I hope to be doing more on this very soon. But I think the populist nationalist turn in global politics has been very poorly understood, and because it has been misunderstood, many people are declaring the end of a trend that seems to be just getting started.
When we go back through Western history, we see that there has been a recurring century-long debate on the political right that roughly pits sovereignty and democracy (as in the freedom of national parliaments) on one side versus international economic or security integration and “democracy” (as a world order managed by liberals) on the other.
That’s the debate between Robert Taft and Arthur Vandenberg at the start of the Cold War, and the debate between Pat Buchanan and Charles Krauthammer at the end of it. That’s the debate between Enoch Powell and Edward Heath at the start of the U.K.’s entrance into the EU, and between Nigel Farage and David Cameron at Brexit.
The most difficult part of the debate is getting it off the ground, because so few of those who identify as liberal-conservatives believe that there are costs to sovereignty and democracy, in their preferred arrangements. My greatest frustration is the number of times I’ve articulated this in a debate, only to be met with silence. Or just with the other side’s preferred rhetoric, which is that the debate is between the good internationalists and free-traders who believe in openness and cooperation, and the evil isolationists and protectionists who bring about conflict and prejudice that we could otherwise eliminate from international affairs.