The New Political Divide

I wrote a few months back that this presidential election was really about globalization. I've pointed you, the reader, to many articles about the unholy alliance between the so-called "conservative" elites and the liberal elites, including Daniel Greenfield's essay entitled: "The Two Empires We Must Defeat." The point is that the elite have become transnational; they have no loyalty to any single nation or people; to them, people are merely another fungible commodity and culture is a relic of a bygone era.

I would like to direct your attention to similar thoughts from The Z Blog in a post entitled "The End of Left and Right." The author writes:

There’s the great new dividing line in politics. One side is concerned solely with stability and comity at the top. The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times argue endlessly about how best to organize global governance, because that’s what matters to them. They are not just indifferent to what happens in your neighborhood. They see such concern as a fault, a mental defect that should exclude you from the halls of power. As far as they’re concerned, you are no more important than the Malaysian sweatshop worker. You’re just an economic unit. 

On the other side of the dividing line are the localists, the people who focus their attention on their neighborhood, their town, their city and their country. The Super Duper Global Trade Pact may be great for Mega Corp, but if it means all the jobs in your town get shipped to Malaysia, then it is not good for you. Cheap stuff at Walmart is not much good to a man without a job. Generous welfare benefits are not much good when everyone spends it on liquor and meth.

As they say, read the whole thing.