Can someone please tell me what a "globalist" is?

[Mycroft]

I checked your definitions. Sounds like a good approach to the world, one followed by both US conservatives and liberals since at least the late 1930s. To be fair, there has always been a passing isolationist (anti- globalist) sentiment in US politics, almost always trumped by reality: the US battleship "Maine" blows up in Havana, and when the dust settles, we own the Phillippines. One can't be a world power, trading with everyone, overthrowing annoying governments, using whatever pressure is necessary -- even foreign aid -- to allow our businesses access to foreign markets, importing workers to do jobs Americans shy away from, and then with a straight face disparage "globalism." People may say "America first," and all our leaders do consider the interests of the country first --albeit in different, debateable ways -- excepting our former prez whose approach was of course "Trump First."

You don't understand. This isn't about the US being a world power. This is about international corporations and their financial systems using politicians from EVERY country for THEIR power. Those Globalists don't care about the US or the people of the US. They only care about their own power and money.

You can think of it as a kind of reverse form of Fascism. Instead of governments controlling corporations for their own purposes, it's the corporations that are controlling governments.

And this form of Globalism hasn't been around since the late 30's. It's been around since the early 80's.

 

[brianpatrick]

Tariffs are always a net negative, unless they're used strategically to enhance national security.

Even then they are bad. Working towards not “needing” national security is the only permanent solution.

 

[brianpatrick]

You don't understand. This isn't about the US being a world power. This is about international corporations and their financial systems using politicians from EVERY country for THEIR power. Those Globalists don't care about the US or the people of the US. They only care about their own power and money.

You can think of it as a kind of reverse form of Fascism. Instead of governments controlling corporations for their own purposes, it's the corporations that are controlling governments.

And this form of Globalism hasn't been around since the late 30's. It's been around since the early 80's.

The solution for that is in post 50. It’s the only way forward. We now have nukes. If we keep going the way we are some asshole will use one. The only reason global corps want “access” to countries is because there is “opportunity” there. If there were no opportunity there, they’d do something else.

 

[Mycroft]

The solution for that is in post 50. It’s the only way forward. We now have nukes. If we keep going the way we are some asshole will use one. The only reason global corps want “access” to countries is because there is “opportunity” there. If there were no opportunity there, they’d do something else.

Post #50 also misunderstands what Globalism is.

 

[brianpatrick]

Post #50 also misunderstands what Globalism is.

Ha ha, you wish.

 

[pocket aces]

It is something people like Mycroft say to sound smart, when in reality it does the opposite.

 

[Nickyjo]

You don't understand. This isn't about the US being a world power. This is about international corporations and their financial systems using politicians from EVERY country for THEIR power. Those Globalists don't care about the US or the people of the US. They only care about their own power and money.

You can think of it as a kind of reverse form of Fascism. Instead of governments controlling corporations for their own purposes, it's the corporations that are controlling governments.

And this form of Globalism hasn't been around since the late 30's. It's been around since the early 80's.

Assuming the validity of your argument, it seems that a counter strategy, probably politically impossible, would be to eliminate corporate personhood, their ability to donate to political campaigns, and other measures.

 

[Mycroft]

Assuming the validity of your argument, it seems that a counter strategy, probably politically impossible, would be to eliminate corporate personhood, their ability to donate to political campaigns, and other measures.

For sure...impossible...since what you want is the very government politicians that benefit from the globalists to end their gravy train. You also run into the 1st Amendment issues that the courts have already ruled on.

No...the best way to deal with globalism is to elect politicians who won't take part in it and who will support a President who wants to shift trade issues to benefit Americans...especially Main Street Americans.

Right now there is only one group who is doing this: Trump and his supporters. They face an uphill battle because there are still a LOT of Globalist politicians in the US government.

 

[OscarLevant]

delete

 

[OscarLevant]

And when you're done with that, please let me know what brand of flat-screen TV you own.

Throwing around idiotic jargony phrases can really make you look and sound stupid.

We live in an interconnected world. Well over half (if not more) of our consumer goods are manufactured elsewhere. In spite of our most sincere wet dream wishes there are myriad basic goods and materials that we don't have here in the US. That means we have to trade for those goods and materials. And unless you want to start paying 3-4x what you're now paying for your TV's, shirts, shoes, cell phones, refrigerators perhaps you imbeciles should reconsider throwing around terms you obviously don't comprehend.

