Mr. Surjit Bhalla concludes his piece (‘An easy win for Hillary Clinton’, IE Nov. 5, 2016) with these words:
If it turns out as predicted, the election will likely provide a much-needed boost to those who believe in trade, open borders, and the traditional “American way”. The anti-trade, anti-immigration wave around the Western world will at least be halted, if not reversed, with a large Clinton victory. The recent high court judgment in England (parliament must vote on Brexit) has already provided the basis for the beginning of the retreat of anti-globalisation forces.
It appears that he has plenty of catching up to do with what is going on in the Democratic Party and what has been happening under this administration for the last eight years. For starters, he can visit the website of the National Federation of Independent Businesses and he can read up the references cited in my blog post written in response to the 370 academics who urged Americans to vote against Trump.
The anti-globalisation movement has its origins in the fantastic success of globalisation except that it was not widely shared. Second, the current Democratic Party rising stars are Elizabeth Warren and scores of other anti-free traders.
If the Democratic Party takes the Presidency and the Congress, it will veer too far to the Left of Centre. Ms. Clinton has disavowed the TPP. Elizabeth Warren drove the resignation of Jon Stumpf of Wells Fargo -correctly so, in this case. But, the truth is that it would be a party of anti-globalisation.
So, what is he talking about? He has written a fanciful piece as he does, from time to time. The rise of anti-globalisation is, in large measure, due to its success and those who benefitted from its success kept the benefits for themselves and thus imperilled globalisation. They are the reason for the rise of anti-globalisation and it is not going away.
Sorry, Mr. Bhalla. You have your arguments very wrong and, I hope, your prediction too.