Global Utopian Scoundrels?

This commentary knocks down a free-trade position that is more extreme than the one held by most economists -- it is well understood that globalization is not necessarily utopian for all, there can be costs to some sectors as production is reallocated globally and many of us believe more could be done to help those who are affected during the transition, but even so, and whether economists agree or not, I think the message in this commentary will resonate with many of you:

Save globalisation from radical global utopians, by Barry Lynn, Commentary, Financial Times: Now may hardly seem the time to imagine a more global future, let alone do so with optimism. Most of us are hard pressed just to maintain the illusion that the present system is not breaking down, to deny ... that the grand trade liberalisation project is, at best, on life support. ...

Few outside the US doubt that America’s free-trade system, constructed with such care in the decades after the war, is crumbling fast. The proximate cause is America’s looming bankruptcy. As the ongoing Doha round of world trade negotiations has already proved, the US simply lacks the currency – in the form of believable promises of sustainable access to the US marketplace – to “buy” the next round of trade liberalisation, as Washington has “bought” every round since the 1960s. Clearly no other nation is willing or able to take America’s place.

Yet we will find no better moment ... than today to face up to the two fatal flaws of the radical globalisation project that in the early 1990s came to supplant the more careful trade liberalisation of the postwar era: first, America’s utopian belief that an unregulated “market” would somehow do the work of government; and second, the rise of global companies – especially in the retail and electronics sectors – to fill the power vacuum created by the retreat of the American state from its traditional role managing US trading relationships.

Similarly, there is no better time than now to grasp that the real question is not, as Americans like to frame it, free trade versus protectionism. It is whether the world trading system will be regulated by private companies that are answerable only to the rich and powerful, ... or by states built to assess risk and to be answerable to all citizens.

It would be Pollyannaish to deny that grave dangers abound. ... By far the greatest obstacle to understanding the failings of post-cold-war globalisation is the US’s own utopian ideology. For most of the nation’s history, America was guided by deeply realistic thinking, and idealistic rhetoric was trotted out mainly to clothe ... strategic aims.

But after the fall of the Berlin Wall, in that moment of self-congratulatory euphoria, much of the US’s ruling elite came to believe the rhetoric itself. The result was a uniquely American ... absolute faith in the ability of an all-determining market mechanism to deliver universal prosperity and peace, in perpetuity – which was then hawked abroad with evangelical zeal...

The depth and intensity of America’s trade utopianism becomes more astonishing as time wears on. Look at how the US treats oil politics and you will see the realistic America of old. The nation’s leaders shape an energy policy, they intervene in markets, they invade oil-rich nations. But when it comes to the global trading system, America today operates on an entirely different set of principles. No one dares whisper the words “industrial policy”. No one dares admit the degree to which the trade system is actually manipulated, not by any state but by companies built to straddle many states. No one dares admit the degree to which these companies tend to destroy not merely soft social infrastructure, such as pensions and wages, but basic production infrastructure.

The dangers of this perverse duality in the US mind are extreme. Yet even in America, the fantastic delusion of trade utopianism cannot last – it is neither logically nor physically sustainable. Indeed, as can be seen in the growing willingness of politicians in both parties to engage in xenophobic demagoguery, America’s utopian fever seems to be breaking. This brings us back to the question of whether the nations of the world will, together, take proactive steps to expand an open global system, or will stumble into blind and destructive protectionism.

The biggest reason for hope is the prospect of a reformed, sober US. Once the American mind is exorcised of today’s mechanistic utopianism, the most probable result will be a return to a far more realistic, practical, ethical internationalism. ... America will re-embrace the responsibility of using state power to engineer markets and systems to serve its own people, while ceding to other states far more space to serve their citizens in ways of their own choosing. ...

Utopian universalism is dead. The sooner nations gather to bury its corpse ... the more likely we will be to save globalisation. ...

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

Will the "world trading system . . . be regulated by private companies that are answerable only to the rich and powerful"?

In most economic sectors, I tend to believe that that is, more or less, the case, today, and is the most likely case going forward. Is it a bad thing, for the U.S.? To what extent and in what ways? E.g., Toyota is displacing General Motors in North American auto production -- that seems like as good an outcome as one could hope for. The Chinese company, Lenovo, appears poised to practically "immigrate" to the U.S. Is that bad?

