Commentary: Why Trump nationalism is better for the US and the world than Macron, Clinton or Obama globalism

Jean H Charles LLB, MSW, JD, is a regular contributor to the opinion section of Caribbean News Now. He can be reached at [email protected]

By Jean H Charles

I am fascinated by what is happening today in the world. At last there is a real fight between two doctrines that may unshackle the status quo and liberate countless nations from misery, internal strife and people dislocation or we can go back to the status quo ante with hypocritical values that hide the facts of oppression, discrimination and fake compassion for the majority of people on planet earth.

This last weekend, as the world was commemorating in France the 100th anniversary of the Armistice ending World War I; French President Emmanuel Macron delivered a seminal speech about the virtue of globalism versus nationalism. He was reviving demons without naming specifically President Donald Trump who is advocating a new American policy of nationalism.

In spite of numerous accolades for the Macron message, I am making the proposition that Macron is wrong on the stand of globalism/internationalism and Trump is right on the stand of nationalism.

The whole process of determination of which way to go may have started through a true story or a myth in the darkness of time. After the flood, the descendants of Noah from Babylon (now Iraq) did not repent from their arrogance that caused the deluge in the first place; they sought to test their power over God. They pooled all their might and skills and said:

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” Genesis 11-1-9.

God decided to break his vow of never again punishing his creatures on earth. In Genesis 9-11 he said, “I am establishing my covenant with you, that never again will all flesh be not cut off by the waters of a flood, nor there ever a flood that destroys the earth.” Yet God was so incensed by that arrogance he decided that different tribes will have different languages. Confused and unable to communicate toward a common goal, they dispersed into different lands, creating their own nations.

And that was the beginning of a brand new world where nationalism was the rule, with people in different countries, with their own culture, their own governments, building their own way of life.

In a previous essay, The Long March of Humanity towards Civilization, I have shown how Emperor Constantine rebuilt a mighty conglomerate of land into one culture and one religion. The Catholic Church, an institution created by God but run by men, became an oppressing institution under the mantle of the Roman Empire.

It did have a rival in Prophet Mohammed, who claimed direct inspiration from God through Angel Gabriel. He set out to build a Caliphate where all the nations of the earth would be ruled by the prophet. It was as oppressive as the Catholic Church. In fact the Catholic Church through the ages may have tamed its authority over the lives of people and government throughout the world while terrorism through ISIS is the preferred tool for a faction of Muslims who insist on ruling an Islamic Caliphate.

Later, around 1500, the coalition of the willing made of France, England, Spain and Portugal organized a mechanism so strong yet so insidious that for 300 years 15 million black men and women were uprooted from Africa to be enslaved for life in the Caribbean, the United States and Latin America.

It was tiny Haiti, in 1804, which broke the world alliance of evil in defeating one after the other, Spain, England and finally France to create the first black republic but the second nation after the United States.

It almost never happened because the inspiring French revolution of nationalism in 1789 got a step backward with the mission of globalism of Napoleon Bonaparte in France who set up to conquer land from Russia to the United States.

Few years earlier in 1776, the United States fought and won their freedom from England, which advocated dominion of the entire world. They created a nation that used globalism as an instrument of expansion. The Monroe Doctrine, while it was set up to oppose European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, created its own harm to countless countries in the Caribbean and in Latin America.

Around 1915 and later in 1936, the ugly head of globalism pieced together by Adolf Hitler caused the extermination of millions of Jewish people and put together an axis including Italy and Japan to support the concept that people of some nations have better genes than others and, as such, those of lesser genes should be eliminated.

Of course it was a coalition of the willing that defeated Hitler and the Nazi doctrine. It was also the coalition under the leadership of the United States through the Marshall Plan that organized the reconstruction of Europe.

Around 1946, the need to start over with the League of Nations promoted the creation of a new institution, the United Nations. It should be credited for the decolonization of several countries in the Caribbean and in Africa, with nationalist leaders bent on creating new nations where citizens would enjoy living and educating their children.

