new normal” economy caused many to look for someone to blame, whether it was “the immigrants” or “the racists.”  If the shift to an “America first” policy of bi-lateral trade agreements, mutually beneficial alliances, merit-based immigration and energy dominance delivers high growth and broad-based affluence it will prevail for a generation.  The key is to formulate the right policy mix of globalization versus isolationism.

Third, in countries where nationalism is based more on language, culture, ethnicity and religion, diversity will inevitably be stifled.

In the United States, Australia and Canada, nationalism is just another word for “patriotism”; the focus is on shared values and respect for law.  However, in countries with longer histories, nationalism is tied more explicitly to heritage and history.  For instance, Indian nationalism is inseparable from Hindu nationalism, while Polish nationalists strive to maintain their historic Roman Catholic and Slavic identity.  The challenge for these countries will be to balance nationalism with tolerance.

Fourth, many multi-lateral and transnational institutions will be redefined or abolished.

Multi-lateral trade agreements like NAFTA will be re-negotiated.  The EU may very well cease to exist in its current form as more countries exit.  Transnational military and political alliances, like NATO, should remain important, because they depend on each country’s medium-term strategic objectives.  And,

Fifth, as China becomes a global power, it will rival, but not surpass the United States, while India, Japan and Europe will all move toward greater affluence.

When the EU created its monetary union and the United States, was the world’s sole, undisputed superpower controlled by globalist politicians, it looked to many as if global governance was within reach.   But this was an illusion. outside of a small global elite, the world’s people do not want to become part of a homogenized global state, which refuses to acknowledge cultural differences and suppresses the economic, social, religious, and legal differences needed to maintain those cultures. Inevitably, the competition between these reinvigorated “nations” will lead to confrontations over values, resources, and boundaries. However, demographic, technological, and behavioral advantages will keep the United States on top in a world where “China puts the Chinese first,” “Russia puts Russians first,” “France puts the French first,” and ”the United States puts Americans first.”  Only something, unprecedented in human history, would undercut this vision of the next 20 years. 

References
1. The Post-Journal, March 6, 2018. Patrick J. Buchanan.  The Eternal Lure of Nationalism.

http://www.post-journal.com/life/viewpoints/2018/03/the-eternal-lure-of-nationalism/

2. The American Interest, February 2018. JONATHAN HAIDT. When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism. 

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

3. The LAst American Vagabond, JanUary 21, 2017. Tim Bryant. NATIONALISM VS. GLOBALISM: WHAT ROUTE SHOULD THE WORLD TAKE?

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/government/nationalism-globalism-world-route/

4. THE ECONOMIST, Nov 19th 2016. League of nationalists.

https://www.economist.com/news/international/21710276-all-around-world-nationalists-are-gaining-ground-why-league-nationalists