It mostly has a neolibaral foundation, and secondarily a governance and NGO ethos.
Anti-Globalism in the 1990's was by the Left, and they were against the WTO and mostly neoliberal world order.
Anti-Globalism today is much more complicated issue, but with the more popular versions being more or less Nationalist, anti-UN/WHO/Multilaterialism.
Personally - I think there are very good arguments on all sides of this subject and it's sad that it's ideologically aligned.
Global neoliberalism has brought zillions out of poverty, but has wicked externalizations and a lot of inequality.
Globalist institutions have a certain kind of individual corruption (think FIFA) and are also subject to the completely antithetical influences of bad actor states (think Saudi Arabia on Human Rights) etc. and finally, very susceptible to ideological institutionalization, elitism and creeping, ineffectiveness and bureaucracy.
Yet at the same time there are some parts of some orgs that are super essential. Like the WHO right now and probably the IPCC for a few reasons.
What both the left and the right complain about in their 'anti-globalist' is 'we are unhappy with the situation here' and we blame the rest of the globe. The left believes that all changes to the economy they don't like could just not effect them if you didn't have free trade. And the right, by now is basically the party of the white working class has the same issue.
This is also why the left is now the pro globalism party, they are now the party of the urban people rather then the (white) working class and cities have much fewer of the problems from change in industrial structure.
At the time, the "left" was rabidly anti-globalism and anti-GMO-those were themes. I was on a youthful anarchy kick that was informed by the archives of 80s non-leftist anarchist zine world, but also interested in economics and futurism.
As an aside wrt today: my area was tear gassed to such an extreme that I had to carry a guy a dozen blocks while throwing up ropes of phlegm and while national guard stalked through the zero-visibility beating anyone they found with what looked like long wooden dowels.
Later, helicopters lobbed flash bangs and cs gas into residential neighborhoods through which I was slowly escaping. At choke points, random people would band together to make fire barricades before escaping.
So, what's happening now is not especially crazy.
Free speech used to be popular.
Personally, I find the government censoring the CDC, and not getting accurate information from government agencies a much larger imposition on free speech. The silencing or the Florida data scientist sharing public information that conflicted with official reports.
Why? Because the government is using legal threats to silence someone on every channel.
Still is with us rebels. How the hell free speech became counter culture I have no idea, but I’m 90% sure it has to do with almost all media in the USA being run by 6 corporations.
But I'm talking about the speech itself, and you're talking about support for free speech. You'd expect support for free speech to not be counter-cultural. But when what's being expressed is counter-cultural, support for the speech may be somewhat weaker among the culture, at least among those who aren't sticklers for principle.
Take for example the anti-war stance. As far as I know Trump is the only one continually advocating for a troop withdrawal in the Middle East. This used to be a solid progressive issue.
One of the things we're sorely missing in the anglo sphere is any actually progressive candidates.
Not to be pedantic but you're conflating two issues: being anti-war and being pro-troop presence. One of the big reasons the US has kept a troop presence in the middle east is to deal with the human cost of the instability that was created in the 2000s by those wars of choice.
I can't speak for all progressives but those that I know have both anti-war views (stop shit-stirring with Iran) and pro-troop presence (try to stabilize the region before withdrawal). I will admit that both have been going very poorly lately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...
The remaining troops were there in an advisory capacity. And Trump has been trying to pull out those advisors.
The needle has been pretty steadily moving for the last 10 years, it's just been slow going. It's also debatable if the number of troops there should ever be zero if they're only acting as advisors.
Obviously there is some interesting power here that I'm not sure if I feel comfortable with Twitter having, but having to use press releases and TV speeches instead of hammering a first draft tweet out into the internet is what the vast majority of presidential communication has been
Every notable politician that I know of has a Twitter now, and uses it to some extent.
I truly wish DJT hadn't used twitter, like ever. But he did, and it was his main outlet, and then he was silenced on it. I personally don't think that's okay (while still supporting the idea that Twitter had the right to do that).
It's patently obvious to everyone that they're playing sides, when it's convenient. Not just enforcing their TOS or something.
An incredibly small group of people have amassed an incredibly large amount of power.
That is not good for Democracy.