|
A good point, imho. In response to US's changes, the 'middle powers' (e.g., Canada, Japan, etc.) are working to promote the rules-based international order, including trade. But I agree risk is higher than before. > Becoming a net importer hollowed out the US industrial base as it moved overseas, which was fine until China speedran owning large parts of the industrial production and exportation. They also very quickly moved up the ranks of economic and geopolitical sway. > Now the US is ditching globalization for more mercantilist policies. Rationalizing the policy is a serious error, I think. It's a political move by a group that has more power in conditions of nationalism, economic and otherwise. For example, the US is also 'ditching' military relationships, including NATO, for which there is no policy rationlization. Some believe in these things ideologically; most are acting politically, I think. Claiming policy reasons is dishonest. As another example, many countries in very different positions, with very different policy needs than the US, are behaving similarly. |
I think both are true and feed on each other to gain populist momentum
> As another example, many countries in very different positions, with very different policy needs than the US, are behaving similarly.
This may be influenced by the wave of populist nationalism but it again may also be a reaction to the reality that there isn't just one hegemony pulling the strings anymore (the US, or the west in general). Especially if said hegemony is acting unpredictable and other countries are now acting belligerent. That seems like a self-reinforcing cycle. I'm sure there's more reasons beyond these