If Mr. Lynn thinks invading Iraq was evidence of "realistic" trade thinking, I shudder to imagine what other alternatives to protectionism he might favor.

I do think it would be useful if someone could conjure up a realistic vision of national purpose, which encompassed continued open trade as a means to improving the general standard of living.

[camille roy]

I think the essential problem is that we are an adolescent nation. Because of a vanity war, and all the vain glory and adolescent strutting that Bush allowed himself, tens of thousands are dead. The core supporters of this drive to war, this monstrosity of a conflict, fancy themselves moral, as in Christian, upright, "heartland" etc. They are convinced of their own righteousness. Have you see any of the conservative Christian backers of this war step forward and address their own failures of judgement? Not a one, that I am aware of. At least there are some neo-cons who are willing to admit they made a mistake. But the religious conservatives! They are not only not reality-based, they are outright dumbass adolescents, infantile in their lack of grasp of rudimentary essentials. Face it: all the reality based conservatives have been driven from power.

Not only this, but the sad truth is that in fact the world does depend on American leadership. Poor world!

I hope that it won't millions of dead for American to Grow UP!

[save_the_rustbelt]

At the risk of being repetitive...

Change is inevitable.

How we manage through the process determines the outcome.

So far the Bush/Clinton/Bush approach has not worked, even though I think it has had the general concensus backing of economists.

Let's slow down before we get too far down the road.

[anne]

"Few outside the US doubt that America’s free-trade system, constructed with such care in the decades after the war, is crumbling fast. The proximate cause is America’s looming bankruptcy."

Huh? Whatever is this essay about? Where is the free-trade system, anyway? What is crumbling, for trade surely is not? How does America go bankrupt, looming or not? Where are the utopians, and utopian about what? Oh, well :)

[Greg]

Hmm... Actually, this seems to be setting up a straw man between Wilsonian naivite and Kissingerian cynicism, and suggesting that the current administration is lacking the former and needs a swift dose of the latter. This misses the point that however naive Wilson may have been and however cynical Kissinger had been, at least they had some idea what they were working toward, and both had two neurons capable of firing simultaneously. The problem with Bush II isn't an excess of ideological enthusiasm, but an excess of total blinkered incompetence.

[jm]

Although Asian mercantilism is massively distorting the world economy, any imaginable course of action other than waiting for them to come to their senses and abandon their currency pegs of their own free will is almost certain to be even more destructive.

But I suspect that we will soon have see actions that rhyme with the history of the early 1900's.

That anyone with a knowledge of history can foresee that the results will be disastrous will make no difference.

[Dustin]

If most economists wouldnt agree with this, why post it up? You admit the piece is attacking a strawman, and it's conclusions would not be agreed with my most economists and yet for some reason you felt the need to post it. Is this desire to feed the confused, angry emotions of trade luddites & others of the "stop the world from moving" wing of the left with vitriol soaked nonsense you yourself wouldn't even edorsea measure to please readership? Doesen't sound very intellectually responsible to me.

[Mark Thoma]

Why is it irresponsible to point out pieces that I disagree with, then put them up for discussion so that people like you can respond to those in agreement with the commentary? Not sure I see that logic. I think it's better to respond than to leave things sitting there with no comment at all.

[reason]

Mark,
good answer.

"... mechanistic utopianism" should surely read messianic?

The only thing I really DO agree with here a tendency towards idealism (not utopianism) in America that is a problem for international negotiations. Ideological purity seems to have a high value in the US, something that I think is rather unique to it in the Western world. Maybe it comes because the big don't have to learn to compromise.

America may not be going bankrupt (if so then plenty of other countries are in a worse state), but I worry that lots of Americans are heading towards bankrupcy. That I think is a big problem for the world given the size of the US economy. Expansion via private debt seems a risky strategy to me, particularly with a reserve currency. I like the monopoly version better, pass go and collect $2. Spread that money around.

[anne]

This essay is thoroughly responsible intellectually, however much I do not care for what I take to be the meaning. As for Mark Thoma, we could not be more fortunate in an educator even from the birdless wilds of Oregon :) Quite a gem of an educator.

[NinjaPlease]

Unfortunately, the only thing that cures ideology is apparently violence.

Because in the past Ideology trumps all else, life, freedom, people's rights, Ideology has always come first, be it Communism, Facism, Religious Extremism, Fanaticism, Merchantilism, Capitalism.

