The coronavirus pandemic is the epitome of a natural disaster. Indisputably, unlike many other expected adversities, the COVID-19 crisis could have been prevented, or at the very least, watered down to be situated less damaging to the world’s health as well as the economy. But few at the top of the administrative chain failed us!
The failure of the administrations and world health organizations did not border itself to the boundaries of pandemic expansion but then again invaded way beyond into politics and social rhetoric domains. In reality, the Coronavirus crisis has served a tremendous political trigger to conquer more than just the tiny organism.
<a href="https://www.datadriveninvestor.com/2020/04/12/anti-vaxxers-take-home-message-from-coronavirus/">Related Article: Anti-vaxxers take-home message from Coronavirus</a>
The crippling societal, economic, and political consequences of the COVID-19 pandemics are factual, here and worse is yet to come. This outcome is not necessarily due to the disease outbreak per se. Nevertheless, the end is the result of masterminds unleashing a chain of events, aimed at something which is intended to surface in the forthcoming.
During the economic recession of 2008–09, the stock market, global trade, and economic growth- all fell by higher margins than what was experienced during the Great Depression of 1929–33. In contrast to the 1930s, depression governments set aside smaller disagreements in 2008, coordinating domestic policies to save the global economy.
The coronavirus, which is responsible for the ongoing pandemic sickness, i.e., COVID-19, is another once-in-a-century disaster the world will face. It is by far one of the worst non-war crises the modern era has faced and will be endured in a long time. Tactlessly, the disaster mentioned above is transpiring in an already chaotic political environment, more alike to that of the 1930s, when governments dogged nationalist, beggar-thy-neighbor policies such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and restricted global collaboration. Then what makes the current eon unique is the clash of the liberal populist ideologies and rhetorical initiatives. The liberal progressives have been able to efficiently use the declamation skills to merge countries under the notion of so-called “Globalism.”
Over the past decades, the world has grown up to be more authoritarian. Global nationalism, xenophobia is more prominent today than ever before. Unilateralism, anti-establishment, and anti-expertise has infested over half of the globe. The current state of politics and geopolitics has flared up, not contained, the calamity. The contemporary political arena is occupied by a few technocratic populists who use the slogan of unity and working for the collective merit of everyone for their own advantage. The liberal populist ideals call for more energetic states to provide support to nations with the weaker capacity to deal with the difficulties of the crisis. The concluding is that even if the countries are adversaries to their common cause. However, the genuine initiatives are the “words between the lines”!
Globalization serves the means for any state rivals to reign over that society rendering it cheaper and not as much of stride. The last utilizes the art of sermon to ration collectivism, the monotony of procedure, and redefinition of the meaning of the common buzzwords.
COVID-19 is turning to be the third major crisis of the post–Cold War epoch, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the financial collapse of 2008.
This coronavirus pandemics will potentially levy a more momentous toll than any other crisis of the century and has established the potential and opportunities for populism as a scheme of régime. Although expertise matters, institutions matter; then again for the liberal populist, there is something called the global community.
Coronavirus as an open political opportunity for some European leaders
As coronavirus is making its progress on health ground zero, Europe’s populist lawmakers are using the prospect to exploit the health emergency to attend to their political ambitions. The populism has unquestionably aided Matteo Salvini, Italy’s leader of the far-right League party and late interior minister exceptionally well. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided an excuse to prompt Italians of the pro-European government slip-ups. He argues; if the desk Prime Minister Giuseppe can’t shield Italians from foreign infection, then he must step down. Salvini wants the government to seal our borders here and now.
Salvini avows anti-immigration sentiments even further, even though Italy lately outdid Iran with the most eminent death toll outside of China. While the anti-Chinese view has spread worldwide, Salvini has also been stoking fears about African asylum seekers. Notwithstanding, Egypt is the only African country to have recorded one confirmed Coronavirus infection case as of March 2020, with only a handful of examples that have appeared across that continent.
Stephens smith’s progressive populist campaign is a COVID-19 response program
West Virginia’s Stephen Smith, a 40-year-old community organizer, and radio talk show host, is currently running a movement-based campaign for governor. Amid coronavirus pandemic, the progressive-populist bidder has transformed his campaign’s field operation to initiate a statewide response to the contagion.
