Gideon Rachman warns the leaders of Europe that spurning Comprador-in-Chief Obama could give strength to the voices of isolationism and protectionism. I certainly hope so. They're several cuts above the voices of aggrieved yuppie narcissism and disingenuous oligarch-scolding that presently dominate the debate. But I don't think he needs to worry. Whatever euphemisms and branding they manage to shovel into the headlines, whatever tiffs, spats and tizzies they may throw, the world's leaders are going to attempt to salvage as much of the existing order as they can. That's their mandate. If that means they need a new name for "liberal internationalism", that's what they'll concoct. The worst outcome for pundits is having to learn new euphemisms. Unless...
Look homewards, America! Tend the hearths and look after your neighbors! Protectionism and isolationism are the way to go. The European oligarchs can look after themselves, thanks to the money funneled through AIG. Concern for their welfare is touching, but misplaced. They have their own countries to loot. They must learn to make do with that. The squalor of millions instead of billions would require a period of adjustment, but these are strong individuals, with an instinct for cannibalism, admittedly, but strong nevertheless. It's no kindness to coddle them; they're bound to feel resentful. Our homegrown oligarchs will undoubtedly fuss and behave badly. They paid good money for a salvage operation, but some quiet time is in their interest too. A period of reflection will help their moral character. If they genuinely prefer acrimony, instead, they can take turns tossing each other under the bus. Good things can come from isolationism and protectionism.
Comments (7)
I've always thought isolationism was underrated.
Posted by MJS | April 3, 2009 8:21 PM
Posted on April 3, 2009 20:21
I grew up thinking it would be so cool to have a united world and maybe, who knows, we'll have one some day. Back in my school days, it was only the bad guys who wanted to wall off the rest of the world. That was the school definition of isolationism. It was the code word for Birchers and gold bugs and Bull Connor. The shine went off internationalism when I learned that it had nothing to do with the Abe Lincoln Brigade and everything to do with "capital mobility"; still with walls, inside and out.
Posted by Al Schumann | April 3, 2009 8:42 PM
Posted on April 3, 2009 20:42
The first political event I remember was the fight between Eisenhower and Taft for the Republican presidential nomination. My parents, who were Roosevelt democrats, rooted for Ike, and made Taft sound like the devil. I've read some his stuff since -- a pretty cool head! To quote OP (quoting Wordsworth, I think) "woulds't that thou were with us at this hour!"
Posted by hce | April 4, 2009 10:12 AM
Posted on April 4, 2009 10:12
The questions raised here have too many variables
Fix a few and headway is possible
Somewhere between socialism in one country
And national liberation/self determination
On the one end world revolution on the other
Super al;
I'm very partial to maximum migration of people and zero migration of capital
Posted by op | April 4, 2009 12:32 PM
Posted on April 4, 2009 12:32
The optimal spatial distribution of global production
Must await n more stages of social morph-ation
Posted by op | April 4, 2009 12:35 PM
Posted on April 4, 2009 12:35
Maybe OP is saying that isolationism is fine for the developed world, but shit for the rest of the globe. Produce what we need from what we have -- a laudable vision for us. Not so good for the Sudan. Trade, trade, trade -- the root of all evil, and many good things.
Posted by hce | April 4, 2009 6:35 PM
Posted on April 4, 2009 18:35
I recognize Owen's trope. You got a good piece of it, HCE. There's a dilemma for the nations living under the business end of the trade stick. They need trade to raise the standard of living and take care of fundamental necessities. Efforts at complete self-sufficiency won't work. Efforts at near or partial self-sufficiency have a better chance, in theory, but the external pressures are just too strong and there are always opportunistic comprador movements waiting to snatch the reins of government. They need one kind of isolationism and protectionism desperately.
Our own isolationism/protectionism needs to be directed inwards. All trade at this time is designed to put the most vulnerable into competitions with the luckless workers in comprador-run states, while protecting the professional guilds. Dean Baker preaches one kind of leveling: no more protectionism for oligarchs, their senior management flunkies and their hack spin doctor "journalists". No more isolating them from the race to the bottom competition they mandate for others. That has the justice and consistency of sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander. I'd prefer straight out protectionism for labor. I think it would be easier to achieve. Although "easier", in light of the card check shafting, seems like saying it would be easier to jump over a skyscraper than to jump over a mountain.
Posted by Al Schumann | April 4, 2009 11:24 PM
Posted on April 4, 2009 23:24