quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

yeah because defining terms and trying to get to underlying principles is "irrelevant pontificating"

and oh...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Now it's more often than not…personal attacks with no reference to the topic at all.

the utter irony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the inherent worth of a single man independent from his subservience or worth to a larger group, such as the state.

quote:

For much of the 20th century, ideological discussions and debates have centered on liberal versus conservative, left versus right. No longer. The ideological divide of the 21st century is emerging as globalism versus nationalism. Since the end of World War II, global integration and technological progress have fueled a new world order centered on free trade, open borders and interdependent economies. Goods, capital and people should be able to move freely across borders, which is actually the meaning of globalization. But Greg Ip of the Wall Street Journal argues that globalism is a “mindset that globalization is natural and good, that global governance should expand as national sovereignty contracts.” The new nationalist surge has startled and shocked the advocates of globalism. This new nationalism is the vital center of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

In a recent essay, Greg Ip offers several salient observations about this new ideological struggle between globalism and nationalism.

1. The new nationalists seek to reassert control over their own countries. [the horrors!] Their targets are global structures such as the European Union, the World Trade Organization (WTO), NATO, the United Nations and the North American Free Trade Agreement. However, the new nationalists posit no credible plans for replacing the institutions of globalization they seek to tear down.

2. The globalists have underestimated the collateral damage globalization has inflicted upon workers. They “placed too much weight on the strategic advantages of trade and dismissed too readily the value that many ordinary citizens still attach to national borders and cultural cohesion.” [raaaaaaaaaaaaaacists!]

3. Historically, Great Britain presided over the first era of globalization, from the mid-1800s through 1914. They advocated free trade and the gold standard. That era gave way to an extreme era of nationalism, which produced World War II. But after World War II, “the logic of globalism shifted beyond trade to grand strategy. By ceding modest amounts of sovereignty to international institutions, a country could make the world, and itself, far stronger by pursuing its own narrowly defined interests.” For these globalists, economic and geopolitical self-interest were inseparable. Hence, the 1957 Treaty of Rome led to the formation of the European Union of 28 nations. The assumption? Economic and political integration world make war unthinkable. For the next five decades, trade, industrialization and demographics produced a cycle of rising prosperity. By the 2000s, globalism appeared triumphant.

4. But, when Bill Clinton advocated for China joining the WTO, he predicted that this would “likely . . . have a profound impact on human rights and political liberty.” It did not! China met its WTO obligations but discriminated against foreign investors and products while maintaining an artificially cheap currency. “A wave of Chinese imports wiped out 2 million American jobs, with no equivalent boom in US jobs linked to exports to China.” Furthermore, China became even more repressive at home and antagonistic abroad. China was undermining the virtues of globalism. [the greedy bastards looking out for their own self interest!]

5. As China and Germany amassed huge trade surpluses, cross border financing made financial regulation of global financial markets nearly impossible. In 2008, these global financial markets collapsed and produced the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s. This crisis rattled the globalists but did not curtail their passion for openness and trade. Hence, President Obama’s 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) aimed directly at challenging China’s dominance of Asia. However, with the election of Donald Trump the TPP is dead. [im at a loss here..."fascist" maybe??]

6. Ip correctly argues that the intense backlash against immigration (and globalism) is cultural, not fundamentally economic. The voters for Brexit and for Trump “were bothered less by competition from immigrants than by their perceived effect on the country’s linguistic, religious and cultural norms.” This is perhaps the most troubling aspect of this new nationalism—its penchant for xenophobia and for ethnic and religious exclusion. There are no good examples of this inclination from history. It can become ugly and lead to violence against minorities within a country. No sincere Christian should embrace radical xenophobia or exclusion. Indeed, the first era of globalization, which ended in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I, gave way to a long period of declining inequality and ruthless exclusion (witness Germany, Italy and Japan in the 1930s), in which “harmful countervailing forces played a bigger role than beneficial ones. History might repeat itself.”[interesting points---what are BANNON'S??]

In conclusion, those who have advocated for the ideology of globalism and worldwide economic integration seriously underestimated the risks and potential dangers that would result from large parts of society feeling as if they were left behind due to more open trade with open borders as the world’s economies integrated together. Those sentiments and real feelings explain why the Brexit vote was successful. Such developments also explain the emergence of Trump. Fundamentally, the ideology of nationalism is (temporarily?) providing a meaningful and energized alternative to the ideology of globalism. Will the alternative of nationalism survive? Will it thrive and permeate the other nations of Europe? There are four major elections being held in Europe during 2017. Each one of these elections could potentially result in victories by the nationalists in France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and even in Germany. If the nationalist forces all win in Europe, it could mean the death of the European Union. What exactly Donald Trump will do as he rides the wave of this intense new nationalism is anybody’s guess. But one thing is for certain right now: Globalism in the United States (and the world?) as a governing ideology is on hold. Is it dead? Only time will tell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
there you go blinker...and no townhall even!

quote:

Trade is win-win. Two people trade only because each values what he gets more than what he gives up. That's why in a store both customer and clerk say, "Thank you."

