It’s Steve Bannon and Brexit, yes, but it may also be Emmanuel Macron and Jacinda Ardern.

Whether populism is the right word for this is an open question, but whatever it is, it may be the “ism” of our time — a messy mishmash of human urges seeking a middle ground after the Cold War battle between capitalism and communism.

Maybe it’s just a function of change, and a lot of it.

A McKinsey Institute report from 2015 keeps coming back to me. It compared the current moment of globalization and technological change with the Industrial Revolution, and concluded that in this era, “change is happening 10 times faster and at 300 times the scale, or roughly 3,000 times the impact.”

If that assessment is accurate, the urge to pull inward and protect your own — regardless of your professed politics — starts to make more sense.

Add to that the continued rise in influence of digital giants like Facebook, Google and Amazon (part of what our tech columnist has identified as “the Frightful Five”) and it’s hard to see a world in which the tensions between the local and the global diminish anytime soon.

Some countries (Canada, for one) have mostly avoided the populist tilt that’s careening through the developed world. The United States and England, meanwhile, are grappling with it every day.

Where do you think Australia will end up falling on the spectrum between nationalism and globalism?

And on a more personal note, where do you draw the line between openness to the world, and protection for the local?

I’m convinced there’s a lot to talk about with this subject, so tell me your thoughts at nytaustralia@nytimes.com. If you’re a subscriber, join us in our Facebook group for more discussion.