The Moral Case for Globalization

It's common for debaters to define their terms in ways that are inherently "moralized" (i.e., ways that signal to the audience that the speaker embraces or rejects whatever is denoted by the term). If a debater refers to globalization in terms of "rising living standards," people might be more likely to embrace it. If referring to globalization in terms of "declining living standards," people might reject it. The term typically used to denote advocates of globalization is "globalists," which has emerged primarily as a term of abuse, especially on the far right. According to the far- right French politician Marine Le Pen, "There is no more left and right. The real cleavage is between the patriots and the globalists." Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, maintains that "conservatives everywhere need to define the choice as what it is--US vs THEM, everyday people vs globalist elites, who've shown they hate us." Thus globalists are alleged to be anti- patriotic and enemies of "US," that is, of "everyday people," whom globalists allegedly hate. Another polemical use of the term has been advanced by the left- wing writer Quinn Slobodian, who defines "globalism" as "a coherent ideology" and "a project to restore class power" in Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Donald Trump was more direct, "You know what a globalist is, right? You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much."