What does it mean to you when someone says they're a Globalist?

What does it mean to you when someone says they're a Globalist?

By Club President, Paul Manetto (class of 2026)

One of my biggest fears about American foreign policy is the inherent distrust of globalism and global institutions. Today many people automatically associate globalism with greedy businessmen, powerhungry politicians or “peaceneck” hippie, leading them to ignore the importance of living in an international society. This attitude has become more prevelantin the aftermath of the election of Donald Trump to the White House. In less than a year, Trump has imposed massive tariffs on some of our closest (and most important) allies, forced them to pay remittances for U.S. aid to Ukraine, and cozied up with ruthless dictators at the expense of vulnerable countries. 

However, blame can’t solely fall on President Trump. Over the past years, the leaders of the United States have grown arrogant and selfish, claiming that many of our domestic woes come as the result of other countries actions, and that international aid should be the first thing cut to free up cash. Even before President Trump came into power, President Biden removed the Houthis from the International Terror Watchlist, tied Ukraine’s hands with useless conditions for aid, and held back support for Israel. We seem to have two choices when it comes to our foreign policy: one party says we are too weak to support our allies, the other says we are too strong to have any use for them. Both are wrong and both open the door to catastrophic failure in the future. 

There is a path forward that will maintain not only American power, but the peace that has come with it: 

1. We must be steadfast in our support of NATO allies and look to expand our allies around the world. One of the most egregious statements made by President Trump is that NATO hasn’t done enough for its defense, and that the U.S. should consider withdrawing from  it. While there is some merit to the argument that Europe needs to pick up their part of the bill on defense spending, to insinuate that NATO has been a one-way relationship is incredibly foolish. Only once has NATO’s Article 5, which specifies that “an attack on one is an attack on all,” been invoked: in response to the 9/11 attack on the U.S. Our allies sent their tanks, planes, and, most importantly, men to fight and die alongside U.S. forces in defense of American sovereignty. NATO’s idea of mutual defense is something that terrifies those who wish to expand their influence at the expense of another; it was one reason why Putin decided to invade Ukraine. Enemies to freedom need to know that if they violate another nation's sovereignty, they will be met with the full might of the American military.

2. America needs to work to promote free trade around the world, while removing countries that threaten world order from the global economy. The U.S. should look to reduce our trade with China, but we need to find new markets in places like Korea, Japan and India. Investing in the future and providing jobs to regions with very few alternatives will ensure more people support the status quo and are less likely to look toward extreme rhetoric and actions to provide a better life for them. 

   1. In addition, while the points in favor of free trade could have their own article entirely, I’ll sum it up as this: globalization has cost us manufacturing jobs, but it has also grown our service sector and opened up new opportunities, while the primary loss of jobs really comes from the advancement of technology. There are solutions to this, but estranging our allies through egregious tariffs isn’t one of them.

3. Finally, we need to maintain active spending levels in both our defense and foreign aid sectors. These are the first things politicians suggest cuts for when they need to somehow free up money. We must resist that urge. Defense spending is perhaps most self explanatory - the more missiles, drones, tanks and ships we have, the more our enemies think twice about messing with us. As for foreign aid, people often argue that because less developed countries have failed to see the expected growth, we should abandon the program altogether.  It is not that simple; the idea isn’t flawed, but the method is. By providing foreign aid, we often kill domestic manufacturing by bringing in outside goods. Instead we should direct foreign aid to be used to give local economies the push start they need. By doing this, not only do we show the world that America is a country that wants to bring prosperity around the world, but we are also a country that prevents unemployed young people from going on to harness their anger against the world as a terrorist, cabal leader or drug trafficker.

As a free world, we are better off together. This is an unprecedented era, poverty falling, technology advancing and global interconnectivity rapidly increasing. But we also face threats: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and many other bad actors that seek to reshape the world in their image. If we face this threat together - if we embrace a global society - our country is stronger, the world is stronger, and the future of humanity is stronger.