Localist/nationalist v globalist

This is going to be a brief reflection on one of the values that appear to be dividing Americans today, which I will tie back to my formal business education at Binghamton and Penn State. Sociologist A. W. Gouldner's concept of local v cosmopolitan (versus professional) as described here. A 'local' identified with an immediate, proximal group, organization or culture, while the 'cosmopolitan' saw himself as more of an expansive network of like-minded and similarly trained workers -- often overspecified as 'professionals' -- in shaping their values and beliefs.

There is an intuitive appeal to this distinction yet as the word economy expands and globalization is part of the vernacular, it has become easy to think of these as two very distinctively different, often conflicting sets of values, rather than as a matter of perspective.

'Locals' today get smeared as racists, nationalists, Nazis, white supremacists, and knuckle-dragging, unintelligent and uneducated rednecks, as those who 'cling' to guns and religion (and the Bill of Rights), while globalists are seen as insightful, expansive, intelligent people with a sophisticated and compassionate world view, and who look with content at those outside their cohort, especially those these globalists will describe with the derogatory terms listed above. Globalists 'know' that they are 'better' than others and that they have a natural right to impose their global will on the locals.

Globalists are likely to assumer and assert that there are numerous 'human rights,' rights that were usually not assumed to be rights at all. These include rights to travel freely across all borders, rights to claim global citizenship, rights to clean water, medical treatment, housing, jobs at a 'living wage,' and more. The 'more' today include things like the right to gender re-assignment surgery (i.e., meaning you can demand the surgery and that someone else pay for it), cell phones and Internet service, and other modern innovations that went from being a possibility to a 'God-given right,' even when the globalist may not believe in God.

Globalists do have their good points. They are able to loo outside their immediate community to see problems as well as progress outside their home community. They are more willing to adapt new ideas from 'outside' to the point that they will then take this personal adaptation of an innovation or a difference and force others in the globalist's local community.

A good example of the platitudinal, smug, even arrogant thinking of globalists can be found in the recent 'root causes' being Vice President's Harris's five-point 'plan' for 'dealing with' the crisis at the southern border of the United States. Harris uses platitudes without practical measurements, plans or accountability. It is also a good example of virtue-signaling political correctness applied by globalists who also often already hate the United States way of life, traditions and Constitution but want us to enforce their idea of justice around the world. Not is much the world police as the world naggers and finger wavers.

A real globalist is a localist with a comparative advantage. This means that while being aware of and educated about issues and elements well outside the local's local environment, the 'good' globalist can also recognize and appreciate the local traditions, culture and values that make the local community prosperous, distinctive and an example to other globalists, not living in the local community. This is a high level of critical thinking, where the person truly understands the world to a reasonable level while also recognizing key, local values, and embracing the good both at home and outside the locale, while correcting or changing for the better conditions both at home and abroad. Embrace what is good and reject what is not.