There is a conflict going on that is shaping America and it's future. It is the conflict between left leaning Globalism and right leaning Populism. What is Populism you ask, if you don't know and what is Globalism?
Globalism essentially looks at the world as one large entity. They are close to what has been called "One World Government" at least in an economic and social sense.
They believe that the world is one big market and there should be no limit on the expansion into any market that promises to produce a profit. They preach that over time Globalism produces the best products for the money and the people who are left behind will have to catch up, by retraining or otherwise, or fall off the tree.
From a social standpoint they believe that the rich nations have an obligation to take care of the poor by opening borders and allowing free travel over the world. You see a lot of that in immigration policies, both in the USA and in Europe. I believe that is one of the reasons that Great Britain pulled out of the European Union. The British people didn't like the open border policies of the EU. The EU was firmly on the side of free immigration from war torn and poor nations. They immigrants are mostly Muslim and was not only changing the face European nations, but bringing in a lot of problems. The problem for the EU is that Islam harbors a huge number of adherents to the idea that nations should be ruled by Sharia Law. Some even to the extent of violent actions to enforce that belief.
What Populism means, at it's core, is "of the people". Essentially it pits the people, the masses, against the elites. Now, that can mean many things. For instance two candidates for president in 2016 were, in a broadest sense, running on Populist platforms, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, although I'm not sure they would label themselves as such. I'm not the only one who noticed that Trump and Sanders had some things in common than they wanted to admit, that is after you got over all the hoopla. But, they were approaching "for the people" in entirely different directions. Bernie was basing his conception on a brand of socialism, while Donald, a devote capitalist, was defining "the people" as the forgotten workers in the factories, mines, farms and service industries, i.e. the blue collar worker. The workers that globalism has left behind and frankly screwed, as jobs and manufactured products went overseas at an astounding rate.
The brand of Populism practiced by Donald Trump and the new guard in the Republican Party is one that merged Populism with more or less conventional conservatism. It revolved around an "America First" approach as opposed to the Global mentality of the Democrat and Republican establishment. Populists believe that it is the first and primary duty of any government to protect and defend it's citizens. That means to protect not only militarily against foreign powers and terrorists but economically also. That it is NOT the roll of government to spend the citizens money on people from another country or it's governments, nor to open it's borders to anyone who wants in at the expense of its own people.
If you are in congress, you can promote yourself as a great philanthropist when you're using other peoples money.
The Populist movement would ask several basic questions of anything brought up for consideration and implementation. Is it in the best interest of America as a nation, the American worker and the American citizen? Will it harm the factory worker, the waitress at the local diner, the workers in the oil fields, the carpenter who builds our homes, the electrician who keeps us supplied with power and a host of other Americans who need jobs to support themselves and their families? Sometimes it is hard to tradeoff conflicting interests, as sometimes the interest of the nation in some way is not in the interest of some group of workers. But, the Populist would always come down on the side of its own citizens unless national security or something similar is at stake. That does not mean that the world should stop spinning and everything should come to a halt in terms of progress. Many of the jobs that exist today will go the way of the buggy whip makers, but that should be result of advancements in technology and economic decisions by the buying public. It should not be as a result of badly drafted trade agreements that gives foreign nations an advantage in the market place.
One might ask, why does big high tech and other corporations favor the Democrats? On the surface it shouldn't make sense. The Dems have traditionally been for taxing the big corporations and breaking them up. They strive for large social programs and are up front about taxing the "rich" to pay for them. They want to raise the Corporate Tax, Capital Gains Tax and the income tax rate for the larger wage earners. It would seem that corporate America and the Democrat Party were an anathema.
I believe the answer is simple. Many of our large corporations, the NBA, Coca Cola, Delta Airlines, hi-tech companies, especially Google, Face Book and Apple to name a few, are firmly committed to a global reach in their business dealings. They see China, especially, as a vast market to be tapped. Even if they have to operate under China's restrictive laws which is used to transfer American technology to them and their military as well as the suppression of any thing resembling free exchange of ideas. So what if the Chinese communists are one of the most restrictive governments on the globe and threatens the United States both economically and militarily. They see that huge market and lick their chops over the profit that is to be made. As a result, they will turn their backs on the abuses that the Chinese government heaps on the heads of some of it's own people.
