Should Globalism Be a Dirty Word?

Alex Jones, a far-right conspiratorial political pundit, is a frequent detractor of globalism. This belief is often repeated across the Republican party, and even with some Democrats.

There is a dirty word going around the Republican party and even some parts of the Democratic party: globalism. Republicans in Congress frequently disavow so-called “globalist policies” implemented by Democratic politicians, and those of the far right paint their enemies with the often-anti-Semitic pejorative of “globalist”. But globalism should not be looked at with such disdain. In fact, the U.S. government would do good to implement true globalist policies for the benefit of the U.S. and the world. 

First, we should define what we mean by “globalism”. The term refers to a perspective of national policymaking that considers its effect on a global scale. For instance, when a country is having economic issues that could be partly allayed by tariffs on global imports, a country would consider such a policy’s effect on other countries before implementing it. Another aspect of globalism that should be mentioned is its connection to globalization, a term referring to integration between governments, populations, and economies across the world. Both definitions should be used with each other when referring to globalism. Of course, “globalism” is multifaceted in its meaning to political scientists. Still, for the purposes here, this way of defining globalism should be used. 

One issue of growing concern in the United States is the gradual creeping terror of climate change. This phenomenon has quickly become realized as one of the most dangerous that the world faces in this century. In the United States, however, bickering between Republicans, who don’t believe in the science behind climate change, and Democrats, who do, has made the issue a toxic potion for any politician. But what many fail to understand is that even if the United States suddenly decided to take on climate change, and Republicans and Democrats came together, it is unlikely that climate change could be reversed. The issue at hand is that climate change is one of the first truly catastrophic global issues. Even if one nation decides to attempt to fix the problem, another nation can easily continue to produce increasing carbon emissions that further exacerbate the crisis. In fact, though the United States is the second leading producer of carbon emissions, it is China which bears the responsibility for double the amount the U.S. produces. 

Globalism, where the governments of different nations gradually become closer to a point where all countries work together, perhaps even to a point of global government, would allow every government to come together to fix the problem. Treaties like the Paris Climate Accord, where hundreds of countries agreed to mitigate global warming, can only work when every country is on the same page. As we have seen with President Donald Trump’s removal of the U.S. from the treaty, it’s easy to see that voluntary treaties between hundreds of governments are fragile and prone to failure. But in a global society, nations of the world would become so intertwined in their politics, economics, and cultures that a country going its own way would be detrimental to its interests. In the same way, the global government and society would quickly realize how climate change is an issue worth mitigating due to its effect on every country. But it’s not just climate change. Globalism could also help with bursts of migration from hurting areas like the Middle East. With an open borders policy, migrants could be shared evenly between countries, keeping the problems associated with an influx of migrants at bay. That’s to not even mention the fact that the increased migration that would come from a globalist open-borders policy would buoy the economies of every country hosting the migrants.

Clearly, globalism has its purpose, whether it’s to reverse the coming catastrophe of climate change or to alleviate the burdens of immigration policy. Even if one disagrees with the arguments presented here, I invite them to propose any national solution to these issues. There is simply no possible route to stopping climate change, or efficiently control influxes of migrants, without a globalist policy where all governments work together for a global cause. And when these issues can only be fixed in this way, why should globalism be a dirty word?