Empires have been built throughout history and most eventually fell when the empire got too large or too tyrannical. There has always been, and probably always will be, a tension between consolidating power at the top or decentralizing power to the people. Our Founding Fathers gave us a highly decentralized Republic with most power vested in the states and with the people. Over time our federal government has shifted this ever so slowly to centralized power at the top. The Founding Fathers wrote language into the Constitution to guard against this loss of sovereignty of the states.
Most Americans hope to pass on to their children and grandchildren a nation of laws with defined, secured borders and a common language. Some in our country and in our government are making decisions concerning our future and have a far different America in mind.
Steps taken during the last three administrations, largely without approval of the American people, have eroded our economic sovereignty. Americans need to ask ourselves: “Do we want a sovereign nation of self- governed people with secure borders and the rule of law or do we want to join a “New World Order” and subjugate ourselves to international organizations that are beyond our laws and the voters?”
The term globalization is how we discuss this conflict of visions and is used in two ways: as globalization with a small “g” and Globalization with a capital “G”. The former is a fact; the latter is a political ideology.
Small “g” globalization is the reality that technology, organizational advancements, and global politico-economic stability are increasing the level of interaction among nations, and as a result, formerly isolated people are rapidly learning what works best, abandoning ways that inhibit human development, and adopting ways of freedom and progress.
Small “g” globalism is a good thing, lifting many out of poverty and oppression. The challenge of globalization is global governance. How do we manage commerce and protect human rights and the environment in our highly integrated and rapidly developing world without jeopardizing the political sovereignty of nations and the personal liberty of individuals?
Leaders committed to capital “G” Globalism believe that the sovereignty of nations is a bad thing. Their goal is to dissolve all national boundaries, blend all cultures, and merge all nations into one big political/economic system.
Making a claim like this used to be considered “conspiracy theory.” Now it’s discussed openly. One of the reasons those in the growing U.S. trade policy reform movement call for a moratorium on trade agreements is that these agreements go far beyond addressing the challenge of small “g” globalism. They move us toward capital “G” Globalism. They unnecessarily include stipulations that subordinate the U.S. to global governance organizations that virtually nullify the political authority of our local, state, and national governments to make and enforce our own policies relative to trade, environmental protection, and more.
Global commerce and governance can be better accomplished without overstepping the U.S. Constitution, pulling America into “entangling alliances”, and surrendering America’s sovereignty. If America’s leaders desire to embrace capital “G” Globalism, they should lay these issues honestly before the American public for open dialogue and debate, rather than subtly and incrementally merging the U.S. into a globalist commune without the thoroughly informed consent of the American people.
As informed citizens it is our duty to ask our elected representatives which side they are on: An America as a sovereign nation acting as a good world citizen exercising good faith with our neighbors and promoting peace and prosperity for all nations. Or, do they subscribe to the theory that our nation should no longer serve the people of America, as our constitution states, but rather subjugate our nation to world organizations? If Americans were allowed to vote for a platform based on the above, they would pick saving our nation’s sovereignty almost unanimously.