The Great Leap Forward is coming for us in the form of free trade.

The only thing that changed the minds of the ideologists was a tank, musket or sword that turned it into a big red stain.

[anne]

Language is important, and I could not regret our fiscal deterioration more, but I complain about essays in which our economic condition seems intentionally distorted for the sake of effect. There are terribly serious problems that are passed over while the essayist wishes simply for drama. This essay is useful for us, though I may complain of what seems a curious lack of substance when reading the essay closely.

[anne]

Here is another manner a moral criticism, specific and deeply touching all:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/29/opinion/29herbert.html

May 29, 2006

Consider the Living
By BOB HERBERT

Pretty soon this war in Iraq will have lasted as long as our involvement in World War II, with absolutely no evidence of any sort of conclusion in sight.

The point of Memorial Day is to honor the service and the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in the nation's wars. But I suggest that we take a little time today to consider the living.

Look around and ask yourself if you believe that stability or democracy in Iraq — or whatever goal you choose to assert as the reason for this war — is worth the life of your son or your daughter, or your husband or your wife, or the co-worker who rides to the office with you in the morning, or your friendly neighbor next door.

Before you gather up the hot dogs and head out to the barbecue this afternoon, look in a mirror and ask yourself honestly if Iraq is something you would be willing to die for.

There is no shortage of weaselly politicians and misguided commentators ready to tell us that we can't leave Iraq — we just can't. Chaos will ensue. Maybe even a civil war. But what they really mean is that we can't leave as long as the war can continue to be fought by other people's children, and as long as we can continue to put this George W. Bush-inspired madness on a credit card.

Start sending the children of the well-to-do to Baghdad, and start raising taxes to pay off the many hundreds of billions that the war is costing, and watch how quickly this tragic fiasco is brought to an end.

At an embarrassing press conference last week, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain looked for all the world like a couple of hapless schoolboys who, while playing with fire, had set off a conflagration that is still raging out of control. Their recklessness has so far cost the lives of nearly 2,500 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, many of them children.

Among the regrets voiced by the president at the press conference was his absurd challenge to the insurgents in 2003 to "bring 'em on." But Mr. Bush gave no hint as to when the madness might end.

How many more healthy young people will we shovel into the fires of Iraq before finally deciding it's time to stop? How many dead are enough?

There is no good news coming out of Iraq. Sabrina Tavernise of The Times recently wrote: "In the latest indication of the crushing hardships weighing on the lives of Iraqis, increasing portions of the middle class seem to be doing everything they can to leave the country."

The middle class is all but panicked at the inability of the Iraqi government or American forces to quell the relentless violence. Ms. Tavernise quoted a businessman who is planning to move to Jordan: "We're like sheep at a slaughter farm."

Iraqis continue to be terrorized by kidnappers, roving death squads and, in a term perhaps coined by Mr. Bush, "suiciders."

The American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, acknowledged last week that even at this late date, there are parts of western Iraq that are not controlled by American forces, but rather "are under the control of terrorists and insurgents."

Now we get word that U.S. marines may have murdered two dozen Iraqis in cold blood last November.

No one should be surprised that such an atrocity could occur....

[anne]

There is what American moral essaying is about, but it is not a utopian fancy to suggest that we turn away from war, from such a war. This is Martin Luther King, who was not a utopian thinker but a pragmatist after the manner of John Rawls or William James or Kant....

[anne]

Thinking of Martin Luther King and American idealism or morality, imagine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/asia/30beijing.html?ex=1306641600&en=66cded5b0bcefc92&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

May 30, 2006

Found in Translation: King's 'Dream' Plays in Beijing
By HOWARD W. FRENCH

BEIJING — For months now, Caitrin McKiernan has gone from place to place in this city to ask Chinese people an unlikely question: What does the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. mean to you?

The questions don't end there, either. In most of these gatherings, she gets far more specific, burrowing into the history and tactics of the American civil rights movement.

"Who knows what the Birmingham bus boycott was?" she asked a group of university students in May. "What is a sit-in?" "What's the meaning of separate but equal?" At the level of language, every one of those terms presents a formidable challenge, even to a woman who has spent years in this country and speaks fluent Chinese.

