Four Corners Of The World - The New Politics Of Left And Right, Global And Local
By Walter Truett Anderson, Pacific News Service, May 7, 2001

Dividing the political spectrum in ways that actually throw some light on the scene is rarely the simple matter of left vs. right, as some observers would like it to be. The pervasive concern with globalism has added at least one other dimension, and the complications may be fierce. PNS Commentator Walter Truett Anderson is author of the forthcoming book, "All Connected Now: Life in the First Global Civilization."

It seems more and more that all politics is global, but political analysts are having a hard time drawing some kind of a map that accurately depicts the various ways people define themselves in this new arena -- who, exactly, is against whom, and on what issues.

Of the various schemes and labels now employed to make sense of the new polarizations of global politics, the best known are the familiar right vs. left and the newer globalist vs. antiglobalist.

Drawing the right-left map, the European scholar Jan Aarte Scholte describes a politics opposing globalist neoliberals to globalist social democrats.

Neoliberals are generally enthusiastic about unregulated markets, high technology, privatization, and the free movement across borders of money, goods, services, and capital. Social democrats are more inclined to use the governmental powers of either sovereign nations or new superstate institutions to impose global law and order in such areas as labor and environmental protection.

But the American political scientist Benjamin Barber offers another polarization -- which he calls "McWorld vs. Jihad" -- between globalizing consumerist capitalism and localist forces of religion and tribe. McWorld represents all those charging ahead into the new world of pop culture, high technology and international commerce, while Jihad stands for all those trying to hunker down and live within traditional communities.

Both maps are useful, but neither quite does the job. To make sense of the complex politics of the 21st-century world, you need a four-cornered map that recognizes both left-right and globalist-local dimensions.

We have in the world today globalist right, globalist left, antiglobalist right, and antiglobalist left.

The globalist right sees rapid technological progress and economic growth, largely market-driven. The globalist left favors giving government a stronger role to temper the market's excesses.

The antiglobalist right seeks to preserve (or restore) strong national, ethnic, tribal or religious identities, boundaries, and power. The antiglobalist left is also attracted to a vision of organic community, but is much more concerned about the poor and powerless and strongly imbued with the mystique of environmentalism -- a relatively new arrival on the ideological scene.

Each quadrant has shadings. In the globalist right you can find libertarians who favor junking most international financial organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and letting the magic of the free market have its way. A little more to the center is a large array of international financiers and entrepreneurs busily creating global institutions such as the World Trade Organization.

The globalist left has its centrists -- Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair are favorite examples -- willing to work with international business, and the many national governments now privatizing government-owned businesses. A bit farther to the left are those who want a beefed-up United Nations or even a new world federalist government. A few scattered voices call for some new version of global socialism.

The purest example of the antiglobalist right in the U.S. is the arch-protectionist Pat Buchanan, battling for American greatness and against free trade. Nationalist isolationism has a long history, and nationalist parties and movements all over the world offer their own responses to globalization -- strong proof that nationalism, the most potent movement of the 20th century, is far from dead. Neither is its evil cousin, fascism.

The antiglobalist left is in some ways new, though it includes the Old Left of organized labor as well as some venerable traditions including anarchism and romanticism. The new romantic primitivism -- strongly flavored with spirituality and opposition to technology -- is a powerful influence in Green parties and environmental organizations, and a wide range of movements including deep ecologists, bioregionalists, neo-luddites and eco-feminists.

The globalists of center-right and center-left seem to be on top these days, happily crafting free-trade agreements and privatizing.

But as we continue moving awkwardly toward a global civilization of open trade and democratic governance, it is clear there will be plenty of argument -- from all directions -- about how such a globalization process should be shaped, or whether we are or should be moving at all.