It is a known fact that the Chinese government is committing genocide against the Uighur, a Muslim population of about 12 million living in North West China. They are held in secretive internment camps without any legal process. Hundreds of thousands of children have been separated from their parents. Thousands of masques have been destroyed. Forced sterilization is practiced along with forced labor. It is interesting that some of our leading companies demanded that the All Star game be removed from Atlanta because they passed a law that required the voters have ID while at the same time embracing China. It is clear that greed will overcome morality. Of course the strange thing is that the game was moved to a state that has existing voting laws similar to Georgia.
Is unlimited immigration good for America and is it good for the American worker? I think you could find a few liberals who would argue that it is good for America, kind of fuzzy headed thinking typical of the liberal, but I doubt you could find very many who would contend that mass immigration is good for the average American or for the American worker. They base their arguments strictly along humanitarian lines and state that we have an obligation to take care of the downtrodden of the world. Of course, the real reason is that they see waves of Democrat voters coming across the border.
Large scale immigration of unskilled labor will certainly depress wages, especially at the low end of the ladder, strain our education system, put a burden on the taxpayer for welfare, place a greater load on the health system just to name a few problems. It is said that the immigrates will do what the US citizen will not. That is a lot of hooey? All that means is the immigrants will work at the job for less than an American would demand.
So to the Populist, it doesn't pass the smell test. The Populist would want to control our borders and regulate who is to be admitted into the country, based on the countries needs and the immigrants ability to contribute, or their legitimate fear of repression in their country of origin. In other words the American citizen comes first.
Would signing a trade agreement with China giving them favored trading partner status good for America, the American people and the American worker? Is it good for the companies the move overseas, especially to China, to manufacture their products? They could get it a little cheaper, because of much cheaper labor. Today because a globalist approach, almost everything that Americans wear or use is made in China or some other foreign country with cheap labor. The great manufacturing centers of the Midwest have largely disappeared and the area has become the rust belt. That IPad that everybody loves so much is made in China, as is almost everything electronic you have. Look at your washing machine, your refrigerator and all your small appliances. They are almost all made in a foreign country, mostly China. Google and other high tech companies trade advanced technology to China for the right to expand and operate in that country.
We found out, at the beginning of the Corona virus outbreak, to our horror, that China made almost all of the drugs we use. And, the few that are made here get their ingredients from China. We had exported our very health care to a foreign country. And not to just any foreign country, but one that is the enemy of the United States. Lets face it a new cold war is rapidly developing, if it has not already begun, with China at it's center. A Populist would say no. That must be corrected.
There is no argument that trade is essential to a prosperous society, but the trade deals should not leave America and the American worker on the short end of the stick. Trump then successfully renegotiated the trade agreements with Mexico and Canada to produce a much more balanced approach the trade.
Is shutting down the pipeline from Canada and stopping oil drilling in the US a good thing for America while at the same time lifting sanctions that allowed the oil pipe line from Russia to Germany to continue? Was this just the lefts knee jerk reaction to cancelling anything Donald Trump did or it just a nod to the extreme environmentalists that preach global catastrophic due to fossil fuels This in spite of the fact that we will still need the fossil fuels to operate our society and it will have to be imported from countries that drill for oil and produces it with much less environmental regulations than in this country. So there is no net gain, in fact a loss, in their battle to reduce carbon emissions. In the mean time thousands of American workers are thrown out of jobs with no place to go. And, to make matters worse, we are again making ourselves dependent on foreign powers for our sources of energy.
Nothing will happen on that front of any significance until China, India, Russia and the African nations get on board. That is not happening. And, is not likely to happen in the near future. Fossil fuels still, and in the foreseeable future, provides that cheapest form of energy.
The Populist would strive for American energy independence and the jobs that creating and working in that field brings to the American worker. Let the market place decide what form of energy we will use in the future.
The Populist would be for a strong military. After all, the first requirement of government is to protect its citizens from aggressive acts from outside forces. That includes not only the overt threat posed by China and Russia, but the terrorist threat from all sources.
There is more that could be said, but the idea is that the Populist would first and foremost take an "American First" stand on any relationship that develops. We do what is good for America and the American worker, even if the Globalists disagree, and they often will.
