I must admit I was bothered by Colbert’s routine last week mocking President Trump’s “I’m a nationalist, not a globalist” comment during a recent speech, because equating that to National Socialism, or the Nazis, isn’t really accurate.<\/p>\n
Because he’s comparing “nationalism” to “globalists,” this is about international trade. It’s best to understand what’s going on here in order to have effective responses to Trumpists, so let’s break down what Trump said. From<\/a> The New York Times<\/strong><\/em>:<\/p>\n At\u00a0a rally in Houston<\/a>\u00a0on Monday night, he embraced the term as unabashedly as he ever has. \u201cReally, we\u2019re not supposed to use that word,\u201d he told supporters in a nod to the usual political sensibilities that he relishes disrupting. \u201cYou know what I am? I\u2019m a nationalist, O.K.? I\u2019m a nationalist. Nationalist! Use that word! Use that word!\u201d<\/p>\n Asked in the Oval Office on Tuesday why he used that word given its association with racist movements, Mr. Trump professed ignorance of its history but did not back off. \u201cI never heard that theory about being a nationalist,\u201d he said. \u201cI\u2019ve heard them all. But I\u2019m somebody who loves our country.\u201d Undaunted, he added: \u201cI am a nationalist. It\u2019s a word that hasn\u2019t been used too much. Some people use it, but I\u2019m very proud. I think it should be brought back.\u201d …<\/p>\n \u201cRadical Democrats want to turn back the clock\u201d to restore the \u201crule of corrupt, power-hungry globalists,\u201d he said in Houston, where he was campaigning for Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican. \u201cYou know what a globalist is, right? You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can\u2019t have that.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n So are the terms “nationalist” and “globaliist” important in the national conversation? The best way to look at this is to look for absurdities. Trump characterizes himself as a patriot that wants to put the United States first. The implication?<\/p>\n That other Presidents do not.<\/em><\/p>\n If you’re a hyper-partisan, this is sweet, sweet honey. After all, the members of the other tribes are traitors and imbeciles and, hey, they paint stripes on themselves at midnight before ride the Ferris Wheel for the great sacrifice of small children.<\/p>\n Ahem[1]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n But for the rest of us, the great majority of Americans who still buy tickets for the Rationality Train, it should be self-evident that just about all American politicians always put America first[2]<\/sup><\/a>. That some do not perform as well as others may be because of competency or the currents of History, but to suggest that it’s rank treason is damned unlikely.<\/p>\n Therefore, this is a question of strategy. It helps to ask why there are different strategies, and, given the now-obvious limitations of President Trump, particularly in the realm of “trade deficits”, we can come up with an explanaation.<\/p>\n A nationalist believes, or purports to believe, that international trade is a zero-sum game. For every winner, there’s a loser. So you pick a metric, do your measurement, and if, say, the trade balance with some other nation is negative, then you’re losing the “trade war” with that country, and Something Must Be Done.<\/p>\n A “globalist,” for want of a better turn, has progressed beyond the simple and incorrect description of international trade to realize that it’s possible, if not guaranteed, to have both sides win at trade. This is actually quite the natural result that every single private sector person should realize. When you buy salt from the grocery story, or the salt miner, the fact of the matter is that they have too much salt, while you don’t have enough, but you have enough money to afford it, while they need money to continue the business, keep the shareholders happy, etc.<\/p>\n Each comes away relatively happy with the transaction, assuming it’s an honest transaction.<\/p>\n So there’s the thing. Trumpists want to think there’s a winner and a loser for every relationship, and they think America’s not winning – why? Many reasons, from propaganda to being in an industry that’s doing poorly or has a poor outlook.<\/p>\n It’s easier to blame that country across the pond than yourself – or the currents of the global economy.<\/p>\n The globalist sees trade as winners on both sides, if handled properly. They want America to win, too – and to have happy, prosperous winners on the other side as well. Their problem is that can be a hard gig to properly manage, sometimes.<\/p>\n So there’s your definition for the day.\u00a0 I think that’s a little more easy to use effectively than a defective equality to National Socialism. You can just say Trump’s not smart enough to understand international trade’s potential.<\/p>\n <\/a> <\/a> I must admit I was bothered by Colbert’s routine last week mocking President Trump’s “I’m a nationalist, not a globalist” comment during a recent speech, because equating that to National Socialism, or the Nazis, isn’t really accurate. Because he’s comparing “nationalism” to “globalists,” this is about international trade. It’s best \u2026 Continue reading \n
\n
\n1<\/sup> I hyperbolize merely to highlight the absurdity of hyper-partisan thought.<\/p>\n
\n2<\/sup> Some readers, given the behaviors of the current President vis a vis<\/em> the Russians, might question this assertion, but I will let it go in this post in order to advance the argument without distracting, unproven details.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"