Globalism threatens the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. President Donald Trump’s agenda is anti-globalist at the core. It is also nationalistic to the core, and senses in our history a national destiny. It is not manifest destiny as announced in the 1840s, nor is it the progressive/Marxist ideal of classlessness and world cooperation that has manifested aggressively since 1945. Rather, it grasps at the role of Providence -- God’s will -- as we move through time and space as a giver of hope (land of opportunity), producer of wealth, and respecter of personal autonomy within a lawful context.

Trump’s personal eccentricities and belligerent insecurities sometimes get in the way of this vision. But his nationalist agenda is less threatened by his personal shortcomings than by vested economic interests and ideological partisans that have a life and death stake in the globalist agenda. Globalism was set in motion at the end of World War II, and gathered momentum by the successes of the institutions created. With the creation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, it seemed at that time we were on a path of greater world cooperation, thus creating the likelihood of greater world peace. Then came the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) providing a shoring up of our defense against our communist enemies. This was followed by the initial steps towards the European Union by the signing of the Treaty of Paris founding the European Coal and Steel Community.

However, the goal of world cooperation was not the only item on the agenda. Globalism was also being promoted as part of a leftist platform that sees in capitalism an inherent tendency toward exploitation and imperialism. Thus, the globalist agenda is not merely a desire for world cooperation, but is being moved forward by individuals who oppose American sovereignty and our way of life. And there are still other individuals and corporate leaders who believe that they will benefit themselves and their shareholders by exploiting contacts in various governments throughout the world to their own advantage as national identities give way to world markets and, ultimately, to a one-world government.

Step by step, during the 72 years following WWII, multilateral engagement in regional bodies and international rules of trade were put into place. We moved gradually, some might say stealthily, from world cooperation to a globalist agenda, gradual loss of sovereignty, and deeper challenges to our legal system in favor of international legal standards. We entered into climate accords, restrained our own energy production by disallowing offshore drilling and important opportunities in Alaska near the Arctic Circle. Step by step, momentum grew from cooperation to a globalist manipulation of the world economy, accomplished often through executive and bureaucratic fiat. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, various pan-African organizations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement spread tentacles of control throughout the world on a scale that meant encroachment on our national goals and identity. American companies with production and customer service operations overseas became commonplace, and overseas conglomerates were increasingly investing in American industries and sometimes building plants here. American jobs were sacrificed in the name of overall world efficiencies and wealth production for the planet. This was justified in university economics departments by David Ricardo’s comparative advantage principle.

Phenomenal advances in communications via Facetime, Whatsapp, Skype, etc. created a taste for one worldism that complements the political agenda that has developed in Washington D.C. and other world capitals.

Yet, it would be naïve to think that the acceleration of the globalist agenda was driven mainly by market forces. The Marxist ideology that is consciously internationalist has been in play in the USA since the 19th century, and gained momentum during the post-WWII decades. The left bought into the idea that under capitalism, nationalism led to excessive competition among nation-states which in turn led to imperialism which in turn led to wars to protect their bourgeois empires. By incessantly promoting the link between free markets, nationalism, and war, the Marxist/globalist agenda promoted itself not only in terms of the class struggle to bring about a classless, noncompetitive society but also as promoting peace in a war torn, selfish, capitalistic world. The left, as apostles first of justice and then, supposedly, of world peace, claimed a messianic role for itself.

However, despite strong historical evidence that noncapitalistic, nonrepublican models of government and economic organization not only do not work but are tied to chaos, crime, mass incarcerations, and corruption, for increasing numbers – especially those who self-define as Democrats -- nationalism has become outdated and counterintuitive. The sense of the USA as having a providential role in mankind’s history is unacceptable because they have bought into the post-WWII left-propelled momentum away from the Puritan vision of America as a “city on a hill” with a Divine mission.

Yet, obviously, since he was elected, Trump represents that nationalist ideal that is not dead, but is a meaningful ideal of what America was once, and should be again. It is a recovery movement, a hope of cultural health restored after 70-plus years of globalist/leftist drift. Trump’s anti-globalism is a dynamic of liberation from the bureaucratic mindset that is part and parcel of internationalist expertise (the administrative state with vast office buildings turning out rules, regulations, and millions of sheets of paper is the child of a vision originally put forward by Woodrow Wilson). He is the first to demand protection from the Islamist threat to our national identity and security. He has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accord. He has rejected the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latest foray into globalist economic deals. He is on the brink of downgrading the P5+1 deal (it was actually a treaty which was treated as a “deal”) we entered into with Iran. He is intent on inviting corporations to expand their U.S. operations by cutting the corporate income tax. And, instead of pacifying America’s enemies (called “strategic patience” by the Democrat pacifiers), he is rejecting their violent, anti-American agenda. He knows that our economy and national spirit cannot grow if we cower in a corner of our own making.

One last point: There are those who believe that making deals is inherently internationalist. If you are in deal-making mode, you will automatically be engaged in new markets with foreign players. Is Trump then denying this reality? Actually, he has addressed this numerous times.  First, bilateral or trilateral deals with one or two other countries should be made more often rather than the gargantuan multilateral deals that have become the basis of our international trade agreements. Second, multilateral deals need to have built-in more fairness to the export of U.S. products to other countries. There are mechanisms in those deals for resolving trade disputes that arise under the agreements, but he is claiming that the formulation of those agreements is skewed in favor of the international community.  

True nationalism then is a reality that inherently isolates Trump, but it is worth fighting for. Nationalism as projected by President Trump and his supporters is actually a pre-1945, not a 1950s, ideal. In the 1950s it still seemed that we were in the nationalist mode, but in reality, the juggernaut threatening American nationalism had already been set in motion.