Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.Take a man's job and then tell him not to cry about it, he can go on welfare, he will be enraged.He wants a job that pays as much or more. The bums are happy to be slaves to the corporations and banks as long as you tell them the government is in charge. They are the Cathedral's useful idiots, but America still has too few of them for the Cathedral to offset mass middle class anger.
Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.
Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.
Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good.
How to create higher wages and remain competitive? The best way is to be growing so quickly that labor supply is absorbed and capital is accumulating faster than labor+productivity growth, such that capital begins bidding up wages. Then inflation risk rises as the transfer of wealth to labor accelerates. In the absence of rapid growth, restricting labor supply and support for domestic businesses in needed. There are ways to do this while maintaining a globalist posture. Low taxation and low regulation works. If foreigners subsidize their companies, then some type of general tariff may be needed, but there's a lot for globalists to implement before they would need to become explicitly nationalist in their agenda. A mildly nationalist policy would also work, which would consist of targeting key parts of industry. For example, Japan is now building jets and China will have Boeing's technology within 20 years. They require technology transfer for market access, and also require the multinational use local suppliers, which supports knowledge acquisition, capital accumulation and research. When they have accumulated enough capital, experience and technology, they cut off the foreign company. Instead of even this mild form of nationalism, the globalists instead implement policies that destroy domestic industry (Affordable Care Act being one of the latest).
Halting immigration to drive up domestic wages is a completely non-racist policy for globalists to implement. Yet is there any major globalist party anywhere in the West proposing to near halt immigration and enact a program to drive up wages? One of the arguments against Brexit was that it would make wages rise, making Britain less competitive. That's not a joke. The Remain camp openly said British people should vote to Remain to keep low skilled wages from rising. Props for honesty, but is it a surprise much of Labour's base voted to Leave?
Burning Down the Commons
Channeling The War on Social Capital, the nation is an asset. For the socialist or collectivist it is a parasitical relationship, the nation operates as a shell company through which theft of private property is made possible. The globalists treat it as if it were a local market product. USG or ROK or FRG are just brands slapped on the same global governance product. Like the factories that make corn flakes for multiple brand names, what's in the box is the same. For market differentiation, there are even more flavors available in European parliamentary democracies. You can try Italian Green Party flavored globalism.
For most people, the nation is seen as the highest collective organization. It's not there to violate individual rights, it exists to promote the "general welfare," to pursue policies that benefit the majority of the members. It is a joint asset held among the people. Every person in a democracy is to some degree a shareholder.
Where the socialist comes to steal from the rich and give to the poor, the globalist comes to steal from the poor their last remaining asset: joint "ownership" in the nation. On top of that, nearly all globalists run debt-driven growth models that steal accumulated wealth by inflation. They further open the borders to foreigners, diluting the value of existing "shares" in a rapidly depleting asset.
Economic disruption wrought by globalization destroys the value of monetary assets for many people, leaving only their non-monetary assets: nation, community and family. The value of these assets may not be rising, but as monetary assets (wages, home, 401k, less debt) depreciate, the personal balance sheet is increasingly made up of "goodwill" and intangible assets. The wealthy have capital as their largest asset; the talented have their abilities, the poorest have their family and the commons. Globalization and mass immigration destroys the commons, devaluing it by printing up more units of citizens, and often times bringing in destructive people who are given "space to destroy."
The globalists fundamentally reject the concept of group membership, of loyalty to the group, of loyalty to the nation. If globalists ran the prairie, they'd tear down fences and tell ranchers: let your cows eat as much grass as they like! They would have no sympathy for local ranchers who made private agreements and put up fences. Bring in all the cows you like, the more the merrier. It'll drive down beef prices too. Private property is a concept that we can say is human nature, but some people are weird (abnormal) and may really have no issue with private property. The globalists are also abnormal and WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) in that they lack the ability to identify with the nation. Some on the alt-right mistakenly attribute this to a subset of globalists, but all globalists are effectively a foreign tribe who view the natives as hostile. An American State Department attache views Germany as Japan as Egypt as America: they all have hostile native populations (nationalists) that need to be kept away from power so that the globalist project can continue.
It takes time, but once the money is gone, the only thing people have left are the very things the globalists want to destroy most of all. With nothing left to lose, the nationalists are willing to throw everything they have into the fight. It is said that bankruptcy happens slowly, and then all at once. The all at once phase of monetary destruction lies in the future, as does peak nationalism.