A Perspective on “Nationalism”

[VulcanWerks]

Good day, DI.

Today, I post about the notion of “nationalism” and the associated dangers aligned with that “movement”.

I offer these thoughts as another way to frame our current state of affairs in the US as well as globally - you can define many issues as “nationalist” vs. “globalist” agendas.

Here is what I mean by that:

First, the notion of “Nationalism” is obviously the antithesis of “Globalism”. We tend to define political parties and assign a number of “conspiracy theories” to the “globalists” and “nationalists” more-less duking it out over who controls America and at least by some extension the world. So, are you a globalist or a nationalist?

You don’t need to answer, but that answer will frame how you view the balance of my post today.

When thinking about nations, America may be “the best” at some things but not all things. We’re good at arming the world, advancing technology, innovation at scale, finance, the sciences - and did I say defense? But, other parts of the NATO world are far more skilled in various areas than we are. We’re better together in many ways. This is why the world already exists as it does.

But, I get why people love their “home country” and its “culture” or “history” - the basis of “nationalism” isn’t really bad at the theoretical level.

We need to think on that point a bit though… what is the culture we’re preserving? What is the history or legacy that must live on? Where I live, we have lots of cultures in a very progressive environment. We don’t really have a unique “culture” beyond general acceptance. There isn’t “one” culture in the US any longer.

The problem that I identified with “nationalist” view is we already live in a global society at the level of business or “high society”. That’s now trickling down to the top 5%. Borders are just different sets of regulations if you’re multi-national. We are already there and going backwards from it would cause a lot of issues.

And from that, we now can see why many explain “Nationalism” as an “extremist” viewpoint. It is relative to our existing global system that is already hyper-interconnected and for various reasons we’ll need to come together (NATO) for our collective benefit - business, defense, populations - all of it. That’s why it’s happening and has been happening for 40+ years.

While globalists rarely say expressly why “nationalists” are bad, I submit that they don’t because there isn’t really anything exceptionally bad about being proud of their country. Globalists are proud of their country, too.

When Globalists suggest Nationalists are “extreme”, a component of that is history showing nationalistic movements lead to armed conflict. WW2, WW1, etc. That’s destabilizing. We also know that it’s good for the global economy to remain global.

And most importantly, defense of all of those markets and people requires a collective global approach.

The US and allies need to band together to remain dominant in the world as a collective region. If NATO didn’t exist Russia would have pushed way further west almost certainly as an example. The simple existence of NATO is keeping Europe largely safe at the moment. It’s hugely impactful to over billion people who collectively make up the western world.

But, you don’t get there with a nationalist movement.

These are just a few examples of how the nationalist movements impact everything from trade to defense to long-term security; the nationalist movement runs into problems by seeking less connectedness in a world that’s naturally becoming more connected - ongoing - and that isn’t going to stop.

Consider a “nationalist” US president if they took it to the extreme - Europe would collapse, war would break out - all kinds of issues erupt. The world would go back to being very fractious, we’d go establish treaties and do the whole thing over again in the future because where we are today is the natural evolution of this process - it would only happen again.

And in a twist of irony, nationalism actually created the bedrock for globalism. It was nationalist competition that drove various countries to compete on the global stage. That eventually made business global, interdependence was created and here we are.

Closing out my thoughts here, “nationalistic” movements tend to be popular in the short run but not so great over longer periods of time. Trying to be more nationalistic or isolationist in a growingly interconnected world harms growth and security - doubly so as more of the world forms larger alliances. This is likely why you see so much vitriol towards Trump, Putin and perhaps Iran. They all represent a nationalistic view that presents a threat to the global order that already exists over most of the western world in particular - and order that was generally successful until recently and specifically until Trump.

Ironically, this line of thought explains the “uniparty” view of the world - If you’re higher up in politics, you’re a globalist because your decisions have global implications (some of them). This impacts the economy, military, etc. and that has knock-on global impact. Those points explain the worry about nationalism in any country - by definition proliferating nationalism will make the world fractured and fractured societies tend to have more conflict and worse outcomes coupled with constrained economic activity.

I find this a perspective worth consideration in our “all or nothing” world and a lot of desire (or so it appears) for more nationalist mindsets.

[Maxmars]

I offer for your consideration some thoughts on the topic of your thread.  They are not meant to impose a restraint or counter to your statements... but they do represent a different approach to the subject, in my opinion.  These 'other' ideas are an adjunct to your comments, not an argument for or against - they are offered in humility and respect... and I applaud your offering them here for discussion.

Nationalism, as a thing.

We are often confounded by ideas which feature a moving contextual reality; nationalism is one of those things.  Some people have stated elsewhere that until the French revolution, the idea of people firmly embracing a "national identity" was out of the ordinary.  Until then, most people were more inclined to subscribe to a sentiment of identity that related to their regionality on a much smaller scale.  It has been said that most people were more inclined to think that they were of a certain heritage, religion, or local geographic nature...  It was a social phenomenon to restrict identity by 'label' as opposed to what could be defined physically.

