And here you may have thought we learned our lesson in the '40s. As the world becomes increasingly connected, as McDonald's is seemingly everywhere and you can walk into most convenience stores on Earth and buy a bottle of coke and a bag of potato chips, the lines of national identity blur as people interact with and adopt things from influential foreign cultures. Along with this comes free trade, free movement of people, drawing people from all over the globe together as they seek out the place they need to be. Unfortunately, this kind of openness is discomforting to many people who possess a great amount of risk aversion and paranoia of "the other". That which you do not know or understand is scary, and in such a case, many take the "better safe then sorry" approach. Suspicion of outsiders, distrust of foreigners, paranoia about outside forces, these are basic human fears that have been ingrained into the psyches of many or even most humans on the planet whether by environment or by their own nature. The purpose is to keep people safe; often it can lead to the opposite, especially if you are on the other end. The real problem is what results from this kind of fear: collectivism. Everyone groups up based on some common shared identity based on something - race, culture, ethnicity, etc, usually some kind of cultural and/or genetic and/or geographic basis for separation of people, something simple that can be easily understood and categorized. 'This blob on the map is my country. The people in this country are like me because they live here. But the people outside this blob on the map are not from my country. They are not/may not be like us. We can't control them, so they could do bad things to us. We can't trust them.' Etc. This is an easy and ancient way to acquire safety - group up based on some form of "commonality", usually something arbitrary or simple so that no thought is required to parse the In-group from the out-group, generate a sense of common interest such that each group member can trust each other, then peer suspiciously at anyone not in the group. This kind of mentality inevitably generates many other modes of thinking - namely, that your group is better/more important/righteous/etc., which justifies thinking less of them and valuing them less than your group. And the result is that those with this mentality end up being very isolated, or end up asserting themselves onto others, taking what they want, disregarding any concept of the rights of others. What this means is we end up with populations that are more prone to authoritarian government, to enforce in-group conformity, and that are more hostile towards out-groups, increasing the likelihood that conflict will occur because they aren't interested in co-operating. And while the 1930's are unmatched in terms of how bad this mentality became, we're in an era where it seems a backlash is creeping out of the cracks in the floor. You need look no further than the many authoritarian strongmen that have been propped up to lead their countries back to glory or to assert themselves on the world stage against others, to muscle in. Duterte, Putin, Erdogan, Trump, to name a few - these are right-wing nationalists riding on a populist backlash against outside forces they have come to fear are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing them over (America) or trying to destroy them (Russia) or trying to corrupt their in-group identity (Turkey). The irony is that by acting as if these things are true, the backlash they take out on the world causes these things to happen to them. The US never paid Putin much mind until he marched into Georgia - then they became suspicious of him, and took defensive measures. But the lack of trust meant that Russians perceived the defensive buildup as a threat. Ukraine was then invaded because they believed a pro-Western state on their border would be the first step towards destroying Russia - the fact that no one really cares about trying to destroy Russia is not important; what matters is that they believe it to be so. Erdogan sucks his popularity off of the fearful, racist, highly religious segment of the population that resents the Kemalist secular attitude that denies them their divinely-inspired government and resents Turkey being relegated to a regional power at best in the past century. They felt emasculated and weak and lashed out. I could go on but you get my point. And if Donald Trump were to become president, the very same thing would happen to the United States, which is a very bad thing because without the United States, there really is no global force that can promote democracy, human rights or liberal values. If the United States turn into a nationalist cesspool - that starts a trade war with the Chinese, begins carpet bombing Syria, Somalia and Afghanistan, that refuses to protect weak allies because, well, they're not American, and treats people entering the country like terrorists - because its sense of nuance and reality has been tossed out the window and replaced with in-group protectionist fervor and emotion, then we will enter a black spot in history. The only reason, and I am not kidding, that democracy is as widespread as it is, is because of the United States' actions in the 20th century (and the existence of the British Empire). You can argue they sabotaged it plenty of times, and that is true, but if not for America, there are a lot of democracies today which would not have existed, period. It is the only powerful democracy on Earth. If it joins the gang with Putin, Erdogan and all the other nationalist blowhards, who care only for themselves and their countries and (*)(*)(*)(*) everyone else, then the rest of us are blowing in the wind.
Ironically, the Latinos bring a much more tribalistic mentality than what most Americans are used to. When they become the majority, the new nationalism will be Latino nationalism, the sort of brand we see right now in Latino countries. If you like what you see, welcome them. With the extremism brand of Islam on the rise, as for the Muslims, if you are a suicidal maniac, welcome them too. The reason you don't have to fear another furor is very, very simple. We have had peaceful transfers of power over the longest period of time, and we have the oldest original charter of any nation on Earth. Our domestic security is well at hand, provided we're able to contain illegitimate minority uprisings such as promoted by the Democratic party. As long as we're internally stable, we're able to promote freedom and democracy in other places. Personally, I think we gave up a long time ago on exporting freedom. All we're doing now is opening up new markets to anyone, anywhere, despite the evil in these new trading partners. Some people think globalization is good enough. Maybe McDonald's and Coke and Apple and Google are the answer to long term peace.
They are, actually. Globalized trade means monied interests will oppose warfare, as war is not good for any business except the arms industry.
It's funny. We have an uncontrolled border, allowing millions of illegals to simply walk into this country. If you propose a wall to stop the great unwashed masses from entering the U.S., you're considered to be a dangerous reactionary.
Correction: America would be nothing without legal immigration and the rule of law. To the OP's initial post, if you don't see anything special about the United States or the Constitution under which we operate, you have no reason not to think that Globalism is superior to Nationalism. Of course, the flip side is that if you do consider the U.S. to be a special place, you'd prefer to preserve those things that make it so...
Perhaps that the foundations of the greatest superpower the world has ever seen were built in no small part by unrestricted immigration.
Don't allow yourselves to be kidnapped... Duterte orders troops to blast militants and their hostages Sunday 15th January, 2017 - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte said he has ordered his troops to bomb extremists who flee with their captives in a bid to stop a wave of kidnappings at sea, calling the loss of civilian lives in such an attack "collateral damage." See also: Confidential Philippine report reveals militants pocketed $7.3 million from ransom kidnappings in first half of 2016 Sunday 15th January, 2017 - On Saturday, ransom-seeking Abu Sayyaf gunmen freed a South Korean captain and his Filipino crewman who were abducted three months ago from their cargo ship.
