I don't see the point of what you're saying. I could go back and time and just as easily imagine someone saying the same things in the defense of absolute monarchy and against republicanism.
You haven't actually put forward a good reason not to aim for something better.
First of, let's clear up some general points.
The spread of an ideology, and the competition of ideologies, does not have to work as you describe. You don't just have a bunch of countries declaring themselves A and a bunch declaring themselves B and then fighting like sports teams. There were apparently sides in the cold war, but great disagreements between the constituents of each side. There were also those who explicitly declared themselves a part of neither side (India, Egypt, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, etc..), and those who changed their positions throughout (China). The point is that the spread of ideology and the interaction of states are not one-to-one.
More importantly, the assertion that the most powerful nations would stand for one thing, and that the remaining weaker nations would stand for another, and could/would never combine to create a comparable counterweight is simply the denial of balance of power itself. Weaker nations, driven in fact by self-interest, are more likely to cooperate. Strong nations, also driven by self-interest, have a bad habit of trying to monopolize when it isn't really possible. The USA is declining but it's still here, and like you noted, China, India, and Brazil are all ready to emerge (even if at different stages). What is the likelihood that four preeminent nations (and we can maybe throw in others like the EU, Russian, and Japan) are all going to constructively maintain this same system with each other?
Finally, you presume to much that states will actually do what is in their rational self-interest (isolate yourself from the foreign world? Invade Afghanistan?), and perhaps you also aren't recognizing that sometimes you can fulfill self-interest precisely by adopting an ideological posture.
With all that out of the way, let me focus more on a particular point. Your point that no nation would be of the anti-gobalist ideology and powerful at the same time is very dubious.
Here are 3 ways (which I doubt are all ways) that I think it could happen.
One is that a weak nation or nations adopts the ideology and then becomes a powerful nation after the fact. This is not hard to imagine because a good number of nations we currently consider weak have real potential to become powerful. I do not assume, like you do, that such a nation would abruptly cease to aligned with its ideology. These nations, they are still made of people, you know? The French revolution took place at a time when France was very powerful and the French peasants were actually experience somewhat improving conditions. Power does not necessarily make everyone into Machiavelli. It often has a way of making people very heady. Heady goes with ideology well.
Another is that an already powerful nation adopts the anti-globalist ideology. Why would one do this if globalization inherently helps the already powerful? Because there is more than one powerful nation In fact, there are going to be a lot more as the world is on a flattening trend at the moment. If I'm superpower X, and I'd really like to take down superpower Y and Z, I may find a great niche in taking on this new ideology. The USA is not a stranger to this. A good part of its history it has exploited the appeal of some apparently anti-hegemonic values. It certainly helped against the USSR. This is especially plausible from the current outlook, because the USA is often viewed as the actual master and beneficiary of globalization, and (much less frequently) this also happens to China and may start to happen more often. That increases the likelihood that a rival power will adopt an anti-globalist ideology.
Lastly, this ideology could emerge out of global chaos. How could this happen? A number of ways, but here's just one example. What if the USA is absorbed by domestic conflict? Preferably some kind of civil war, like secession or revolution (though other causes are still possible). The USA would presumably stop garrisoning the world at that point, and chaos would follow. War against Israel, war from China taking Taiwan, possibly wars of Russian aggression and war between India and Pakistan (which may more may not be tied to the other war in east Asia). This so realign the global scheme as to be a great opportunity for new powers with new ideas. It would also appear to be a grand indictment of globalization itself. Such a WWIII would, I'm sure, appear to be the failure of globalism as an ideology.