What did some people expect? That globalization and its backers would lie down and die a peaceful death?
Not a chance. Globalization has, as Matt Tabbi writes, allowed China, with the help of both political parties, to gain world dominance. China has "polluted, price-dumped, and stole its way to a generation of American jobs and revenue" and "now owns so much of our debt that we must put up with its s**t indefinitely."
"Trump or no Trump, the international trade system needs to be blown to hell," Tabbi says.
Trump is blowing that system to hell, of that we can be certain. What comes after is the question occupying investors who hate disruptions like this and are going to do everything in their power to stop it.
The investor class craves stability. Blowing up their globalization project will bring chaos. It stands to reason that the moneymen will gravitate toward the politicians who will oppose the destruction of the globalization enterprise and maintain the status quo.
That's what it's all about. There are no grand ideas they are defending. There are no revolutions they want to support. They want to maintain their power and influence and will do so at any cost, even if it leads to rack and ruin.
This is not the first time globalization has collapsed. Just prior to World War I, the economist John Maynard Keynes recalled how “The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep.”
"After drinking his tea (from India), sweetened by sugar (from Jamaica), that Londoner might later enjoy toast (made from wheat grown in Kansas), butter (from New Zealand), beef (from Argentina) and oranges (from Palestine)," writes one of the preeminent historians of that era, University of Chicago Professor Tara Zahra.
Most people of that era saw globalization as irreversible. Then, the war happened, and the not-so-interconnected world fell apart. Protectionism became the norm.
At the end of the 20th century, the second great acceleration of globalization began. And once again, it was seen as an unstoppable force.
At the end of the 20th century, the world experienced the second great acceleration of globalization. Communism collapsed. The European Union expanded. Soon, China joined the world trading system. Migration once again surged. Today over 15 percent of people living in America were born abroad, surpassing a previous high of 14.8 percent in 1890. As was true then, many observers a century later saw globalization as an unstoppable and inherently positive force. The great-grandchildren of that Londoner, drinking their Indian tea in bed, followed world news on TikTok and had toast (topped with Mexican avocados) delivered to their doorstep, using phones designed in California and assembled in China.
War and the Great Depression ended the first globalization age. Did the COVID-19 Pandemic end the second? It certainly overturned the political order, with anti-globalist populists winning in most of the industrialized world and Donald Trump being swept back to power in the U.S.
Professor Zahra writes that "resentment" about globalization has been a critical force in the rise of the global right." Was it really "resentment" that led to the election of Gioria Meloni in Italy, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and boosted the AfD in Germany and the French National Rally and gave old Joe Biden the boot?
That's the left's interpretation of this vast movement of people and ideas. To me, that's simple-minded. It's not so much a movement to the "right" as a longing to defend a personal concept of "home."
The overwhelming majority of human beings on this planet do not concern themselves with international trade, the movement of capital, or migration. People are concerned about their jobs, but not in the macro sense of "industry" or "economy." For almost all of us, our world centers on home and hearth, along with our neighbors and the small circle of friends and family who make life worth living.
Politicians forgot that and were seduced by visions of wealth and global dominance. The "free trade" agreements we entered into turned out to be free for them but not for us. When we questioned that, we were accused of being protectionists. When the first failures of globalization led to one of the greatest mass movements of people in history, we were told to sit down, shut up, and stop being racists.
Free markets are good. Free trade is not, unless strong, reciprocal agreements make free trade free for everyone. This, the globalists don't want. And as their world comes crashing down around them, they can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.
