In my last article, I stated clearly why I feel nationalism is not a good ideology. However, that does not mean I’m done here. You see, during any debate, you can’t just explain why the other side is wrong. Otherwise, you end up with the other person saying, “well, it may not be perfect, but it’s better than your ideology.”
While this argument may not be very compelling to onlookers, it is a good way to convince yourself you are right. So, in this article, I will endeavor to dismantle the notion that nationalism defeats globalism.
I’ll start by explaining why I insist on calling it globalism. Some say globalism is a poor word for what I am in favor of. As one person who saw my article on r/BannedFromThe_Donald put it:
“‘Globalism’ is a alt-right codeword for ‘The Jews’ and its use should be avoided to not lend the alt-right any legitimacy. Globalism is not the opposite of nationalism, and it should not be confused with globalization. It’s really just a dog whistle.”
There could be some truth to this statement, for all I know. However, I do not believe anyone outside of the alt-right who uses the term is necessarily implying something anti-Semitic. Regardless, terms can often be adopted as power moves against critics.
Take the word “capitalism” as an example. The word started as a Marxist smear against supporters of the free market. Yet, today, supporters of the free market use it as a term to describe the system they believe in.
This is why I use the term “Globalist” to describe myself. But it should also be noted that globalism, to me, is simply individualism.
I’ve made the case in the past that nationalism is an ideology that cannot be consistent. One step to the right and you get individualism. One step to the left and you get globalism.
Take this argument made by nationalist commentator Yoram Hazony over at PragerU:
“A nationalist believes that the world is governed best when nations are free to chart their own independent course, cultivating their traditions and pursuing their interests without interference.”
Now allow me to move that down one level, from nation-states to the individual. Instead of a nation being free to do things, it would be the person who gets to choose what course is best for him, savor his traditions, and pursue his interests without interference.
This ideology is called individualism, and it is the one I tend to be a proponent of.
However, left-wing nationalist ideology falls apart for a very similar reason. For instance, many know of Senator Bernie Sander’s nationalist past, to the point where he was the main force that stopped Bush’s attempts at Immigration Reform back when the DREAM Act was first introduced.
Many people supported Bernie on the basic argument of “he cares.” Well, tell me, why does he not care about the other 98% of the world population? An ideology that does is called globalism, but it’s not the one I advocate for.
Notice how the argument is always between a limited national government and an authoritarian global government. Never once is the debate between limited governments on both the national and global scale. This is a framing that nationalists have forced us to put up with, primarily because it is the only way their arguments sound even slightly logical.
If a one-world government were to form that was democratic, limited, and worked to allow all nations to be based on liberty, capitalism, and individualism, I would proudly support said government in a heartbeat. Those are my values, and those are values I wish the rest of the world to live under, as I feel those are the best values we humans have created.
In a way, taking a step left or right from nationalism–as I mentioned earlier–should not be viewed as a contrast between individualism and globalism, but between peaceful globalism and authoritarian globalism.
I am a peaceful globalist, and I am proud to call myself such.
Ephrom Josine is a libertarian political blogger/commentator. You can find him on Twitter @EphromJosine1, writing near-daily on Medium @ephromjosine or weekly on Freedom First Blog.