There is a significant culture shift taking place in much of the Western world, from one end of the spectrum to the other. It is a change which we can see and watch, but increasingly there is an aversion towards trying to explicitly describe what it is.
Some might call it a movement across the political spectrum, from the extreme left and what is termed “woke” politics, all the way to the other side on the extreme right, with a more hard-line conservativism and a drive towards preserving tradition.
I believe a more accurate description is to characterise the shift in global politics as a movement from globalism towards nationalism. Post the Second World War, the entire world was taken on a globalist journey which involved the formation of international institutions such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and various others, to shape and drive international co-operation. There was a push for markets to be open and the free flow of goods to cross borders. The same was true for services, information, and people.
End of history
In 1989 Francis Fukuyama, the acclaimed political scientist, released his seminal article, “The End of History”. His core argument was that the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union would ultimately lead to the triumph of liberalism as an ideology. Liberal institutions and representative government would come to dominate global affairs, and while not all states would follow this path, Fukuyama believed that ultimately there would be a “common ideological heritage of mankind”.
He even latched it on to the philosophy of Hegel, who argued that at some point a perfectly rational form of society and state would emerge victorious, shaping the world. For Fukuyama, this was liberal democracy. His theory landed with almost perfect timing, because a few months after his paper was released, the Soviet Union would come apart.
With the collapse of the Soviets, the beginning of the 1990s saw a wave of democracy break out in Eastern Europe. Liberal ideas took root in many places, as countries that had previously been closed off to the world opened themselves up. Increased political cooperation and cultural exchanges revealed an interconnected and interdependent world, where the view was that countries should work together to solve common challenges and benefit from shared opportunities.
From the 1990s, a strong globalist sentiment underpinning many liberal democracies in the world also took hold, and perhaps for a brief moment it looked as if the “End of History” was in sight. International institutions were strong, packed by powerful nation-states who believed in cooperation. Democracy was spreading, markets were opening up and people were migrating. Global identities were being formed.
One concept
But identity is one concept that political scientists often have a hard time with. It’s difficult to interpret its significance, and how individuals will see themselves in society and find their place in the world. Identity is somewhat unpredictable. It desires recognition. When threatened or ignored, it will most certainly rise up in some form or another.
When then does one argue that the shift internationally moved from a globalist- dominated view to a more nationalistic approach towards politics? Was there a specific event or movement that triggered this cascade, or was it a gradual slow burn, a build-up of resentment towards the state?
Perhaps Brexit could be a good starting point. An argument to be made is that it was not inherently a decision about economics, but rather one driven by patriotism and the feeling that the European Union (EU) might have been overshadowing British identity. At the time of the Brexit campaign, there was strong anti-EU sentiment in various conservative parties in Europe.
However, the implementation of Brexit was so painful and disastrous that ultimately much of the anti-EU sentiment in Europe then died off. But Brexit did set off a full cultural reckoning in the United Kingdom: one which the country is still grappling with, as issues of illegal and some legal immigration are being framed as driving significant threats to British identity.
America First
In the USA, Donald Trump’s first successful election was on an “America First” platform. It had a strong nationalistic and patriotic drive which carried him into the White House, as he skilfully positioned himself in firm opposition to his predecessor Barack Obama and his opponent Hillary Clinton, who were committed globalists in their politics. He expertly weaponized illegal immigration as one of the failings of his predecessor. He did it again with his most recent election win, this time coupling it with a strong message on the economy, focused around preserving and growing American industry and the use of tariffs to protect the American economy, and placing the protection of American identity, the American dream and its values front and centre.
Now the nationalistic political pressures are appearing in Canada, as Justin Trudeau resigns from his party after failing to contain a continuous slide in the polls and dissent within his own party on a host of domestic issues. Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, has built a significant lead over Trudeau’s Liberals in running a hardline approach on immigration.
In France, Marine Le Pen waits in the wings with her National Rally, which has grown significantly over the last few years riding sentiment aimed at preserving French identity. At the same time, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), under the leadership of Alice Weidel, is currently second in polls ahead of an election due to be held next month. The common thread across these politicians is a fight to preserve their national identity and culture.
There is a definitive shift from globalism to nationalism that is happening in much of the world, so much so that even liberal and more centrist politicians are being forced to look inward if they are to preserve their electoral fortunes. Citizens in many countries want politicians who are prioritising their national identities and are not afraid to say it. The “End of History’’ is to be rescheduled to sometime off in the future.
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend
Image: Generated by Grok