When I saw this headline, I swear I thought this article was from The Onion:
“Until recently, you didn’t hear people being referred to as “globalist” very often. But in a time of rising nationalism, those who see the upside of globalism have become a distinct — and often embattled — tribe.
Last week, the globalists had a big family reunion in New York. The gathering was focused on the United Nations General Assembly, but a growing array of side conferences and summits and dinners also attracted concerned internationalists of every stripe: humanitarians, leaders of nongovernmental organizations, donors, investors, app peddlers, celebrities.
But an absence haunted the week. Almost by definition, nationalists and localists are underrepresented at these global gatherings. Their paucity was especially notable this time, because the rising signs of nationalism — whether in the form of Donald J. Trump’s winning the Republican nomination, the British vote to leave the European Union, or the German backlash against Angela Merkel’s welcome to refugees — hovered like a specter over many of the discussions. …
Mr. Clinton spoke of the globalist vision of a “nonzero-sum” world in which everyone wins together and of how that idea was under attack by “zero-sum” tribal politics.”
What went wrong with neo-liberal globalism?
I don’t know … could it be the fact that it was oversold and had a negative impact on the White working class? Maybe it was the reaction of the average White guy in Middle England to Rotherham or the average White guy in the Rust Belt to routine terrorist attacks, shuttered factories and a heroin epidemic? What has Germany gained – aside from a fleeting warm fuzzy feeling among self-righteous, pampered elites – from absorbing a million raw Muslims from the battlefields of the Middle East?