Changes in the geopolitical landscape have created a world of increasing globalization and rising international tensions. Issues of immigration, global corporatism, and foreign warfare become more contentious with each headline, bringing the debate between isolationism and interventionism to a head. I want to give what I feel are some useful thoughts on the topic.
For starters, I’d like to argue that viewing nationalism as a question of personal morality is both emotionally destructive and intellectually reductive. Obsession over a national identity beyond the generality of kinship and common interest puts your mental wellbeing at the whim of a politician’s impersonal arbitration and centers your moral compass around a purely aesthetic standard. The exact same thing can be said about ardent anti-patriotism, which–due to its reactionary nature–tends to be similarly reductive and hysterical.
Nationality and culture are worldly realities, and as such should be treated with objectivity and impartiality. While it is important to consider your identity when voting and when discussing issues, internalizing the nebulous struggles of nationality distracts you from your ability to exercise agency. If your primary emotional investment is in the clash of interest groups–be they nationalistic or otherwise–all you’ll ever be is devastated. You’ll detest that the world is changing without your consent, that your political champions are losing unfair battles, and that you can’t do anything about it except vote occasionally. All your investment buys you is a burning, seething resentment for your perceived opponents and a constant source of meaningless agitation. To quote Danny Vinyard from American History X: “Hate is baggage. Life’s too short to be pissed off all the time–it’s just not worth it.”
That being said, there are plenty of valid concerns to be raised regarding the insistence of foreign organizations and groups upon a given nation. Such trespasses generally take one of three forms: resource-exploitation by international corporations, utopianist interventionism from “world leaders,” or the economic burdening of immigration. While these three things seem completely different, they’re all justified by a singular mindset–one which seeks to proliferate geopolitical interdependence. I would like to argue that this globalist perspective is untenable and harmful for many participating nations.
An important criticism of internationalism in corporate and governmental dealings is the frequent emergence of destructive hierarchy. By being the establishers of global standards and relations, developed countries and Western corporations place themselves above less industrialized nations. Wealthier countries are only able to enjoy the prosperity they do by placing themselves at the top of a global economic food chain. In this food chain, undeveloped nations serve as resource pools for wealthier countries and are thereby kept in either economic stasis or total instability–the whole thing is just a more complicated employment of mercantilist oppression.
Despite this, many would argue that the globalization of economics gives developing nations more resources with which to industrialize. For developing nations, there are certain undeniable fiscal advantages to being part of a global network. But those benefits are conditional and bought through bad contracts with unfair stipulations–such is the nature of any deal made when one has the lower hand. Underdeveloped countries play the globalist game at a severe disadvantage and on the dime of companies that have every incentive to keep them poor.
But the answer isn’t charity, either. Providing direct support to an undeveloped country creates growth that its national infrastructure cannot handle. Healthy economic progress can only be made when it centers around the activities of a nation’s population–otherwise it leads to overly-reliant and speculative infrastructure. When you establish overly-reliant and speculative infrastructure, you create a problem whose solution requires significant fallout. Just as with pulling one object out from under another, dismantling problematic constructs means creating negative short-term ramifications. And the more dependent a system is on foreign support, the harder it becomes to back out. By tangling undeveloped countries in these global economic networks, we often sabotage real progress in favor of aesthetic improvements.
The most contentious side to the dynamic between developed and undeveloped countries is the issue of immigration. For the sake of discussion, we can split immigration into two categories: immigration of specialized workers and immigration of unskilled workers. Immigration of specialized workers might seem like a non-issue–their skill is proof that they’ve earned what their host nation has to offer–but the question becomes more complicated when you consider the effect this has on the countries these workers are immigrating from. If all the exceptional people in poor countries leave at the first opportunity, who is going to do the work that requires specialization? By accepting so many skilled immigrants, developed nations essentially rob vulnerable countries of their best and brightest.
The inverse argument can be made against the immigration of unskilled workers. Technology is replacing non-specialized labor and more jobs than ever exist in the management and organization of resources, so it’s pretty safe to say that a developed nation doesn’t need to receive more unskilled workers. It could also be easily argued that developed nations don’t even need specialized immigrants–after all, artificial intelligence is already pretty near capable of replicating the organizational skills of humans. The only purpose immigrants could serve in a developed nation, then, would be to devalue labor. Large companies exploit the desperation of immigrants so that they can pay less money for more work, which negatively impacts both the immigrant and native workforces. From this point of view, immigrants are quite often hands we don’t need and mouths we can’t feed.
But you can’t blame foreigners for striving towards a better life. It’s not as though they deserve less than us by virtue of having been born in another country. As an American, it seems particularly strange to oppose immigration, given this country’s origins. But the USA isn’t a disparate collection of settlements anymore, it’s a nation with an identity and a strong central government and over 30 trillion dollars of debt. Then again, who’s to say that the US doesn’t have an obligation to take in immigrants by virtue of its political size and economic stature? No matter what you side with, it feels like someone is getting treated unfairly.
Similar issues exist when questioning foreign war intervention. You see nations struggle and fight for justice and recognition, and you think that they probably do deserve the (albeit copious) amounts of money your government sends them. But then sometimes you can’t be sure your nation is supporting the right side or for the right reasons because you literally live oceans away and no newscast can ever tell the full story. And then suddenly something goes horribly wrong in your country and the monetary support isn’t there and all you can do is think about the numbers you saw being sent to nations you can’t even place on a map. But then you look again and the people are still fighting and dying and you think that they still deserve your monetary support. No matter what your government does, it feels totally unfair.
But, in the end, one must admit that a nation’s first duty is to itself and its citizens. I think a fair compromise between isolationism and interventionism exists where nations prioritize their own interests while working to protect goodness from tyranny all across the globe. The first step, though, is humility. We have to recognize that our attempts to lift up poorer nations are often not so helpful as we intend. We have to recognize that our connections create dependencies which it might not be healthy to maintain.
What’s funny is that many of the problems with globalism exist on the national level, too. Going back to America as an example, our federal government has been expanding and centralizing ever since its conception. The USA’s altruistic attempts to lift up its citizens and maintain militaristic prowess by throwing money at every discrepancy have resulted in over 30 trillion dollars of debt with 60% mandatory spending each year–that means we’re spending all of our money on debt and bad promises, leaving (you guessed it) the taxpayer to foot the bill. The issue is the same whether you’re talking about world leaders making decisions for poorer nations or politicians losing touch with the people they’re supposed to represent: ivory towers cast bleak shadows upon a valley of death.
The problem starts with them, but the solution starts with us. Pride and alienation exist because we allow them to–we vote for them, we live by them, and we construct our perceptions around them. Centralized authorities manufacture consent by exploiting our emotionality, so we must remain vigilant about everything we’re told to believe. Worldly realities and geopolitical issues must be treated with objectivity, which means that the emotional internalization of issues regarding nationality represents both a personal and social failing–you owe your peers the equability and consideration of humility. Moreover, exercising emotional restraint will encourage the proliferation of positive personalities in positions of power. Reason and temper are the tools with which a balance between isolationism and interventionism can be struck and the hands in which our future is held.