The globalists are alarmed at the inevitable rise of protectionism in the wake of this present crisis, having been raised on, and largely being dependent on, a globalist doctrine.
But I’ve always found “protectionism” to be a rather strange criticism: if it is not the purpose of a national government to protect the interests of a nation, just what exactly is it for?
Beyond a certain degree, making things cheaper is utterly pointless. If people can afford to buy n things, they will want n + 1 things, regardless of the value of n.
And if in the process of cheapening those things, some sectors of the economy disappear from a nation, leaving a subset of people financially without purpose, that is a big problem for everyone in the nation.
Protectionism is not a sin. It’s not a regression. It’s a sign of life.
Make your nation strong and healthy. Make trade agreements to further your alliances and economic well-being.
The global macroeconomic religion we’ve lived under since Breton Woods is the aberration here, and I think that is one of the few things that both the left and the right can agree on.
That regime is perhaps unbreakable in nations which have forsaken long-term national strategy and thinking, and/or no longer care about their fellow countryman.
But not every nation is like that. Some still play the long game. Some still plan for tomorrow, at the expense of today.