Smith’s “West Virginia Can’t-Wait” campaign had a coronavirus response website in place before the state government was created its anti-Coronavirus public exhibition. Soon after, the campaigner released an 11-point policy plan calling for drive-through coronavirus testing in every county, vote-by-mail legislation, and moratoria on evictions and utility shutoffs.
Concomitantly, the Smith campaign formed an “adopt-a-voter” program, under which campaign volunteers aim to check in with 100 voters who live near them once a week with statistics about local coronavirus resources and volunteer events, instructions for how to vote by letter, and offers to learn more further about the initiative.
The Coronavirus pandemics
The emerging infectious disease of 2019-20 is now an open-ended pandemic of coronavirus or COVID-19 virus of our time. Its implications can fall on to anything from asymptomatic carrier to a lethal form of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). According to various sources, the viral outbreak sprang in Wuhan, Hubei province of China, in December 2019, declared on January 30, 2020, by The WHO (World Health Organization) as the new explosion of an international level Public Health Emergency.
It wasn’t long ago when the WHO upgraded the COVID-19 epidemics to pandemic on March 11, 2020. Subsequently, as of April 7, 2020, over 1.41 million cases of COVID-19 are confirmed in over 200 countries and territories. The COVID-pandemic has resulted in nearly 81,100 deaths.
Handling of the coronavirus pandemics is more than ever partisan
Amidst all turmoil, while containing the emerging novel infectious disease, the sociopolitical controversies on how to handle infection crisis are very much divided. In some countries, including the United States, political oppositions are finger-pointing as to how (if ever) the Trump administration has been acting irresponsibly with regards to the ongoing pandemic. Then in others such as Italy, have turned the “pandemics” into an immigration and foreign affairs issue blaming the ruling government for putting the populous at risk in the first place.
At the unlimited spectrum number of international communities blame the World Health Organization leader, Tedros Adhanom, as biased toward the shortfalls of Chinese administration.
It is the official census that Adhanom, along with China’s Xi Jinping, should be held accountable for heedlessly letting COVID-19 pandemic loose. According to many, Tedros allegedly ignored the COVID-19 outbreak and the rest of China. Besides, after meeting with Xi in January, the director of WHO has aided China to play down the severity, prevalence, and scope of the COVID-19 outbreak.
The burden of Social isolation, shelter in place also turns political
The pro-corporate force group termed Americans for Prosperity (AFP) established and underwritten by billionaire and industrialist Charles Koch, demanded his employees to return to work despite appeals from public health administrators that people should stay home when possible to help restrain the spread of the coronavirus. Koch proposed; rather than across the board business shutdowns, the government should acknowledge businesses as to continue to adapt and innovate; hence produce the goods and services would typically Americans demand while maintaining to do everything they can to protect the public health. AFP’s attitude seemingly comes after the group lobbied the Trump administration in 2018 to withdraw $1 billion from the CDC. Since then, the group has practiced its government influence to slash environmental rules, retreat from the Paris Climate Accord, and demand cuts to federal programs.
But, how long does the shelter-in-place can sustain itself?
According to a study published by Imperial College of London, two fundamental approaches are possible with reverence to handling COVID-19 pandemics. One is called “mitigation,” which merely focuses on slowing but not inevitably stopping the spread. The latter will hypothetically help reduce healthcare needs while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection. The second scheme stands by way of “suppression,” which intends to shift epidemic delay, reducing the number of the affected case to a minimum, and maintaining that situation indefinitely.
Each dogma has its own particular challenges, as a study demonstrates. However, it also discovers that the optimal mitigation policies such as fusing home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine, the social distancing of the elderly, and those at the peak of the risk for the severe disease can reduce demand for maximum medical attention. However, the ensuing would still likely result in an enormous number of fatalities as well as overwhelming the healthcare system. The principal challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission will need to be sustained until the vaccine is offered. If interpositions are relaxed, then rebound is unavoidable.
Some studies suggest, Intermittent social distancing triggered by trends in disease surveillance – may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in terms of relatively short time frames. But measures will need to be reintroduced once the number of cases rebounds.
Last, while Chinese and South Korea’s experience shows that suppression is possible in the short term, nevertheless, it remains to be discerned whether it is possible in long-term or the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted so far can be reduced.
