If I was to characterize the current Democrat Party in a single word, that word would be HATE. Ever since Hillary Clinton characterized half of the supporters of candidate Donald Trump as “a basket of deplorables”, everyone so labeled seems to be the subject of passionate hatred and disdain by those who feel that Clinton was denied the presidency in 2016. The hatred seems only to get more passionate as the Democrat Party tries and tries and tries to take down President Trump with failure after failure after failure. It may be tempting to hate the haters in return, but that is characteristically not what Trump and his supporters do. Trump has been termed a “media hate figure” with its crazed followers hating his supporters as much as the man himself. The fact that Trump is such an odious figure for millions of Americans should arouse suspicion in and of itself.
It's not just ardent supports of Trump who express suspicion over such extreme negative reaction, but there are millions of liberals, progressives, Democrats, and even Never-Trumpers and socialists who have seen through the establishment’s programmatic hatred, despite (or perhaps because of) the coordinated loathing coming from every quarter—entertainment, academia, corporations, politicians, and all mainstream media, online and offline.
Trump loyalists will never abandon this bull in the china shop, for above all things he has exposed the Democrat versus Republican, Right versus Left, liberal versus conservative paradigms as, if not obsolete shams, then at least models that have lost most of their dialectic vitality. They remain real and represent important differences, but they are overshadowed by a new political polarity, worthy of urgent and vigorous discussion — globalism versus nationalism.
Before Trump, the globalist agenda crept relentlessly forward under the radar. Issues that now can be framed explicitly as globalist versus nationalist—immigration, trade, foreign policy, even climate change—found deceptive expression when shoehorned into the obsolete paradigms.
“It suited the uni-party establishment to engage in phony, ostensibly partisan bickering to keep up appearances. It suited them to pretend that immigration and “free” trade bestowed unambiguous global economic benefits, while claiming that to oppose it was economically ignorant and “racist.” It was convenient to pretend ceaseless foreign interventions were based on moral imperatives, while silencing the opposition as “isolationists.” It was easy to get away with promoting climate change policies based on supposedly indisputable scientific evidence, while stigmatizing opponents as deniers,” in the words of Edward Ring.
Trump's Copernican breakthrough was that he dared to draw attention to the stealthy advance of the globalists by painting a distinction for all to see: If you believe in open borders, free movement of capital and jobs, and a restrictive international climate agenda, then you are a globalist. If you do not, then you are a nationalist. It turns out that the vast majority of us are nationalists in principle, even if not by political persuasion.
The problem with globalism is not only that it destroys cultural identity, but it does not work, either economically or environmentally. It is an epic disaster, unfolding in slow motion. If globalism isn’t stopped, it will engulf the world in war and misery. Donald Trump's focused intent is to make sure more and more people understand this. It is not just conservatives lining up behind Mr. Trump. There are liberals, progressives, and socialists who get it as well. They see how their lives are being destroyed. They see through the platitudes, they see the hypocrisy. They can tell that globalism is not working. They’re looking for new ideas that work for everyone.
Donald Trump may have brought attention to globalism's aggressive agenda and been a catalyst for the accelerated nationalist movement worldwide, but the ideals of nationalism transcend him. It is not a new idea to simply acknowledge the practical reality of borders, language, culture, and history, and the ongoing right of citizens to determine their own destiny and compete in the world. Why is it that to the establishment in America and throughout western democracies “globalism” is still held up as an ideal and the inevitable destiny of humanity? Why can’t that inevitability be restricted to the technical advances of globalization in communications, transportation, trade, and finance without also requiring a surrender of national sovereignty? Why can’t nationalism be compassionate, benevolent, economically enlightened, and inclusive? Nationalism can be all those good things. And it can be a model for world peace and prosperity as well.