In my last post, one of our frequent commenters repeated a critique that Donald Trump and so-called MAGA members make, which is that the WSJ specifically, but by extension anybody that opposes the national conservative movement, is a globalist. Here is a portion of the salient* remarks that Richie offered:

Frankly, the WSJ is no longer a conservative medium. Both writers you mention in your article (Phil Gramm and Donald Joseph Boudreaux) are strong proponents of globalization…..Trump’s “America First” agenda focuses on protecting domestic industries and prioritizing American workers through tariffs and deregulation. Even if one disagrees with his methods, his explicit goal is to strengthen U.S. economic sovereignty….Dr. Hayman, would you agree that our trading partners are taking advantage of America? If so, is that OK? If not, how do we affect real change and rectify that situation? If it is a problem, is fixing it worth some potential short-term consequences? Have we reached the point where conventional means are no longer producing results? If globalization is the goal, Trump is obviously not your guy. If strengthening America’s position is essential and you have real problems with the means to his expressed end, what is the solution?

I didn’t want my response to be buried in the comments, as Richie is raising a key argument that I’ve been trying to make for several years, which is the debate over what it means to be a conservative. The traditional model of a blending of social conservatives with libertarian economic policies and strong military and foreign policy opposed to totalitarian regimes across the globe, was undermined by the neoconservative nation-building of George W. Bush, and now completely under attack by the so-called national conservative movement, which is a big part of the MAGA base. When I hear Richie say that the WSJ is no longer a conservative medium, the question I have is has the WSJ changed, or has the definition of conservative changed? And I argue the latter, not the former, as one who has been reading the WSJ for decades. This is really a debate between Reaganism and Trumpism, with the Trumpians arguing against Bush and Biden, but let’s get into it.

First, and very important, is for those using the term globalist to be very specific of what you mean by it. This is a favorite tactic of our president, to never engage in real constructive debate or acknowledge any nuance, but to drive toward name-calling in an attempt to inflame his base against his enemies. Read his post above, and try to identify the specific thing he is arguing the WSJ is wrong about. This technique has a name, and it is called the ad hominem fallacy, where you attack the person or the institution rather than the argument itself. This is a typical technique when you have no substantive argument to make, and therefore no ability to convince people intellectually, so you call people names. “Oh, he’s a globalist and wants forever wars” without defining what you mean by globalist and ascribing a false dichotomy on foreign policy of 1) either you agree with the latest thing that comes out of Mr. Trump’s mouth (which, shock, does often change even 180 degrees) or 2) you just want forever wars.** So Bereans (including me!) need to be careful when using labels about people that go beyond descriptive (e.g., he/she is a classical liberal) to a normative judgment label that is intended simply to besmirch one’s intellectual opponent.

But let’s get into what it means to be a globalist (a term I would deny I am). Near as I can figure, (and with the help of chatgpt!), national conservatives have these ideas behind the term globalist:

1. Economic integration and free trade
2. Open Borders and unlimited immigration
3. Subservience to international institutions and alliances
4. Foreign interventionism
5. Rule by elites (Washington, Brussels, Hollywood, etc) disconnected from average Americans

Now at some level, I (and traditional Reagan conservatives) share concerns with #2-5. But there is debate even within those, which is precisely why the broad brushed globalist term is so inappropriate. For example, there is a debate right now within #2 in the MAGA movement–Donald Trump and Elon Musk (and I) are supportive of more high-skilled legal immigration. We are all completely against illegal immigration, but some amount of immigration is quite helpful (and essential given our falling birth rate). Yet some NatCons are completely against it. If one extreme is open borders, the other extreme is completely closed borders. Likewise with “foreign interventionism”. Nobody likes forever wars (so anyone saying “they just want forever wars” should be summarily not listened to as they’re demagoguing the issue), but Donald Trump just started a major foreign intervention in Yemen (Well Done Mr. Trump!) in response to Iran arming the Houthis and enabling a criminal organization to demand protection money for global shipping to go through the Red Sea. The “globalist” Joe Biden did little to stop this, and Mr. “Peace through Strength” Donald Trump says this is going to end. So let’s be careful about broadly decrying foreign interventionism.

But let’s get at what I think all conservatives can agree with. The original concern about globalism was precisely the idea of submitting sovereignty to an international group, whether the U.N. or someone else. It was almost a religious belief by many on the left that we needed one world government, yet Bereans know that this ideal will be obtained, and it will be awesome, but only when Christ returns. Until then, this is a recipe for tyranny (as our founders knew, which is why we have separation of powers in our government). The second thing of that list I think we can all agree on is that nation building never works. The neoconservatism of the Bush years was a dramatic departure from the Reagan vision of peace through strength, where we would support those who fought for their freedom, to the idea that we could create Pax Americana throughout the world, enabled by our dominant military. It is in our national interest to engage across the world and with allies, but that must be done carefully and strategically, fully understanding the limitations of military power to achieve our ultimate goals.

But let’s finish with the substance of my previous post and answer Richie’s questions above. First and most important, why true conservatives are in favor of free trade. The only alternative to free trade is to have government control of trade, and government control of trade is a massive threat to all liberty, and it always leads to more corruption. Always. What do you think is happening right now with respect to Mr. Trump’s tariffs? Companies are lining the pockets of politicians to have their products excluded. Politically favored groups win, while politically disfavored groups lose. For example, Mr. Trump loves the steel and aluminum industry, but the last steel tariffs he put in place cost seven jobs in steel using industries in the U.S. for every job protected or created in the steel producing industry. And what do protected industries do with protection? Get complacent and stop innovating. Want proof? Look at this shocking chart on U.S. steel productivity after the 2018 tariffs.

As the linked post points out, “The result is that U.S. steel-using firms, which employ roughly 45 times the number of Americans as steel-producing ones, pay about 75 percent more for steel than do their competitors globally.” This doesn’t strike me as Making America Great Again. Government management of trade is Making America Weaker and Weaker (MAWW). So further Richie, I don’t think other countries are taking advantage of us in trade. Trade is always value creating, so any trade that is happening is by definition an improvement in our material well-being. Do I deny that other countries protect (make weak!) some of their politically favored industries which limit the expansion opportunities of our more competitive industries? Of course they do. They make their citizens pay much higher prices for lower quality products than they could get from us. They hurt their own people far more than they hurt us. The answer to their stupidity is never “well lets just tax our own citizens and make them pay higher prices for lower quality goods, that will get even with those nasty Europeans!” As to Trump’s assertion that he is making America stronger, I vehemently disagree. The chart above and all of economic history show that protecting your industries makes you weaker, not stronger. The competitive marketplace is brutal–only the strong survive–by constantly innovating and serving customers well.

* Richie, if my editing deletes anything that you consider essential to be discussed here as well, bring it up in the comments and I’ll address that too.

** I get that Mr. Trump and many BATG readers strongly dislike Ms. Cheney, for good reason. But for Mr. Trump to assert this is simply preposterous: “Trump called Cheney “a deranged person” and added, “But the reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries.”” Yes if you give him the usual hyperbole this is perhaps not lying. Undoubtedly she would have supported military force in more situations than Mr. Trump. But that doesn’t imply that all she wants is war, or wants “forever wars”. Yes that is a non sequitur.

EDIT Update: To support comment discussion below.