As for that equally rare specimen, the ethical globalist, I actually watched Yanni, the well known Greek born American resident, as he performed a concert in Egypt. He made it quite clear that he believed that there is only one race of people in the world, the Human Race. He has apparently spent his entire adult life putting his money as well as his immense talent where his mouth is. Right or wrong in his global view of things, Yanni at least is a true blue globalist. I can't really vouch for too many others. As for true blue isolationists, I can't really vouch for any of them. I frankly wonder how this whole concentration of wealth thing works among not only the peoples of the world, but how it works in each individual country. What is the mechanism?
There are those of us, some claiming to be Libertarians, who while kind and charitable individuals in their personal lives, are extremely apprehensive about U.S. foreign policy since WWII. They are wary of our penchant for influencing the fate of continents so far away across the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, continents inhabited largely by people who, in truth, do not see things the way they feel that this country sees things. Some would apply those same standards in describing Central America, South America, and even Canada. Many of them resent the entire concept of foreign aid to all but their own selective countries based on specific threats to the U.S. Others, seeing the fate of this country being buffered by and dependent, in the long run, on the economic success and military behavior of the rest of the world, feel more comfortable embracing a sort of global policy of economic, military, and eventually social cooperation as the best choice for the long term survival of the nation. Meanwhile, others, be they extremely liberal progressives or very conservative in their orientation, seem to bounce between the global and isolationist extremes depending on the most prevalent political climate. They are usually referred to by critics as populists.
The globalist vs. isolationist debate, of course, is nothing new. In the years leading up to each world war the economic and military implications of our half hearted attempts of abstention from the problems of Europe and Asia led to severe criticism of isolationism. In each case, apparently, our country was deeply immersed in the conflicts economically well before we entered them militarily. By justifiably cutting off oil and iron exports to Japan, for example, the Roosevelt administration realized that this would signal Japan's attack on us, allowing the U.S. to officially enter World War II. After the war, the spoils were divided, so to speak, between the Free World and the Communist World. The Free World officially adopted a supposedly global philosophy, rebuilding Europe and Asia like God in the Old Testament, in Our own image, god in this case, being the United States and eventually the European Union.
Under Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, influenced by people such as Jeane Kirkpatrick their administrations sought to engage authoritarian governments economically, notably China and the Soviet Union, in the hope that they would become more capitalistic and less dictatorial. While this idea proved successful in many instances, it also illustrated an all too visible aspect of the mechanism of wealth and power accumulation. No matter how far the authoritarian governments progress toward capitalism and democracy, invariably they concentrate far more wealth among preferred bureaucrats, eventually developing them into oligarchs, with only token contributions to the public.
On the other hand, traditional European-style democratic republics, ours included, have always been based on land ownership and energy production, land ownership in the form of the time honored feudal system and energy wealth in the form of wood and eventually fossil fuels. Apparently Western Europe's magnificent Industrial Revolution was due more to a desperate search for fuel rather than Europe's relative surplus of geniuses. In fact, I believe that in the near future, while China seeks to be the center of trade, the greatest rivalry between the U.S. and Russia will be in the distribution and control of fossil fuels. Russia, extremely rich in oil and natural gas, would like Europe to be dependent on them for energy. The US represented by the conservative base in this country, are desperate to maintain power over our allies by making them dependent on our military control as well as the disbursement of fossil fuel rather than renewable energy. That is, until the fossil fuel industry can completely monopolize the renewable energy market, of course. Thus we can exercise our own version of concentrating as much wealth and power in as few hands as possible. That is not to say that many liberals don't also represent huge concentrations of wealth and power among a relatively few individuals- consider communications, airwaves, social media, and various technical innovations, that is Silicon Valley. I assume that most of them will invariably try to monopolize their industries as well.
Meanwhile, given that most Europeans, including President Magoo are descended from ancestors who were quite primitive when Greeks were developing brilliant scientific concepts and would reject science for the next one and a half millennia, maybe he shouldn't refer to Africans and/or Asians as "shithole" residents. Add to that the fact that Muslim "shithole" residents preserved virtually the entirety of our scientific knowledge for over a thousand years until the Renaissance. What's more, as I picture so many Trump voters, still crouching like hyenas over carrion, bragging about how proud they are that it doesn't take any skill to run a government, I think of their equally ignorant and often amoral ancestors brainwashed by the nobility into thinking the same way. It's no surprise, in fact, that immigrants from some of those "shithole" countries have the highest college graduation rates and percentage of advanced degrees of any ethnic groups. Would somebody please find President Magoo his bifocals!