|
June 3, 2005
- "The Left has always hoped for globalization without
the market—an ideologically correct world government." 1
Therefore, it might seem inconceivable to hear conservatives speak about
promoting globalism unless the listener is aware that in addition to this
first characterization, there can be an entirely different connotation if
you consider that, "Globalization
simply means freedom of movement for goods and people."2
I believe that having two completely different meanings has
resulted in a lot of confusion about which reference is inferred when using
this term. From a leftist perspective, globalism entails working toward a
global world order. And under this circumstance, the unique governing
principles of this country along with the confluence of rich cultural and
ideological views that are continually churning and evolving would be
supplanted by one artificial philosophy that suppresses individual ideas and
the initiative to act on them.
According to the authors of the Index
of Economic Freedom, "The countries with the most economic freedom also
have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than
are those with less economic freedom."3 It should not be any
surprise, then, that developing countries want more globalization, not
less. Therefore, when conservatives discuss promoting globalization, they
are trying to export liberty and the free market which promotes it.
Not knowing which frame of reference is
being considered when referring to globalism is a pretty serious problem.
The late Fred Gwynne (Herman Munster) made a name for himself as a writer of
best selling children's books by playing with homonyms; words that sound or
are spelled the same but have different meanings, in The King who Rained and
Chocolate Moose for Dinner. Any teacher who reads these books aloud in a
first grade classroom quickly discovers even 6 year olds can understand the
difficulty misinterpretation poses.
Whether or not you can take a
pro-globalism or anti-globalism stance really depends on the accepted
meaning of this idea. This needs to be clarified when world leaders are
discussing free trade and the need to open up our markets. This is
obviously much different than collectivizing land and setting up
cooperatives. This needs to be clarified when discussing the value of
advanced placement courses, which challenge high school students with
college level curriculum in contrast to the International Baccalaureate
program that, while promoting a global world order, does not encourage the
unique circumstances of our country which allow capitalism to thrive.
If the bi product of globalization
erodes our national sovereignty, then it can be judged as antithetical to
freedom and in the long run will destroy our way of life. One need only
look at the number of aliens immigrating to our country and seeking our
wealth of opportunity, to understand that the motives of those who seek to
destroy these very same freedoms should be seriously questioned.
1, 2
Anti-Globalism = Anti-Americanism
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18005/article_detail.asp
3 2005
Index of Economic Freedom
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/index.cfm
|
