Antiglobalism and the risks of focusing on a single axis of the political debate

One of the hottest debates within the conservative right has to do with so-called globalism and its nemesis, antiglobalism.

Antiglobalism: the risk of repeating the trap of antifascism and anticommunism
Communism disguised as 'antiglobalism': a new Trojan horse against the right-wing

My reluctance to use the term 'globalism'

Two years ago I explained here the reasons why I do not usually use the term globalism, a concept that seems imprecise to me. I then commented the risk that so-called antiglobalism ends up like anti-fascism or anti-communism. I do not intend to repeat here what I pointed out in that article, but rather to address the issue from another point of view, encouraged by the article published yesterday by Carlos López Díaz (an author whose intellectual level is light years above mine), in which he comments on what I pointed out in that text and what other authors have pointed out, among them Francisco José Contreras - a reference of conservative liberal thought - in this regard.

The patriotism-globalism axis and its deformations

Regardless of the objections I raised to the concepts of globalism and antiglobalism two years ago, I have an even stronger reason to avoid using those confusing terms. The dichotomy between globalism and antiglobalism is focusing the debate on a single axis of the political and ideological debate: the opposition between patriotism, on the one hand, and a tendency to dissolve national sovereignty in favor of international organizations . As happens in all debates, even addressing only this axis, there is a risk of losing sight of the deformations at both extremes. I already pointed out in my article two years ago that the existence of international organizations does not seem bad in itself: their conversion into interventionist mega-states and predators of national sovereignty is the real danger.

That said, we must not forget that there is also a deformation of patriotism: the exacerbated nationalism against which Saint John Paul II warned in 1995, precisely in a speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations in which he stated: "True patriotism never tries to promote the good of one's own nation to the detriment of others." This exacerbated nationalism was one of the main causes of the two world wars and is also one of the causes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Faced with such a current problem, the patriotism-globalism axis is insufficient to address reality and offer solutions to the world in which we live.

The risks of simplifying the political debate

On the other hand, there is something that we must never forget: reality is much more complex than we usually think. This fact has been forgotten by thinkers who have had a great influence on the Contemporary Age, such as Marx, who tried to reduce everything to class struggle, or Hitler, who tried to summarize the problems of his time in a race struggle. This tendency to simplify the political debate is what moved many to call anyone who opposed communism as "fascist", or in the opposite sense, call any democrat for the "red" mere fact of opposing fascism.

Attempts to simplify reality have also affected today's right. A classic example is the absurd idea that if you are against Putin then you are with Soros, or vice versa, a false dichotomy that I also rejected here two years ago. Regardless of the perverse interests that may be behind these crude attempts to make us choose between bad options (such as I pointed out here two years ago), that desire to focus on a single axis of the Political debate carries other risks, such as failing to pay attention to other issues that are of vital importance for our society.

The other axes that we must not neglect: the defense of life

The first of all, and I will never tire of repeating this, is the defense of life. It is true that the institutions, political parties and media that are usually described as "globalist" are promoters of abortion, but that does not mean that the opposite label necessarily implies a defense of life. I already pointed out here the pro-abortion law approved by Putin's party in Russia, a law very similar to the one approved by the socialists in Spain, and I have also commented Marine Le Pen's support for the incorporation of abortion into the French Constitution as a fundamental right, an aberrant position in which she agrees with the "globalist" Macron.

The defense of Freedom and a limited State

Another very important issue is the defense of Freedom and a limited State against tyranny and state interventionism. It is true that those who are described as "globalists" are proving to be great defenders of socialism, in the sense that they are helping to build the old dream of socialist internationalism of creating a borderless megastate, capable to interfere in our lives just as organizations like the UN or the European Union are doing, but it is also true that some who call themselves antiglobalists also bet on socialist recipes and there are also those who are supporters of tyrants like Putin, and with people like that it is very difficult to share a trench if you really believe in Freedom and democracy.

The defense of freedom of education

We can say the same about freedom of education, one of the fundamental rights that many organizations that are designated as "globalist" are most viciously attacking. But the threats to that right come from various fronts. Frankly, I find it very difficult to believe that some communists and fascists who use the guise of antiglobalism have even the slightest intention of respecting that right. It is enough to remember how communism and fascism used ideological indoctrination massively in schools (it is still applied today by dictatorships such as those in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and communist China).

The risk of not wanting to displease such a heterogeneous sector

Of course, with this I am not saying that all those who call themselves antiglobalists defend these positions. It would be unfair to generalize that way of thinking among such a heterogeneous sector (in it you can find conservatives, liberals, traditionalists, communists, fascists and a great etcetera).

Personally, patriotism and the defense of national sovereignty seem to me to be very important issues. In fact, I have been defending them for almost 20 years on this blog. But there are also other important issues, and I am concerned that focusing everything on the globalism-antiglobalism axis will end up displacing those issues, not only by focusing the focus only on that axis of the political debate, but also because of the fear that the possibility of contradicting other antiglobalists by addressing these issues may provoke among some.

---

Photo: Juliana Kozoski.