Military Review

Trump vs. Hillary - Nationalism vs. Globalism, 2016 (The National Interest, USA)

27
Trump vs. Hillary - Nationalism vs. Globalism, 2016 (The National Interest, USA)



Analysts and commentators, polls and authors of the forecasts - they will all describe the diverse political lines of the fault to explain the upcoming political battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton - "women against Trump"; "evangelists against Hillary"; "Latinos against white Americans from the working class without higher education"; "LGBT community against traditionalists"; "the older generation against the youth". All this is important, but not too much. Any true understanding of these elections requires the recognition of one huge political fault line, which pushes America in the period of serious political upheavals, which, undoubtedly, will give a surge on the Richter political scale. These are nationalists against globalists.

Globalists have carried away a large part of American society for a long time, taking control over most of the institutions of the national elite — the media, academic science, large corporations, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs, charitable foundations. These institutions are so influential - both in themselves and, even more, collectively - that the elites that govern them believed that their political victories were complete and final. That is why in recent years we have witnessed a serious expansion of social and political arrogance on the part of these ambitious people.

And here comes Trump and turns it all upside down. In almost every important political issue that this super-rich political neophyte throws to the elites, he turns out to be an anti-globalist and a supporter of nationalism. And this is the single most important factor in its unprecedented and completely unforeseen success. Consider a few examples:

Immigration: Nationalists believe that any real nation should have clearly limited and protected borders, otherwise it is not a real nation. They are also convinced that the cultural heritage of their nation is sacred and should be protected, while mass immigration from distant lands can undermine the national commitment to this heritage. Globalists do not care about borders. They are convinced that the nation state is outdated, it is a relic of the Peace of Westphalia 1648 of the year, which codified the recognition of coexisting nation states. Globalists reject the Treaty of Westphalia in favor of an integrated world, when information, money, goods, and people move around the world at ever increasing speed, without paying special attention to traditional notions of statehood or borders.

Foreign policy: Globalists are driven by humanitarian motives. For them, the rights and well-being of the world’s population are crowding out the rights and well-being of the American population. Indeed, as the writer Robert D. Caplan noted, the liberal fascination with universal principles as a guide in foreign policy “leads to a bias towards pacifism ... when it comes to protecting our fundamental national interests, and to a bias towards aggression when it comes to protecting human rights ". Globalists, propagandizing foreign policy adventurism, are in a hurry to mix events in the Baltic countries, say, either in Georgia, or in Ukraine with the national interests of the United States, but in fact we are talking about encouraging globalists to dominate what is happening in the world. Nationalists do not care about the domination of events in the world. As nationalists, they want their country to be powerful, its army to have great opportunities and long arms, but mainly to protect American national interests. Usually, when foreign adventures are offered, they ask the fundamental question - do national interests justify spending American blood and money on them for the sake of one or another military initiative. The destinies of other nations experiencing difficulties throughout the world, however heartbreaking they may be, usually do not play a prominent role in the considerations of nationalists. The most important thing is the fate of America.

Trade: History trade in America does not allow straightforward interpretation. Andrew Jackson was the greatest nationalist and proponent of free trade. William McKinley made America a global power, but was a protectionist. Nowadays, however, the fault line is clearly visible. Globalists welcome the unobstructed flow of goods across national borders on the basis of a theory that will contribute to the increasing globalization of commerce, to the advantage of all people of all countries. Writer and commentator Thomas L. Friedman, a leading globalist of his generation, once praised America as a role model for “globally integrated free market capitalism”. This was before the Great Recession and the subsequent anemic recovery that lasted during the years of the Obama presidency. Today's American nationalists look at the results of this very “globalization”, extolled by Friedman, and conclude that it has devastated the industrial heart of America. Right or not, their focus is on American citizens, whose lives and livelihoods have also been devastated in many cases. Thus, there is a new powerful wave of protectionism, which is engulfing political space, forcing globalist elites to take their feet away from its path. Globalists have been too focused on global commerce and commerce to notice the horrific situation of America’s domestic refugees from the industrial nation of the past.

Political correctness: Given that globalists dominate the institutions of the national elite and often use their position in power to ridicule and marginalize the so-called “middle America” of ordinary citizens, who also happen to be nationalists, these people often feel themselves in defense as in politics so in culture. And we begin to understand, thanks to Trump’s candidacy, how angry they were about the appearance of political-guiding cadres who told them what to think, how to evaluate political issues of the day, and how they themselves would be treated if they did not obey the rules (racist, homophobic and xenophobic these are often used epithets). Globalists are not worried about this phenomenon, since it is used mostly in defense of their views and philosophical views, including that which hurts globalists for living. But the nationalists are very concerned. They send their children to colleges, seeking to make them better, and find that political correctness is aimed at knocking out the views and values ​​that they tried to instill in their growing children. And that their views and values ​​cannot compete in any free marketplace of ideas on campus, and are instead declared inappropriate and intolerant, even before they stutter.

