The Gauntlet: Localism v. Globalism
Frank threw down a friendly gauntlet earlier which I’m reluctant to pick up for several reasons: 1) protectionism is a label applied by its enemies to a scatter shot group of economic theories; 2) the question on the table requires lots of back-story and a bibliography way too long to appear on such a fey little webzine like HPN; and most importantly, 3) I’m not even a protectionist, by the common definition.
Nevertheless, here are my 8 theses, naked and unsubstantiated as they may be. A real discussion of all this would require picking up volumes of Friedman, Adam Smith, William Cavanaugh, and G.K. Chesterton, among others.
I.
Protectionism can = selfish nationalism. I’m sure there are plenty of economic jingoists who proudly hold to protectionism. But that’s not anything I wish to defend. I much prefer the “localist” label. So…
II.
Localism stands against globalism, which isn’t to say that it is not concerned over the plight of other peoples. Rather, localism makes the case that globalism is actually one of the great oppressive forces in the modern world. Globalism wishes to provide products and services for the cheapest cost that “The Market” can offer. If a Chinese factory can produce G.I. Joes for one-quarter the cost of a domestic toy manufacturuing plant, guess who wins out? In 1965, manufacturing made up 53% of the American economy. As of 2004, that number is just 9%. So first, from the American point of view, globalism has made us utterly dependent on countless foreign industries to continue to exist. We are no longer self-sufficient. If a foreign power felt emboldened enough to completely shut down its exports to the US (e.g. if the UAE enacted an oil embargo), we would be in a desperate condition. Globalism has fueled almost limitless growth in the first-world, but at a tremendous cost to both the first-world and the third-world.
III.
Localism, even in its most “protectionist” forms, is not against trade between nations. It is not against the idea of imports. And it is certainly not mercantilism—not by a long shot.
IV.
Positively defined, localism prioritizes community rather than growth.
V.
Localism manifests itself in a number of different movements, including agrarianism and New Urbanism. It stands against modernity and its ugly bastard children: suburbanism/urban rot, strip malls, industrial agriculture, corporatism, Washington D.C., and iPods. It stands for urban renewal (read: parish life), regional architecture, small businesses, local and seasonal agriculture, city councils, and the local symphony. Localism doesn’t believe that economic hegemony (i.e. having a McDonalds on every street corner from St Louis to Turin to Bangkok) is healthy for a society. Localism disapproves of putting the liveihoods of a third-world village entirely at the disposal of a first-world corporation.
VI.
Localism emphasizes that in a global economy, the winners are the US corporations who can cut costs and the corrupt foreign leaders who offer up their laborers at unimaginably cheap rates. The losers are the third- and second-world poor. Even worse, when third-world villages are conscripted into the global economy, they become dependent on the “mercy” of their foreign employer. If the first-world corporation closes down production in the village, the workers are even worse off than before.
VII.
Localism believes that just rulers should protect the weak against the powerful. Some might argue that tariffs are a good way to do this. Others might advocate an alternative. See Phillip Blond.
VIII.
Localism is skeptical of the Babelesque goals of globalism. Christian localists often point out the religious dimensions of economic globalist rhetoric. Cavanaugh has an excellent article on this, as well.
Have fun with all this. My neck is on the chopping block.
F 1:02 pm on February 5, 2009 Permalink
I would like to sign my name to these theses, with the following caveats.
[1] While I am strongly in favor of emphasizing the importance of community and small business, I am not willing to declare a pox upon all things global. The glories of global book publishing and selling, for example, is an example: without Amazon.com you might never been introduced to William Cavanaugh. Such things may not be perfect, but they’re not innately evil.
[2] Tariffs are always scary. Inviting the government to make economic rules is simply an invitation to a different form of globalism. And as the perennial existence of the Black Market shows, government prohibitions rarely have any effect other than lining the pockets of bureaucrats, politicians, and gangsters.
C 3:22 pm on February 5, 2009 Permalink
Davey has invoked my baby, New Urbanism, so of course I am obligated to respond.
Isn’t all of this just a more specialized discussion of the one and the many? We all agree that our neighbors, communities, and cities are important to us and define much of who we are. We also agree that we are somehow bound – through geography, religion, common heritage, whatever can be imagined really – to people in every corner, nook, and cranny on earth. If you ask me, I say we’ve got some sort of moral obligation to them all.
The job is more difficult for us now than it has been in the past. Frank is right: the modern era has utterly changed the face of commerce and consumption, and some of this has been positive. The sticky thing is that the farther our money walks, the less control we have over what exactly it is supporting.
I propose a solution: Distribut(iv)ism and Missionaries. If we buy local, and make most of what we need, we eliminate the discussion about tariffs (at least for now), begin to control the corporate rape of various peoples, and we might have to live without Cavanaugh but we’ll probably make do. And because our world is complicated, and our money will always walk despite our best efforts, we should send missionaries to, pay attention to, defend and otherwise bless the Longioriat whom we may not see.
But of course, since we don’t live in the world of Chesterton but in the world of Keynes, my musings are naive and not very practical. So alternatively I suggest that the US could stand to wall itself in economically and run itself into the ground for a few years. Free and borderless trade is all well and good, but I’m fairly sure that we’ve demonstrated to the world that America has forgotten how to make things, balance checkbooks, or save for the future. I almost feel like we need a quarantine while our economy resets.
Put another way: Protectionism could just as easily mean protecting people from the US, which doesn’t seem like all that bad of an idea.