Quodsi tales dei sunt ut rebus humanis intersint, Natio quoque dea putanda est…, quae quia partus matronarum tueatur a nascentibus Natio nominata est.” – Cicero, De Natura Deorum, III.XVIII.
In July of 2007, Rep. Ron Paul wrote:
We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” – the underlying principle is globalism.
Wherever we turn, we hear of globalization. Former Ambassador Robert Strauss recently donated $7.5 million for a globalism research center at the University of Texas. Rich Lowry, in "Global Capitalism Saves Children," implores, "let’s save the world – help it grow." And Thomas L. Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, writes that this great panacea "increases the incentives for not making war and increases the costs of going to war in more ways than in any previous era in modern history.’’ Neoconservatives and neoliberals alike warn us that if we turn our backs on the great project, we are doomed. Or worse, we are evil, as charged former World Trade Organization Director-General Mike Moore:
“There is also a darker side to the backlash against globalization. For some, the attacks on economic openness are part of a broader assault on internationalism – on foreigners, immigration, a more pluralistic and integrated world.”
But what is this new religion of globalism? It has become such a pervasive ideology that no single camp exists. Almost all elitists seem to buy into it – whether one is a neoconservative supporting war, a Wall Street investor backing free trade or a Hollywood liberal adopting God knows how many children from around the world – although they disagree on some points. Ad minimum, globalism presupposes international integration. Thus, we infer three basic tenets of globalism: (1) interventionist foreign policies, (2) free trade and (3) mass immigration (illegal or legal).
Regarding the first point, not everyone in the world (e.g. conservative Muslims) wants to be integrated into an internationalist order. But whereas a George Washington or Edmund Burke would let them go their own way, the globalist feels the imperative to assimilate them, thus sensationalizing a charge (e.g. supporting terrorism, ethnic nationalism or hating freedom) as a pretext for intervention, which usually begins with global sanction and often ends in invasion. Although globalists may disagree on the target region (Serbia, Iraq or Darfur) or what type of punishments must be meted out (a harsh scolding, sanctions or invasion), they all agree it is our business to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
Although one often hears criticism of the negative effects of free trade, both the Left and Right continue to back it. The old labor-union leftists were critical of free trade for decades, but they either no longer have any influence or have morphed into internationalist crusaders. Regarding leftists and their changing priorities, Paul Gottfried has written:
“The major change that the Left has undergone over the last 30 years is the replacement of an economically-oriented socialist persuasion by a multicultural one…. The updated Left plays down such old-style socialist goals as nationalizing productive forces, and it favors the market when commerce can be used to break down regional and national barriers and to achieve cultural diversity.”
This is no surprise, nor is it a recent development. In fact, the Left’s support of free trade can be traced all the way back to Karl Marx, who in 1848 said:
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
One should not be astonished, then, that neoconservatives, many with Trotskyite origins, have nearly silenced all criticism of free trade in the GOP despite the fact that conservatives historically and philosophically have opposed unbridled free trade. It is unfortunate that many Republicans have been so thoroughly "neoconned" on this topic, as it is enfeebling our economy and undermining our national sovereignty.
There is probably no more potent marriage between big business and Third World ethnic lobbies than on the issue of immigration. Big business acquires cheap labor; Third World immigrants get the spoils of a First World welfare state; and liberal politicians gain new constituencies, assuring continuance of their power. Everyone is a winner. Well, everyone except the native stock, American workers and taxpayers. Two things are taking place. First, American wages are being driven down by both legal and illegal immigration, both in blue-collar and white-collar professions. Labor economists, such as George Borjas, have well documented this phenomenon. Second, immigrants take more from the economy than they invest in it. For example, the Lone Star Foundation figures that illegal immigrants cost Texas about $4.5 billion per year, versus about $1 billion in tax revenue. In short, taxpayers are subsidizing big business with the cheap labor that is driving down their own wages.
But the madness does not stop there. Not only are Americans asked to sacrifice their livelihood for the sake of the great project, but also to forsake their posterity. Whether consciously or not, almost all internationalists push for some sort of "propositionalism," the belief that a nation can be founded upon the common belief in a few propositions. This type of universalism lacks any Burkean appeal to tradition, common ancestry or historical underpinnings, which is why proponents of it believe they can erect democracies in vacuums and transform the United States, via immigration, into a multicultural utopia. It has become a new religion in and of itself; consequently, older religions like Christianity are not immune. In a recent interview with Al Arabiya television, President George W. Bush said, "I believe that all the world, whether they be Muslim, Christian, or any other religion, prays to the same God…. I believe there is a universal God." Au revoir, Nicene Creed and the last 1,500 years of Christianity.
Although globalists espouse versions of these three basic tenets, they often disagree on policy implementation and issues such as global warming, abortion, the role of the U.N. and Middle Eastern affairs. While neoconservatives make it their primary objective to transform the Middle East into a liberal democracy, other globalists have different priorities. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt may criticize the Israel Lobby’s influence on the United States, but as members of the Council on Foreign Relations they are not calling globalism into question. And while Sen. Chuck Hagel or Robert Novak might criticize the war in Iraq, they both support other aspects of globalization, especially policies that allow mass immigration. This infighting can be acerbic, as the war in Iraq has demonstrated. As a result, viewpoints are often mischaracterized. For example, Andrew Sullivan has called Hagel "the great paleocon hope," although Hagel is in no way a paleoconservative, but an internationalist unhappy with the implementation of the war. (A defining achievement of the Old Right was the Immigration Act of 1924, the resuscitation of which Hagel most certainly would oppose.) In short, these internationalists fault failed policy decisions rather than championing an alternative paradigm, such as regionalism, traditional patriotism or America-first priorities.
Shadowboxing among globalists has come to pass as debate in the United States. Every frontrunner for the 2008 Presidential Election, Democrat or Republican, is a globalist to one degree or another. Although leading Democrats oppose the Iraq War, they support intervention in Darfur and elsewhere and certainly support allowing an inundation of Third World immigrants, which they believe will sustain their hold on politics. In the mainstream media, few pundits criticize globalization. Those who do complain, like Patrick J. Buchanan or Lou Dobbs, are castigated by the rest.
Yet, there is still hope. Despite all the propaganda in the media and academia, national polls show that the majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq, free trade and mass immigration. If a charismatic politician were to rally round these three issues alone, he could foment a broad base of support. Perhaps it’s high time for a political realignment, but a movement needs organization and a leader.
Matthew A. Roberts writes from Kansas City, MO. Image courtesy of the Slovenian band Laibach