Globalisation and
politics
The
new political divide
Farewell, left
versus right. The contest that matters now is open against closed
Jul 30th 2016 | From
the print edition
IS POLITICAL
theatre, America’s party conventions have no parallel. Activists
from right and left converge to choose their nominees and celebrate
conservatism (Republicans) and progressivism (Democrats). But this
year was different, and not just because Hillary Clinton became the
first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. The
conventions highlighted a new political faultline: not between left
and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump,
the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his
usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,”
he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders
wing of the Democratic Party.
America is not
alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who
argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise
nations should build walls to keep it out. Such arguments have helped
elect an ultranationalist government in Hungary and a Polish one that
offers a Trumpian mix of xenophobia and disregard for constitutional
norms. Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left
now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are
in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries. So far,
Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has been the
anti-globalists’ biggest prize: the vote in June to abandon the
world’s most successful free-trade club was won by cynically
pandering to voters’ insular instincts, splitting mainstream
parties down the middle.
News that
strengthens the anti-globalisers’ appeal comes almost daily. On
July 26th two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State slit the
throat of an 85-year-old Catholic priest in a church near Rouen. It
was the latest in a string of terrorist atrocities in France and
Germany. The danger is that a rising sense of insecurity will lead to
more electoral victories for closed-world types. This is the gravest
risk to the free world since communism. Nothing matters more than
countering it.
Higher walls, lower
living standards
Start by remembering
what is at stake. The multilateral system of institutions, rules and
alliances, led by America, has underpinned global prosperity for
seven decades. It enabled the rebuilding of post-war Europe, saw off
the closed world of Soviet communism and, by connecting China to the
global economy, brought about the greatest poverty reduction in
history.
A world of
wall-builders would be poorer and more dangerous. If Europe splits
into squabbling pieces and America retreats into an isolationist
crouch, less benign powers will fill the vacuum. Mr Trump’s
revelation that he might not defend America’s Baltic allies if they
are menaced by Russia was unfathomably irresponsible (see article).
America has sworn to treat an attack on any member of the NATO
alliance as an attack on all. If Mr Trump can blithely dishonour a
treaty, why would any ally trust America again? Without even being
elected, he has emboldened the world’s troublemakers. Small wonder
Vladimir Putin backs him. Even so, for Mr Trump to urge Russia to
keep hacking Democrats’ e-mails is outrageous.
The wall-builders
have already done great damage. Britain seems to be heading for a
recession, thanks to the prospect of Brexit. The European Union is
tottering: if France were to elect the nationalist Marine Le Pen as
president next year and then follow Britain out of the door, the EU
could collapse. Mr Trump has sucked confidence out of global
institutions as his casinos suck cash out of punters’ pockets. With
a prospective president of the world’s largest economy threatening
to block new trade deals, scrap existing ones and stomp out of the
World Trade Organisation if he doesn’t get his way, no firm that
trades abroad can approach 2017 with equanimity.
In defence of
openness
Countering the
wall-builders will require stronger rhetoric, bolder policies and
smarter tactics. First, the rhetoric. Defenders of the open world
order need to make their case more forthrightly. They must remind
voters why NATO matters for America, why the EU matters for Europe,
how free trade and openness to foreigners enrich societies, and why
fighting terrorism effectively demands co-operation. Too many friends
of globalisation are retreating, mumbling about “responsible
nationalism”. Only a handful of politicians—Justin Trudeau in
Canada, Emmanuel Macron in France—are brave enough to stand up for
openness. Those who believe in it must fight for it.
They must also
acknowledge, however, where globalisation needs work. Trade creates
many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the
best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is
to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while
alleviating its side-effects. Let goods and investment flow freely,
but strengthen the social safety-net to offer support and new
opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed. To manage
immigration flows better, invest in public infrastructure, ensure
that immigrants work and allow for rules that limit surges of people
(just as global trade rules allow countries to limit surges in
imports). But don’t equate managing globalisation with abandoning
it.
As for tactics, the
question for pro-open types, who are found on both sides of the
traditional left-right party divide, is how to win. The best approach
will differ by country. In the Netherlands and Sweden, centrist
parties have banded together to keep out nationalists. A similar
alliance defeated the National Front’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in the
run-off for France’s presidency in 2002, and may be needed again to
beat his daughter in 2017. Britain may yet need a new party of the
centre.
In America, where
most is at stake, the answer must come from within the existing party
structure. Republicans who are serious about resisting the
anti-globalists should hold their noses and support Mrs Clinton. And
Mrs Clinton herself, now that she has won the nomination, must
champion openness clearly, rather than equivocating. Her choice of
Tim Kaine, a Spanish-speaking globalist, as her running-mate is a
good sign. But the polls are worryingly close. The future of the
liberal world order depends on whether she succeeds.
From the print
edition: Leaders
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário