The May/June 2018 edition of Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), issued a series of articles themed “Is Democracy Dying?” While the authors of the articles do not reach any conclusion to their question, they do make it quite clear that they view President Donald Trump as an impediment to the type of society they want for our world.
The articles appear to contradict the mission statement found near the beginning of each magazine, in which the writers pledge to “tolerate wide differences of opinion,” and state that its articles “will not represent any consensus of belief.”
On the contrary, one can read Foreign Affairs on a regular basis and never see any articles expressing concern about the negative effects of open borders and multilateral trade agreements upon national sovereignty. In fact, what one gets from the magazine is a steady diet of globalism.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
In the May/June 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, two articles tackle the question, “Is Democracy Dying?” Of course, this presupposes that the form of government created by the U.S. Constitution is a “democracy,” and that “democracy” is a good thing. Actually, the constitutional framers crafted a federal republic, a system of limited government, with religious liberty and private property among those liberties placed beyond the reach of majorities. In other words, liberty trumps democracy. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, not ensure that a majority can vote to strip the wealthier minority of their wealth, or to impose a particular religion, for example.
What is noteworthy about the tone of these articles is that the writers appear to think “democracy,” or government by the people, to be a good thing, just as long as the people favor the policies of the global elites. In fact, the overarching theme of the articles is that “the people” are not compliant enough in favoring those policies so dear to the global elites, such as open borders.
Perhaps no phrase is more despised by those who head the CFR and its publication than “America First.” The fact that Trump used that very phrase over and over during his campaign and since that time explains their animosity toward him. In a May/June 2018 article by Walter Russell Mead (the Global View columnist at the Wall Street Journal), he laments that there were no memorable diplomatic accomplishments “between the purchase of Alaska and the construction of the Panama Canal.”
Actually, during those years America was at peace, and it was growing to become the world’s largest economy. Our governmental leaders were conducting the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson: no entanglement in the affairs of other countries. Only to globalists can such a period be described as a time of no accomplishment in diplomacy.
But in the early 20th century, beginning with the “Progressive Era,” Mead noted that the country began to have “successes.” Mead’s “successes” involved mostly the growth of government — the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the introduction of the income tax, and the rise of federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration.
Despite these supposed successes favored by the elites (it should be noted that to collectivists, “democracy” does not mean so much government by the people as government for the people, or what the elites believe is good for the people), Mead regrets the recent election returns in the United Kingdom (Brexit), Hungary, Poland, and Italy (with rising opposition to uncontrolled immigration and the consolidation of Europe) and the Trump administration, which seeks “to take U.S. policy in new directions.”
Ronald Inglehurt’s article in the April 16, 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, “The Age of Insecurity,” is even more blunt: “Over the past decade, many marginally democratic countries have become increasingly authoritarian. And authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements have grown strong enough to threaten democracy’s long-term health in several rich, established democracies, including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”
Inglehurt continued, “The world is experiencing the most severe democratic setback since the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The immediate cause of rising support for authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements is a reaction to immigration.” It would seem that Inglehurt is comparing the election of Donald Trump and other political leaders in Hungary and Poland to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini! But neither Hitler nor Mussolini had much to say about immigration or multilateral trade agreements.
While Inglehurt insinuates that anti-immigration politicians in places such as Hungary, France, Italy, and Poland are only a step or two removed from Adolf Hitler, he reserves most of his salvoes for Trump, declaring, “In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Republican candidate Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of xenophobia and sympathy toward authoritarianism.”
Inglehurt argues that Trump campaigned as “an openly racist, sexist, authoritarian, and xenophobic candidate,” who “ran against Hillary Clinton, a liberal.” One might recall that Hillary had a word for Trump’s supporters: “deplorables.”
Inglehurt places part of the blame for the rise of so-called authoritarian parties over the last few decades on a “rise in inequality” during that time period. And who was to blame for that? Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Inglehurt claims, because they “weakened labor unions and sharply cut back state regulation.” Inglehurt did not add, though he could have, that Thatcher’s opposition to the creation of the European Union got her bounced from her position as prime minister, despite leading her Conservative Party to three consecutive national election victories. The global elites were not going to tolerate any impediment to their goal of one government for all of Europe — even from the Iron Lady.
What can be done about all this? Inglehurt’s solution is more government. “Whether this latest democratic setback proves permanent will depend on whether societies address these problems, which will require government intervention,” he asserted.
Unfortunately, in Inglehurt’s view, “powerful conservative interests are moving the United States in the opposite direction, sharply reducing taxes on the rich and cutting government spending.” One can only hope.
In short, Foreign Affairs, and its parent organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, is not only globalist, its articles promote Big Government here at home. Perhaps in the next issue it will publish an article warning its readers of the dangers of Big Government, globalism, and unchecked immigration. But we sincerely doubt it.
Image: Screenshot of an online ad at Foreign Affairs
