Such statements have proved potent, convincing a growing share of voters that multilateral cooperation serves the interests of the elites and comes at the expense of"the people". Yet it is nationalist populists who often pursue policies that benefit the wealthiest groups; Mr Trump's tax reforms are a case in point. By contrast, the global public goods that only multilateralism can deliver - from pandemic control to a healthy planet - disproportionately benefit the least privileged.
But this is very different from multilateralism, which refers to cooperation or coordination among nation-states. While multilateralism can lead to more globalisation, it doesn't have to. The first step toward countering the populist narrative is clarifying this distinction. Just as excessive multilateral intervention can look to domestic populations like an international assault on sovereignty, it can convince voters elsewhere that their"rivals" are using national policies as economic weapons against them, fuelling rather than preventing self-defeating cycles of retaliation. Effective multilateralism thus requires us to respect national sovereignty where policies have limited spillover effects, so that it can better help manage these effects when needed.
Yet internationalist discourse is still politically costly if it appears to ignore the local and the familiar. That is why progressive internationalism must not only celebrate diversity and nurture a global civic consciousness, but also recognise that people will always give priority to their families, communities, and countries.