But language is not the half of it. How can one translate Dr. King's actions into the realm of ideas for an audience in a city notably hostile to protests? How does one convey to Chinese people the meaning of the life of a man who died fighting for civil rights nearly 40 years ago?

The answers may have begun to emerge since the production at the National Theater on Sunday of the play "Passages of Martin Luther King Jr." by the noted King scholar Clayborne Carson and based on the life and words of the American civil rights leader. Ms. McKiernan, who studied under Mr. Carson at Stanford and is the play's producer, was prepared for any kind of audience response, from deeply moved to completely stumped and anything in between.

But the responses of Ms. McKiernan's discussion groups and the reactions of her cast suggested that Dr. King's message would hit home here, that Chinese viewers would see parallels to divisions in their own society. That prospect poses a thorny problem for the government, which, on one hand, has endorsed Dr. King's work as a blow for the class struggle and against American imperialism, but on the other insists that racism and discrimination are purely problems of decadent Western societies.

The government, however, gave the production its imprimatur, and permission to play at the prestigious theater.

A distinct possibility was that the universality of Dr. King's message and the causes he fought for would completely escape Chinese viewers.

But the reactions Ms. McKiernan has heard so far suggest otherwise, and give her reason to hope that her dream of building a bridge between the societies by talking about peaceful struggle and universal rights has some hold on reality.

During one recent discussion at a Beijing university, after viewing excerpts from the PBS documentary "Eyes on the Prize," students explored their feelings on the discrimination they discern between migrant workers and more affluent residents of the country's eastern cities. Others spoke about the inferior position of women in their society or of being treated badly during visits overseas or the predominance of American power in the world.

"The significance of Martin Luther King for me is that we have to have the courage to stand up for our legitimate benefits," said a Chinese student who identified himself as Paul.

Ms. McKiernan has avoided lecturing her audiences, or even steering the discussions. "I don't want this to be about what happened in the U.S. in some past year," she said. "I want this to be about what discrimination is, and how it relates to your life."

The talks have usually begun with an explanation of how Dr. King's life came to mean so much to her, a Californian who first came to this city at 16 as an exchange student and had to struggle to overcome cultural differences with her host family. Then she studied Dr. King in college, and she has had him on her mind ever since.

"I realized that King was this great bridge between the United States and China," Ms. McKiernan said. "China is an emerging superpower, and the U.S. is the superpower, and King is someone that both sides believe in, and can be the starting point for a dialogue about how we wish the world to be."

Then she sighed, and said, "But it's the hardest thing I've ever done." ...

[anne]

Imagine a China in which university students consider the life and thoughts of Martin Luther King, and consider then whether we are spending the necessary time to consider, especially at this time, especially after such a memorial day.

[camille roy]

I see Anne's point above, that America's economic condition in the editorial is being inaccurately characterized for effect, but I also think the editorial has a point of substance which is not being addressed much in the comments.

To wit: American free market ideology results in foreign political and trade policy which is not reality based. This is a critique of free market ideology, period. It is not a call to get rid of globalization, to dump trade pacts, etc.

This writer does not believe in a naturalistic free market in which global development and properity result from letting corporate actors do whatever they want.

He believes in a world where the fundamental actors are nation states, not corporate entities.

It seems to me that he is right about this basic view. Globalization today is about reducing barriers so that multi-nationals can make pots of money. It is increasing inequality everywhere.

Before you disparage the real politic of the Cold War consider how it turned out. We should be so lucky!

It seems to me that with the current ideology trumping reality (not only in Washington, but among most mainstream economists) international stresses are only increasing.

[anne]

Ah, Camille is clever :) I would only add that there is more state interference or control of trade than indicated, and if the interference is for the sake of corporate well-being to the expense of labor or the environment, than we need to address a corrective as Camille often does. Then, I appreciate the essay more.

[knzn]

With respect to trade, it is absurd to talk about national interest as if the citizens of a nation shared a common interest. I can’t think of any trade provision which would not produce both winners and losers in the U.S.. National interest is an arbitrary construction depending on which groups have the most political power.

[anne]

Well yes, but in a properly working democracy the more influential groups seek to ameliorate adverse influences on the least influential. We are at our best a negotiating society, though too seldom at our best currently. Trade policy should be formed as open-ended and meant to be continually amended for the inevitable but unpredictable dislocations caused.