That proposition was stillborn, with the United States, France, and England jointly or separately organized to destroy each and every one of those nationalist leaders to replace them by puppets that kept the nationals in bondage, misery and forced migration. It has been as such for the past 70 years (1948-2018) with caravans of migrants strolling by foot from South America to the United States and by sea from Africa to Europe with their load of misery from their country to the gate of their arrival.

Until the advent of the avenger Donald Trump, who espouses a new policy of America First, suggesting each country should look first after themselves before waiting for and begging for handouts from foreign institutions or international organizations. We are living in a vicious circle of no advancement in spite of international progress in the arts and science.

Donald Trump is decried by the opposing Democratic Party as a party bungler and derided as a “truculent child president” by former Secretary of State John Kerry.

President Donald Trump has not put yet his proposition of nationalism in a formal paper that can be tested by scrutiny of world scholars. Suffice it to say that the world in general and President Emmanuel Macron has the choice between two antagonists of world government. He can follow the globalism/internationalism of Napoleon Bonaparte or the nationalism doctrine of Ernest Renan.

In a paper in Foreign Affairs magazine in 1923, Alfred Zimmen, taking a cue from Ernest Renan, described a nationalism leader as someone who espouses the concept that a nation as a body of people is united by a corporate sentiment of peculiar intensity, intimacy and dignity related to a definite country.

Renan, of whom I have spoken about so often in my essays, reiterated that the leader who espouses nationalism will inspire his people to have a sense of great things experienced in the past and greater lying before us the future; it constitutes the soul and the conscience of a nation.

Is Donald Trump, like Moliere in The Bourgeois Gentleman, speaking in prose without knowing? Suffice it to say his slogans, Make America Great Again; America First should have resonance in each and every country on earth. Each nation standing on their feet, can than join hands to build and rebuild a better world.

I will conclude with Zimmer’s statement, which is 95 years old, “It is through a deeper exploration and enjoyment of the infinite treasure of the world nationals by men and women whose vision of their own that an enduring network of internationalism will soon be knit and harmony and understanding established in the world unease diversity.”



  1. Your knowledge of world history is remarkable. Your analysis is even more remarkable and I could not agree more. Love of one’s own country and the desire to make it better is not a bad thing. This does not mean to the exclusion of other countries in your desire to help the world become great again, but simply when put to the test, or when difficult decisions must be made, the first and foremost impulse must be to put the welfare of one’s own country first.

  2. I’m sorry to say I found your articles disappointingly superficial. It lacks a foundation of historical fact and analyses as well as an examination of current events and their implications. What does Trumps mean when he says he’s a Nationalist? The final quote suggests that Zimmer embraced both nationalism and internationalism. Is there not a difference?

    The world has suffered a “sea change” since 1923, I believe.

  3. Nationalism as defined by Trump is love of one’s own country and putting the welfare of that country above the welfare of any other country. This is also known as Patriotism. We the people who elected him are extremely happy with his attitude towards our welfare.

  4. My dear Veronica, you must embrace your reservations about nationalism with warm sentiments the same way you embrace your bouquet of roses with the wonderful smell and the spines that may hurt you.
    It is true Hitler, Lenin and even Mao may have used nationalism in a way that has hurt a lot of people but there are also examples of the use of nationalism that lift up nations ravaged by genocide as Paul Kagame did in Rwanda, by segregation as Nelson Mandela did in South Africa, by colonial exploitation as Lee Kuan Yew and later his son Lee Hsien Loong did in Singapore.
    In the end leaders around the world must embrace the new American policy of nationalism spouse by Donald Trump as a liberty to take care of the welfare of their people first, without the embarrassing long hand of the former colonialist nations such as the United States, France and England thwarting the efforts of patriotic and nationalist presidents to change the abject condition of their citizens.

    • Perhaps you should re-read the comments of Jean H. Charles. He and I are in full agreement so I’m not sure where your close minded statement applies. I am a proud Nationalist.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.