Globalism vs Nationalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesATyler

Guest
I see Trump as one who ran on a platform of nationalism. Many of his comments and slogans show it well, like “America First” and his disparaging remarks against other countries. There are many people who are into nationalism and that is the real reason he won. These people are his real base.

I see Obama as more of a Globalist. He was more concerned about America being a member of a global community of nations working in partnership, but not necessarily concerned with it’s own primacy.

When considering only political idealogy, isn’t this one of the basic differences between these two presidents and perhaps the parties themselves?
 
These two presidents, probably, though there are more differences than just these two As to the parties themselves, don’t think the answer is quite that simple. Both domestically and internationally, there are far more than these two.
As an observation, the two words, political ideology, are really obscure and subject to much individual interpretation. Is abortion on demand a political ideology; to some yes, to others, no. Just one example.
 
I agree that the parties are probably not so simple. I never had a strong distinction in my mind between globalism and nationalism until seeing the distinction between Obama and Trump.
 
JamesATyler said:
perhaps the parties themselves?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not a difference between the parties.

Both parties have their nationalist fraction.

In the Republican Party: conservatives, neoconservatives, and moderates are not nationalists, with the neoconservatives and many moderate Republicans being true globalists. It’s the palaoconservatives and libertarians that tend to be nationists.

In the Democratic Party, the far left tends to be more nationistiatic too. Also the working class Democrats tend to be nationalistic too. Basically, the Dems labor class has an nationalistic trend.
 
Last edited:
He had numerous goals. You would have to look them up. There were too many to write here.
 
JamesATyler said:
There were too many to write here.
Click to expand...
his main goal was wealth distribution, locally and globally.

his paris executive order was about wealth distribution not stopping co2 emissions.

yes. there are too many examples to write.
 
Nationalism and globalism are modern concepts. Before WWII, Americans tended to follow George Washington’s advice to avoid foreign entanglements. The US protected domestic industries from foreign competition. Since WWII, the US has been very involved in world affairs and has generally followed a free trade policy.

Extreme nationalism is something to be avoided if it involves hostility to other countries. Globalism; e.g. open borders, is dangerous if it risks the safety and prosperity of one’s country.
 
Last edited:
I’m guessing, like most politicians, they were trying to appeal to what they thought voters wanted.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
Extreme nationalism is something to be avoided if it involves hostility to other countries. Globalism; e.g. open borders, is dangerous if it risks the safety and prosperity of one’s country.
Click to expand...
Globalists can be hostile toward other countries. Bush and Obama didn’t bomb any less countries just because they were globalists. In fact Bush ran on a more nationalist foreign policy that denounced the globalist military misadventures of Clinton.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
JamesATyler:
perhaps the parties themselves?
Click to expand...
No, it’s not a difference between the parties.

Both parties have their nationalist fraction.

In the Republican Party: conservatives, neoconservatives, and moderates are not nationalists, with the neoconservatives and many moderate Republicans being true globalists. It’s the palaoconservatives and libertarians that tend to be nationists.

In the Democratic Party, the far left tends to be more nationistiatic too. Also the working class Democrats tend to be nationalistic too. Basically, the Dems labor class has an nationalistic trend.
Click to expand...
Yeah, pretty much this.

You’ll see some cooperation from both sides on free trade issues when a dem sees it as a political currency to trade for something else, but historically dems are more protectionist in their economic policies since they historically value workers above ownership whereas Reps are generally more globalist as they typically represent the owning class more than the working class.

As with all social theory, exceptions abound…
 
JamesATyler said:
When considering only political idealogy, isn’t this one of the basic differences between these two presidents
Click to expand...
Yes, at least publicly
and perhaps the parties themselves?
Click to expand...
No. Republicans have global business interests all over the freakin’ place. Dems traditionally were the ones who wanted to keep the jobs at home so US workers could get them, but because Dems like Hillary are in the pocket of the big banks as much as the Repubs are, the Dems have “gone global” too.

Plus, the Dems by being global get to sell themselves to all those people who think the US should be “more like Europe”.

Both parties will publicly embrace whatever philosophy is likely to win an election for them, but in private activities will embrace whatever puts the most money in their pocket and coffer.

Edited to add, just my opinion, but I think this whole thread topic has very little to do with the concept of Catholic “social justice” unless you are trying to make some point that nationalism, i.e Trump, is somehow “unjust”
 
Last edited:
Well, I don’t know whether Nationalism is unjust all the time, or some of the time, or anytime. Many people seem to have agreed that the focus needed to be on the U.S. Would that make America unjust In Catholic terms?
 
I suppose it could be seen as a spectrum, you could go too far either way.
 
Those in charge of other people have a primary duty to their own first before others. It is just like a father and mother have a duty to their own children first. So it isn’t just a matter of is putting your country first allowable it is actually right. That doesn’t mean you don’t help others it is just that your country is considered and taken care of first.
 
JamesATyler said:
Many people seem to have agreed that the focus needed to be on the U.S. Would that make America unjust In Catholic terms?
Click to expand...
I think in cases where there is some emergency outside the US and we can help - let’s say there’s a famine or a disaster and we can provide supplies or an airlift or aid - then we need to help.

However, if it’s a case of providing ongoing resources on a daily basis for people in need, then yes, we do need to focus on our own backyard with that. We are already falling down on the job just dealing with stuff like the aftermath of the Puerto Rican hurricane and providing mental health care to people who need it, including our veterans. I don’t see anything unjust about concentrating on those types of causes.
 
Last edited:
Recently, I’ve reframed the issue using the concept of Subsidiarity.

The application in politics is not that different from Catholic theology.

MAGA isn’t isolationist but it is focused on improving the lives of the people in the USA, the people our Govt is legally responsible for governing.

I wish Globalists had a greater focus on implementing subsidiarity around the world. To reference countries recently in the news, people in Haiti or Africa need to reduce corruption and improve their local governance. I say it’s their responsibility because neither the US nor the UN has any special skills to do it for them, based on my observations.

Net, I wish globalists focused on spreading ‘subsidiarity’ rather than trying to control or fix their problems for them. Action would be more about creating opportunity rather than trying to equalize.
 
Most Republicans are just as globalist as the Democrats are. Trump’s nationalism is against both sides of the political establishment.
 
Arkansan said:
Most Republicans are just as globalist as the Democrats are. Trump’s nationalism is against both sides of the political establishment.
Click to expand...
Yes, most DC politicians have forgotten whom they were elected to represent. Many are also misguided that they can fix other countries.
 
Globalism is little more than a deception put into place to excert control.

You should never place yourself at the whim of a unified body because the risk of dictatorship is too great.

We have learned that the hard way in the UK running along side the anti-Semitic EU.

What they say about Globalism might sound nice as propoganda. But take it from me, having lived through the Tony Blair years;

Globalism is not what it appears. It is an affront to individuality and an attempt to create a hive mind. Most likely over run with Islam.

How can I be so sure. I’ve lived it. Spoken to it’s champions.

Their cause is far from pure.

Nationalism may ‘seem’ ununified and isolationist but actually, it is the best platform for mutual respect - despite differences - going. Hard nationalism arises because people feel their very sovereignty is being lost to majority.

So as unpopular as it may be. I’m with Trump and Pence. There is nothing wrong with individual identity, strength and from that alliances and friendships. I’d prefer to have a world of colour and difference to travel.

Not one made up of a unified liberal-Islamic alliance and no individuality at all.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top