Interesting, that's never been my understanding. More refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened.
I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.
Refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened.
That's not what 'globalist' means outside of the fringes. It's certainly not the way the linked article uses it.
Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?
First of all, Breitbart may use a definition like the one I provided, but I think so would the rather more mild-mannered Front Porch Republic[0], which should be noted has contributing members that identify more with the communitarian left than anything right-wing.
As for your suggestion to "just google" it, I decided to take you up on it. The first result I got was a definition from Wordnik:
"A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence."
That seems to match up quite well with the first clause of my definition. Does Steve Bannon own Wordnik or the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language? I doubt it. Wikipedia doesn't really go into detail about specific ideological commitments.
How about the second clause? Well, certainly the phrase "backwards and unenlightened" implies that I perceive globalists as haughty and vain. What of it? I don't think they're evil incarnate. I've met a fair few. They seem decent enough.
Nonetheless, I think that if you believe that national boundaries should go away, and you come from a relatively high educational background (which many globalists seem to) then, in a dispassionate way, "unenlightened" is exactly how you are going to view those who insist on maintain local hegemony based on traditional institutions.
> If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no'
It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies.
"A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." and "Anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments)" do not 'match up'. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game. There is absolutely nothing in the former that implies or suggests a desire for world government. There really isn't any serious mainstream political movement or ideology that really desires a world government and there never has been - this is pure Bircher stuff, never mind Bannon. I am honestly at a loss how you see this as supporting your definition at all.
If you are keen on making up some political ideology full of people who are chomping at the bit to give up national sovereignty and culture, by all means. If you want to call them 'globalists', ok fine, that's your personal definition of 'globalist'. But to pull out a definition that says 'entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere of a state's influence' and declare it equivalent to 'desire for world government', that is just at odds with, I dunno, words, meanings of things, logic.
It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies.
I don't know what any of that means. Misdescribing someone doesn't somehow become right or a virtue simply because you are 'rejecting binary politics and false dichotomies'. It's still plainly and factually wrong.
> "A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." and "Anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments)" do not 'match up'. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game.
Is there a distinction to be made? Sure. Not in the same ballpark? Hardly. Power and influence are zero sum. If one state exerts its influence over the whole globe, the influence remaining to the other states is diminished. Is there a principled limit to the amount of influence to be exerted?
Are there not those who a for the end of immigration restrictions, for the free flow of goods and people between all parts of the globe, and for greater unity in combating poverty, injustice, and global climate change under the auspices of international agencies? Certainly this would involve at least the diminishing of the sovereignty of individual nations, and the accrual of power and influence to those uniting agencies? Understand that I'm not making a value judgement here, just talking about the practical implications of the power dynamics.
A smaller example: is not the logical end state of the EU more or less a single European nation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the EU was more or less modeled on the United States, which originally was a loose confederation of individual sovereign states - but has not been for quite some time.
As borders go down and trade and immigration increase, the desire for a single currency, a single language, and single set of laws and customs increases in order to decrease the friction of trade and increase legibility for policy makers.
> If you are keen on making up some political ideology full of people who are chomping at the bit to give up national sovereignty and culture, by all means.
How about people who desire to unite in common cause with other nations, and embrace multiculturalism? Again, I'm not passing judgement here. I'm just not sure how these policies don't necessarily entail the diminishing of national sovereignty and established local culture.
>> It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies.
> I don't know what any of that means. Misdescribing someone doesn't somehow become right or a virtue simply because you are 'rejecting binary politics and false dichotomies'. It's still plainly and factually wrong.
I was meaning that if your specific misdescription, if taken metaphorically, might be a tool for a Libertarian to explain to those only familiar with the two-party system what it means to be a Libertarian.
Listen, I've looked up globalism liked you ask. I think the distinction between "global influence for a state" and "world hegemony" is merely pragmatics, not principles. I've met many people who earnestly desire a world government. I'm not trying to posit the existence of some conspiracy, but rather talk through the natural endpoint of a highly-integrated global society.
And yet you still claim I'm mis-characterizing globalism without actually telling me what you think globalism is. If you have an actual definition they say it. I promise I won't get on your case. You can count on my reaction being one of three things:
1) I don't see how that differs from what I said
2) I see the distinction between our definitions, but I think mine is more accurate
3) I see that your definition is more accurate than the one I provided
I think if you'd found that the definition of 'globalist' meant 'a person who likes turnips' you'd have written the same lengthy missive explaining how that dietary preference is equivalent to support for world government, possibly based on the self-evident idea that turnip-fancy is zero sum. This isn't argument, it's just throwing around terms with enough coinciding letters to try to reach a pre-determined conclusion/idée fixe. Let's call it a day before you end up having to connect the turnipists to the globular clusterists and the black helicopterists.
I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.