“Beware the Globalist Apocalypse Upon Us!” What’s the Fuss About With Globalism… and Is It the Only Path Forward?
You hear this word thrown around excessively (mostly by conservatives) as a bogeyman to vilify a specific political and economic approach. What is it then with this “Globalist Threat” that conservatives so fear?
Work on this article began when YouTube found it suitable to recommend me a video by Jordan B. Peterson. It was a narration of an article he wrote for the Telegraph, titled “Peddlers of environmental doom have shown their true totalitarian colors.”
The YouTube narration’s title was decidedly more dramatic: “Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe.” Intrigued, I clicked, I watched, I endured.
Apart from being very rhetorically intense, Peterson’s article presents interesting arguments which I will use as starting points for this opinion piece.
A continuously running theme appears to be his disdain for “Globalism.” A word he likes throwing around perhaps excessively, in my opinion. I will not draw conclusions from Peterson’s article pertaining to his wider view on globalism because he is notoriously meticulous with his words (and I commend that).
Specifically here, he condemns a so-called “totalitarian” globalist response to the environmental crisis, which, he does not at any point imply is a crisis of utmost concern, perhaps a minor inconvenience.
In other regards, there is a lot of vicious rhetoric targeting the World Economic Forum in Davos, specifically the hypocritical elite that attend the grandiose wealth exhibition masquerading as a force for progress. I will address that too since it the most superficial gathering of the elite I could find.
Though I do not agree with Peterson’s views on the severity (or lack thereof) of the environmental crisis, I share his views on the solutions being presented at this point in time. Carbon capture technologies marketed extensively in countries like Australia have been proven unreliable at best, and renewable sources of energy are not currently sustainable from an economic perspective.
My focus however is not on the present environmental crisis, that deserves a separate article. Today, I discuss the nightmare that haunts Peterson and many conservatives in their sleep… Globalism.
What is Globalism?
Former United States Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Joseph Nye defines Globalism as “attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world — and to highlight patterns that underlie them.” He and many others define Globalism as a science, but more often, it is classified as a political, cultural, social, military, and economic ideology that advocates for the expansion of respective policy beyond national borders.
Still sounds alien? Well, illustrating Globalism is as simple as looking at today’s interconnected world. You live in a globalist society. Politically, socially, culturally, militarily, and economically; you live in a globalist society.
You connect with strangers via the internet, you dine at a Chinese food chain, you are protected perhaps by a transatlantic military alliance, and you are consuming foods that were harvested in the Congo and packaged in Vietnam shipped right to your suburban doorstep.
This is globalism, the current world order. If it weren’t for globalism in its myriad of aspects, you would be confined to grossly limited regional, national, or even local resources.
And yet you have populists on the left and the right that thrash globalism as a corrupt greedy defunct world order. What are your alternatives? Oh Masters of Isolation? Reverse all progress so you can live in your localized, nationalized utopia? No, friends, I am not claiming that globalism is a utopia, but no, your isolationist regression is not the answer to the flaws that plague the current global order.
So this is globalism; the world we live in. Why, then, are so many people disillusioned with the globalist ideology if it is after all the status quo? Well, it’s precisely that, because it is the status quo.
The Elite Global Order
Although globalism has brought us closer together than we have ever been, it has also presented opportunities for the upper class to expand its influence beyond the national sphere. This status quo has birthed a new class of international elites, who find their hands occupied in all kinds of international policy, ranging from economic to military policy. They are the true beneficiaries of this global system.
For all intents and purposes, the elite are the people with national and international de facto power. Think of Forbes most powerful people, Times 100 most influential people, or the World Economic Forum’s 3,000 attendees when I say “elites.” Obviously, details are clandestine, the elite are elusive, but generally they are people who hold sway and influence in international or national decision making.
This great power entrusted to, or frankly held by the international elite is in conjunction a blessing and a curse. Though they hold unprecedented power in protecting human rights and enacting policy progress, they hold sway in sparking bloody conflict and exploiting native peoples as well. And, really, do they put their influence to good use?
Many on all sides call this tyrannical, but really it is a culmination of human progress. There is a gamble to be made when depending on the conscience of the internationally ultra-rich, but anarchy is the only other option.
Pressure from thinkers like Peterson and activists like Thunberg is one of the tools with which to keep the international elite in check, and ensure that they exercise their power without violating the wider interests of the planet, and maybe even, coercing them into serving it. In truth, the bogeymen that are the global elite are not so powerful when the people already approach them with skepticism unparalleled in dose to anything we have seen in modern history.
Activism and Globalism
Speaking of Thunberg, the international elite are often criticized for their slow-to-act approach on matters of climate change and global warming. They are also criticized by the likes of Peterson for their “tyrannical” approach in enacting controversial climate policy. So what’s the truth? Are the elite inactive or tyrannical? Stagnant or revolutionary?
The facts
Since Peterson narrowed his scope to the Climate Question, I will take it as a case study of globalist action, let’s look at the data to draw some conclusions. Bear in mind, that the regulations presented are regulations widely considered “Globalist” policies. Not enough to please the activists, but more than enough to enrage conservatives.
- According to the 2018 Policy Brief by Smart Prosperity Institute, a national research network and policy think tank based at the University of Ottawa, costs of environmental regulations are often overestimated by at least double, and sometimes by a factor of 10 or more.
