The Evils of Globalism
by Right Wing Fighter
Globalist economics, is an environment of government policies that put very little restriction on commerce. It essentially makes for an economic free-for-all that benefits the most able, whilst leaving weaker people to fend for themselves at a disadvantage. Basic justice requires that the government reject globalism and put in place policies that will protect those weaker members.
The U.S. wasn’t originally economically globalistic. Starting with our first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, the U.S. had nationalistic economic policies which protected our industries by placing tariffs on foreign goods. Additionally, we had immigration laws that limited the admission of foreigners to protect our workers from cheap labor. There were changes of course, particularly in immigration laws; but the overall philosophy of the U.S. government for over a century and a half was economic nationalism.
Globalism didn’t really catch hold until the middle of the 20th century, when several presidents sought to use our economy to fight the Soviet Union. The idea, for one, was that by opening our economy to other nations, we could entwine them with us, and thus prevent them from allying with the Soviets. Additionally, in the case of China specifically, Richard Nixon sought to entwine their economy and ours so that we could have sway over them.
The Cold War didn’t cause globalism in the U.S., rather it simply enabled it. Business has always been impatient with regulations, and the Red Threat gave them a pretext to eliminate many of them. By pleading that any regulation would lead to socialism, business was able to get the middle class to back down on regulations which protected it. Even today, business still pleads that any regulation will lead to a top-down economy. This explains why so many free trade and free market think tanks are funded by the very wealthiest people in the country: they are maintaining an army of deregulation advocates to keep their money moving freely.
It may seem curious that nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, the middle class has not reversed these policies. These policies are patently destructive to the middle class, so why haven’t they been changed?
It may sound strange, but it is because the middle class is too weak. The middle class makes up the majority of the people. The middle class is praised in song and story, in speeches and in movies, as the ideal social class. For decades politicians have praised middle class values, such as honesty and hard work, as the bedrock of America. Since the middle class is so universally praised, how can they be so powerless? The answer: concentration of strength.
Concentration of strength is an old and true doctrine of success. Unless you can bring sufficient force to a specific point, it is impossible to win. The ancient Romans were able to control millions of people in Europe with an army that never exceeded 400,000 men because their legions were concentrations of incredible strength. The subjugated peoples on the other hand were disorganized and disunited, and thus bore the Roman yoke for centuries. Because the rich can individually bring vast wealth to a very small point, for instance, the congressional campaign of a single candidate by simply writing a check, they have great influence in government. But the middle class would have to band their modest means together to have enough money to influence individual politicians. Until such organization exists, the middle class will be mostly unrepresented in government.
This is one reason why diversity is endlessly advocated. Diversity, despite the propaganda, is weakness and not strength. Oil and water do not mix precisely because they are different; yet oil mixes with oil, and water with water. Things mix with their own kind, and one of the goals of diversity is to keep the middle class divided by creating a mass of foreigners in America that will make organization more difficult and thus less likely. This may sound like something that would require a vast conspiracy, but all it requires is that immigration continues at high numbers. Just keep admission levels high, and the immigrants will bring themselves, no expense required. And since they are largely coming from the non-European third-world, they will serve to divide the country because of their cultural and religious difference from traditional America. Diversity is a tactic to divide and conquer.
Because middle class wealth consists largely of their homes and cars, they are unable to protect themselves from economic troubles like recessions, depressions, and simple slow downs. In any of these cases, the wealthiest can simply shuffle their wealth to different parts of the world, since a great deal of it consists of fluid assets, such as stocks and money. The middle class cannot simply sell their house and car for cash and invest it in Japanese toy manufacturers. They have to use most of their assets for simple everyday living, and thus must whether the economic storms that come.
Additionally, since the chief source of middle class income is their jobs, they are at great risk of bankruptcy if their job sector is outsourced to other countries or under-sold by immigrant labor. For these reasons, a globalist economic model easily can put the middle class in peril because it can cut their sole lifeline. Whatever small investments they may have will be too small to do them any good. Under an economic model that does not guard the middle class, immigration and outsourcing will take their jobs, and thus members of the middle class will be financially destroyed. This is not some prediction of the future. It is already happening in our manufacturing sector, where millions of jobs have gone over seas, and formerly middle class cities like Detroit have become shells of their past selves.
Globalism allows the smartest, the most ingenious, to amass vast fortunes, whilst at the same time it does little to protect the wealth or even the job security of the middle class. Most of the wealthiest in America are either barons of production or barons of investment. Proper regulations to protect the middle class would hamper their economic freedom of movement and inadvertently prevent them from building such vast fortunes, and thus they oppose it. This is why the wealthy are committed to globalism: because under a global economy, the number of consumers vastly increases, and thus those in a position to sell to the consumers of the world have a much broader market to sell in.
Our government should be focused on protecting and growing the middle class, which is the spine and strength of any nation. Making an environment in which the middle class is unprotected so that a small handful can make unimaginable wealth is wrong. The government, by doing so, is betraying the interests of the nation, and of the majority of the people. One of the historic mainstays of the United States has been its large middle class. If it is allowed to wither down, and thus produce a nation of poor people and very rich people, our civic strength, elasticity, and vigor will be sapped, and it will take no strong wind to push us over.