I'm explicitly avoiding the question of whether this is a good idea and considering only whether it's a plausible idea. In other words, predictions, not plans. I actually think a major war in the next decade is very likely, and no, I'm certainly not looking forward to it, but I'm very curious as to what it would look like if it did.
So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts? I don't buy the "because the government chose and planned that explicitly" - the laws and treaties they write affect all citizens equally. Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations? There's plenty of military spending and military bases that go into Montana and Wyoming, and much of it is quite high-tech (that's where the nuclear arsenal, is after all), but you haven't seen Silicon Mountain spring up. What's different?
And if we answer that, how can we replicate that in many places so that we don't see so much political blowback because a large segment of America is left out of the prosperity that globalization has brought elsewhere?
I question even the assumption that Silicon Valley is a success. I don't think many bay area locals would agree. Economic output isn't really success, in my mind. Providing everyone with a middle class quality of life would be a success.
S.F. has one of the largest homeless populations of any city in the U.S.. By any sensible definition, most cities in the U.S. are doing pretty terrible at providing quality of life, or "success", to their occupants.
I think the only way to improve things is the government would have to make policies that actually benefit the majority of the population. That would mean taking a look at all industries in the country, figure out what kind of economic policies would benefit most people (not military spending), curb the excesses of capitalism (prevent monopolies, ensure competition), and fund basic social policies like health care. The U.S. has gone so entirely bonkers, giving in to the natural progression of capitalism, it's hard to see if there is any possible hope left.
Another path forward that seems reasonable is to let capitalism mostly flourish as it may (after all by many accounts, the US is doing pretty well, creating lots of jobs, output is up but in automated factories, wages finally starting to rise a bit, etc), but tax the upper and upper middle class a little heavier and create a new New Deal for the "post blue collar" age.
Expand the Americorps program for instance. Investments in commuter transit seem like a particularly good idea because would be construction jobs building it, and then it could make commuting from rural areas to cities faster and easier which means that more people could participate in the growth of the cities.
I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect, and maybe I'm just biased as one of the liberal elites or whatever. But this seems like a much better world to live in then one where we just start curbing technological advances further and further to preserve the 19th century ideal of working class jobs when they are less and less needed.
Rebuilding failing infrastructure seems like an obvious path, but it means people must leave places like WV and MI. That is a tough thing for many.
Even though I lean libertarian, I think we are quickly approaching a time where a basic income will be needed. The pace of technology moves so fast, that jobs literally disappear overnight.
Coasts have historically been good for trade, which is good for city development. Your question isn't about coasts, specifically, it's about urbanites.
Cities have much more freedom of labour, and fewer single industry employers. They're more agile, more resilient, to changes in the world economy. They're less dependent on industry that can reasonably expected to be aided by a nationalist industrial policy. They have more people who weren't born there; people who are used to moving to where work is, finding a community where they go, rather than identifying with an area and a community they inherited and will bequeath. They are literally less tied to the land that makes up a nation.
So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts?
Coasts are where most of the cities are. As for where globalization benefits? This question is somewhat oversimplified. There are two factors: the culture/demographic side and the economic side. That is, globalization has economic winners and losers AND cultural consequences.
Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations?
You might better ask, why did certain geographic locations win? The people have changed. One of the key requirements of globalization is the free movement of labor. Jobs move to where the labor is and labor goes to where the jobs are. A small town has no future when it loses its only factory to Mexico while all its brightest youths go to Silicon Valley and New York City to work in IT, Media, and big Finance and spend lots of time getting drunk and having sex. Once that happens, the small towns left behind either manage to pivot into tourism or an exburban haven for telecommuters, or they just die a long, slow death; kept on life support by Wal Mart while Meth labs and Mexican heroin ravage their communities.
One other important thing to look at, as far as people's attitudes go, is the pace of change and the nature of the change. If a local factory failed because they failed to compete with foreign competition, that would inspire people to figure out a better way to compete. Everyone fails together or succeeds together. But when a local factory is shut down because the owners have decided to cash in on globalization, people are more likely to be upset and feel betrayed and look to government for help.
So leaving morality and emotions out of it - why does globalization seem to disproportionately benefit the coasts? I don't buy the "because the government chose and planned that explicitly" - the laws and treaties they write affect all citizens equally. Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers, but how did it come to be that the winners are disproportionately concentrated in certain geographic locations? There's plenty of military spending and military bases that go into Montana and Wyoming, and much of it is quite high-tech (that's where the nuclear arsenal, is after all), but you haven't seen Silicon Mountain spring up. What's different?
And if we answer that, how can we replicate that in many places so that we don't see so much political blowback because a large segment of America is left out of the prosperity that globalization has brought elsewhere?