Discussion saved as draft

If you have something you'd like to say on this topic, please Log in or Register and Click the box to Start A New Discussion.

Globalization; The New Great Divide in America

by David D. Eisenhower (Principles: Military Restraint, Bipartisanship) - 2 year ago

We are no longer a nation split simply between Liberals and Conservatives. What divides us now is America's role in the world, and the world's role in America.

For those closely following the polls for this election, a strange phenomenon is taking place. We see Donald Trump making inroads in traditional Democratic states like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvanial and Michigan, while at the same time traditional Republican states like Arizona, Georgia, Alaska and Texas are within reach for Clinton.

Many will say that this is due to the strangeness of the 2016 race and, in particular the completely unprecedented nature of Donald Trump’s candidacy. However, in my view, there is more to this election than just the personalities. The reason that the old red-blue lines are breaking down is that there is a new major issue dividing Americans.

In the past, the primary fault line in American politics was whether the government or the private sector should play the key role in bringing prosperity to all. Liberals, of course, see government involvement as a solution to fighting povertry and increasing social mobility while Conservatives feel that if government would only get out of the way and lower taxes, the economy will boom and everyone will have an opportunity to succeed.

This question is still important but it now must share the spotlight with a broader question concerning America's relationship with the rest of the world. The term "Globalization" has recently taken on a pejoritve meaning but for purposes of this discussion, I'll define the question as simply "Is globalization good for America?"

On the “yes” side is a peculiar alliance between academic economists, multinational corporations and members of both the Democratic and Republican “Establishments.”  Their view is that a stronger world economy will create expanded stable markets for American products -thus increasing good jobs at home. They are willing to accept imperfect trade deals and short term job losses in certain industries at home if the net long term result is that more Americans will have better paying jobs.   

On the “no” side is also a peculiar alliance between those on the left and the right, who see this argument as nothing more than justification for the big corporations to become more profitable and for the establishment politicians to hold onto power. The "no" folks don't care about economic projections years into the future. They care about today's American factory worker and don't want to sign any trade deal which could cost that factory worker his job.  

This new split also encompasses the explosive issue of immigration. The "yes" people see immigration as the key to keeping Social Secuirty solvent and to providing affordable health care for America's aging population. They are therefore in favor of making accommodations for those who are here illegally and are willing to accept refugees, particularly young educated refutees, from troubled areas of the world. 

Those on the “No” side oppose this for two straightforward practical reaons. They see it as an unnecesary security risk for us to bring in foreigners from countries that have traditionally hated us. They also see no reason why our immigration laws are not being enforced – particularly when those here illegally are taking jobs from those here legally.

The split also shows up in our foreign policy. Those on the Yes side, see foreign aid combined with a strong military presence as the best way to promote America's interests. Those on the No side, want that money being spent here at home.

My question, therefore, is whether or not you believe that where you stand on globalization is becoming even more important than where you stand on the Liberal / Conservative spectrum.


Comments and Responses (5)

Reasoning used for ARGUMENTS presented
By  Cool Calvin - 2 year ago
This is what I call a fair and balanced article. You present the facts and the truth comes through loud and clear. On one side is the common sense that says illegals should not be allowed to take jobs from Americans, terrorists should not be allowed into the country, and we shouldn't sign trade deals that ship American jobs overseas. On the other side are corporations and politicians spouting complicated economic theories that, oh by the way, benefit them. Common sense vs. self-serving complicated theories - I know which side I'm on.
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is relevant to the discussion. (Commenter's rating is increased.)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : Thanks for the compliment. I would say, however that the pro-globalization forces are not the only ones who are self-serving. Many of the people who oppose globalization are doing it because they see their own jobs as being at risk.
General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
I agreee with Cool Calvin's assessment of a well written and fairly balanced article. Common sense and a basic understanding of economics indicate "you cannot spend more than you earn", or the end result is ruination. In addition, to spout an old saying, "charity begins at home" - the oxygen mask anology - you have to take care of yourself first, before you can begin to aid or assist others, or you will both go down. Liberals do not seem to grasp the significance of our current national debt, and seem hellbent on increasing it even more. I know which side I am on. Thank you.
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is relevant to the discussion. (Commenter's rating is increased.)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : The globalists would argue (I think convincingly) that they are not interested in assisting other countries. Their argument (perhaps somewhat less convincing) is that by investing in other countries more money and jobs will flow back to America. As to the national debt, it is not strictly a liberal / conservative issue. Reagan and George W. Bush ran big deficits. Bill Clinton was running a surplus by the end of his presidency and Obama came into office with a $1 trillion annual deficit which has gradually decreased. The actual pattern has been that Republicans increase the deficit while Democrats decrease it. However, the adage that eventually you have to pay your debts certainly applies (NOTE FROM PWG - Thanks for the well written comment and we hope that you will sign up as an official member of Political Writing Game.)
General Comments
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
I do not want a one world government which is globalization . I like my freedom and I love my country and I stand for the constitution of the USA. So Communism/Socialism is out!
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is interesting but not directly relevant. (It might be a good topic for a new discussion)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : I think you're confusing terms here. Capitalists are in favor of Globalization, not Communists. That is why we saw Socialist Bernie Sanders speaking out against trade deals during this past campaign. Also, there is no guarantee that globalization will lead to a single world government. In fact, the multinational corporations may prefer there to be separate governments so that they can play one government against another.
Reasoning used for ARGUMENTS presented
By  Dan T - 2 year ago
On the critical issue of climate change there are conservative (cap and trade) and liberal (command and control regulations) solutions, but there is no solution without globalization. Our problems are global and only an interconnected "community of nations" can address them. If we don't maintain trade and security the rest of the world, re is little we can do about global emissions.
Discussion Leader's Response : This comment is relevant to the discussion. (Commenter's rating is increased.)
Discussion Leader's Explanation : I see your point. It is in America's interest to fight climate change. Not only will climate change destroy our own coastal cities but it is already causing the mass migrations throughout the world which help spread terrorism. As has been stated many times, though, it does us no good if we cut our own emissions without major polluters like China, Russia and India doing the same. Without globalization we lose a significant portion of our leverage over these other countries. Perhaps in my next article I will raise this issue - although I suspect that many anti-globalists are also of the view that climate change is not happening.
By  Facebook Commenter - 2 year ago
Globalization hurts Americans in every way. It causes other countries to hate us because they have their own values and don’t want to be westernized. Iran, which we made into the porn capital of the world in the 1970’s is a perfect example of this. American values are also sacrificed because we enslave people and put children to work in these other countries. Meanwhile, Americans lose because our jobs are sent to other places and immigrants are brought into our country by the elite, either illegally or with HIB visas to take jobs away from us. The elite then try to brainwash us by saying that Americans won’t do those jobs when, in fact, Americans have always done those jobs. The only ones who benefit from globalization are the rich elites. This is what Hillary Clinton and her primary supporter, George Soros, want when they talk about open borders.
Discussion Leader's Response :
Discussion Leader's Explanation :