Harsanyi drops the free trade ball

The Federalist's David Harsanyi was doing so very well lately with his editorials, but he dropped the ball in today's editorial about Donald Trump and free trade, where Harsanyi made this observation:

...it’s worth mentioning that “globalization” is now one of those catchall insults which, like “neocon” or “elitist,” has lost any practical meaning. It’s far more likely you’ll see a Republican twisting himself into intellectual knots defending the party’s nominee than defending free trade. No one wants to be a globalist. 

Let's look at the Dictionary.com definition of "globalism":

"the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations."

Are there globalists in the world? Correct me if you think I am wrong, but I think people who were against the Brexit tended to be globalists, and by that I mean they believed that countries working together are superior to countries working apart. Generally, people who think that way also tend to believe in the ultimate extension of that theory, which is a "one world government", or "new world order" as some have called it (most notably George H.W. Bush).

Globalism isn't about free trade. As we have seen in Europe and in the U.S., where both large governments have piled endless regulations on top of their "free trade", a single world government is unlikely to be about free trade. While you might be able to move products from one region to another "freely" under one world government, that doesn't mean you won't have buckets of red tape before you leave, and after you get there.

When discussing globalism and free trade, it needs to be remembered these are two very different subjects. Combining them does a serious disservice to the idea of free trade, while ignoring the kind of damage globalism can do to trade, usually through blind regulatory overreach.