In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:
First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.
Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.
Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.
But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.
So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.
Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.
If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.
If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won’t listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.
Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.
I don’t want to imagine that, BZ, but if it should become a reality we are going to be in a world of hurt… literally!
An Osama presidency would make the Great Depression look like a golden age. And America might never recover from it.
BZ, you are saying what I have been saying for a long time. The world will be a frightful place without a strong America.
VW
VW: SO true.
BZ
I disagree with VDH on free trade, particularly NAFTA. Trade agreements must be upheld by all parties to them, and Mexico will not do that. My position has been and always will be that free trade is for our friends and allies, those that support us, liberty and democracy. Those that EARN IT in other words, by striving to be free and have liberty. I do not stand, of necessity, for protectionism, but in making those that do not seek our friendship, that do not seek greater liberty and freedom for their citizens, those that will not help the US to *pay their way* and feel the bite of having taken tools of despotism and tyranny to their own people.
One of the problems I have with ‘free trade’ is that Adam Smith’s characterization and foundation did not take into account changes in all areas of production. Essentially he makes agriculture equal in all nations, while it is inherently not the case in the modern world. Further, even he recognizes that sovereingty has a role and a strong role above and beyond economics, and that it can, does and MUST trump economic views, not the other way around. Those who lash economics to freedom by putting economics *first* do not understand the basis of economics coming *from* freedom and liberty. I have deeper problems with those who put economics first than I do with protectionists who at least have a bit of a clue going on. Trade should not be used to help tyrants, despots and authoritarian regimes, and they do NOT reform due to our trade. We are helping them, America, and putting our liberty at risk and grave peril because of this. I want despotic nations to *pay* for getting the goods of a free people, and I want those who will not support liberty and freedom to *pay* for that privilege, and those that will not support our nation must also *pay* for that privilege.
Empower our friends, allies, and those that choose the path of liberty and freedom after throwing off the shackles of tyranny.
This other way hasn’t worked out so well the last century or so. Can we give it a rest, please, before we die of our well armed foes using our money to kill us?