What's good for business is good for the world. . .

Charles Erwin Wilson was an American engineer and businessman. From 1953-1957, he was President Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense.  His nickname was "Engine Charlie", something he earned in his previously career with General Motors.  As CEO of GM, he once famously remarked, "What is good for GM, is good for America."  Half a century ago, globalism was born -- not in the halls of Congress or the parliaments or legislative houses of any country but in a corporate boardroom.

Globalism is more than anything else an economic philosophy, a means to level the playing field and make it possible for corporations to compete globally and not simply nationally or regionally.  Sure there are those who believe in a world government, some foolish enough to believe the United Nations just might evolve into something of that sort.  But the reality is that governments and international organizations of governments are secondary to the pulse of big business and to the economic realities of money and more money.  The European Union is a corporate union less of nations and peoples than of the desire to create a huge market in the belief that a commonly strong economy and a free marketplace will be the engine for social change and progress.

It is no secret that the path of globalism has been paved with trade agreements.  From NAFTA to the TransPacific Trade Partnership, globalism's future is being written not in common values or goals but in fair playing fields which will allow business to prosper without governmental interference.  Perhaps I am stating the obvious or maybe I am wrong.  I have been wrong before.  But my concerns about globalism have to do with just this aspect of it all.  We are being told that what is good for business is good for the world.  As a capitalist, I favor a free market economy but as a Christian I am not ready to cede the high ground of moral authority to the boardrooms of the global business community.

If the Church is a voice of conscience in the neighborhoods and even in the legislative arenas of the world, then the Church must also be a moral voice and serve as a conscience to business.  The weakness of globalism is that its leaders may not be easily identified nor accessible and are certainly not accountable to ballot box.  To be clear, I am not suggesting some deep, dark conspiracy theory.  I am not suggesting that this economic globalism is nefarious or demonic.  I am merely pointing out that such forces looking for peace and open economies that are behind globalism are probably not  guided by altruistic principles and we cannot depend upon their leaders being moral voices or even willing to consider higher values than profit.  While the ballot box may not be effective in reining in our elected public servants, the opportunity is at least there.