December 15, 2019
"NO, I MEAN THE gOOD kIND OF nATIONALISM!:
The Problem of Nationalism (Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D., 12/13/19, Heritage)
I think I understand why some people will be attracted to the concept of nationalism. President Trump used the term nationalism. National conservatives think that President Trump has tapped into a new populism for conservatism, and they want to take advantage of it. They think that traditional fusionist conservatism and the American exceptionalism idea are not strong enough. These ideas are not muscular enough. They want something stronger to stand up to the universal claims of globalism and progressivism that they believe are anti-American. They also want something stronger to push back on open borders and limitless immigration.I understand that. I understand very well the desire to have a muscular reaction to the overreach of international governance and globalism, and I have no trouble at all arguing that an international system based on nation-states and national sovereignty is vastly superior, especially for the United States, to one that is run by a global governing body that is democratically remote from the people.So what's the problem then? Why can't we just all agree that nationalism defined in this way is what we American conservatives have been and believed all along--that it's just a new, more fashionable bottle for a very old wine? Well, because the new bottle changes the way that the wine will be viewed. Why do we need a new bottle at all? It would be like putting a perfectly good California cabernet in a bottle labeled from Germany or France or Russia or China.The problem lies in that little suffix, "ism." [...]That brings me to the idea of American exceptionalism, which is, I believe, the answer to the question of America's national identity and what it should be.It's a beautiful concept that captures both the reality and the ambiguity of the American experience. It's based on a universal creed. It is grounded in America's founding principles: natural law, liberty, limited government, individual rights, the checks and balances of government, popular sovereignty not the sovereignty of the folkish nation-state, the civilizing role of religion in civil society and not an established religion associated with one class or one creed, and the crucial role of civil society and civil institutions in grounding and mediating our democracy and our freedom..We as Americans believe these principles are right and true for all peoples and not just for us. That was the way that Washington and Jefferson understood them, and it was certainly the way that Lincoln understood them. That's what makes them universal. In other words, the American creed grounds us in universal principles.But what, you may ask, makes us so exceptional then? If it's universal, what makes us exceptional? It is, in fact, the creed.We believe that Americans are different because our creed is both universal and exceptional at the same time. We are exceptional in the unique way we apply our universal principles. It doesn't necessarily mean that we are better than other peoples, though I think probably most Americans do believe that they are. It's not really about bragging rights. Rather, it's a statement of historical fact that there is something truly different and unique about the United States, which becomes lost when talking in terms of nationalism.A nationalist cannot say this, because there is nothing universal about nationalism except that all nationalisms are, well, different and particularistic. Nationalism is devoid of a common idea or principle of government except that a people or a nation-state can be almost anything. It can be fascist, it can be authoritarian, it can be totalitarian, or it can be democratic.Some of the new nationalists doubt explicitly the importance of the American creed. They argue that the creed is not as important as we thought it was to our national identity. Let's just think about that for a minute.What does it mean to say that the creed really isn't all that important? If the creed doesn't matter, what is so special about America?Is it our language? Well, no. We share that with Britain, and now much of the world.Is it our ethnicity? Well, that doesn't work either because there's no such thing as a common American ethnicity.Is it a specific religion? We are indeed a religious country, but no, we have freedom of religion, not one specific religion.Is it our beautiful rivers and mountains? No. We've got some beautiful rivers and mountains, but so do other countries.Is it our culture? Yes, I suppose so, but how do you understand American culture without the American creed and the founding principles?Lincoln called America the world's "last best hope," because it was a place where all people can and should be free. Before Lincoln, Jefferson called it an empire of liberty.Immigrants came here and became true Americans by living the American creed and the American dream. You can become a French citizen, but for most Frenchmen, if you are foreign, that is not the same thing as being French. It's different here. You can be a real American by adopting our creed and our way of life.After World War II, the American way and our devotion to democracy became a beacon of freedom for the whole world. That was the foundation of our claim to world leadership in the Cold War, and it is no different today. If we become a nation just like any other nation, then frankly I would not expect any other nation to grant us any special trust or support.Another benefit of American exceptionalism is that it is self-correcting. When we fail to live up to our ideals as we did with slavery before the Civil War, we can appeal as Lincoln did to our "better nature" to correct our flaws. That is where the central importance of the creed comes in. Applying the principles of the Declaration of Independence correctly has allowed us to redeem ourselves and our history when we have gone astray.There is no American identity without the American creed. However, the nationalists are correct about one thing, in suggesting that the American identity is more than just about a set of ideas. These ideas are lived in our culture--that is true. It is also true, as Lincoln said about his famous "mystic chords of memory," that our common experience and our common history form a unique story. It is a story that embodies the very real lives and relationships of people and a shared cultural experience in a shared space and time in history that we call the United States.
On his terrific Remnant podcast, Jonah Goldberg has often admitted his dissatisfaction with his interviews of Yoram Hazony and Patrick Dineen, and his failure to confront them sufficiently about the implication of their ideas. Things went even worse with Rich Lowry--perhaps understandably given their relationship--who made a series of necessarily nonsensical arguments about American Nationalism. [The need not to call it Nastionalism being the first tell.] Hilariously, he tried making a case that a nation is marked by a common language but that it was an inevitable function of nationhood that America spread to the Pacific. Obviously, this involved incorporating such Spanish-speaking territory as Florida, California, Arizona, etc;; French-speaking Louisiana; all the Indian territories; etc. But, oddly, stopped at arbitrary borders with Canada and Mexico. And the less said about his attempt to differentiate Succession from the Revolution, the better. But the fact that the Right keeps arguing in favor of Nationalism even as they deny its nature when confronted suggests a profound level of disingenuousness
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 15, 2019 9:19 AM
