Financial markets tumbled. Politicians lost their jobs. Crowds of youth poured into Westminster to protest. It was clear that, if not a surprise, Brexit was a shock. A reckless referendum had led to a chaotic step backwards in globalization. And I watched the entire thing happen in England.
Thanks to the support of Mr. Hastings and his Foreign Immersion program, I was fortunate enough to go on an exchange to Oakham School, a boarding school 2 hours north by train from London. There, in the countryside, amid all the controversy and shouting of manipulation, deception, and treachery, I realized that it had been globalists who had allowed Brexit to happen and radical isolationists to prevail.
Globalism is good. Since the end of the Second World War a wave of growth and globalization were responsible for the raising of millions of people out of poverty, countless innovations and rising wages. Yet now, 8 years out from tremendous economic contraction and ensuing recovery, the world finds itself trapped in a world of anemic growth, the ‘new normal.’ Blame for the stagnant economic landscape can be found everywhere: artificially low interest rates, Wall Street misconduct, a repressive regulatory environment, encroaching government. Yet one alleged culprit has resonated tremendously: globalization.
Accused of being a monstrous machine destroying jobs and threatening not only economic safety, but also national and cultural security, a war against globalism has violently erupted. A majority of English voters embraced this movement when they went to the polls in June and now in the United States presidential election, neither candidate is pro free trade.
From a logical standpoint, the anti-globalist movement has little backing.
Globalization has been proven to raise wages across the income spectrum as well as spur innovation. Globalization has allowed the emergence of common markets such as the EU and a greater degree of personal autonomy. Sure, some jobs, such as manufacturing suffer in some areas, but in the aggregate, a gain is realized. What I learned in England was that the appeal against globalism is not logical, but rather emotional. The denial of emotional arguments by the remain campaign ensured its demise.Instead of painting a hopeful image of the future, the pro-Globalization movement used sterile arguments, trying to convince Britons that the status-quo was good and that the country had to stick to globalization. Little emotional appeal was made to the Britons who had lost jobs to global trade, who had felt smaller and smaller gains were coming their way, who struggled to cope with threats to their culture. As such, in retrospect, it is no surprise that in the end, anti-globalism prevailed in the United Kingdom. Those who lacked vision for the future, predominately elderly in the UK, voted to leave, whilst the youth who understood the value globalism could add, voted to remain.
Although it seems the UK’s path has been cemented, lessons can be taken from Brexit and applied generally to ensure the success of Globalization. Emotional appeal, in addition to rational argument, should help citizens see the positive and indisputable advantages of an interconnected world. It would be foolish to dismantle the last century’s gains in standard of living due to poor political outreach, however, it is important to understand that academics and business people only form a fraction of the population. It is important that globalization is understood by all citizens. If those citizens show, as they have in England, greater reception to emotional argument, global leaders should not hesitate to ensure their arguments are properly tailored.
Change has a tendency to be painful, yet if all understand the aggregate gains delivered by globalization, the world’s future prosperity seems to shine. Should the masses decide to go against a century of integration, we will learn the hard way what it means to step back into the darkness.
Financial markets tumbled. Politicians lost their jobs. Crowds of youth poured into Westminster to protest. It was clear that, if not a surprise, Brexit was a shock. A reckless referendum had led to a chaotic step backwards in globalization. And I watched the entire thing happen in England.
Thanks to the support of Mr. Hastings and his Foreign Immersion program, I was fortunate enough to go on an exchange to Oakham School, a boarding school 2 hours north by train from London. There, in the countryside, amid all the controversy and shouting of manipulation, deception, and treachery, I realized that it had been globalists who had allowed Brexit to happen and radical isolationists to prevail.
Globalism is good. Since the end of the Second World War a wave of growth and globalization were responsible for the raising of millions of people out of poverty, countless innovations and rising wages. Yet now, 8 years out from tremendous economic contraction and ensuing recovery, the world finds itself trapped in a world of anemic growth, the ‘new normal.’ Blame for the stagnant economic landscape can be found everywhere: artificially low interest rates, Wall Street misconduct, a repressive regulatory environment, encroaching government. Yet one alleged culprit has resonated tremendously: globalization.
Accused of being a monstrous machine destroying jobs and threatening not only economic safety, but also national and cultural security, a war against globalism has violently erupted. A majority of English voters embraced this movement when they went to the polls in June and now in the United States presidential election, neither candidate is pro free trade.
From a logical standpoint, the anti-globalist movement has little backing.
Globalization has been proven to raise wages across the income spectrum as well as spur innovation. Globalization has allowed the emergence of common markets such as the EU and a greater degree of personal autonomy. Sure, some jobs, such as manufacturing suffer in some areas, but in the aggregate, a gain is realized. What I learned in England was that the appeal against globalism is not logical, but rather emotional. The denial of emotional arguments by the remain campaign ensured its demise.Instead of painting a hopeful image of the future, the pro-Globalization movement used sterile arguments, trying to convince Britons that the status-quo was good and that the country had to stick to globalization. Little emotional appeal was made to the Britons who had lost jobs to global trade, who had felt smaller and smaller gains were coming their way, who struggled to cope with threats to their culture. As such, in retrospect, it is no surprise that in the end, anti-globalism prevailed in the United Kingdom. Those who lacked vision for the future, predominately elderly in the UK, voted to leave, whilst the youth who understood the value globalism could add, voted to remain.
Although it seems the UK’s path has been cemented, lessons can be taken from Brexit and applied generally to ensure the success of Globalization. Emotional appeal, in addition to rational argument, should help citizens see the positive and indisputable advantages of an interconnected world. It would be foolish to dismantle the last century’s gains in standard of living due to poor political outreach, however, it is important to understand that academics and business people only form a fraction of the population. It is important that globalization is understood by all citizens. If those citizens show, as they have in England, greater reception to emotional argument, global leaders should not hesitate to ensure their arguments are properly tailored.
Change has a tendency to be painful, yet if all understand the aggregate gains delivered by globalization, the world’s future prosperity seems to shine. Should the masses decide to go against a century of integration, we will learn the hard way what it means to step back into the darkness.
