Globalism vs. Nationalism

[Tahuti]

Alongside Left vs. Right, a new political axis seem to be emerging, evidenced by the Brexit vote, the Trump candidacy and Jeremy Corbyn's ascension within Labour. People divide themselves not only the issue of hierarchy, and seek to label themselves - albeit implicitly - within the dichotomy between globalism and Westphalian nationalism as well.

Both may be either left or right. Jeremy Corbyn is a Left-Wing nationalist similar to Syriza in Greece: Labour's traditional role as a moderate left-wing party dedicated to Globalism may now be taken by the Liberal Democrats. Donald Trump's candidacy and UKIP are right-wing nationalist. Right-wingers more enthuasiastic of Free Trade may give yet the electoral breakthrough the US Libertarians.

There is a significant demographic gap between globalists and Westphalian nationalists: Globalists tend to be better educated and more favoured by the current economic climate. Westphalian Nationalists are overwhelmingly losers of recent changes.

Interestingly, nationalists for historically repressed groups often tend to be on the Globalist side, as their political rivals are Westphalian nationalists: Their nation-state is already established at the expense of theirs.

So, temporary fluke or a new 1789 that will effect a major a political realignment?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

When you speak of Labour's "traditional role", I'm guessing you only mean since about 1995?

 

[Tahuti]

When you speak of Labour's "traditional role", I'm guessing you only mean since about 1995?

Actually, your guess is 50 years late.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wouldn't have described pre-Blair labour as only moderately left wing, but then I guess it depends what you're using as your benchmark.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Pre-Blairite Labour struck me more as anti-globalist - job protection and high tariffs.

 

[civvver]

Labor is being killed off as much by technology as much as globalization in the US imo.

 

[onejayhawk]

As a longtime Steward, I say that Labor is being killed off by internal conflict. The rank and file don't trust leadership and leadership ignores the R&F's day to day concerns.

J

 

[Oruc]

They've been talking about that for quite a few years though. But people who benefit from a system will of course defend it and those who do not will seek to destroy it, that's just what happens.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm gonna throw a stick in the works and ask where the Scottish National Party sit on this nationalist/globalist spectrum. Avowedly nationalists- came within an inch of actually seceding- but also staunchly in favour of the European Union. So are they both? Neither? An exception?

I'm going to suggest that attitudes towards specific international projects aren't sufficient to establish a person or group as clearly and exclusively "nationalist" or "globalist".

 

[Oruc]

I'm gonna throw a stick in the works and ask where the Scottish National Party sit on this nationalist/globalist spectrum. Avowedly nationalists- came within an inch of actually seceding- but also staunchly in favour of the European Union. So are they both? Neither? An exception?

I'm going to suggest that attitudes towards specific international projects aren't sufficient to establish a person or group as clearly and exclusively "nationalist" or "globalist".

If they want they to join the poster boy for globalism then they're globalists.

 

[Traitorfish]

If they want they to join the poster boy for globalism then they're globalists.

But they are also, by any remotely conventional definition, nationalists. They may also be globalists, but we've no reason to believe that those are mutually exclusive orientations beyond the fact that they need to be for this schema to work.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm gonna throw a stick in the works and ask where the Scottish National Party sit on this nationalist/globalist spectrum. Avowedly nationalists- came within an inch of actually seceding- but also staunchly in favour of the European Union. So are they both? Neither? An exception?

I'm going to suggest that attitudes towards specific international projects aren't sufficient to establish a person or group as clearly and exclusively "nationalist" or "globalist".

I'm inclined to say to SNP is at large globalist: Along with the fact they want to pursue European Integration, 'Nationalists' as in being contradistinguished from Globalists tend to be State Nationalists: The status quo borders are to be defended against both regional and international encroachment. That's pretty much UKIP's viewpoint.

But they are also, by any remotely conventional definition, nationalists. They may also be globalists, but we've no reason to believe that those are mutually exclusive orientations beyond the fact that they need to be for this schema to work.

The paradox of globalism is that certain national identities who lack statehood arguably seemed to have taken off because of it. Scotland is one example.

Nationalism - as in being the opposite of Globalism - isn't as much the general ideology of self-determination and is rather a proto-fascist belief in the nation-state as ultimate political authority. This belief is very rarely found among national identity groups who truly have a legitimate grievance against a larger nation-state (like SNP, Rojava) though may be found among both left and right in parliaments of traditional Westphalian states like Britain and France.

 

[Oruc]

But they are also, by any remotely conventional definition, nationalists. They may also be globalists, but we've no reason to believe that those are mutually exclusive orientations beyond the fact that they need to be for this schema to work.

