New York Times
Dear Sirs or Madam,
This has reference to the article by Peter Goodman (‘The Post-World War II Order Is Under Assault From the Powers That Built It’, published online on March 26, 2018 – https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/business/nato-european-union.html).
I first comment on some specific statements made by Mr. Goodman before offering general comments.
“But American leaders have failed to deliver job training and other programs that might have cushioned the blow for communities hurt by imports.”
The scale of the dislocation and jobs displacement was so huge as not to be amenable to such romantically naïve prescriptions.
“Mr. Trump’s trademarks — “Make America Great Again,” and “America First” — underscore his forsaking of his country’s traditional commitment to collective ideals.”
This is an example of ultimate finessing:
“But if the justice of the liberal order has been contentious, now its basic endurance appears in question.”
An order that is not just will not endure. Period. The cumulative injustice perpetrated by the order has now threatened its basic endurance. That is the way to frame the sentence and understand the developments.
Barking at the wrong tree:
“He appears to subscribe to the notion that the United States, the largest economy on earth, must unabashedly pursue its self-interest, free of constraints like naïve reverence for the rules of the global trading system.”
This statement would have been authentic and correct had it been directed at China.
Let us rephrase it and that would make a lot more sense:
“Xi appears to subscribe to the notion that China, the second largest economy on earth, must unabashedly pursue its self-interest, free of constraints like naïve reverence for the rules of the global trading system.”
Collectivist ideals were easy to forge in the bloddy aftermath of the WW II,e especially after the holocaust induced killings.
Rising prosperity – again, relatively easy, after the Great Depression and WW II – made it easy to commit to ‘collectivist ideals’.
Then, in the aftermath of the 1979 Soviet entry into Afghanistan and the tantalising opening up of China to the West, it was easy to renew commitment to collectivist ideal. The common threat was clearly recognised and always a visible and identifiable enemy enables one to define oneself as ‘not the enemy and what it/he stands for’.
Then, in the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany, optimism about the Western system of capitalism and the Grand Euro project cemented the collectivism.
In the new millennium, after 09/11, the threat of ‘Islamic terrorism’ provided the glue.
But, while all these were going, we had countervailing forces that were chipping away at the collectivist glue – technology, outsourcing and offshoring – that concentrated profits in few hands.
Technological developments, on their part, weakened familial ties, glues and increased the atomisation of families and societies, leaving humans feeling lonely, vulnerable and stressed. The onward and relentless march of technology was another of the ‘Globalist’ projects.
All that they can offer in compensation for what they had and are still unleashing is ‘Universal Basic Income’ – arrogant and stupid at the same time.
Nothing much has changed in the world of finance either. The rise of finance that ruined economies has not been arrested. Even nine years after the crisis of 2008, average bonuses on Wall Street had returned to the levels of 2006!
Blame the ‘globalists’ for the failure of the ‘global project’. Not the populists and the nationalists. They are doing just the final rites on the corpse. The murder of the ‘global project’ was done by the so-called globalists.
Until the world gets it and until people like Goodman gets it, the populists are not going to be pushed back. They will be strengthened by these false framing of the issue and the narrative.