At the international level, trade is also win-win because it allows countries to specialize in what they do well and trade the extra for things they don't make as well. When free trade is unmolested, the world is richer and has more choices.

But I keep hearing about unfair trade. I'm told that trade allows American companies to exploit people in poor countries and makes Americans jobless.

Tom Palmer of the Atlas Economic Research Institute, one of my guests on my Fox Business News show tomorrow night, says those are myths.

Do we exploit people in Third World countries?

"The evidence does not show that," Palmer said. "Multinational companies pay a wage premium. They pay more than local companies pay ... because they want to attract good workers. Look at the Shanghai factory of General Motors. They pay three times what Chinese-owned factories (pay)."

Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that liberalizing trade with Central America would exploit workers.

"People want to work at those factories. They line up. They compete. Are they competing to get exploited? They're competing for higher-wage jobs. I think that those people know their interests better than Nancy Pelosi does."

Sen. Byron Dorgan called free trade "a race to the bottom. This says to American workers if you can't compete against 30-cents-an-hour labor in some other country, you lose your job."

"Again, evidence doesn't support that," said Palmer. "Look at the iPod. It says, 'Manufactured in China.' But if you look in the back, it says, 'Designed in California.' Most of the value is added by American workers." My colleague at Fox, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, said, "In a country we can only be free if we can feed ourselves, fuel ourselves and fight for ourselves. When we start outsourcing everything, that's a road to being enslaved."

"I hope that Gov. Huckabee thought about that when he was governor of Arkansas, and made sure there was no jobs outsourced to Virginia or Texas," Palmer replied. "He should have protected the people of Arkansas, right?"

But that's different. We can count on Pennsylvania in a time of war. I don't know that I can count on China.

"If you're trading with them, it makes war much less likely," Palmer said. "We're not going to go to war with Canada. It's our biggest trading partner -- $600 billion a year going across the U.S.-Canada border in trade along the longest non-militarized border in the world. Five thousand miles, counting Alaska. That is trade creating peace."

As the French economist Frederic Bastiat put it, "When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will."

Palmer offered another way to think about trade: as a machine -- "a machine that allows Florida farmers to turn oranges into (phones). They can't grow cell phones on their trees in Florida. They grow oranges really well. What they can do is take those oranges and trade them for cell phones."

And when people do this worldwide, they get richer. "Just like the case of you buying some coffee at the Starbucks. You could have made your own coffee. But your time might have been better spent doing something else. So you outsourced your coffee production. You made yourself better off. And that young lady who sold you the coffee made herself better off."

Palmer points out that China was once the most advanced society in the world. It had developed the clock, printing, the compass and more. Not coincidentally, while it was advancing technology and science, it was a major world trader.

"And it crumbled because they destroyed their trade. They made it illegal to trade with foreigners. And they turned inward. That set in process a stagnation that only now is being undone. We shouldn't do that to our country."

We're different, aren't we? We know how to make everything we need. "There's always opportunities for new progress. ... Remember watching 'Star Trek' as a kid and they had that weird communicator? Everybody has one now. ... (T)rade made that possible."

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL 2010... when the GOP was still all about neoliberalism, before Trump started promising everyone revenge on the outside world.

Just stop, bounty.

You don't even know or care just how much Trump doesn't fit in with what the right was about as recently as early 2016.
You also don't care what the right's values are-- you just have this idea that the GOP is good and the Dems are bad, so you will always support the former and denigrate the latter.

Can anyone not see this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL 2010... when the GOP was still all about neoliberalism, before Trump started promising everyone revenge on the outside world.

Just stop, bounty.

You don't even know or care just how much Trump doesn't fit in with what the right was about as recently as early 2016.
You also don't care what the right's values are-- you just have this idea that the GOP is good and the Dems are bad, so you will always support the former and denigrate the latter.

Can anyone not see this?

That damn Trump. He would have our kids working at McDonalds again to buy their first car themselves, the fucker. And he would have us driving 1959 Chevrolet Bel Airs into McDonalds too with men being men and women being damn fine again.

Wait, I had a 59, bought it with my own money at 15 even before I had a license. Okay, I could go with the Trump agenda but that fucker better give me a cherry red 57 Chevrolet for the trouble. Boom sha boom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL 2010... when the GOP was still all about neoliberalism, before Trump started promising everyone revenge on the outside world.

Just stop, bounty.

You don't even know or care just how much Trump doesn't fit in with what the right was about as recently as early 2016.
You also don't care what the right's values are-- you just have this idea that the GOP is good and the Dems are bad, so you will always support the former and denigrate the latter.

