Of late, globalism has been taking quite a hit on these pages. Does globalism deserve this treatment?
Let’s take a look at the 20th century, which we can easily divide into roughly two halves.
In the first half of the preceding century, the world resisted globalism.
In the United States, we saw America First isolationism, anti-immigration legislation and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act among other manifestations of a resistance to our country undertaking a leadership role in the world community.
In Europe, anti-globalism manifested itself in extreme nationalism.
And how did that turn out? Not too well, I’m afraid.
Two world wars and a great depression.
In the second half of the 20th century, we endeavored to learn from our recent experiences.
Instead of retreating to our borders, we sought strong alliances with our war time allies and, amazingly, even our former enemies.
NATO and the Marshall Plan helped to rebuild a stronger Europe.
We encouraged Western European nations to build a common economic market. Unhindered by punitive tariffs, we developed strong trading relationships with the rest of the world.
And how did that turn out? Not too badly, I’d say.
We defeated Russian Communism without firing a shot and welcomed Eastern Europe into the European Market.
For perhaps the longest period in history, no wars were fought on Western European soil.
World economies grew and here in the United States, we saw the growth of a vital middle class and the largest world economy.
Not bad given the half century that preceded it.
Has it been all peaches and cream? Of course not.
There were many missteps, usually when we failed to adequately define the threats to our national security (see Vietnam), or saw weapons of mass destruction where there were only windmills and unleashed a backlash of violence for which we were ill prepared (see Iraq), or overreached in unwise efforts to export American democracy to regions with no democratic traditions (see Iraq and Afghanistan).
Are there challenges remaining?
Of course there are.
But this is not the time to retreat within our borders. We are threatened by hostile forces armed with weapons and transmitting ideologies that do not respect national borders, even those like our own which are surrounded by vast oceans. We will succeed in repelling the forces that today threaten our peace and security by preserving and strengthening the global alliances that brought us to this point.
We weaken our allies when we deprecate their leaders and open the way to their replacement by extreme nationalists who want to return to the destructive regimes of the first half of the last century.
Here at home, our manufacturing output is greater than it has ever been, but thanks to technological advances it requires fewer workers than it ever did.
As I have written elsewhere, a century ago we were able to turn an agrarian/handcraft/sole proprietor-based society into the leading industrial nation in the world.
Today, the challenge is to find a way to usefully employ the displaced workforce of the 20th century and those coming into the workforce ill equipped for the jobs of the 21st century.
To do this will require significant investments in education, technology and infrastructure.
As George Santayana wrote, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
The choice is ours, whether to retreat into an anti-globalist cocoon such as marked the early 20th century, or to confront and defeat those forces challenging our position as the most powerful nation in the world.
Globalism is not the enemy. May it grow and prosper.
Jay N. Feldman
Port Washington