The economic impact of Shelter-In-Place
Realistically, long-term suppression is not a feasible policy option, especially in countries with inadequate resources. Study shows that the short-term period like 3-month mitigation policy alternative might reduce fatality by up to 50%, and peak healthcare needs by 75%. But then again, on the shortcoming, one analysis performed by Moody’s Analytics determined that almost 80 million U.S. jobs remain at risk. More likely than not, some 10 million workers could be potentially losing their jobs, furloughed, or face work-hours and wages cut. The numbers look scary, the study predicts.
Continuing beyond three consecutive months of shelter-in-place is a very long time. The UCLA Anderson Forecast quarterly forecast is calling for slower economic growth and that the U.S. has already slipped into a recession. Some 18% of adults have reportedly had hours cut from the job, been laid off; workers in lower-income households beat the hardest.
Risk and benefit ratio on choosing mitigation vs. suppression and how it can be utilized
To contain the unswerving ailment brought upon the community by the COVID-19, we must first recognize our aptitude as individuals, communities, and as a nation. The capacity described above pertains to resources and backings accessible to us at a given moment in time and place. Convincingly, there is not enough economy in the world to economically sustain any community imperiled to shelter-in-place. Hence, no economy in the world can stand unceasing suppression for an extended period.
The disaster of a given pandemics is a single hurdle, but the consequences of unrealistic measures are one more. Therefore, it is always pragmatic to ponder the risk-benefit ratio of every action we instigate.
Coronavirus continues to spread, requiring an unparalleled answer from the humanitarian community. The situation is notably dubious for people living in countries troubled by hunger, armed conflict, and whose health systems are weak or almost non-existent.
A predictable sum of three billion individuals lacks access to hand-washing facilities, 12 million children no longer in receipt of school meals due to coronavirus pandemic related closures. And- 65 million migrants live in close-quarters campsites.
The United States, as a wealthy nation, is not invulnerable to the Coronavirus pandemic that is causing a massive upsurge in hungry families within the country. A report predicts that, at present, people who are showing up at the “Feeding America” (a United States-based nonprofit food bank) entrance, so many of them are folks who have never looked-for help previously.
There are roughly 40 million people who rely on the agency’s aid every year; Yet, the numbers are on the rise amid the novel pandemic. In some locations, more than 50% need food assistance.
Obviously, the COVID-19 threatens humanity, not necessarily as the direct consequence, but as the side effect of meager assessment of individual community’s state of the economy as well as the overzealous application of one-size-fits-all solutions. Therefore, decentralized implementation of the risk-benefit ratio towards crisis interventions at the discrete community level is ideally substantiated. It will rationally reduce mortality and morbidity from the economic despair of the pandemic, which or else may surpass the 2-3% mortality of coronavirus infection.
Mortality and morbidity of the infection of its own accord is a subject of great apprehension. Nevertheless, if shelter-in-place and indiscriminate shut down of businesses are continued, the upshot reflecting on morbidity and mortality will be overwhelming, even in the face of vibrant welfare programs. The longer the period of shelter-in-place mandates, the gravest long-term sequel. Thus, concluding will potentially gutter the national reserves that are designed mainly to sustenance welfare programs. The end, notwithstanding, the fact that crime will increase, citizens will be frustrated, and the stalemate of growing costs and economic burden will potentially slip out of control.
Populism rhetoric is driving the crisis towards the cliff
For a couple of decades, we experience a significant surge in a populist rhetoric that has disrupted the global political landscape. A few media have been able to shed light on the significance of the populist trend. Recently the Guardian ordered a study of speeches by almost 140 world leaders. The research was based on the review of “public speeches” by prime ministers, presidents, and chancellors in 40 different countries. The study points toward the increasing number of populist leaders since the early 2000s. The examination also exposes how politicians across the globe with time espoused more populist motives, mounting politics as a crusade war of ordinary people against crooked, self-serving elites.
The study further highlights the footpath of individuals, including Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Viktor Orban of Hungary or India’s Modi. Some countries like India, the U.S., Mexico, and Brazil, where administrators seldom used any populist euphuism until recent elections, when the successful prime official or presidential candidate transformed the terms of the dialogue.
