I think that depends on what definition of globalism you're using. The term originally (well, in the US anyway) came about as a concept in the post WW2 era, and was about the US using its economic power to spread capitalism and its culture/ideals around the globe. Something most modern conservatives wouldn't have an issue with and something most modern liberals would have some issue with (you know, the whole "pushing our ideas on other cultures" thing).
As with many socio-polical terms though, the Left has appropriated and re-defined globalism. The modern liberal uses the term to mean something more like global socialism, I guess. So we should all share the wealth, and take actions nationally that are "best for the world" rather than "best for our nation". This would be wonderful if it was actually "global". The problem is that the folks in the US who take positions that the US should effectively harm itself politically and economically in order to benefit other nations and peoples don't take into account that the people and governments of other nations don't seem to do the same.
So when you get folks on the right "opposing globalism", what they're opposing is policies that actively hurt US interests in favor of other nation's interests. The thinking is that those other nations aren't going to return the favor (and there's good evidence to support this). And arguably, many nations are already taking huge advantage of the US's tendency towards this sort of thing. One need only look at the relative rates of "cost sharing" in NATO to see one aspect of this. Similar issues with various trade deals.
This isn't "anti-globalism" in the vein of being isolationist or something. It's about balancing our national interests against others and trying not to give away the farm or something.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please