Cultural heritage: Nationalists feel affection for their national heritage, which they regard as a repository of wisdom and lessons learned by our ancestors from this grand experiment, both puzzling and inspiring. Globalists - not really. Nationalists are outraged at the sight of the ongoing attack on so many giants of our heritage, although they were not sinless (as we are today). Globalists are those who lead this attack.

For all these fault lines, we see how much tension has increased in recent years, when globalist elites felt that the issues raised were either settled or controlled. Immigration - a lot of talk about the need for reform, but nothing has been done, and the influx continues. Foreign policy - polls show that interventionist adventurism is alarming many Americans, and it continued to remain the dominant position of the ruling elites. Trade is the unanimous agreement among elites that free trade has no serious opposition, while industrial America has collapsed. Political correctness is blithely neglecting the feelings of citizens who do not share the views of globalists. Cultural heritage - the power of an influential class acted against those who respected the history of their country with respect. Not surprisingly, the globalist class concluded that it really did not need to worry about any serious opposition within the country.

But anxiety was needed, and Trump was the herald of this. He not only attacked uncontrolled immigration, but did so in order to signal that he was the only politician who was really ready to do something about it. Despite their somewhat rude rhetoric, and perhaps even thanks to it, the nationalist Americans perked up and rallied around him. As for foreign policy, he asked questions that no one else wanted to raise: Why do we need NATO in its present form, if the Soviet Union no longer exists to threaten Europe? Why do Americans pay for the defense of wealthy Europeans when they can easily afford to pay for their own defense? Why should America continue to pursue a policy of changing heterogeneous regimes, if modern history tells us that this, as a rule, causes catastrophe and chaos? Why can't the elites recognize and recognize the chaos in the region brought about by their thoughtless war in Iraq? Trump answers these questions in such a way that it makes the elites tremble, but it turns out that many Americans ask the same questions and take Trump's replies for their own worth.

As for trade, Trump is not quite original in its protectionist inclinations. Such thinking played a significant role in different periods in American history - both in good times and in bad ones. Back in 1988, the Democrat Richard Gephardt spread on the issue of "economic nationalism." But Trump and here overturned the old policy and opened a new fault line. As for political correctness, it starts a reciprocal attack, exciting in its political identity and strength. And regarding the cultural heritage, he said everything when he said: “We will all again say to each other“ Merry Christmas, friends! ”.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is the personification of the elite of globalists - a supporter of completely open borders, humanitarian interventions, traditionally a defender of free trade (although evading this issue in recent months), fully in line with the basic requirements of political correctness, practicing identity policies that lie based on attacks on national heritage. Nothing reflects this Clinton identity as harshly as the Clinton Foundation, a brilliant big money hunt program, across borders, to maintain the financial backing for the current political machine.

At this early stage of the political season, it is impossible to say whether Trump, the candidate of the New Nationalism, really has a chance to win the presidency. But, whether he wins or loses, he has already shaken the political system, proposed a powerful new rhetoric and opened a new political line of division between nationalism and globalism, which will not disappear in the near future. For the globalist elite of America, this is a completely new era.
Author:
Originator:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-vs-hillary-nationalism-vs-globalism-2016-16041?page=show
27 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Amurets
    Amurets 11 May 2016 15: 42
    +7
    Let the Americans comment on this nonsense. That Trump, that Clinton. Horseradish radish is not sweeter.
    1. Stalker.1977
      Stalker.1977 11 May 2016 15: 50
      0
      And why should these elections really bother us? What a difference is who will be in power there.
      Death to the imperialists, you give the world revolution.
    2. CORNET
      CORNET 11 May 2016 15: 52
      +4
      Quote: Amurets
      Let the Americans comment on this nonsense. That Trump, that Clinton. Horseradish radish is not sweeter.

      It's a pity Obamych, he did so much for Russia ... laughing
    3. reservist
      reservist 11 May 2016 16: 11
      +3
      Quote: Amurets
      Let the Americans comment on this nonsense.

      so they comment ...
    4. MiRvSeMvDoM
      MiRvSeMvDoM 11 May 2016 16: 26
      +3
      Great American Show ... who knows yes
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 11 May 2016 19: 59
      +1
      Quote: Amurets
      Let the Americans comment on this nonsense. That Trump, that Clinton. Horseradish radish is not sweeter.

