I’ve never seen such divide in the West, maybe I am too young but it seems like there is real polarization here.
USA, Russia and Israel all seem to be on the same side, anti-Globalist. I’d probably add Hungary and Poland to that also
It seems like Germany (especially if Merkel or Schulz win), Canada and dare I say, Britain, all seem to be for globalism.
Some links on the subject of Nationalism vs Globalism.
Certainly, “globalism vs nationalism” - if one wishes to use the largely American neologism “globalist” - is shaping up to be the defining ideological divide of our era and perhaps of the 21st century as a whole - just like “capital vs Labour” (Capitalism vs Communism) and Democracy vs Fascism were in the 20th century.
I have predicted this emerging reality in the past on this forum.
**The Political Left and Right Are Being Upended by Globalization Politics
Across the West, establishment parties of the right and the left are being disrupted — if not destroyed from the inside**. Within such parties, the losers from globalization are finding champions of anti-globalization that are challenging the formal mainstream orthodoxy. Thus, the traditional distinction between center-right and center-left is breaking down.
Traditional establishment parties were controlled by forces that, overall, benefited from globalization: business interests, urban and cosmopolitan elites, skilled workers, and white-collar and blue-collar workers protected by unions. Both right-wing and left-wing parties included significant minorities of workers who were losers in the globalization race but were voting for establishment parties either because they were socially and religiously conservative (ideological voters on the right) or because center-left parties were supporters of unions, workers rights and social welfare systems partially protecting the losers…
Losers on the left in the U.S. and U.K — where there are traditional two-party systems — found champions in traditional center-left Labour (Jeremy Corbyn) and Democratic (Bernie Sanders) parties. In continental Europe, where multi-party parliamentary systems are prevalent, populist anti-establishment parties emerged instead — either entirely new ones, such as Syriza in Greece or Podemos in Spain, or based on leftist splinter groups of traditional center-left parties…
But the most radical fault lines emerged among center-right parties. These parties — the Republicans in the U.S., the Tory party in the U.K. and other center-right parties in continental Europe — were traditionally controlled by pro-market big and small business groups and by financial interests along with conservative social and religious traditionalists…
**The paradox in the U.K. is that the Brexit camp is a motley crew that includes completely different economic interests and groups. There are the Labour blue-collar voters who want more social welfare and income redistribution. There are the right-wing populist U.K. Independence Party voters who are former Tory populists with the Tory Party against high taxes and big government but also anti-trade and anti-migration. And there are economically conservative business groups who are Thatcherites and hope that a U.K. outside of the EU will lead to more pro-market policies with less regulation, ** less labor rights and more migration of the “right” type of foreign workers (skilled and non-Muslim).
That is why the Brexit camp is unlikely to find a coherent coalition with coherent economic policies after Brexit formally takes place. **Thus, the U.K. political system, traditionally divided between Labour and Tory parties, may over time realign between parties in favor of Europe, free trade and globalization and parties against the EU, free trade and globalization…
A new political alignment erases the old left and right paradigms of labor versus capital, workers versus business, taxes and regulation versus free enterprise**.
However, I think you are massively simplifying the international “camps” by neglecting to mention the fact that almost all the countries you cite have populous and vigorous factions within their political systems that favour the opposite stance.
Western Europe & Canada has been much more influenced by socialism in the last 40 years than the United States. Also Eastern Europe is more more cautious of socialism due to their years under communism.
I think there is now a clear distinction between, for lack of a better analogy, the globalist elite (the rich, artists, corporate bosses, academics, and those who identify with them, including the new press who are product of Journalism universities) who feel empowered over the last few decades; and the proletariat (the working class) who feel left out.
Look where Obama spent his effort the last few years and what issues he brought forward and ‘fixed.’
The French and German governments are likely to shift more to the right politically, even if Merkel is re-elected. You are right about Poland, Hungary, the US, and Russia. I would add the UK to that list too. After all, they are thus far the only nation that has actually taken concrete action to leave the EU.
What we are seeing is the erosion of national identities through an aggressive globalist agenda that degrades sovereignty, especially in ways that dilute or are hostile to the local culture. Coupled with the economic imbalance that it brings, globalism causes a naturally nationalistic backlash as peoples seek to re-affirm and re-establish their identities on ethnic, religious, or Westphalian models. Some states in eastern Europe with a Soviet past are starting to long for the days of Communism, not because they like socialism or Communism, but because they are deeply dissatisfied with the failure of the liberal world order and the past always looks better when the present looks bad.
The EU is particularly guilty. As a trade agreement it’s okay, though has some drawbacks. As a quasi nation state that seeks to be a supranational replacement for the Westphalian system, it’s atrocious. It’s threatening to destabilize Europe by causing these waves of nationalism in response to it.
No, that’s much less likely for either of them now.
In France, Fillon has been weakened by a financial scandal involving his wife; Le Pen by her association with Trump (who is widely hated in Europe) and by a financial scandal involving misappropriated use of funds. The pro-EU, pro-European-Federalism candidate Emmanuel Macron of the progressive centre-left looks like he has the momentum (although its still too early to call).
In Germany, Schulz’s elevation as head of the centre-left SDP has revived the fortunes of the party and he is as popular as Merkel. He could actually beat her, or at least weaken her significantly and become Vice-Chancellor.
You are right about Poland, Hungary, the US, and Russia. I would add the UK to that list too. After all, they are thus far the only nation that has actually taken concrete action to leave the EU.
No, even Brexit Britain is still 100% behind globalisation - in fact, more so now at least in terms of the government’s rhetoric.
Well, from exiting the British Empire to the Monroe Doctrine to the Open Door to opposing imperialism in two world wars, to keeping communism behind its Iron Curtain, America has never been keen on entities bent on global governance or even half of it.
Americans come by ant-globalism naturally, and for many of us, it’s lodged in blood and bone; possibly because so many of us originated from supernational entities that didn’t work out well for ordinary people.
Now you’re French, now you’re German, now you’re French again, now you’re in the Empire, now you’re an Italian, now you’re in the Drei Kaiser Bund, now you’re in the Entente, now you’re in the Axis, now you’re in the Warsaw Pact.
So we fled to the sticks and the prairies, and for a time didn’t even quite like the United States to be all that United. Will we like globalism within the next 100 years? Maybe, but I’m not too sure we will.