Globalist

Holds that a growing share of problems cannot be solved alone, so taking part in international cooperation ultimately serves the national interest.

What this position argues

Internationalism is not an argument for weakening the state; it is an argument about how a state achieves its aims. Climate change, pandemics, and financial instability do not stop at borders, and one country's best effort is cancelled out if others do not act. Building common rules and binding yourself to them is therefore, on this view, the option that serves your own country best. On trade the case is the older one: when countries concentrate on what they do comparatively well and exchange the rest, total output rises.

Core claims

• Problems that cross borders — climate, pandemics, financial contagion — are not solved by any single country's response.
• Binding yourself to shared rules also binds your counterparts, which raises predictability and lowers the cost of dealing with them.
• Wider trade and movement of people expand total output and the range of choice available to consumers.
• Countries embedded in international norms find it easier to secure support when a dispute arises.

Characteristic policies

• Deeper participation in multilateral treaties and international bodies, and implementation of climate agreements
• More free trade agreements and lower tariffs
• Sharing responsibility for refugee resettlement and international development aid
• Writing international human rights and labour standards into domestic law

Common criticisms

• Decision-makers in international bodies are not replaced by elections, so democratic accountability is weak.
• The gains from open trade may be positive in aggregate while the costs concentrate in particular industries and regions.
• International norms tend to be shaped around the interests of powerful states, leaving equality formal rather than real.
• Depending on foreign supply chains leaves a country exposed when a crisis interrupts them — a point recent events have sharpened.

Frequent misreadings

• It is often read as wanting to abolish national sovereignty. The actual dispute is not about abolition but about which areas warrant common rules and how far they should reach.
• It is often read as a lack of patriotism. In most cases it starts from the judgment that cooperation serves the country's own long-term interest.

Read these next

Reading one pole on its own shows you half the axis. It is worth reading the opposing position and the axis overview alongside it.

Curious where you land?

Take the 16-question version (about five minutes) or the 40-question detailed version to see your position on all four axes. Nothing is stored — answers are calculated in your browser and never leave it.