The mantra of the globalists has always been that nations are bad and that the “global community” is good. And then the coronavirus reared its ugly head.
There are few things worse than pride and prejudice, the arrogance of the former resulting in the ignorance of the latter. And there are few people more afflicted with pride and prejudice than progressives, whose idolization of an imaginary future means that they treat the wisdom of the past with contempt. Take, for instance, the old adage that we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket. Such common sense, which was considered an aphorism expressive of perennial wisdom in healthier times, is now spurned by progressives who are committed to putting everyone’s eggs into one global basket.
The mantra of “all-our-eggs-in-one-basket” globalists has always been that nations are bad and that the “global community” is good. We are told that national borders are divisive and that the weakening of border controls is therefore a good thing which will unite people into one “human family.” People should be able to move around the world freely, without nationalistic red tape preventing them from doing so. Migration is good; immigration control is bad. And what is true of the movement of people is equally true of the movement of goods. Global trade should not be hampered by nationalistic red tape. All barriers to trade, such as tariffs, should be eradicated so that global corporations can do business globally without archaic nation states putting up obstacles. Globalized trade is good; protection of local markets is bad.
And then the coronavirus reared its ugly head and we discovered the danger of putting all our eggs in one basket or, to mix metaphors, the perils of allowing one bad apple to infect all the others in the basket. Those nations that understood this most clearly have escaped the worst consequences of the global pandemic. In January, almost as soon as news of the virus became known, Russia closed its border with China, which, at 2,600 miles is 33% longer than the USA’s border with Mexico. It also placed a temporary ban on all Chinese citizens entering the country. As of March 17, Russia had 114 confirmed cases of coronavirus, a very low infection rate compared to countries in western Europe that were reluctant to exercise immigration controls. Similarly, Singapore also closed its borders with China and, in spite of its close proximity to the worst impacted areas, has only 266 confirmed cases, of which almost half have recovered, and no deaths. Singapore has learned valuable lessons from its previous experience of SARS, which, in 2003, had a serious impact on the economy, society, and specifically the medical community. Employing the fruits of this experience, the Singapore Government has consistently implemented the meaningful lessons from SARS into their planning and preparations, as is evident in its early and ongoing response to the current crisis.
It is significant that the World Health Organization responded to the crisis in typically globalist fashion by instructing countries not to profile and not to take any border control measures that would stop the international flow of people, frowning in its ideological correctness on the nationalist reaction of countries, such as Russia and Singapore.
As the globalist chickens come home to roost, continuing the aphoristic thread, it would be all too easy to settle into a smug “we told you so” stance. Such a temptation needs to be resisted because we can be sure that the globalists will not have learned any of the lessons which this crisis teaches. Instead, we need to ready ourselves for the response that all the problems caused by globalism can only be solved by even more globalism. This has always been the modus operandi of political centralists. Their reasoning is that whatever problems are caused by big government can only be solved by even bigger government. We can expect, for instance, that one of the first things to be demanded in the wake of the present pandemic is that the World Health Organization needs to have much more power to enforce policies upon national governments, removing or weakening the ability of individual nations to act decisively or unilaterally in the event of future globalized calamities.
There are lessons that need to be learned from this globalized virus which we fail to learn at our peril. They are, however, not lessons that the globalists are likely to learn. Individual nations must retain the right to protect themselves from contagious globalized pathologies, both physical and financial, which is only possible with the restoration and revitalization of national sovereignty. Nor is such a necessity indicative of an “every man for himself” selfishness on the part of nations and peoples. It is essential so that nations can remain strong enough to help their afflicted neighbours. Such subsidiarity is not at war with solidarity but is inextricably connected to it. Those working in health care need to remain healthy if they are to provide care to the sick. Strong and healthy neighbours are the good neighbours we need. The alternative is the pathological “solidarity” of globalism which is nothing but the collective and collectivized solidarity of the suicide pact.
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is courtesy of Unsplash and has been slightly modified for color.