Wiki has a good take on it:

Globalism refers to various patterns of meaning beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world—and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."[1] While primarily associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends. The concept of globalism is also classically used to distinguish the ideologies of globalization (the subjective meanings) from the processes of globalization (the objective practices).[2] In this sense, globalism is to globalization what nationalism is to nationality.

But, that's academic, below is what it has become, and I think this nails it, of late (which is Steve Bannon's idea of it):

The term is now frequently used as a pejorative by far-right movements and conspiracy theorists. False usage in this way has also been associated with anti-semitism, as anti-semites frequently appropriate the word globalist for Jews.[3][4][5]

 

[brianpatrick]

For sure...impossible...since what you want is the very government politicians that benefit from the globalists to end their gravy train. You also run into the 1st Amendment issues that the courts have already ruled on.

No...the best way to deal with globalism is to elect politicians who won't take part in it and who will support a President who wants to shift trade issues to benefit Americans...especially Main Street Americans.

Right now there is only one group who is doing this: Trump and his supporters. They face an uphill battle because there are still a LOT of Globalist politicians in the US government.

Yeah, so don’t stop there go deeper. Take away what global corps want. They’ll go somewhere else, and what I mean by that, is their “talent” and “drive” will go somewhere else. They don’t want some nebulous power. That’s a fantasy. They want power because it’s a way to “do a better job” at something they find interesting. They are businesses. They aren’t just lying cheating control freaks, mad and power hungry. Sure there are those people too, but most global corps are just doing business. But they’re doing it more and more efficiently.

Capitalism had a good fast run, but in its current form, it won’t make it much longer. In a hundred years the people will laugh at us when the historians tell them what we thought.

 

[Nickyjo]

For sure...impossible...since what you want is the very government politicians that benefit from the globalists to end their gravy train. You also run into the 1st Amendment issues that the courts have already ruled on.

No...the best way to deal with globalism is to elect politicians who won't take part in it and who will support a President who wants to shift trade issues to benefit Americans...especially Main Street Americans.

Right now there is only one group who is doing this: Trump and his supporters. They face an uphill battle because there are still a LOT of Globalist politicians in the US government.

Give me a break. Somehow I think trade issues - especially with the Third World - have benefitted Americans for quite a while. And a crook like Trump is not to be trusted with anything.

What has Donald Trump actually achieved on trade?

The self-styled "Tariff Man" uses tariffs for negotiation, but how successful has he been?

www.bbc.com

How Trump’s Tariffs Really Affected the U.S. Job Market

carnegieendowment.org

Trump has been all hat, no cattle, for years.

And tariffs are generally a losing proposition for a country. Look up Smoot-Hawley. Or simply listen to "I am a Rock" by S & G: "I've built walls, a fortress deep and mighty, that none can penetrate." Sound familiar? Applies to countries as well as people.

 

[brianpatrick]

Give me a break. Somehow I think trade issues - especially with the Third World - have benefitted Americans for quite a while. And a crook like Trump is not to be trusted with anything.

What has Donald Trump actually achieved on trade?

The self-styled "Tariff Man" uses tariffs for negotiation, but how successful has he been?

www.bbc.com

Trump has been all hat, no cattle, for years.

Ask real Realestate developers from the 80’s and 90’s what they thought of Trump then. Once a clown…

 

[Nickyjo]

Wiki has a good take on it:

Globalism refers to various patterns of meaning beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world—and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."[1] While primarily associated with world-systems, it can be used to describe other global trends. The concept of globalism is also classically used to distinguish the ideologies of globalization (the subjective meanings) from the processes of globalization (the objective practices).[2] In this sense, globalism is to globalization what nationalism is to nationality.

But, that's academic, below is what it has become, and I think this nails it, of late (which is Steve Bannon's idea of it):

The term is now frequently used as a pejorative by far-right movements and conspiracy theorists. False usage in this way has also been associated with anti-semitism, as anti-semites frequently appropriate the word globalist for Jews.[3][4][5]

True... There's globalism and critical race theory, both used to frighten conservative children. (The left has its own bogeymen, tho a bit less ominous.) Before that we had birtherism and immigrants. Sigh. Life was much simpler when right-wing nonsense just meant fear of Commies and flouridation.

 

[craig]

Regardless your spin and nonsense, Trump is not a Globalist.

You didn't even read the definition, did you?

He appears to be a Russian nationalist.

 

[Simpletruther]

Even then they are bad. Working towards not “needing” national security is the only permanent solution.

How is that attained?

 

[brianpatrick]

 

[brianpatrick]

Real globalism instead of the artificially manufactured “meritocracy” we have now.