Posted on 06/03/2005 9:37:36 AM PDT by CHARLITE
"The Left has always hoped for globalization without the market—an ideologically correct world government." [1] Therefore, it might seem inconceivable to hear conservatives speak about promoting globalism unless the listener is aware that in addition to this first characterization, there can be an entirely different connotation if you consider that, "Globalization simply means freedom of movement for goods and people."[2]
I believe that having two completely different meanings has resulted in a lot of confusion about which reference is inferred when using this term. From a leftist perspective, globalism entails working toward a global world order. And under this circumstance, the unique governing principles of this country along with the confluence of rich cultural and ideological views that are continually churning and evolving would be supplanted by one artificial philosophy that suppresses individual ideas and the initiative to act on them.
According to the authors of the Index of Economic Freedom, "The countries with the most economic freedom also have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than are those with less economic freedom." [3] It should not be any surprise, then, that developing countries want more globalization, not less. Therefore, when conservatives discuss promoting globalization, they are trying to export liberty and the free market which promotes it.
Not knowing which frame of reference is being considered when referring to globalism is a pretty serious problem. The late Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster) made a name for himself as a writer of best selling children's books by playing with homonyms; words that sound or are spelled the same but have different meanings, in The King who Rained and Chocolate Moose for Dinner. Any teacher who reads these books aloud in a first grade classroom quickly discovers even 6 year olds can understand the difficulty misinterpretation poses.
Whether or not you can take a pro-globalism or anti-globalism stance really depends on the accepted meaning of this idea. This needs to be clarified when world leaders are discussing free trade and the need to open up our markets. This is obviously much different than collectivizing land and setting up cooperatives. This needs to be clarified when discussing the value of advanced placement courses, which challenge high school students with college level curriculum in contrast to the International Baccalaureate program that, while promoting a global world order, does not encourage the unique circumstances of our country which allow capitalism to thrive.
If the bi product of globalization erodes our national sovereignty, then it can be judged as antithetical to freedom and in the long run will destroy our way of life. One need only look at the number of aliens immigrating to our country and seeking our wealth of opportunity, to understand that the motives of those who seek to destroy these very same freedoms should be seriously questioned.
[1, 2] Anti-Globalism = Anti-Americanism
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18005/article_detail.asp
[3] 2005 Index of Economic Freedom
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/index.cfm
About the Writer:Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education & Research at Americans for Limited Government. She is the editor for the LEAD Action and Parents in Charge Foundation websites.
She is an experienced educator and an independent contractor with Prism Educational Consulting. Nancy serves as Educational Liaison for Illinois Senator Carole Pankau. She works nationally and locally furthering the cause of Civic Education. Her opinions have been heard on select radio programs across the nation. Additionally, her writing has been recognized by the US Secretary of Education.
She has been an educator since 1986 and has worked with students in grade levels ranging from preschool to college in both the private and public sector. Her B.A. is in History and she has a M.Ed. in Early Childhood Education.
She is a columnist for Education News, GOP-USA, TheRant.us, as well as other internet publications and her opinions have been heard on radio programs across the country. Her work is presented at Townhall.com.
Comments: nsalvato@therant.us
The truth is most promoters of it mix in both the "liberal" and "conservative" idea. For example, the whole idea of something like NAFTA or CAFTA is liberal. Want free trade? Then negotiate it country by country. That's free trade. Anything else is an excuse for "international harmonization" meaning the loss of distinct American characteristics and the loss of control of each nation state.
The Collectivists can "win" arguments three ways:
through confusion caused by re-purposing all the words.
through changing the subject entirely.
through violence.
They prefer the first method. That's how National Socialism wound up as a "right-wing" phenomenon.
"From a leftist perspective, globalism entails working toward a global world order."
Which is why all the clueless little Marx-head college students, protesting globalization alongside neo-Nazis in places such as Seattle, is oddly amusing, if disturbing. If they're de facto socialists, and are against globalization, then they're also de facto National Socialists... which makes the picture come into a much sharper focus.
It's also confused by the fact that the word "Liberal" has historically been used to describe a believer in the conservative view of globalization, i.e., free trade.
"through confusion caused by re-purposing all the words."
The one that get to me the most is: totalitarianism = liberal.
"It's also confused by the fact that the word "Liberal" has historically been used to describe a believer in the conservative view of globalization, i.e., free trade."
Internationally, free trade is correctly described as being liberal; the word hasn't been Bowdlerized to such degree outside of North America. But, internationally speaking, Nazis aren't regarded as being a creation of political conservatives, either.
Very true -- it's mainly the US socialists who stole the term as a cover, because socialism is unpopular in the US.
But, internationally speaking, Nazis aren't regarded as being a creation of political conservatives, either.
No, we conservatives in the US keep pointing out that the Nazis were 'National Socialists', but the mainstream media (much more universally leftist than in Europe) tries to ignore that inconvenient fact.
Someone like to tell us all how delegating power to unaccountable, unelected, globalist agencies and bureaucrats could possibly be a step in the direction of freedom or democracy around the globe.
Many free trade (and free border) proponents do not take the above into consideration. They see only the money.
"the mainstream media (much more universally leftist than in Europe)"
Other than certain British tabloids, I have a hard time accepting this. Can you identify a major news daily in Europe that is not decidedly left of center? In Italy, maybe? Can't wrap my mind around this, based upon my own exposure.
Certainly. In the UK, the Telegraph is an excellent newspaper that is clearly conservative, but doesn't sacrifice the truth to its views (like the NYT and WP do). The Times (i.e., the UK paper) is perhaps the most respectable newspaper in the world. It is middle of the road, perhaps a little right of center.
" I guess that is why some oppose "Free Trade" as a threat to national sovereignty."
It genuinely seems to be being used as a sort of Trojan Horse for supra-national governance, and that is my problem with it. Free and open commerce with societies structured in a manner that could not be considered hostile to our own, that I favor. But, this is not what we're getting, is it?
Any outside of England, that you're aware? I suppose, other than EU membership, they don't really consider themselves "European," or at least they didn't last I was there nearly ten years ago. In my exposure, the socialist mindset runs very deep in the majority of continental Europeans. Pockets of "resistance" (LOL) scattered about, most notably in Italy. If you want to stretch the definition to eastern Europe, the peoples of "New Europe" seem to grasp the error of excessively leftist governance, God bless 'em. They should know; they've lived under it for half a century.
There's at least one conservative newspaper in Spain, tho' I can't remember its name (probably El Mundo, but it might be El Pais). I believe France has one newspaper that's centrist or right of center (Figaro?). I don't know anything about Italy's, or Germany's.
...If the bi product of globalization erodes our national sovereignty, then it can be judged as antithetical to freedom and in the long run will destroy our way of life...
There's no IF, only a WILL.
No matter who's definition one uses.
BTTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.