For homework we had to read an article from the Wall Street Journal called “We are not the world.” The author claimed that political arguments may no longer be left vs. right: it’s now globalists vs. nationalists. Globalists believe that interactions between nations should increase and that global governance should expand. They want to break down the boundaries between countries, figuratively and eventually maybe literally, but we’ll get to that later. Nationalists cling to their sense of national identity, and fear the effect of globalism and immigration on their country’s norms. I do think that both sides have valid arguments, but I’d like to take a look at the hypotheticals.
There are a lot of consequences to consider. If we decide that globalism is the way to go, does the value of borders deteriorate? A globalist may question whether or not borders had value in the first place. But to a nationalist, there’s a sense of pride that comes with being a citizen in a certain country, and erasing what defines a country physically is just one step closer to erasing a prideful mentality. Maybe it would be a good thing to weaken national identity to prevent conflict between citizens of different countries. Anyway, what’s the purpose of a national border if it’s disregarded? I think what we need to start thinking about is the long term. If we become more unified internationally through economics and maybe policy regarding immigration, what’s to stop us from just creating one big government? The term “King of the World” is always regarded with fear, because too much power in one person’s hands is never a good thing. Therefore, I think it’s important to acknowledge that maybe globalism is bringing us a step closer to a completely unified world, which could be disastrous, despite sounding positive. As citizens of separate nations, we still acknowledge that we are all the same as human beings. But bringing us entirely together lawfully may not work out. We need to do what’s manageable.
However, I do think that globalism could be positive not just economically but socially as well. If we did get to that point where there was just one government ruling the entire world, wouldn’t removing national identity just bring the human race closer together. That would be one less thing separating us, defining us as different from one another. I think the social progress that comes along with globalism is crucial to bettering the world. Imagine traveling and not being asked where you are from, for all cultures being intertwined. Combining cultures doesn’t mean losing them.
It’s interesting to try to look at globalism and nationalism in terms of consequence, because it is so hard to really tell what’s going to happen. If we continue embracing nationalist ideas, maybe there would be no change, or maybe we’d become even more defined as separate nations in the world. If we move forward with globalism, maybe we would make a lot of progress. But humans fear change, so I think that globalists have a big argument to prepare in terms of consequences.