Towards a New Nationalism

[_honorentheos]

Might be of interest to some here. For Xeno, I copied a bit more than my initial impulse limited me to. But not much more.

https://reason.com/2020/02/24/against-t ... tionalism/

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism," George Orwell wrote in 1945. "Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved."

In The Case for Nationalism (Broadside Books), Rich Lowry has decided, rather boldly, to go up against Orwell and stake out the inverse position: To be a nationalist, he says, is merely to feel a glow of pride in one's country, to recognize it as possessing a particular cultural character that differentiates its citizens from all others, and to insist on its sovereignty in the face of crusading outside forces. Nationalism and patriotism, in other words, are essentially interchangeable.

...

In fairness to America's new conservative nationalism, there's every reason to assume its proponents are mercantilists, not Nazis. Nonetheless, in both general outlook and specific policy prescriptions, it is decidedly not a simple synonym for patriotic pride.

The new nationalism is implicitly illiberal. It doesn't stop at resisting the push, regrettably fashionable on many college campuses, to divide society into mutually antagonistic identity subgroups or to rewrite history to cast the United States as an unredeemable villain in every tale. Instead, it spills over into efforts to preserve our cultural homogeneity (such as it exists) from the diluting influence of foreigners. And it doesn't stop at opposing what The American Conservative's Antle calls "sovereignty-shredding supranational organizations" (the European Union, for instance) but spills over into an anti-cosmopolitanism that seeks to throw up barriers to free markets and free trade.

This predilection was on display at last summer's National Conservatism Conference, an event at which Beltway journalists, professors from prestigious educational institutions, and at least one U.S. senator gathered at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., to discuss how coastal elitism is ruining America. The lineup featured a parade of right-of-center intellectuals explaining what, practically speaking, nationalism means to them: higher tariffs ("economic nationalists must be willing to pay higher prices to protect our fellow citizens," said Christian activist David Brog), larger expenditures to support the American industrial sector ("we should have a National Institutes of Manufacturing just as we have a National Institutes of Health," said former Mitt Romney adviser Oren Cass), stricter immigration laws ("it doesn't make a darn bit of difference what the economic arguments are if our cohesion is shot," said Israeli political philosopher Yoram Hazony), and more aggressive efforts to legislate morality ("we should care about a whole host of public goods and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish those goods," said Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance).

There can be no doubting that the nationalist project—not just in my telling but in the minds of the people undertaking it—involves a coercive imposition of national unity on the country. Consider the difference between encouraging people to "buy American" out of a sense of solidarity and enacting protectionist policies that raise prices for everyone, whether they like it or not.

In fact, many of the new nationalists are explicit that libertarian economics, and the classical liberal order more broadly, are diametric to their desires. Writer Daniel McCarthy, in a widely circulated March 2019 essay for First Things, warned that America is headed for "suicide by liberalism," with a nationalist program "the most effective and honorable way out of the dilemma we face." Fox News host Tucker Carlson has repeatedly blamed "libertarian ideologues" for the GOP's unwillingness to embrace a program of "economic patriotism" resembling the one put forward by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). And Hazony used the National Conservatism Conference to "declare our independence…from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing" that matters.

The list could go on. Too often these days, a nationalist is a person who thinks individual autonomy is the cause of all our problems and state autonomy is the solution. True, Lowry probably doesn't see himself in those terms—but as the story goes, the Soviets had a name for people who credulously dealt in an ideology without grasping the enormity of its goals: useful idiots.

[_honorentheos]

I posted this in part out of interest for the topic, but more so in that the very concept of patriotism seems at the heart of the divide between our political identities. It seemed worthwhile to raise the issue of how nationalism being equated with patriotism deserves some scrutiny, and what better way to approach it than in the context of a libertarian review of a fairly traditional neocon perspective.

[_moksha]

I see the new American nationalism as a bit of a fashion show, combining classic brown shirts with white hoods. They might sing the national anthem, but pretty soon they are strutting down the runway with semi-automatic rifles.

[_honorentheos]

Suppose a hypothetical conservative poster on the board asked if you view love of country as inevitably leading to fascism? Would you agree and argue patriotism is a slippery slope leading to oppression?

[_Xenophon]

Might be of interest to some here. For Xeno, I copied a bit more than my initial impulse limited me to. But not much more.

In my defense, I didn't want you to paste more per se, I was just surprised that none of the other points of that article made it into the discussion. But thanks all the same

Interesting article that I'll have to spend some more time on later today. To you're proposed hypothetical though:

Suppose a hypothetical conservative poster on the board asked if you view love of country as inevitably leading to fascism? Would you agree and argue patriotism is a slippery slope leading to oppression?

I'd say that context is really, really important but that generally any time patriotism is placed on the pedal of righteousness or virtue you are at risk for falling into fascism.

We had a pretty solid exchange on this topic with Ceeboo some time ago where I said:

Too much, however, begins to strike me as more nationalism than patriotism; this kind of crushing anti-individualism that seeks to prevent people from raising legitimate concerns. It becomes a cudgel with which to beat our political opponents.

