We’re witnessing the death of Left vs. Right, says the Economist magazine. Now there’s a new political divide: Open vs. Closed.
The magazine uses as Exhibit A the current presidential election, in which the battle lines have been defined (at least partially) not by the typical conservative/liberal paradigm but by “closed” free-trade skeptics — Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders — and the supposedly “open” Hillary Clinton, whom the Economist happily labels a globalist and even more happily supports. Exhibit B comprises Britain’s Brexiteers and other European patriotic movements, which, of course, the magazine also labels “closed.”
Now, the Left/Right paradigm was always insufficient. “Left” and “Right” are relative political terms originating with the French Revolution, at which time “leftists” were republicans (change agents) and “rightists” monarchists (status-quo defenders). And to this day leftists stand for changing the status quo and rightists for preserving it; thus, as the status quo changes, so do the actual ideological positions of the Left and Right. Unfortunately, the Economist presents us with an Open/Closed model far more simplistic and silly than the Left/Right paradigm.
Calling the “victories for closed-world types [i.e., patriots] … the gravest risk to the free world since communism” and stating “nothing matters more than countering it [their movement],” the Economist serves up an overwrought article that could only even begin to make sense if we accept a false dilemma: the choice between a totally open or totally closed society. As the magazine writes, “free trade and openness to foreigners [i.e., immigration] enrich societies.” But is so-called “free trade” ever totally free? More significantly, are trade and immigration necessarily joined at the hip?
The Economist makes its case by creating a straw man: The patriotic efforts are “closed”-society movements of closed-minded people opposed to immigration and trade. Yet this simply isn’t true. While trade has been a major issue in our American campaign, Trump rose to the fore railing against illegal migration and would not be the GOP nominee today had that issue not resonated; moreover, say what you will about his vision, Trump isn’t against trade — he merely wants to negotiate what he views as smarter trade deals. Likewise, the Brexit and other patriotic European movements have been sparked primarily by nation-rending Third World immigration. The patriots aren’t opposed to trade — only to trading away their culture.
In reality, the globalist Economist reveals its side as the radical one, and this gets at the big lie, the grand deception: While these globalists prattle on about economic health and trade, they were never just about trade. Had they been, Trump, the Brexiteers, Marine Le Pen, and the other Western patriots wouldn’t be rising to prominence. Rather, the globalists insisted, and still insist, on conflating the (often lopsided) exchange of goods with the very lopsided exchange of people.
As to this, these globalists endlessly tout the supposed benefits of immigration-induced diversity for Western nations but never for Japan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, or China. Moreover, when millions of foreigners (ethnic Chinese) flood into Tibet or a primitive Amazonian tribe is overwhelmed by outsiders, globalist types may warn of demographic/cultural genocide. But when the same happens to a Western nation? Then they brand it “multiculturalism.”
Of course, trade in people is not at all necessary for trade in goods. We can import rice but not beef if we suspect the latter may be contaminated; likewise, we can import rice and beef but not people if we suspect they may be contaminated with a destructive world view. Moreover, everyone — even the globalists — draw these lines. Many things, such as the importation of absinthe, firearms, and agricultural products, are banned or restricted. And the leftists in Britain had no problem banning talk-show host Michael Savage and many other individuals from entering the U.K.
The point is not just that there’s no such thing as completely “free trade.” It’s that the Open/Closed portrayal is propaganda, a false dichotomy designed to lend illusory high ground to the globalist side while demonizing their opponents. It’s much as with those touting their “open-mindedness”; such people certainly aren’t open to being closed-minded or even open to individual views they consider such, which makes them closed-minded with regard to those matters. Similarly, globalists aren’t totally open to all products and people any more than patriots are completely closed to them. Globalists’ real gripe is that patriots aren’t open to their model of control. And why should they be? You might remember the quip about not having a mind so open that your brain falls out; well, patriots don’t want a country so open that their culture falls out.
And the Economist contradicts itself. It writes in defense of its globalist model, “The multilateral system of institutions, rules and alliances, led by America, has underpinned global prosperity for seven decades.” Yet for much of that time there was neither an EU nor culture-rending immigration. It writes, “A world of wall-builders would be poorer and more dangerous…. Britain seems to be heading for a recession, thanks to the prospect of Brexit. The European Union is tottering … the EU could collapse.” And this is a bad thing? The most competitive economy in not just Europe but the world is Switzerland’s — and that nation is relatively insular and was never part of the EU.
Immigration isn’t necessary for robust economies; it is necessary for robust efforts at globalist consolidation of power. Why did the Romans scatter the Jews throughout Europe? Why did the communists move populations around and intermix them? It’s because there’s strength in numbers — but only in united numbers. Break down the group cohesiveness of an area and create a “multicultural” mix, and it will no longer resist your domination. Divide and you can conquer.
Patriot movements aren’t closed to trade. And here’s a message for the globalists: You created Brexit. You created Donald Trump. You sparked the patriot movements. And if all you desire is robust trade, don’t poison the well by linking it with immigration policies (as well as other policies such as regulation from Brussels) guaranteed to destroy sovereignty, nations, and cultures.
Yet the globalists do because their agenda goes far beyond trade. Andrew Neather, a former adviser to ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, tipped their hand in 2009 when admitting that one of the goals of the mass immigration authored by his Labour Party was “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” And Secretary of State John Kerry told college graduates earlier this year that they should prepare for a “borderless” world. So we should be not just open to trade, but also open to the destruction of nationhood and Western civilization.
And who, again, are the radicals here?