You just described when globalization really started to harm the U.S. citizens. When we legitimately felt the effects.
The opposite side Republicans are bold faced telling Americans, yeah we make all this capital and we're going to "conserve" it for me and my kind of people alone; with no regard for their fellow man.
Dems on their populist agenda used to run interference on this Republican ideology and fight for the rest of the citizens. But now they feel it's their job to fight for "global citizens." Hence, the neglect we face now here in the states.
This globalist agenda combined with Ai will eventually have this world in a Pluribus choke hold that none of us can get out of. I'm against it.
I live in Detroit, so I see what deindustrialization did every day. This isn't a theoretical debate about globalization for me, it's my lived experience.
That's why I'm careful about how we frame the cause, and why I think we need clear-eyed material analysis about this. Detroit wasn't hollowed out by some inevitable force called "globalism." It was the result of deliberate policy choices. Deregulation, tax incentives, and labor policy gave corporations free rein to offshore jobs, bust unions, and abandon cities, and it was all sold to the public under the promise of "cheaper goods."
Detroit shows what happens when you weaken labor power and when there are no constraints on capital. But the answer isn't retreating into some abstraction about globalism or treating technology like it's our destiny. We still outnumber them. There's still a lot people can do to rebuild bargaining power, organize and elect the right people to enforce labor laws, and fight for regulation that structures trade and tech around workers instead of profits.
I agree Democrats stopped acting as a real counterweight, and Republicans were openly hostile to labor. But the shift wasn't toward "global citizens," it was toward capital. That distinction matters, because if we misdiagnose the problem, we'll end up fighting the wrong thing.
Personally, I am anti-free trade-absolutism. I oppose off-shoring jobs and corporations exploiting imported labor to undercut wages. But we shouldn't blame globalization itself for this, or scapegoat immigrants. We should place the blame at the feet of policy makers selling out to capital, and corporations chasing cheap labor. We should be hard on corporations who exploit immigrant labor, and the politicians who enable them.
I still reject the "both sides" framing, though, because it collapses very real differences in produced outcomes. When you look at labor outcomes -- union support, labor rights, and enforcement -- there's a clear contrast between the two parties. Republican administrations consistently weaken unions, gut labor enforcement, stack the NLRB and DOL against workers, and side openly with employers. Democratic administrations are inconsistent, compromised, and too often timid, but they still produce measurably better conditions for labor through NLRB and DOL appointments, labor law enforcement, industrial policy, and support for collective bargaining.
This isn't a theoretical difference. You can see/feel it in union election win rates, enforcement of wage and hour laws, OSHA protections, and whether workers have any leverage at all. Saying "both sides are the same" ignores those material differences and treats the erosion of labor power as inevitable, which only helps the people benefiting from it.
why all this fukking crying where's the action against it??!?
make it make sense