Can anyone not see this?

That damn Trump. He would have our kids working at McDonalds again to buy their first car themselves, the fucker. And he would have us driving 1959 Chevrolet Bel Airs into McDonalds too with men being men and women being damn fine again.

Wait, I had a 59, bought it with my own money at 15 even before I had a license. Okay, I could go with the Trump agenda but that fucker better give me a cherry red 57 Chevrolet for the trouble. Boom sha boom.

Oh look it's another codger too old to understand the world he's living in, who voted for Trump because he thinks he can turn back time and be young again-- or at least relive his glory years through the young people whose futures he's ruining.

I swear to god you must be the most selfish, painfully clueless generation of all time.
And you vote too, which makes it even worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

Trump never had to be a Republican. All he had to be was not Hillary and not a Republican and he had to win. America voted for a winner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

Trump never had to be a Republican. All he had to be was not Hillary and not a Republican and he had to win. America voted for a winner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTE

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL 2010... when the GOP was still all about neoliberalism, before Trump started promising everyone revenge on the outside world.

Just stop, bounty.

You don't even know or care just how much Trump doesn't fit in with what the right was about as recently as early 2016.
You also don't care what the right's values are-- you just have this idea that the GOP is good and the Dems are bad, so you will always support the former and denigrate the latter.

Can anyone not see this?

That damn Trump. He would have our kids working at McDonalds again to buy their first car themselves, the fucker. And he would have us driving 1959 Chevrolet Bel Airs into McDonalds too with men being men and women being damn fine again.

Wait, I had a 59, bought it with my own money at 15 even before I had a license. Okay, I could go with the Trump agenda but that fucker better give me a cherry red 57 Chevrolet for the trouble. Boom sha boom.

Oh look it's another codger too old to understand the world he's living in, who voted for Trump because he thinks he can turn back time and be young again-- or at least relive his glory years through the young people whose futures he's ruining.

I swear to god you must be the most selfish, painfully clueless generation of all time.
And you vote too, which makes it even worse.

I won when I was a kid. I never changed. The time of participation trophies are over and if you want something you have to reach out and take it.

quote:

The pundits and commentators and pols and prognosticators will all identify multifarious political fault lines to explain the looming epic American battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – women vs. Trump; evangelicals vs. Hillary; Hispanics vs. white, working-class Americans with no college; the LBGT community vs. traditionalists; old vs. young. It’s all important, but not very. Any true understanding of this election requires an appreciation of the one huge political fault line that is driving America into a period of serious political tremors, certain to jolt the political Richter scale. It is nationalists vs. globalists.

Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation’s elite institutions—the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs, charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions—in themselves and, even more so, collectively—that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete and final. That’s why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.

Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist. And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated rise. Consider some examples:

Immigration: Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected borders, otherwise it isn’t really a nation. They also believe that their nation’s cultural heritage is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine the national commitment to that heritage. Globalists don’t care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states. Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts of nationhood or borders.

Foreign Policy: Globalists are motivated by humanitarian impulses. For them, the rights and well-being of the world’s people supersede the rights and well-being of the American populace. Indeed, as writer Robert D. Kaplan has observed, the liberal embrace of universal principles as foreign-policy guidance "leads to a pacifist strain…when it comes to defending our hard-core national interest and an aggressive strain when it comes to defending human rights." Globalists, in advocating foreign policy adventurism, are quick to conflate events in the Baltics, say, or Georgia or Ukraine with U.S. national interest, but it’s really about the globalist impulse of dominating world events. Nationalists don’t care about dominating world events. Being nationalists, they want their country to be powerful, with plenty of military reach, but mostly to protect American national interests. They usually ask a fundamental question when foreign adventures are proposed—whether the national interest justifies the expenditure of American blood and treasure on behalf of this or that military initiative. The fate of other people struggling around the globe, however heartrending, doesn’t usually figure large in nationalist considerations. The fate of America is the key.

Trade: The history of trade in America admits of no straight-line analysis. Andrew Jackson was a supreme nationalist, and a free-trader. William McKinley made America a global power, but was a protectionist. In our own time, though, the fault line is clear. Globalists salute the free flow of goods across national borders on the theory that this will foster ever greater global commerce, to the benefit of all peoples of all nations. Writer and commentator Thomas L. Friedman, a leading globalist of his generation, once extolled America as the world’s role model for "globally integrated free-market capitalism." That was before the Great Recession and the subsequent anemic recovery throughout most of the Obama years. Today’s American nationalists look at the results of the kind of "globalization" extolled by Friedman and conclude that it has hollowed out America’s industrial core. Whether they are right or not, their focus is on the American citizens whose lives and livelihoods have been also hollowed out in many instances. Thus has a powerful new wave of protectionism washed over the body politic, leaving globalist elites running to get out of the way. Globalists were too focused on global trade and commerce to notice the horrendous plight of America’s internal refugees from the industrial nation of old.

