¶ … Globalism," puts forward a particularly unique argument regarding the nature of Globalization, and specifically, how it has failed as an ideology. The fundamental failure, according to Saul, of globalism is associated with the promises it made for the future of global economics as well as politics. Namely, globalization of the world's economy was supposed to bring about the eventual downfall of nationalism, more evenly distribute wealth worldwide and between the classes, and grant governments a debt-free existence. In short, none of these consequences have come to be realized. Saul equates the fervor with which the concept of globalization was introduced to Christian idealism: it was a beautiful concept that promised to do so much while we were required to do so little. In other words, globalization was supposed to regulate itself. Essentially, Saul believes that globalism's failure to achieve its goals spells the end for it as a realistic form of economy and that nationalism seems ready, once again, to take center stage. Perhaps the most convincing portion of Saul's article is the portion in which he discusses the overall trend of large economic ideologies and policies to change over time. He writes, 'The wide open market theory that dies in 1929 had a run of just over 30 years. Communism, a complete melding of religious, economic and global theories stretched to 70 years in Russia and 45 in central Europe. . . . Keynesianism, if you add its flexible, muscular form during the Depression to its more rigid postwar version, lasted 45 years." (Saul 2004).

Accordingly, the assertion that globalization is a form of economy that will last through the ages seems to be a particularly short sighted point-of-view. Yet, Saul argues that this notion is exactly what the proponents of globalization would have us believe. This optimism is quite analogous to the optimism of economists prior to the historical context, the global economy as we know it must change or ultimately suffer complete collapse.
Aside from this particularly interesting point, Saul's argument seems to focus upon the promises made by globalization and its failure to live up to them. He fails to strictly address the structural mechanics of our global market or the broad trends that are fundamental to its perpetuation. The number one failure of globalization, in Saul's eyes, is its inability to diffuse the power of the nation-state. He states, "What is certain is that nationalism of the best and worst sort has made a remarkable, unexpected recovery. We don't yet know whether it will become the new dominant ideology." (Saul 2004). He believes that the emergence of increasingly powerful states in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and the unilateral actions of the United States reveal the ultimate triumph of nations over globalization.

Saul's additional objections to the success of globalism stem from the economic freedoms it was supposed to initiate. Choice was the word that made globalization so appealing; corporations had more options as to where they were going to sell their good and where they were going to find a workforce; individuals had more choices of where to purchase products.

'They [the public] were beginning to feel that what was presented as an argument of Globalism vs. protectionism was often just a confused opposition of personal choice and abstract corporate interests. So globalization, put forward as a metaphor for choice, was organizing itself around not consumers but corporate structures, structures that sought profits by limiting personal…