The epitome of Neo-Populist is Neo-Globalist
Throughout the populist gush, politicians have been able to fruitfully learn the mentality of the densely inhabited, imitate their language, touch their sweet spot, and, most of all, gain their conviction. However, the irony of the whole scenario isn’t necessarily supporting the common prerequisite, but fortifying grounds to satisfy their authoritarian epitomes.
The modern anti-elitist conception is not within the confines of right-conservative or the left-liberal partisanship, as its core determination is to fragment the world under the umbrella of “globalization.” Indeed, the neo-mainstream imperialized by neo-aristocrats to serve “Neo-feudal” ambitions.
The masterminds of neo-authoritarianism, as the aftereffect of Neo-feudal move, will use any justification, under the diversity of circumstances to gain popular support and sway their elections.
The coronavirus pandemics is one such scenario. Unrelatedly of the consequences, COVID-19 serves as an alternative of focusing on the actual problem. Politicians are merely determined to double down on the opportunities that come with the COVID-19 crisis . For instance, Nancy Pelosi, at the leadership of the congressional Democrats, seemingly is hijacking the coronavirus stimulus bill for liberal Christmas. As USA TODAY calls it, “The 1119-page bill of Christmas in March for liberal special interests.” The proposal required racial and gender pay equity procurements, multifariousness on corporate boards, enhanced use of minority-owned banks by federal offices, and a grab-bag of other diversity-themed obligations. As history reveals, every time the country faces a disaster, congress seems to rush on passing massive bills that go far beyond reacting to the ongoing matter.
The semantic shift is the populist instrument in time of COVID-19 crisis
The use of words by populists and how they are conveyed linguistically is well unspoken. In conformism, studies signpost that the ample application of anti-elitist dialogue on the part of movement activists tend to solicit a wide-ranging language when constructing various social criticisms in a given citizenry. The latter implies to mattering entanglements with reputes to how populism can facilitate escalating the divide that ostensibly extricates institutionalized party system behavior from the social movement milieu.
COVID-19 pandemic is an emergency of extraordinary proportion, as it has inserted coercion of unusual urgency. The emergency powers required to overcome it, according to some, will also include suspending some of the public’s most fundamental rights, halting freedom of movement and freedom of association. Since the emergency response in the modern wisdom is primarily devised by the “elite,” henceforth, the last open up specific opportunities for diverse populist movements to pursue their other endeavors.
What does emergency mean to everyone?
The wordiness of emergency is amongst the commonly abused in modernized statesmanship. The dictionary meaning of an emergency clasps three components. The “temporal emergencies” require swift or immediate action; “epistemic emergencies” are unexpected and unanticipated, and “existential emergencies” pose grave danger or threat.
But, what category the COVID-19 pandemic fits in to whom, which community and at what point of time?
Obviously, the application of said definitions cannot mean the same in the global sense, as media and populists are immensely prejudiced if they shoulder that the equal measure appropriate for a county in the U.S. today; must be the identical in the entire African continent tomorrow.
It is alleged that Emergency powers are “conservative,” as they base their justification merely to restore the status quo ante. On the other hand, not all declarations of an emergency genuinely back emergency powers. For example, Trump’s announcement of a national emergency, while urgently needed, was to invoke the Stafford Act, which opened federal funding to be used for states to apply for medical facilities, testing, and other supplies. On the other hand, the “shelter in place” mandates of various state governors to tentatively suspend freedom of movement and assembly, whether conveyed through formal declaration or not, are dramatic instances of legitimate emergency powers.
Why, populism, why COVID-19, why now?
One of the prevailing views as to why today’s populism has become the fashionable movement of our times is because the various factions have figured out how to dictate their mission and ideology using the potential inherent to the mainstream. Indeed, historically cohorts of the populism were able to effectively convey their interests using the Great Recession to insert more inequality into the system. But, this time, they are doing the opposite way.
The mutual orotundity like “We all have to come together,” “We need to help each other,” We don’t have time for politics” are some of the slogans commonly used to sway the public towards their initiative. During the crisis like the current coronavirus pandemic, these classes of the call to actions for cooperation are flattering part of everyone’s life. But such catchphrases also may have a paradoxical outcome.
Mottos have been postulated that in a profoundly incapable society, the uncommon elite and wealthy can potentially abuse the inevitable calamities. The aristocrats make themselves even more prosperous, only through speaking the populous language.
