"Transnational Progressivism" or Globalization?

Submitted by Leon Hadar (United States), Sep 25, 2002 at 13:50

It seems to me that much of the challenge to the nation-state that we've experienced since the 1990's had less to do with the growing power of the United Nations and other multilateral institutions, and more with the the impact of economic globalization, i.e., the free-flow of products, money, information, technology, people, across national borders (a process that as an anti-leftist libertarian I applaud, by the way). THAT process has been driven by the Men and Women of Davos, and their allies in Western governments, and it is grounded in the classical liberal, pro-free market ideology which is very much opposed to the the left-wing principles that the author describes and criticizes.

It is the global market economy, including the Internet, CNN, MTV, Hollywood (those are American intitutions? I think) and not a huge "progressive" bureaucracy that has helped define our current Zeitgeist, for better or for worst. It's true that some people on the left have tried to impose their spin on this process. It's possible to argue that the current EU structure reflects this point of view (and it's also possible to dismiss that argument). But, hey, what about NAFTA or the WTO? I assume that you guys are opposed to those also since they undermine the nation-state, create new bureaucracies, and so on.

The article, I think, reflects the schizophrenia that some intellectuals on the right share with regard to the process of globalization (Pat Buchanan is another and more extreme example). They are in favor of the spread of capitalism around the world, but are concerned over the impact that the process has on the nation-state, national security, traditional institutions, etc.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".