      Ohh no! Better Obama for another term than this damn Clintoness woman! With her, the world is full of grief. Believe me.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 12 May 2016 00: 07
        0
        From the history of the United States it follows that with a change of leadership in the White House, foreign policy practically does not change. The intrigue is that Trump will succeed (if he becomes president, and he is a billionaire, therefore, he can not look at his wallet and work in isolation from any lobby), at least change it, will he become such a "revolutionary" (judging by the statements)? With Hilary everything is clear - there will be no changes. hi
      2. Amurets
        Amurets 12 May 2016 00: 22
        0
        Quote: GSH-18

        Ohh no! Better Obama for another term than this damn Clintoness woman! With her, the world is full of grief. Believe me.

        I believe and know! Because she did a "reset of relations" with the Russian Federation and what it led to. Will be a prezik, it will be even worse. For example! Ramolichnaya Merkel, a political prostitute not only in the United States, but also in the BV countries. Only Merkel is still under control of the United States, and H. Clinton will not be under anyone's control. I came across an old article, 2009, there the forecast was correct. http://www.russ.ru/pole/Peredyshka-vmesto-peregruzki
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. bad
    bad 11 May 2016 15: 43
    +1
    Trump vs. Hillary - Nationalism vs. Globalism, 2016 (The National Interest, USA)
    I am against them all! let them land the barbed wire and glassy! laughing
    1. Pirogov
      Pirogov 11 May 2016 16: 04
      +1
      Quote: bad
      I am against them all! let them land the barbed wire and glassy! laughing

      Exactly, what difference does it make to us, what a bastard will be the president in America.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 11 May 2016 20: 04
        0
        Quote: Pirogov
        Quote: bad
        I am against them all! let them land the barbed wire and glassy! laughing

        Exactly, what difference does it make to us, what a bastard will be the president in America.

        Nevertheless, Trump is rather pro-Russian, for which he is in the American press and spread rot on any occasion.
  4. sever.56
    sever.56 11 May 2016 15: 48
    +14
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2016/852/ytqy123.png

    In Kuev, everyone has already decided ...
    Do not be trump president! lol
    1. FenH
      FenH 11 May 2016 15: 52
      +3
      Quote: sever.56
      http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2016/852/ytqy123.png

      In Kuev, everyone has already decided ...
      Do not be trump president! lol


      Our Jewish mosquitoes strongly disagree with Kiev laughing
  5. Yak-15
    Yak-15 11 May 2016 15: 50
    +2
    And how not tired of all the mattresses, and yes to all of us, to monitor the progress of the so-called elections. There is no choice and never will be. Ordinary brainwashing and the illusion of involvement.
  6. Altona
    Altona 11 May 2016 15: 50
    +7
    Now every citizen in the United States, and in any other country, including Russia, is unhappy that everything is being done to please transnational corporations. That money from the national budget is spent on all sorts of adventures, or even simply stolen by officials to please transnational capital. People see this in the United States, in Russia, in Germany, and in many other countries. Trump "sensed" the enormous potential of disaffected US citizens and skillfully uses it in his speeches. National banks are not "national", but transnational. Our Sberbank, for example, ignores Crimea, is afraid of sanctions, not so much the bank itself, but Gref. Swiss banks under American pressure are forced to abandon banking secrecy and release personal data about customers if the United States requires it. Even in the United States itself, the Pentagon and the CIA can engage in tasks, absolutely not coordinating them with each other. That is, the institutions of the state are already under someone's private influence. And there are a lot of such cases.
  7. soroKING
    soroKING 11 May 2016 15: 52
    +3
    Quote: Amurets
    Let the Americans comment on this nonsense. That Trump, that Clinton. Horseradish radish is not sweeter.

    but horseradish radish more good
    1. FenH
      FenH 11 May 2016 15: 54
      +2
      Quote: soroKING
      Quote: Amurets
      Let the Americans comment on this nonsense. That Trump, that Clinton. Horseradish radish is not sweeter.