In 2007, the well-known Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein explored the phenomenon brilliantly in her book “The Shock Doctrine.” Klein postulated on how global corporate aristocracies have frequently and relentlessly used “the public’s disorientation to drive headlong radical pro-corporate missions.
The downturn of 2008 seems to be in line with what Klein’s envisioned. The Wall Street goliaths whose careless and criminal deeds ushered in 2008 crisis ended up even more prominent and further overriding. The author of the book sees the same undercurrents resurfacing with the coronavirus predicament, serving as risky corporate expediency.
Amidst all, Trump seems to be attending to the “Honey do list” provided by the Wall Street on the whole shebang from cutting and privatizing Social Security via disheartenment of payroll tax revenue stream to inspiring the fossil fuel industry with gigantic bailouts.
The left-populist dominated congress, described in the bigger picture, is on an arms-race against the right-wing anti-elitist of the trump administration.
Within the utterly coronavirus-ravaged economy, ever more families will be facing evictions and starvation, and the worst yet to come.
Even the hardliner liberal populist, Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic presidential candidate), says the coronavirus pandemic climaxes the need for the populist progressive, the political revolution he has been selling for half a decade. But despite his diligent efforts, other populist groups on the Nancy Pelosi side Democrats did not buy what Bernie offered. Instead, they buttressed the senator Joe Bidden (Democratic presidential candidate), forcing his rival, Sanders, to drop out of the race.
Globalization and coronavirus pandemics
The novel coronavirus pandemics is putting the concept of “globalization” into the test. The idea of the rule by which businesses and corporations must develop international magnetism or start operating on a global scale is becoming counterproductive. The growing interdependence of the world’s economies, cultures, and populations, by building economic partnerships to facilitate these movements are facing noteworthy scrutiny.
The coronavirus outbreak in the face of international interdependence has strained the critical supply chains that rely on international travel and shipping. Forthwith, firms, and nations alike are realizing just how exposed the world has to turn out to be.
But- the lesson learned from the new coronavirus is not if globalization failed. In fact, the take-home is that globalization is fragile, despite or even because of its paybacks.
The globalization topic or consolidation of the world economy stands facing a backlash from those occupying both ends of the spectrum. Some of the globalists like Bill Gates are pushing for the “National Tracking System For Coronavirus,” against respect to individual privacy. And others in Italy pressing for more world segregation.
But why, globalize?
Globalization is a consolidative ration used by corporate-backed elites to create a socioeconomic neo-feudalism, under the slogan of equality. The modern feudal has learned how to sway any society by propagating messages such as; rich helping sparse and the world population living as fellow citizens. But in reality, humans have every right to live the way they want, but they are neither equal nor privileged to the same degree. Globalization will still enhance the power of selected factions, enslaving others in the time of critical need. The COVID-19 crisis is one manifest specimen of such a scenario; also, populist oratory is the best tool to use at such a time of desperation like the novel pandemic.
Surly, The Coronavirus Is Exposing the global limits of populism.
George Soros Praises Elizabeth Warren, Says Globalism Will Defeat Donald Trump’s Nationalism. Based on a report; The Democratic Party’s leading super PAC (Political Action Committee) is planning on hammering President Donald Trump over coronavirus in battleground states, using millions from liberal billionaire George Soros.
Another globalist Bill Gates, Microsoft’s co-founder, is planning to launch “human-implantable capsules” that partakes ‘digital certificates’ aiming to reveal those tested for the coronavirus and who have been immunized against it. The 64-year-old globalist elite believes in businesses operating while maintaining social distancing. By implementing digital certificates, tech moguls want to track who has recovered or been tested recently or when vaccine available, who has been immunized. The kind of ‘digital certificates’ Gates has advised as human-implantable ‘QUANTUM-DOT TATTOOS‘ is a way of holding trackable vaccination records.
The implantable chip in citizens is not only the invasion of individual rights and privacy but also follows my earlier message on how elites are utilizing coronavirus pandemics to make secure corporate interests and use the opportunity to push their alternate ingenuities! Zuckerberg of Facebook also teams up with Gates team up to contribute $25M for research into coronavirus project initiated by bill gates.
