The new fault line in politics, according to French far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen, is between globalists and patriots. It is an argument similar to those being made by euroskeptics in the UK and Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump in the US.
However, it is as false as it is dangerous.
Judging by the results of the second and final round of the French regional elections on Sunday last week, it is also an argument that French voters, at least, roundly rejected. They cast 73 percent of their ballots for the National Front’s rivals, depriving the party of even a single victory.
Le Pen accused mainstream parties of ganging up on her, describing their cooperation as a denial of democracy. Her argument is, of course, a classic example of sour grapes; the entire point of a two-round voting system is to force parties and their supporters to seek a consensus and form partnerships. Unless and until the National Front finds a way to win allies, it would not achieve an electoral breakthrough. The same is likely to prove true about Trump.
That is not to say that Le Pen’s claim — that those who vote for her party are the only true patriots — should be casually dismissed. She has honed in on a powerful message, one with the potential to attract supporters from other parties. That is why it must be rebutted, both in France and elsewhere. The assumption underlying such nationalist bombast — that a nation’s interests are better served by being closed rather than open — is extremely dangerous.
The belief that openness is treason and closure is patriotic is a rejection of the entire post-1945 framework of politics and policy in the developed world. It is an attempt to turn back the clock to the interwar period, when the focus was on closing off: imposing onerous trade restrictions and persecuting or expelling minority groups. This was true even in the US, which enacted the most restrictive immigration laws since the nation’s founding.
The postwar years marked a complete change of direction, as nations opened up, allowing freer flows of trade, capital, ideas and people. This process became known as globalization only after China and India joined in during the 1980s, but it had started long before. It was globalization, after all, that created what in France became known as les trente glorieuses — the 30 glorious years of rapidly rising living standards following the end of World War II.
Le Pen and her fellow populists claim that globalization was either an act of foolish generosity that helped the rest of the world at the expense of the nation, or a phenomenon that benefited only the elites and not ordinary people. For them, patriotism means being harder-headed about protecting the national interest and adopting more democratic policies that help the working masses, not jet-setting fat cats.
The second part of this argument — that the interests of ordinary people have been subordinated to those of the elite — must be heard and responded to. A democracy in which a majority feels neglected or exploited is not sustainable. Either the government or the entire system could be overturned.
Elected officials clearly need to find answers to high unemployment and declining living standards.
However, what mainstream parties need to be make clear is that the answers to those problems do not lie in closing borders or minds. There is no example, anywhere in history, of a society or an economy that has prospered over the long term by rejecting globalism.
Moreover, though openness might not guarantee prosperity, it has always been a prerequisite for growth. To be sure, the optimal amount of openness is a matter of debate.
However, the larger, more productive arguments are about how to shape education, labor markets, scientific research and social-welfare policies in order to help societies adapt to the world around them. The patriotic choice — the national interest — has always consisted in crafting domestic policies that best take advantage of globalization.
For mainstream parties in France, the Conservatives in the UK and Trump’s more internationally minded Republican rivals in the US, there is nothing to be gained from copying the arguments of their extremist counterparts. Doing so would yield crucial ground in the political battle over how best to serve the nation and its people.
Mainstream parties must reclaim the mantle of patriotism and redefine the national interest accordingly. In today’s world, the national interest lies in managing openness — not in throwing it away.
Bill Emmott is a former editor-in-chief of The Economist.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations