Another important issue that must be highlighted and discussed and is contingent to the overall theme of globalization and nativism is the suggestion or perhaps even the assertion from certain corners and directions of international society that the divide between globalism and nativism as the overarching issue or theme of our affairs as an international society necessarily and automatically leads to anti-democracy in many societies. In other words, both globalization and nativism must be anti-democratic in order for either one of them to gain a sure foothold in various nations and societies, and that the ultimate outcome of this divide between globalism and nativism will undoubtedly be the takeover of American society by some sort of anti-democratic force, regardless of whether it is globalist or nativist.
As one independent American author has argued: “Our politics and political polarization will never go away.” He added:
“Globalization took a toll on our democracy and our Constitution. It questions the meaning of our citizenship and disenfranchises our citizens. This has gone so far as to become both a national security, legislative, and judicial problem with a sometimes violent denial of cultural and citizenship values.”
In a nutshell, the claim and the argument is such that: “To conquer a democracy, one must first disenfranchise its citizens. In an attempt to diminish nationalism in favor of internationalism, it appears that we have done just that.” And he added a knockout punch at the end: “The greatest threat to our democracy and freedom may come from within, and once again, from a Marxist ideology, on a chill wind blowing from the West – a new capitalistic communism under the disguise of globalization.”
Is he correct? In my opinion, he is not entirely correct. One might not be able to equate globalization with nativism based on the premise that both are anti-democratic by their very nature. In my humble opinion, I believe the benefits of globalization and efforts to cope with the downside of globalization through certain policy changes are things which the majority of Americans want. We can have our cake and eat it too. It’s just that the American people are not getting what they truly want from the central committees of the two major political parties in the United States. Nor are they getting it from the mainstream media either. All we have gotten is further polarization from the discourse of the mainstream media, regardless of left or right of the spectrum.
Another author wrote:
“Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures – both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe – a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality.”
He added:
“The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food – with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonalds’s, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitately apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.”
And as stated before, whether is it necessary and automatic for an anti-democratic force to take over both government and society in order for one of these two diverging directions and goals to cement itself and to solidify and take root for good is up for debate. Personally, I do not think democracy and globalization are inherently incompatible with one another, but as we see here, there are those who would beg to differ. After all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Adam A. Azim 