- A 2017 draft report to Congress from the White House estimated that the 2015 annual costs of EPA regulations were between $54.1 to $64.8 billion, while benefits were estimated to be between $195.8 to
$705.7 billion per year. - The biennial Survey of Environmental Protection Expenditures estimates the total cost of upkeep of environmental regulation in Canada. In a damning 2014 report, expenditures on environmental regulation represented 4–5% of total capital expenditures for mining, quarrying, and oil and gas industries.
It is clear that regulation is not a free endeavor and someone has to pay what is known as the “compliance cost,” the cost of complying with the environmental regulation in place. This cost can be directly relegated to consumers with an increase in prices, or it can be absorbed by the industries themselves without reflecting on the consumer.
In all cases, this is a cause of economic hurt for a variety of industries. Yet, environmental activists argue that these measures are scarcely sufficient, and stricter regulations are a necessary evil to save the green planet.
What many of these activists seem to overlook is that self-sustaining regulation is the only type of regulation that can be economically and financially feasible in our societies. If a piece of regulatory legislation is costing the government more than it is benefiting the people (or the environment) then this regulation is not only a mere financial deficit but also a direct mismanagement of taxpayer money.
A classical success story of sensible climate legislation is British Columbia’s Carbon Tax. This tax was introduced in 2008 as $10/tonne of carbon and reached $30/tonne of carbon. Until 2018, this tax was entirely revenue neutral, with proceeds invested in cutting personal and corporate income taxes, along with tax-credits for households of lower income.
An analysis published in the Journal of Resource, Energy and Environmental Economics concludes that 40% of households (all from lower income deciles) were estimated to have benefited financially thanks to the carbon tax in the years 2008–2012 (the years in which the study took place). Moreover, this same policy cut down carbon emissions in the province by 5–15%.
Still, some Davos elites remain skeptical of carbon taxes. Most corporations however, seem to agree that there will be a global carbon tax sooner rather than later, the question is how soon?
What environmentalists say
Environmentalists typically laud the decrease in emissions, but they fail to see the bombshell social implications of this policy. If similar policies can be passed to benefit the poorest and simultaneously benefit the environment, then it is an acceptable way forward. However, it is unacceptable to make the poor pay the premium in compliance costs for environmental regulations, even if it is for the “greater good.”
I am sure since they care so much about the environment, and have this much money on their hands to lobby the likes of the World Economic Forum, they surely can cover for the thousands of food insecure children in the Congo.
What Conservatives Say
Children in the Congo are definitely not the conservative concern though. That would be the preservation of a deregulated free market. Meekly, conservatives make the appeal that regulation and government spending comes at the expense of businesses and the welfare of the economy. They say, we ought to deregulate the economy and decrease public spending in order to curtail inflation. Practically, proceeds from carbon tax go to cover tax cuts for businesses and corporations; thus, making the policy appealing to both conservatives and environmentalists alike.
In truth, conservatives must adapt to a rapidly changing political environment where climate policy is not anymore a fringe progressive idea, but a widely accepted necessity.
We were talking about globalism?
I am sure, dear reader, you now ask of yourself, how exactly does this lengthy dive into environmental policy affect our conversation about globalism?
Studying the climate crisis gives you a glimpse of what global action (or lack thereof) can accomplish, which is to say, a lot. This case study can just as easily be applied to human rights or international warfare. In which case global action tends to be viciously thrashed for its inhumanity.
What you must understand about this hyper-connectivity that globalism stands for, is that it has infinitely facilitated conversations about key issues. Yes, international action is difficult to achieve, but when it is, humanity can accomplish powerful things. This power in the global leads me to conclude that for all their self-aggrandizing opulence and hypocritical luxury, the elite at the World Economic Forum act in goodwill albeit a bit too lax.
In the words of W.E.F. attendee and former U.S. Treasury Department official Tony Fratto: “Yes, it’s expensive and they’re spending money and having parties and you can hear the jewelry jangling. But it is people who are committed to trying to elevate standards of living and expand rights and opportunities for people.”
The question of whether globalism has served well as a global order is a subjective one, really.
As demonstrated by Jordan B. Peterson, fear of unified global action turning into tyranny is very common and perfectly rational. From matters that struggle to gain widespread support as the Climate Crisis to issues that ought to have garnered universal support as the recent pandemic, there will always be resistance to globalist responses. Here’s the Peterson video from earlier.
Still, if it weren’t for steadfast international cooperation during the pandemic, and the eventual availability of vaccines across the world (thanks again to the Globalized Economy), life would have not gone back to normal.
Conclusion
To nicely conclude this piece, the globalists which are so feared by conservatives for being totalitarian are not worth fearing. If it is the elite luxury which you criticize then you are right to point out the hypocrisy and inaction. When it comes to globalism as the trend of becoming more interconnected in the vast web of human society through economic, environmental, or humanitarian ties, then I must voice my support of globalism.
Per the Washington Post, “During the lifetime of the forum, says author and political scientist Ian Bremmer, globalism created incredible wealth, buoyed life expectancy, broadened access to education, lifted droves out of poverty.”
It is true, and my hope remains that globalism when held to account by the people through their activism, and to a lesser extent their democratically elected representatives, will hold the rich to their obligation in fostering global peace, security, and prosperity.
Hey, you made it! Thank you for reading the article through to the very end. This article was a blast to research and write. I’ve heard way too much opposition to globalism that I felt the need to pitch in for what our current world order has achieved in its time in place without disregarding the terrible atrocities it has brewed. Also, I don’t mean to hate on Jordan Peterson. The man has my respect.
Please do consider highlighting and discussing in the comments. Share and clap too if you like!