      but horseradish radish more good

      and harder wink
  8. soroKING
    soroKING 11 May 2016 16: 03
    +3
    but in Hillary there is some kind of chancre ... recourse
  9. Pyokhar
    Pyokhar 11 May 2016 16: 08
    +2
    If Trump becomes president and will carry out reforms - Omerike kirdyk. smile
    If Clinton becomes president and does not carry out reforms - Omerike kirdyk. smile
    So the United States has little choice.
    And Trump is a cool dude, he is like our Gorbachev, only silly.)))
    1. Klim2011
      Klim2011 11 May 2016 19: 01
      +1
      Gorbachev licked old experiences and moved along the party hierarchy, while Trump created the largest business. Do you catch the difference?
      1. Pyokhar
        Pyokhar 12 May 2016 06: 36
        -1
        You didn’t understand: when I compared Gorbachev with Trump, you thought that if Trump fulfills all his campaign promises, then he will destroy Omerik just as Gorbachev of the USSR once did. Delov!))
  10. MiRvSeMvDoM
    MiRvSeMvDoM 11 May 2016 16: 18
    +3
    Klitorsha-Trump, no difference. America is governed by a circle of the elect, so nothing will change. Well, if Trump tries to take the reins in his hands .., Kennedy’s precedent is remembered by everyone.
    1. dauria
      dauria 11 May 2016 16: 46
      0
      Klitorsha-Trump, no difference. America is governed by a circle of the elect, so nothing will change.


      That's right ... wink And immediately the question: Why the hell are we worried that there is no one to replace Putin? Maybe we don't "circle of favorites", but a continuous true democracy, or what her," democracy "? belay
      We turn off the shop with the elections; nefig spend money on profanity. laughing
      1. MiRvSeMvDoM
        MiRvSeMvDoM 11 May 2016 17: 10
        0
        Oh dauria, democracy, election, debate, dark is the thing. I think the GDP of candidates is stashed in the nest (pupils of law enforcement agencies), there is total control by the security forces. Fortunately, these guys are not chasing hegemony like a puddle. hi
  11. Cobra77
    Cobra77 11 May 2016 16: 41
    +2
    "A plague on both your houses ...". They're both equally crappy. Just Trump is a Nazi. And Clinton is the classic representative of stubborn imperialism. But for the States and the rest of the world, they both suck just a little differently. In this sense, the current Afronegro is not funny, but much more adequate and sane.
  12. onizhe
    onizhe 11 May 2016 18: 36
    0
    I don’t understand what is our interest here. Yes, Trump speaks of the preferential protection of American interests, but recently this is such a vague concept. They can occur anywhere. In general, Clinton has the same foreign policy program, only outlined in a slightly different language. The difference is only in domestic politics, which I personally think about the drum.
  13. masiya
    masiya 11 May 2016 19: 49
    0
    In general, they would all have gone with their choices a long DEAR, that is, to a place we have determined ... EVERYTHING, whoever has a prejudice to the peers will have one hell as it will be. Russia will not see any changes ...
  14. Egen
    Egen 12 May 2016 05: 23
    0
    Some kind of garbage - or an article, or their life went tama. Back in the early 90s, I studied and became an adherent of the aforementioned Friedman & Co., but here everything sounds different. The ideas of globalization are generally aimed at making everyone feel better (in particular, China has gotten better since the 80s :)), but this does not negate _shealthy_ nationalism - history, the roots of people and nations - on the contrary, it pushes boundaries, promotes rapprochement of peoples. Are the Arabs for example bad? Remember before, these were peaceful kind people, once even ahead of the rest of the planet (Avicena-medicine, etc.), and now they are made terrorists. This does not mean that globalism means "make your neighbor good and yourself bad." And then it turns out like this - the example of Germany. Instead of gray tones and mixtures, we get extremely extreme :) views - either-or. Somehow this is not what I was taught and where the world has been moving in the last 20 years. In Syria, it was necessary to invest in development, and not in war - an idiot would be clear to all PEOPLES (but, you see, not the top of the politicians) ...
    Who Said Globalism Is Bad? This is a historically inevitable line of development, starting with the USSR. Between the crises of 1999 and 2008, Russia, for example, attracted by the order of investments from across the hill, sold goods there (not only raw materials !!) and brought in in return. I don't know about the official statistics in Moscow either, but in our area I myself have been doing this and I know. Another question, the state should have cleverly got off the raw material needle, otherwise now they all didn’t.
    And now we have nationalism. Including the Nazis in Ukraine, all sorts of flower revolutions in the states of Central Asia, and generally the decline in the former owls. republics - and this is a fact, and all this could be different, better.
    So, in my opinion, nationalism in the form to which we have come is bad. But if you look specifically at the United States, it turns out that it is Trump in this case, well done :)