I feel that nationalism, is a sociological construct... manifested in people by reducing human existence to something totally outside themselves, and only relevant to a standing social order.  Perhaps this is wrong, but I can't find the chink in that reasoning to diminish it.

As people define themselves in collectives, the idea of a sovereign state, a national existence, rises naturally.  Nations seem to exist to make a real 'independent reality'... creating a society which demands the sovereign right to exist.  No outside 'authority' exists that can force, compel, or rightly coerce a change in its own nature and functioning; no outside authority can threaten its citizens, their objectives, or their goals. To that end, society implemented institutions of government and law... each featuring a supreme sovereignty - each which would classically be independent, inviolate, and existing as the result of the most intense and rigorous extension of society's common will.  It is an intention most nations still struggle with.

Other people often reduce nationalism to an extension of tribalism, usually failing to comprehend that where tribes are incidental constructs, nations are intentional.  Tribes "happen," nations are "crafted."  It's common for a society to "justify" itself through human contrivances like ideological axioms, the interpretation of religious dogma, or other constructs of "civilization."  Leading to social requirements for overt patriotism, or zealotry.  But in the end, the cause for a nation is more primal; a need (and demand) for safety.

Globalism is just nationalism on a planetary scale... which seems unachievable as long as societies insist on sovereign primacy (and they do.) 
Therefore "globalism" is the a ghost of a dead ideal.  It cannot succeed without social homogeneity... not homogeneity of enforced behavior, but one of general common will.  Regulation will not achieve it... we would have to be a different people, willing to accept first, and reject only with deliberation... this is not yet who we are. 

Globalism is easy to theorize about, but easier still to abuse; like a team of horses deliberately pulling a carriage towards a cliff... they must be painfully 'discouraged' to keep them, and yourselves alive. 

The larger the body of people, the more 'social inertia' can become the enemy - assuming that your destination is an approximation an 'ideation' upon which there is no true global consensus... (just appearances.)

I have to say, that the general lack of rhetorical acumen grants to some the ability to re-contextualize nationalism as a trite emotional thing... the politically motivated often abuse the concept - inflating it by terms like "We're on God's side," "Our country FIRST," or "Remember the fallen."  But personal motivations are not a function of nations, only it's leaders.

The state, or nation, as a construct has worked for a very long time.   A population must be participants in it... or it inevitably fails... the fewer individuals participate in the state, the less likely it can survive the trials of time.

I have more, but I think, politics aside, nationalism is often misunderstood. 

I will end this here... so I can think more on the subject... and take an opportunity to thank you again.

Thank you for enduring the verbose response...

[ArMaP]

I have more, but I think, politics aside, nationalism is often misunderstood.

As is "globalism".

The problem, like in many other situations, is a question of definition, and, as usual, the definitions for such things are relatively vague and change according to the particular topic being talked about.

For example, to me, being a Portuguese old enough to have known the fascist regime that was ended with the Carnation Revolution of 1974, "nationalism" reminds me of that regime, as one of its slogans was "proudly alone", as result of the dictator's view of the world and his thoughts about "bad influences" that could come from everywhere and resulted in, for example, Coca Cola being forbidden, as it was seen as related to US' "modern society".

[UltraBudgie]

For example, to me, being a Portuguese

That's strange -- the database here has you as being Eastern European. Huh.

thoughts about "bad influences" that could come from everywhere and resulted in, for example, Coca Cola being forbidden

He may have been ahead of the curve on HFCS there.

In all seriousness, though, nationalistic authoritarianism sucks. It's always a fragile political approach, and when it breaks, it breaks big. That may be the most compelling argument against it, one of practicality rather than ideology. When the state seeks to control the culture rather than the culture molding the state, systems of imposed doctrine quickly calcify within channels of bureaucratic implementation. The dynamism of the culture then withers, and dies taking the state along with it, to reform from ashes, or it splits the seams of its outgrown clothing. Never a pretty sight.

This has me wondering about the parallels with the Church. If we consider RC Christianity as akin to a form of 'nationalism', in that it gives rise to a worldly political power being based upon a common cultural identity, perhaps we can get some insight into nationalistic politics being practiced within a nation-state cultural nexus. The Church, with its long and bloody history, staggered from one configuration to another, avoiding collapse many times by means of assimilation -- expansion and redefinition of the basic 'nation' of practice upon which its institutional structures based their form. Perhaps we would have seen the same thing with Nazism, if the kibosh hadn't been put upon it rather quickly. And perhaps we're seeing something similar with America today -- we're just too darn multi-cultural and progressive to be fascistic, dontcha know, but as soon as we run out of grist for that mill, somethings gonna start to stink, and our implicit moral exceptionalism may become difficult to defend.