Why the Globalists Hate Populism
As a member of the U.S. government’s security apparatus, I have witnessed a level of groupthink that would shock even the most accredited academics associated with the leading internationalist think tanks. As the professional class of international relations thinkers and their elitist dopamine peddlers in mainstream media continue launching their crusade against the so-called threat of populism, the people are again being actively pushed out of foreign and domestic policy. The boogieman-version of populism that is being thrust upon cable news viewers is not entirely accurate. This misconstrued definition in the modern American lexicon purports that populism is synonymous with authoritarian strongmen who intend to push nativist policies inherently referred to as racist.
But at its core, populism is concerned with the people and attending to the ordinary citizens of a nation, regardless of race and ethnicity, by giving them a voice in their respective societies. The authoritarian context has been married to the term through a series of foreign demagogues who have utilized the façade of populist policies to gain momentum for their own political gains. There is no shortage of names on the list of offenders, and there is no real purpose to go through them but to highlight that this concept has been hijacked by the global internationalist class as a window to achieve their own personal gain. Most ironically, the left has decided to label modern conservatism as a breeding ground for populist ideas; and I believe this to be a badge of honor that conservatives must take up with pride. Clearly, leftist elitists still believe that their globalist-centered policies have created positive change by trying to remake the world in their own image. Let us take a brief moment to review the fruits of the left’s endeavors.
From the time of the United States’ unipolar moment in the 1990s until the present, the idea of globalization and U.S. economic and militaristic dominance became synonymous and interchangeable terms. The elitists hoped to create supply chain diversity and free markets which, in turn, forced societies to live more harmoniously as they were all interconnected. We can see that the only real positive change had eventually benefitted the corporate class who now had free reign in shaping the rules of the road and playing by their own rules. The common people were left behind, failing to adapt to the vertical integration of society that came with globalization. No longer were the Democrats concerned about projecting the idea that they were fighting on behalf of the working class. No longer were they concerned about First Amendment issues. In fact, the Democrats, who purported to be the party of anti-trust, had ultimately facilitated the growth of tech oligarchies into unimaginable monopolistic empires that censored First Amendment protected speech as a result of their incessant desires to obtain capital for their re-election campaigns. Again, the people were left out of these conversations entirely.
In parallel with a recent public awakening on America’s domestic policy pivots, we are seeing a seismic shift in public sentiment toward internationalist and globalist views of how America should act abroad. We constantly hear from the think-tank class that domestic policy is foreign policy, and vice versa. If that were true, then we would see an American foreign policy focused on American citizens’ interests. We are constantly reminded that it is in America’s interest to be embroiled in Middle East conflicts and powerplays in Eurasia with a declining power that have no social and economic value for the average U.S. citizen. We know these are empty statements, and even outright lies, as global lenders and the military-industrial complex became the primary benefactors from these entanglements. So, what can be done? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the public cannot, and will not, be able to stay silent on their political beliefs much longer with the advent of new media outperforming legacy media. The public is starved for honest journalists, real domestic initiatives that empower and employ the population with growth potential, and a foreign policy that is focused on the citizenry’s interests.
A logical solution to enacting positive change is to encourage the next generations to apply for government positions. The permanent bureaucracy of government is arguably the most influential power structure that dominates our way of life. The bureaucracy is charged with collecting your taxes, protecting you from crime, providing health benefits, and so on. Even more, these individuals are not elected by you. They are hired as you are within your respective lines of work. They are meant to be accountable to you as public servants. However, this bloated class of bureaucrats has become the most sclerotic, yet authoritative, entity that serves the outdated goals of the internationalists. We often elect new leaders who vow for change and then become excited at the prospect of a shift in policy with a new incoming administration. This age-old tale is retold, in different forms, every four years with no real shift in policies at the levels of government that matter. We can thank the unelected permanent bureaucracy for this continual inaction, as they are beholden to the ideologies that have gained them their respective power in the halls of their workplaces. If we are to change the way that government works for the people, we must encourage the future to invest in government service.
The U.S. government has a funny way of listening to outside advice: it does not. The bureaucracy is stuck in their assessments of the world within the context of their 1990s sense of idealism. Analytical frameworks surrounding foreign policy and national security priorities often do not account for the people’s benefit. If the think-tankers were correct about the synergy of foreign and domestic policy, then we would see a foreign policy that benefitted working-class people of all colors and creeds. The GOP must break away from their reactionary inklings of clinging singularly onto cultural war issues and pursue a strategy of ensuring the American public that the party supports their best interests, economically and socially. On the flip side, the Democrats have completely abandoned the notion of even considering the working-class voter in policy implementation, which presents an even greater advantage for GOP strategists to show voters the state’s obvious neglect. What other choice do we have as a people but to make a change from inside the apparatus? Encouraging young individuals to embark on a life of government service may not be easy, as the pay does not attract the attention that a silicon-valley tech giant might offer. However, joining this system may yield the most consequential benefit for society: true representation within our government.
M. Roberts is a government security official who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.