Political Correctness: Given that globalists dominate the nation’s elite institutions and often exploit their position of power to ridicule and marginalize the so-called "Middle America" of ordinary citizens, who also happen to be nationalists, these people often feel on the defensive politically and culturally. And we are beginning to understand, courtesy of the Trump candidacy, just how angry they were at the emergence of the political correctness cadres who tell them what to think, how to regard the political issues of the day, and how they themselves will be regarded if they don’t toe the line (racist, homophobe and xenophobe are frequent threatened epithets). Globalists don’t care much about this phenomenon because it is employed largely in behalf of their views and philosophical outlook, including their globalist sensibilities. But nationalists care about it a lot. They send their kids to college in pursuit of betterment, and discover that political correctness is hammering away at the views and values they tried to teach their children as they were growing up. And their views and values aren’t allowed to compete in any free marketplace of ideas on campus but instead are declared inappropriate and intolerable before they are even uttered.

Cultural Heritage: Nationalists care about their national heritage, which they view as a repository of wisdom and lessons handed down by our forebears in this grand experiment that is both mystifying and inspiring. Globalists, not so much. Nationalists seethe at the assault under way against so many giants of our heritage, flawed though they were (as are we today). Globalists are the ones leading the assault.

On all of these fault lines, we see just how much pressure has been building up in recent years while the globalist elites concluded the issues involved were either settled or under control. Immigration—much talk about the need for reform but nothing done while the influx continued. Foreign policy—polls showing many Americans wary of interventionist adventurism while interventionist adventurism remained the prevailing attitude of governmental elites. Trade—a solid consensus among elites that free trade had no serious opposition, while industrial America crumbled. Political correctness—a blithe disregard for the sensibilities of non-globalist citizens. Cultural heritage—the power of the influence class brought to bear against those who cherish their country’s history. It isn’t surprising that the globalist class concluded that it really didn’t have to worry about any serious opposition out in the country.

But they did, and Donald Trump was the messenger. He not only attacked out-of-control immigration but did it in such a way as to signal that this was one politician who truly intended to do something about it. Despite some of his boorish rhetoric, or perhaps even because of it, nationalist Americans perked up and rallied around. On foreign policy, he posed questions that nobody else was willing to raise: Why do we need NATO as currently constituted when the Soviet Union no longer exists to threaten Europe? Why should Americans pay for the defense of rich Europeans when they can easily afford to protect themselves? Why should America continue to pursue a policy of promiscuous regime change when recent history tells us it usually produces disaster and chaos? Why can’t the elites recognize and acknowledge the regional mess wrought by their ill-considered Iraq War? Trump answers these questions in ways that set the teeth of the elites on edge, but it turns out many Americans are asking the same questions and buying the Trump answers.

On trade, Trump isn’t exactly original in his protectionist leanings. Such thinking has played a significant role at various times in American history—in good times and bad. And as recently as 1988, Democrat Richard Gephardt ran on the issue of "economic nationalism." But once again Trump has upended the old politics and opened up a new fault line. On political correctness, he offers a counter-assault that is breathtaking in its political distinctiveness and force. And on cultural heritage, he said it all when he said, "We’re going to be saying Merry Christmas again, folks."

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is the personification of the globalist elite—generally open borders, humanitarian interventionist, traditionally a free trader (though hedging in recent months), totally in sync with the underlying sensibilities of political correctness, a practitioner of identity politics, which lies at the heart of the assault on the national heritage. Nothing reflects this Clinton identity more starkly than the Clinton Foundation, a brilliant program to chase masses of money from across borders to fund the underpinnings of an ongoing political machine.

It’s impossible to say at this early stage in the political season whether Trump, the candidate of the New Nationalism, actually has a chance to win the presidency. But, win or lose, he has shaken up the political system, introduced powerful new rhetoric and opened up a new political fault line between nationalism and globalism that isn’t going away anytime soon. For the globalist elites of America, it’s an entirely new era.

Robert W. Merry is a contributing editor at the National Interest and an author of books on American history and foreign policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

LOL 2010... when the GOP was still all about neoliberalism, before Trump started promising everyone revenge on the outside world.

Just stop, bounty.

You don't even know or care just how much Trump doesn't fit in with what the right was about as recently as early 2016.
You also don't care what the right's values are-- you just have this idea that the GOP is good and the Dems are bad, so you will always support the former and denigrate the latter.

Can anyone not see this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Tell us a story, uncle bounty!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Maybe they'll figure out that incessant jabbing doesn't talk belief and wishes into reality. Probably not.