[calmo]

Dustin on intellectual responsibility distracts me, irresponsibly...maybe not. (Yes, I'm sure at this point, I should advise you to spend your time better by paging down.)[Even the parenthetical device will not soften the blow that you will just be wasting your time here.] You have been warned, you warnables. (You others need remedial warning instruction.)
But Dustin does not page down. No, he bites (like this) and chomps (not chews --like this) adding undeniable spice (I like the taste of so many other's bits here too.) and receives an immediate reply from Mark (Ok, so you think that's too friendly and only a stone's throw from Betsy's 'Dear Mark', but I did avoid 'Dr. Thoma' and the ever-so-economical and irreverent 'MT'.) [Irreverence is so important people , to be avoided only rarely.] And from me. [What could be more important than my time people?]
From Dustin:
Is this desire to feed the confused, angry emotions of trade luddites & others of the "stop the world from moving" wing of the left with vitriol soaked nonsense you yourself wouldn't even endorse measure to please readership?
I want to save the Luddites at all costs of course, but I do want to scrub (as always --you wouldn't believe my housekeeping skills!) the place to make sure that the "vitriol soaked nonsense" has not contaminated the medicinal soup intended to put us back on The Path. The path purportedly endorsed by Mark (and possibly the majority of economists who never fail to consider their peers, no matter their affection for Luddites) and [fed to] the confused, angry emotions of trade luddites & others of the "stop the world from moving" wing of the left (That would be us, people.)[I warned you. I even warned the unwarnables (the others)]
Dustin, it could be this simple: This smells fishy.

[Lord]

National interest is an arbitrary construction depending on which groups have the most political power.

The national interest is that of private companies that are answerable only to the rich and powerful? I am sure they would like you to believe so. Even politicans are too cynical to believe this, as they do their bidding anyway.

[knzn]

anne: “in a properly working democracy the more influential groups seek to ameliorate adverse influences on the least influential” Has any nation ever come close to this ideal? You seem to be suggesting that democracy isn’t very different from aristocracy: it works not because the interests of the less fortunate are represented in government but because the nobles feel obliged to promote those interests.

[knzn]

Lord: “The national interest is that of private companies that are answerable only to the rich and powerful?” I’m saying there is no such thing as the national interest, just the interests of different political groups. For example, steel tariffs were in the interest of one powerful political constituency. I wouldn’t say they were against the national interest, but I certainly wouldn’t say they were in it. (They were almost certainly against the majority interest, which is one way to define the national interest, but I think a rather shallow one.)

I don’t object to the role of national governments as a potential countervailing force against powerful private economic interests, but I don’t think we should live under the delusion that there is one specific public interest that a government will or should represent.

[anne]

Nice criticism :) Though I am not satisfied and working on the idea, I will change "in a properly working democracy the more influential groups seek to ameliorate adverse influences on the least influential" by adding the word "must."

Then, in a properly working democracy the more influential groups must seek to ameliorate adverse influences on the least influential. Why must they? Because a healthy democracy has evolved power checks and balances in time, where majority and minority influences are subject to necessary negotiation on policy formation, which is often the case for us and which negotiation must be preserved and strengthened.

[camille roy]

knzn: "National interest is an arbitrary construction depending on which groups have the most political power."

Arbitrary how? Trully arbitrary, or are you saying that it varies with who has political power? If the latter is what you mean, drop 'arbitrary'.

I have read your anti-democracy opinions before, and I'd like to understand your notion of political power in more detail. (I think that this is an fundamental issue wrt globalization, free trade, etc, so I don't consider this a digression. Clearly, if democracy is not something to be taken seriously, there is no reason to regulate trade, environment, labor etc. in the public interest.)

Political power: do you think that political power is only available to elite groups? In the American democracy, do you believe that non-elites have no power whatsoever? If they do have power, how do they exercise it?

If American democracy is ineffective in giving representation and power to non-elite groups, is this a fundamental failing, in that such representation and power is not possible, or a problem in execution? If it is a problem in execution, would you argue we shouldn't bother with it? Or should we try to advance democracy for all? Why?

If you argue that non-elite groups in the American democracy cannot have political power, would you make the same argument re: other democracies, e.g France, Sweden, German (or any democracies that most would agree function well).

Lastly, do you disagree with the notion of democracy as an ideal, and if so, why?

