The election of Donald Trump as America's 45th president, the defeat of Matteo Renzi's reforms in Italy, and the vote in Britain to leave the European Union have all heralded the return and resurgence of nationalism against the "New World Order" declared after the fall of the USSR in 1991 by George HW Bush, America's 41st president. While the reasons for these are all complex and differ to some degree, they have one thing in common: the "common man" has been abandoned by elites in favor of cheap migrant labor, outsourcing jobs to exploited and abused foreign workers in developing countries, and a tyrannical political correctness that has silenced debate. In other words, these three shocking political events are just pieces of a global puzzle being assembled: that of a wider, global revolution against globalism. 

The fear mongering about nationalism nowadays is largely based on the horrors of World War Two, and rightfully so. Radical nationalists took the lives of 11 million people in the Holocaust, including 6 million Jews. They also butchered their way through Asia, with the Rape of Nanking displacing, wounding, or slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. But any ideology can become radicalized--and it is the radicalization itself, not necessarily the ideology, that is evil. Nationalism is, put simply, the pride in one's country or culture and belief that it should come first, be preserved, and make its own decisions. That isn't inherently evil, and someone needs to remind the Political Left of this. Similarly, globalization might not be inherently a bad idea; however, at this point in time, it, too, has become radicalized. Globalization has taken away jobs from blue-collar workers and sent them to other countries (often non-democratic ones), where foreigners are abused and exploited in unsafe conditions for incredibly low wages, while their countries' environments deteriorate as a result of pollution from the companies' plants.

Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.

At other times, it also leads to brain drain. Example? The European Union's free movement policy, which brings the best and brightest from countries like Greece, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria to countries like Britain and France, which have higher wages and more benefits. This leaves their home countries poorer and with less professionals, with little possibility for a brighter future. On the other hand, blue-collar workers in western European countries often lose their jobs to blue-collar workers from the eastern member-states, as they can be paid less (but still a good salary in comparison to their native lands) than indigenous workers. But globalism is more than just economic globalization. It is also the rabid and often times hypocritical interference of influential powers in the affairs of other nations. The European Union's signing of a trade deal with Morocco for fishing off of waters in the Occupied Western Sahara territory while labeling and boycotting Jewish-made goods in the so-called "Occupied Palestinian Territories" and the Golan Heights is just one example of the racist double standards of a supposedly liberal institution. The obsession of the United Nations over Israel's "settlement building" while it does nothing over the carnage in Syria, Libya, and Yemen is yet another example. And the tragedy of Africa and Latin America under the greedy policies of the World Bank prove that globalization, and globalist policies at large, only benefit the elites. Not only are these globalist, supranational entities giving in to bigotry and hypocrisy, but they are sending mixed messages. Apparently, a pro-democratic and liberal institution is fine giving up its values and endlessly and unfairly criticizing a fellow democracy--all while turning a blind eye to theocratic and authoritarian regimes--if enough blood money and oil money makes its way into the hands of the powers that be. Their economic institutions, such as the IMF, also reek of being a new form of colonialism that exploits poor and weak nation-states at the expense of the wealthier powers in the world, and even corporations. 

There is a different, better, and more moderate approach to nationalism and globalism than the extremes peddled by the often-corrupt media. If there was such an atrocity as the Syrian Civil War or the Rwandan Genocide, the international community should of course intervene and work together. The slaughter of civilians and minority groups is unacceptable, and giving speeches and condemnations in conference rooms is not doing enough. Sometimes, one must use force to end war or genocide. However, globalism should be refocused on other things. A good example of an efficient globalism for the future that can benefit everyone would be international cultural exchanges, or increased studying abroad and attending universities in other countries. If poor, young and talented people in the Third World wish to learn in a Western university, this is welcome. But we should be encouraging such youth to return to their communities and countries to improve on them, rather than encouraging them to stay here and dooming their native lands to perpetual poverty (and at times, war). Moreover, by sending Western youth to certain Third World countries on cultural exchanges, we can encourage them to learn from different societies about the value of the environment or time away from technology, or the importance of family time. A globalization that could work would be based on fair trade, rather than the unfettered capitalism and immorality that is free trade. A nationalism that can work would be one where the nation-state rules supreme, with control over its borders and security and pride in its culture, but also one that recognizes societal flaws and seeks to improve them for the good of the country. In the world today, there is too much fear mongering, and part of that is because of the historically-tragic and dangerous results of radical nationalism, and the current desires by elites to maintain an unhealthy radicalized globalism that only benefits those at the top. The answer is not to flock to the opposite extreme, but rather to moderate and bring everyone together under common sense reform on both sides that will benefit everyone. 

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share