The Wuhan coronavirus crisis seems to be more than coincidence
The Harvard professor Charles Lieber was arrested in January 2020 for defrauding federal authorities’ apropos funds he received from Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) and his connections to a Chinese government-sponsored recruitment program. Today, selected media is defending the allegation under the “conspiracy theory,” as per Lieber’s arrest was not related to the novel coronavirus, nor was that virus “developed” or “manufactured” by anybody. Nevertheless, Francis A. Boyle, the University of Illinois College professor of international law and the author of the book Biowarfare and Terrorism, utters otherwise. According to Boyle’s publication, coronavirus has undergone a procedure called “gain-of-function (GOF) modification,” where the viral DNA was altered to be more lethal and extra infectious. Accordingly, The experiment was conducted at the Biosafety level, BSL-3, or BSL-4 laboratories.
Wuhan is home to the declared BSL-4 laboratory in China, the selected WHO research lab. Boyle believes that the WHO acknowledges COVID-19 as a bio-weapon.
It is implicit that China has underwritten the University of North Carolina to support its researchers COVID-19. Additional research donations were on condition that by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases under the directorship of Tony Fauci.
It is far from coincidence that recently Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals legally charged in Three distinct china related cases. Conferring to court documents, Dr. Lieber, who attended as the Principal Investigator of the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, and specialized in the field of nanoscience, accepted more than $15,000,000 in grant subsidy from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD). As well, beginning in 2011, Lieber turned out to be a “Strategic Scientist” at Wuhan University of Technology (WUT) in China and was a contracted contributor in China’s Thousand Talents Plan from in or about 2012 to 2017.
“Progress Made on New Biological Defenses,” Anthony Fauci, the presiding head of the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told Global Security Newswire. It is the headline of a piece published in NTI in 2004. While lawmakers criticized the Bush administration’s massive funding of biological defenses, Fauci “defended” the outlay, by saying, the coronavirus experimentation is the largest ever expense on original research by the NIH. Besides that, it provided new treatments and vaccines against biological weapons. And that the Bush administration’s “biological research” efforts have also provided valuable information on other types of infectious diseases, Fauci said. Particularly for “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.”
The murky water of populous
All said and done, is about globalists using populist rhetoric to curb the market and crush the legitimacy of individuality. I denominate the latter as the “globalization of the liberal populism” under the consolidation and brotherhood euphuism. The modern globalist is uniting the people using rhetorical slogans such as, “we are all citizens of this earth, and we need each other.” However, the ultimate goal for the globalists to harness the influence of the ordinary people using to alter the stream of politics, economy to strengthen their position on a global scale.
What would be a better time than when the public is facing an extreme crisis similar to the emerging COVID-19 pandemic?
Globalization of family values during emerging infections
Research performed at the London School of Hygiene and tropical medicine looks into the association between the globalization of socioeconomic status and the infectious disease and that how the globalization process prompts a complex and multifaceted chain of processes that disrupts the global human societies. The study outlines the controversial nature of the globalization and implication of instigating further diligence on the road to conceptualizing its impact on human lives and the global economy as a whole.
The study finds; the globalization potentially has an inevitable volatile yet profound impact on the social, economic, biological, and ecological conditions. It will alter the way every infectious disease will overwhelm a given society.
According to the research outcome, people will have certain economic gains and losses from globalization, thus redistributing a burden when an epidemic ensues.
Association between globalization and infectious disease presents an inconsistent emphasis on selected epidemics. Globalization would conveniently require central global governance if it is meant to effectively apply infection control and treatment at a worldwide level. It also necessitates training at a global dimension. However, neither of the latter scenarios is achievable without a certain level of autocracy.
Globalization of politics
Coronavirus pandemics have triggered the outdated populous apprehension and concomitantly have exposed the downfall of old-style globalism. Furthermore, it has placed left-wing neo-populists like Bill Gates, Bernie Sanders, and George Soros, who provision globalization in the defensive mode. But the right-wing Populists are not sitting quietly.
For over a decade, there has been significant growth in numerous modes of populism, especially in Western countries. Globalization is one reason causing resentment amongst the populous within the societies, who want to turn back the clock and keep the community homogeneous, conserving the popular profile. Hence The rise of modern populism is seen to be drawing its strength from those left behind by globalization, although the elites like corporate executives and carefully chosen government officials are not giving up what they feel they are entitled to without a fight. Then again, privileged have discovered the power of semantic shift’ in this case, the vagueness of terms’ populism’ and ‘globalization”. Aristocrats, indeed, have mastered the art of populous slogans and how loosely the buzzwords are used in political discourse.
