This chapter is the first of two that provide a detailed critique of conservative responses to globalization, examining both the socio-cultural and political economy responses made by conservatives. This chapter focuses on the former and provides a critique of contemporary conservative globalization and antiglobalization with a particular focus on the liberal state, cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism. This is carried out in three sections. The first section provides a summary of British and American conservative (anti-)globalization, and examines the differences and similarities between them. The second section then compares this to other forms of right-wing anti-globalization, and discusses right-wing populism and populist movements in different parts of the world. The third section then provides a detailed critique, with particular though not exclusive reference to Britain and the US, with a focus on conservative views of the liberal state, of liberal cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.

British and American conservativism and globalization: summary, differences and similarities

It should be clear from the two cases discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 that there is no single conservative position on contemporary globalization. Indeed, in some respects, we might argue that the two cases are very different, with the British case essentially arguing for more globalization through the promotion of a Greater or global Britain, and the American case arguing, albeit with considerable qualification and ambiguity, for “America first” through isolationist policies such as protectionist tariffs, border walls and more restricted immigration policies. On the other hand, there are also important similarities, as both are critical of actually existing globalization, and particularly argue that globalization is too liberal and cosmopolitan, and this has undermined national sovereignty and led to national decline.

Briefly, then, the British case is based on a critique of the European Union. The case against the EU is that it has promoted both too much and too little globalization. It has promoted too much because it has subject the British state to rules made in Brussels and thus undermined national sovereignty. Part of this claim is the (problematic – see below) argument that Britain no longer has control of its borders as the EU has promoted the free movement of labour. Brussels and the European Court of Justice have also subjected Britain to rules that restrict the nation's freedom to make its own laws. Much of this sounds like a defence of national sovereignty and indeed in many respects it is.