To which you added a point I still consider excellent:

It would seem to me that the only real measure of patriotism that is worth much would be to look at what one does with their time and in their community.

[_honorentheos]

Hey Xeno,

Thanks for the reminder of that old thread. I'm glad to see my views remain pretty consistent over the limited time between then and now.

As the election has heated up with the primaries elections for the Dems and Trump peacocking over his impeachment acquittal, the question in both threads seems to me to be an important subtext to how different parties view the the other side. It raises questions for people across the political spectrum as well.

One thing that jumped out at me, and why I included it in the copy in the OP, was how the description of the aims of nationalism could easily be transported over to some parties on the liberal/progressive side. To quote it again:


This predilection was on display at last summer's National Conservatism Conference, an event at which Beltway journalists, professors from prestigious educational institutions, and at least one U.S. senator gathered at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., to discuss how coastal elitism is ruining America. The lineup featured a parade of right-of-center intellectuals explaining what, practically speaking, nationalism means to them: higher tariffs ("economic nationalists must be willing to pay higher prices to protect our fellow citizens," said Christian activist David Brog), larger expenditures to support the American industrial sector ("we should have a National Institutes of Manufacturing just as we have a National Institutes of Health," said former Mitt Romney adviser Oren Cass), stricter immigration laws ("it doesn't make a darn bit of difference what the economic arguments are if our cohesion is shot," said Israeli political philosopher Yoram Hazony), and more aggressive efforts to legislate morality ("we should care about a whole host of public goods and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish those goods," said Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance).

[_Xenophon]

One thing that jumped out at me, and why I included it in the copy in the OP, was how the description of the aims of nationalism could easily be transported over to some parties on the liberal/progressive side.

I suppose some of the aims can line up well enough particularly those around economic protections, they even describe their reasons in the same sort of language, namely protecting the working class.

I'm curious where you see alignment between left and right on immigration and morality (especially as outlined in the copied paragraph). I'm only aware of some super fringe groups on the left that want tighter immigration and nothing with the kind of mainstream traction it has within the GOP. And the only comparison I can draw on the left for morality is maybe those that run to the idea of banning hate speech. However, I rarely (if ever) see that framed in any kind of nationalism light so I'm having a hard time seeing your parallel. Not trying to say that I'd be in favor of it either, just not seeing the tie to nationalism in it.

Or maybe I'm just not understanding your point?

[_honorentheos]

I was thinking about it in terms outlined by the author who contrasted nationalism with individualism as libertarians are wont to do.

While not perfect, there are progressive parallels regarding identity that play with similar concepts as the rights racial concerns regarding immigration but mirrored. For example, at it's extreme end intersectionality bends in a direction that stops being about individual respect and treatment to arguments for flipping the script on whose turn it is to be the oppressed classes.

The moral parallels are easy to recognize if one treats morality as imposing right action in the name of what one believes ought to be. People on the right may think marriage ought to be between a man and a woman, while people on the left might argue ones behaviors that affect the environment or even what one eats ought to be a certain way, and seek to enforce it through law.

The idea is national identity serves as the focal point for right wing expression of these ideas whereas a different, non-national collective identity serves as the focal point for the left. But in both cases the conflict is with individualism.

[_Xenophon]

I can't find much to disagree with there, honor. Especially:

The idea is national identity serves as the focal point for right wing expression of these ideas whereas a different, non-national collective identity serves as the focal point for the left. But in both cases the conflict is with individualism.

I do think you see a fairly stark difference between left and right when you look at balancing this collectivism vs the individual.

From the article:

The project of reconciling liberalism with nationalism is doomed from the start—in part because even the self-proclaimed liberal nationalists have a tendency to veer into questionable territory.

Perhaps because it lacks the connections with the Nazis or maybe it just political differences surrounding "social welfare policies" but I don't see the collectivism of the left inherently exclusive to the idea of liberty in the same way Slade (or Buckley) does.

I'm also not saying that the party couldn't eventual wind up like the GOP, so overtly embracing the collectivism-of-choice that it abandons once deeply held principles. I certainly eye Sanders warily in this regard, his stated desire of continuing the practice of the ever expanding Executive Order to achieve his aims for "the people" should be cause for concern. That said, the realist in me wonders if it is even possible to battle what the GOP has setup without a brand of populism of your own and then you just hope you can fight over the balance within your own ranks.

[_honorentheos]

All good points as well, Xeno. We share similar concerns/hopes for the liberal side of our politics. Taking a step back from my own idealism, forty years of neocon policies enacted by both parties was certain to have some blowback eventually and who am I to say the chaotic forces giving rise to what is going on now isn't what is necessary to recalibrate? But since wars often serve that same purpose historically causes concern that the flushing will bring its own unpleasantness.

I also should note I'm not for radical individualism, either. I'm more of a case-by-case kinda guy on that where I probably lean far more towards government being responsible for the collective good when it acts and being passive to not interfere regarding individual liberty in a liberal democratic society.