If they want to join a political organisation that seeks to destroy nations I suppose they could be nationalists, stupid or misguided ones but just as likely they are actively deceiving people.

 

[Martin Alvito]

So I think that what you're really asking is, "Does this new global/national dimension have enough juice to displace the current first dimension in 'X' country's democratic politics?"

I'd answer that it depends on several things:

- The potency of the new dimension in a given country's political discourse
- The salience of the new dimension relative to the one it potentially displaces; some countries' politics are more ingrained than others
- The structure of democracy in the country in question. Realignment tends to be more easily attained in proportional representation countries (say, the Netherlands) when compared to single-member-district first-past-the-post systems (US, UK) because as the voting system approximates PR it becomes easier for parties to achieve their actual vote share in the legislature. In a US/UK system, a third party can conceivably poll nearly one-third of the popular vote and walk away with no legislative seats. This tends to discourage third parties, and therefore realignments. That's not to say that realignment in a two-party system is impossible, just that the existing preferences of the parties tend to be 'sticky' in such a system.

 

[Tahuti]

The structure of democracy in the country in question. Realignment tends to be more easily attained in proportional representation countries (say, the Netherlands) when compared to single-member-district first-past-the-post systems (US, UK) because as the voting system approximates PR it becomes easier for parties to achieve their actual vote share in the legislature. In a US/UK system, a third party can conceivably poll nearly one-third of the popular vote and walk away with no legislative seats. This tends to discourage third parties, and therefore realignments. That's not to say that realignment in a two-party system is impossible, just that the existing preferences of the parties tend to be 'sticky' in such a system.

The FPTP-prevents-all-realignment-argument is overrepeated. The US and UK have had plenty of realignments, though in these cases, those responsible for the re-alignment work within the institutional frameworks already provided by existing parties. Geert Wilders formed his own party, though Donald Trump - who initially did the same when he ran in 2000 - found his way to being a decent shot in the 2016 elections by joining the GOP.

And, Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of Labour shows that British political parties aren't impervious to change either. In many ways, if the composition of parliament cannot change, the parties themselves will.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I'm gonna throw a stick in the works and ask where the Scottish National Party sit on this nationalist/globalist spectrum. Avowedly nationalists- came within an inch of actually seceding- but also staunchly in favour of the European Union. So are they both? Neither? An exception?

Much the same as the:

Leave campaign; anti-EU, but all things to all people.

Scottish National Party; anti-UK, but all things to all people.

 

[Zkribbler]

As a longtime Steward, I say that Labor is being killed off by internal conflict. The rank and file don't trust leadership and leadership ignores the R&F's day to day concerns.

J

As a former president of my local and a delegate to the county coalition, I can attest to the truth of J's statement.

True, there are outside forces hard at work [I'm looking at you, Scott Walker], but the main culprits are membership apathy and lack of effort by leadership.

 

[Traitorfish]

The paradox of globalism is that certain national identities who lack statehood arguably seemed to have taken off because of it. Scotland is one example.

Nationalism - as in being the opposite of Globalism - isn't as much the general ideology of self-determination and is rather a proto-fascist belief in the nation-state as ultimate political authority. This belief is very rarely found among national identity groups who truly have a legitimate grievance against a larger nation-state (like SNP, Rojava) though may be found among both left and right in parliaments of traditional Westphalian states like Britain and France.

So the Scottish National Party are not, despite all conventional wisdom, Scottish nationalists, they're just a "Scottish national identity group"?

There's a "No True Scostman" pun in here somewhere.

If they want to join a political organisation that seeks to destroy nations I suppose they could be nationalists, stupid or misguided ones but just as likely they are actively deceiving people.

I mean, most of us aren't conspiracy theorists, so that's not a lot of use.

 

[Hygro]

The new conservatism we've seen taking root the past year and change is the driving force for making this globalist-nationalist distinction. Kind of ironic they're all using the same language and tropes while being from all over Europe and the USA, calling the other folks the globalists.

 

[Oruc]

So the Scottish National Party are not, despite all conventional wisdom, Scottish nationalists, they're just a "Scottish national identity group"?

There's a "No True Scostman" pun in here somewhere.


I mean, most of us aren't conspiracy theorists, so that's not a lot of use.

It's not a conspiracy theory to say a political party will convince people to vote against their interests. We see people round here apply that notion to the conservative party, the republicans, ukip and the aftermath of brexit about the working class who voted for it.

So no it's not a conspiracy theory to say people will be convinced to vote against their interests, it's just not usually applied to political parties you like.