Does economic nationalism create global divisiveness?
This post is a response to a question posed in its complete format: “Is economic nationalism the solution to preserving jobs, or will it create deeper global divisions?” Responses to follow-up questions are included along with the answer given to this question.
Economic nationalism is economic isolation in a highly interconnected world.
It means shutting a nation off from the rest of the world.
It means North Korea.
It means a complete restructuring of an economy to adapt to an impoverished and repressive existence without access to a diversity of goods, services, and technologies that permit a nation to evolve and organically create jobs.
In today’s world, it means dropping out of the global trend toward automation for the citizenry. It means the people learn to adapt to functioning as disposable serfs to an elite class that avails itself of all the perks the rest of the world enjoys.
It means a government focuses on conscripting the able-bodied to serve primarily as military drones to eventually become cannon fodder with expansionist strategies to keep their economy from collapsing altogether.
The global divisions are the ones that a nation makes as it shuts itself off from functional relationships with other countries.
The rest of the world will continue to develop and strengthen its international relationships to become a united entity that can push back on expansionist regimes.
For the U.S., it means going from being a global power to being a global radioactive zone until it can be fully isolated.
Follow-up Question #1:
Is there any scenario where a nation can balance economic nationalism with global trade, or is full integration the only path to prosperity?
The term “full integration” implies a loss of identity and sovereignty. Neither of those is true. In Canada, an external threat to national identity immediately rallied the people into a unified front to protect their sovereignty.
Meanwhile, you can drive around Canada and seldom see the performative patriotism you can see everywhere in the (highly divided) U.S.
Follow-up Question #2:
Do you think Canada’s approach is unique, or have other nations successfully balanced global ties with a strong national identity?
I can’t speak for other nations, but I have long recognized the distinction between a melting pot and a multicultural mosaic.
For all the reverential lip service American culture displays toward individuality, its practice of homogeneity runs counter to that professed ideal.
On the other hand, Canadian culture promotes community through a practiced respect for individuality.
This contrast addresses the difference between a genuinely profound love of country organically cultivated versus a performative love of country cultivated through grooming.
It’s the difference between a deeply held but silent personal belief versus the cultivated optics of shallow regard for something that can be leveraged for sociopathic motivations through attention-focusing performances.