Steve Bannon (American media executive, political strategist, former investment banker, and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News) refers to national populism as the “global tea party” (Bannon 2014, as cited by Feder 2016). The global tea party in the United States and Europe have mounted effective channels to share ideas, attract inspirations, and sympathize with each other’s accomplishments.
Globalization of economy
Economic globalization is one of the three first facets of what it takes to globalize. The two others stand political globalization and cultural globalization. The three components are closely interrelated, as one will potentially disturb the other. However, Economic globalization refers to the widespread international movement of goods, capital, services, technology, and information. It refers to the growing economic alliance and reliance on national, regional, and local economies across the world. The perpetuation of Economic globalization is attained through enhancement of the cross-border flow of goods, services, technologies, and capital. Coronavirus is already imposing travel restrictions, finger-pointing between governments, and a series of xenophobic attacks in many nations. Yet, the level of said imposition depends on the degree of human and economic damage this virus inflicts around the world. It is the growing belief that the coronavirus may, in fact, signify a major turning point for the entire global economy.
Globalization of the healthcare system
The multilateralism of socioeconomic globalization treaties between countries, sadly, often function to the detriment of the countries with less developed economies. Globalization inescapably affects healthcare. But the conflicting issue will further surface during the global economy such as Coronavirus pandemics. Among many, the latter predominantly pertains to the series of complex ethical, cultural, and human resource issues. That is why it is exceptionally imperative to establish a global healthcare system that is decentralized and collaborative as opposed to the centralized variety; being framed by the neo-globalists.
Who benefits from the COVID-19 crisis?
In the metaphorical sense, the murky waters of the Coronavirus pandemics, just as any crisis in the world, has served the particular interest of factions in their fishing expedition. As described earlier, society chaos, vulnerability, and expectation collectively epitomize the perfect grounds for the corporations, select few, to enhance their profiteering crusade. The upshot of the latter doesn’t halt within the declared boundaries, yet goes further invading individual privacy, globalizing currency and value, besides, most of all, make a mockery of the individual values. Coronavirus pandemic is, indeed, the murky water for globalist fishing for the populist backing to underhandedly benefit the same cream of the crop.
Neo- Elite are technocrats
Michael Lind, the author of The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite, states; today’s political rascal is a notion of “technocratic neoliberalism.” He simply defines the current sociopolitical status quo as a geographically clustered, managerial, or metropolitan, university-educated aristocracy. The neo-liberal technocrats have successfully taken control of the U.S. political, economic, and cultural life. Hence, the failure of this crowd to comprehend its upper hand over sparsely populated, white working-class is an utter failure. And concomitantly, the group’s ensuing refusal to compromise on inconsistencies of the approachs, is a predisposition to a vacuum absorbing populist radicals.
On the other end of the spectrum, Soros-funded progressive globalists are using COVID-19 pandemic to push their peculiar ‘technocratic solutions. The explanation includes abolishing cash, fossil fuels, individual privacy, family values.
Technocratic activists have ample solutions to the coronavirus crisis.
Lind’s critique is nostalgic of the one proposed earlier by 1980s philosopher Richard Rorty, who predicted; the working-class would ultimately be lured into supporting populists after facing abandonment from the middle class. Lind argues, Amid the present-day elite, it is prevalent that if one lays out the facts, everyone will agree. And if the same person agrees on those facts, then there is only one correct view. However, he also postulates; people don’t generally disagree on points but about how to fit them with their values. The backwash implies a deadlock that has one side pitted against the other without bargain; the populous, especially millennials, embrace confidence in the technology.
Globalization of technology predisposes the world population into an indiscriminate crisis if it occurs. Hence, the upshot of the coronavirus pandemic is a kind of devastation that puts the populous faith at the head of the technocrats with tactical missions. The COVID-19 crises are being pivoted through other strategic commission towards power and profiteering.
The coronavirus pandemic will eventually pass; In the meantime, it will challenge the world’s resilience against not merely diseases; but misinformation and scapegoating. The aforementioned is disproportionately due to health and has always been a crucial part of people’s menace discernment. Accordingly, it’s unsurprising that populists, globalists by the hands of the corporate cartel, exploit public hysteria to their advantage.