[John Konop]

Mark,

As much as Mark and I have been debating , I will be the first one to point out he does try to show all sides of the issue. That is why I think he has a diverse group of people reading his blog.

All that said , this argument always goes to extremes form pro-globalization guys like Mark. When you point out the detail flaws and results of the trade deals you are labeled an isolationist or racist.What many of us are saying is we want trade , but not at the expense of the American middle class, while multi-national companies stuff their pockets with money.

The reason why this is not a traditional debate between liberals and conservatives ,is because it is all about the money.As a conservative trade debt,national debt,internationalizing our laws should be big read flags. As a liberal falling wages and loss of manufacturing should be a red flag.As an American promoting overseas sweatshops,gutting of middle class,healthcare... should also be alarming.

When you have Tom Delay and Hillary Clinton on companies like Wal-Mart pay for policy system this is how you have bad trade deals.This is not about the failure of trade,it is about corruption at the highest levels of government.If we do not change this trend we will be a third world country.

[Dustin]

calmo that was an excellent takedown. Though describing it as a "takedown" might be mischaracterize it, and I may very well be missing it's nature entirely, I am none the less dow for the count. And to think you were far too subtle to even be caught throwing a punch. I am humbled. You are a pretty clever writer.

[knzn]

camille, My point in using the word “arbitrary” is that (usually) no interest is truly “national.” Claims for what is in the national interest vary with who has political power, but the “true” national interest is a phantom (unless you want to define the national interest as the interest of those in power, but that definition seems rather different from what people usually have in mind). In fact, groups within a nation usually share interests with various groups outside that nation. At least with respect to economic policy, the borders of common interest seldom follow national boundaries.

I am not against democracy, any more than you are against international trade. Nor do I expect (or wish) democracy to become irrelevant (although, in a sense, I would say that true democracy has been irrelevant ever since the emergence of nation-states, but I will use the term loosely to refer to our republican form of government). I tend to agree with Chuchill that democracy is “the worst form of government except all the others.” Certainly I think democracy is better than no government at all. But I no longer romanticize the idea of government by the people. “The people” can be just as bad as any tyrant.

I question the importance of the distinction between elite and non-elite groups. Swing voters in Ohio have a lot of political power in Presidential election years; they aren’t an “elite group,” but they are a special interest group with (occasional) disproportionate power. I do think, however, that certain groups (e.g., the homeless) are pretty much excluded from power permanently. I don’t really see any solution, either inside or outside the democratic process, except to have those with power (or potential power) take on broader moral concerns. (In practice, even those with power have, individually, little scope to advance their own self-interest by public means, so I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to expect people to pursue broader moral concerns in the public sphere.)

I have a sort of Rawlsian concern with the least fortunate (on a political level, anyway; I won’t claim that I actually do much to help them personally). Democracy or no democracy, nationally or internationally, the least fortunate are generally excluded from power. But the effect of policies on them concerns me a lot more than the squabbles among (not necessarily “elite” but necessarily relatively more fortunate) groups that realistically do hope to have power.

[knzn]

(I should note, I use the word “moral” for grammatical convenience and with great reservations. If Osama Bin Laden and Jerry Falwell are in favor of morality, I’m probably against it. What I’m really talking about is “compassion, rationally applied,” but that idea doesn’t fit into sentences very well.)

[Lord]

There are winners and losers under taxation as well. I guess government will just have to survive on donations.
There are winners and losers under free trade. I guess we will just have to maintain the status quo. Oops, there are winners and losers under that as well. I guess we will just have to rely on the rapaciousness of our CEOs. They have a fairly unified purpose.

[knzn]

Lord, you can only talk about winners and losers if you’re comparing one policy to another. Taxation, accordingly, has no losers: even the most heavily taxed are better off than with a bankrupt government. You can compare “free trade” to the status quo, and there will be winners and losers if you go from one to the other. (I’m a bit skeptical of the concept of “free trade,” though: any kind of trade needs rules; the question is, who benefits from one set of rules relative to another.) A nation does need a bargaining position in trade negotiations, but I would argue that such bargaining positions should be determined by what leaders think is the best policy, not by some political expedience dressed up as “national interest.” Nationalism, as such, is just as Utopian as globalism, but it’s worse, because it makes this absurd pretense to being pragmatic.

[John Konop]

Knzn,

Great Post !