A nation puts the interests of its own citizens first. That’s the purpose of having a sovereign government. But something went wrong with the rise of the globalists, who envisioned an order that overrode mere nations and sought to build a conglomeration of like-minded operators with an internationalist outlook. Adhering loosely to a Nash equilibrium, each country assumed that all others would not deviate from the set course. And then came the return of President Donald Trump.
Globalists and the Nash Equilibrium
The Nash equilibrium, a game theory idea, assumes that in a non-cooperative game, no player can gain an advantage by changing strategy. We have seen this across decades, with “stability” in diplomacy and economic policy driving decisions. You ca look at it as a positive-sum game rather than a zero-sum game. Part of this is necessary as imports and exports control vast chunks of the world’s economies. And yet, the idea that developed countries can operate in conjunction – as per the globalist mandate – is flawed on a number of levels.
First, there is the basic notion that politicians are not elected to look out for the global world order. When voters talk of candidates’ foreign policy bona fides, the understanding is that they can deal with other world leaders on an even footing, command respect, and build cooperation for national prerogatives. But that assumes their nation’s interests are at the top of the pyramid. Instead, we see billions of taxpayer dollars shelled out to other countries with a flimsy veneer of unspecified returns. The recent USAID and Treasury funding under the spotlight suggests that much of the return on investment (ROI) is for unspoken ideological advancement rather than tangible benefits for citizens.
Consider the following: American voters overwhelmingly rejected the progressive push for pronoun-centric cultural battles spearheaded by the government. The most powerful ad in the last election campaign was from the Trump team declaring, “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you.” The Electoral College, the popular vote, and a clean sweep in the swing states – how much clearer could the electorate have been? And yet, federal agencies have squandered millions of dollars on transgender initiatives, operas, and comic books in faraway lands. Where’s the hard cash ROI?
More importantly, these huge dollar outlays to foreign nations to change their cultural fabric – often unwanted – suggest that no Nash equilibrium exists. Remember, such balance relies on not changing strategies. The wayward funds are a clear effort to change the game board.
Dominant Strategy
Another game theory concept is dominant strategy, which states that each player’s optimal move is unaffected by other players’ actions. There is an assumption that the participants know what the optimal strategy for each player is – which works well when you have supranational organizations like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum acting as collectivist line managers. But again, there is an understanding that each country will be operating in an arena of knowable parameters. And this is where Trump has upset the apple cart.
During his first term in office, Trump rightly claimed to have overseen “no new wars.” The world was stable and flourishing – until COVID-19. From 2017 to 2019, world leaders had to operate independently in response to Trump; there was no time for globalist consensus-building. Instead, the stability was wrought by something long missing from global leaders: necessary dynamism. Did foreign politicos feel the stress of having to deal with a leader outside the cozy collective? Certainly, but the results spoke for themselves.
The World Bank wrote that “global economic growth [is predicted] to edge up to 3.1 percent in 2018 after a much stronger-than-expected 2017.” That’s global growth, not just American growth. But then the coronavirus struck, and the newly dynamic nation-states retreated to following the lead of the World Health Organization – headed by Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who came to prominence in Ethiopia’s openly Marxist Derg junta.
Under President Joe Biden, the globalist creep continued, seemingly with every foreign visit accompanied by American taxpayer gifts and generosity. The collective was firmly back in charge.
Strategic Ambiguity
With Trump back in office, world leaders are forced to recalibrate. Military strategist and philosopher Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, “Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.” When Trump throws additional tariffs on countries, they tend to be surprised. In response to his latest round of levies on steel, announced Monday (Feb. 10), Canada demonstrated that it was entirely unprepared and at a loss for a coherent response. As Liberty Nation News reported:
“Ontario Premier Doug Ford accused Trump of ‘shifting goalposts’ and creating ‘constant chaos.’ Quebec Premier Francois Legault urged Ottawa to start renegotiating the USMCA ‘as soon as possible’ to ‘put an end to this uncertainty.’ Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne vowed to ‘stand up for Canada.’”
When one is involved in a trade war, this is almost precisely the desired response. And yet, this does not mean that Canada is powerless – far from it. It does, however, require that the northern neighbor respond as an individual state. There is no time for conclaves with fellow global leaders nor benefit in coordinating a reciprocal challenge with partner nations. Canadian parliamentarians are being led out of complacency to engage on the worldwide stage as individuals with one clear goal: protect the interests of those who elect them.
Enter the Matrix
In 2002, while speaking of the Iraq War, Donald Rumsfeld set out four parameters for parsing information; it became known as the Rumsfeld Matrix*. Joe Biden’s presidency was firmly in the “known knowns,” and, indeed, this is the basis of the globalist enterprise. Naturally, the decision-making preset of global cooperation involves gaming out the “known unknowns” – factors we may be aware of but don’t fully understand.
However, Trump is bringing with him both the “unknown knowns,” as in things we may not know we know (for example, many must have been aware that waste and abuse was rife throughout USAID but perhaps did not have direct knowledge of individual frauds), and the all-important “unknown unknowns.” It is these last that create the impetus for action and drive.
No amount of preparation can adequately compensate for “out of the blue” events, meaning decision-making structures need to be brought as close to the decision-making authority as possible. These authorities are directly accountable to the voting public in their respective countries and therefore have little choice but to put the best interests of the electorate above global considerations.
If Trump achieves nothing else in the next four years, he will have exposed the fact that world leaders can and, when necessary, do operate in a functional and responsive manner when pressed. Such independent operational capability is a death knell for those who have put globalism above nationism. There’s a new game in town.
*Find out more on the Rumsfeld Matrix here.
