An Enduring Problem
As promised, I will try to explain the relevance of nationalism as part of the present American predicament. A good starting place is Dr. Fleming’s fine article that serves as an introduction to the subject. There are many valuable things that could be cited here, but if we want to think about how nationalism continues to be a significant force and a serious problem in modern American life this passage seems most important:
This technique of propagandistic stereotyping, on the part of the American government at least, goes back to the American War Between the States, when a progressive government and its newspapers depicted Southerners as cruel and inhuman slave-drivers who deserved no sympathy. Such propaganda can be used to justify any actions undertaken by the superior government, whether it is the elimination of the Jews, the bombing of undefended cities, or Sherman’s march to the sea. It is the hallmark of the nationalist to justify every crime committed by his own people and to impute no honorable motives or actions to rival nations [bold mine-DL].
My friends here will complain that is just another instance of imputing evil to nationalism and declaring victory in the debate, but Dr. Fleming’s observation penetrates deeply into the peculiar nature of nationalism and indeed into the nature of all forms of what Kuehnelt-Leddihn derisively called nostrism. Propagandistic stereotyping in itself is hardly unique to modernity, and the denial of all virtue in the enemy is certainly not limited to nationalists, but nationalism combines the impulse to glorify one’s own people collectively and almost always to impugn other nations in the process. If the patriot boasts of the smallness of his country, the nationalist boasts of the greatness of his people and the pettiness and worthlessness of his people’s enemies and rivals. It seems to me fairly obvious that this aspect of nationalism makes its relevance enduring and the danger it poses to moral reasoning and a sane, humane order significant and very real. The ready justification this provides for indifference to foreign civilians killed in our wars and the way that it aids in the degeneration of moral standards in the conduct of war should be clear to everyone here. That such an attitude makes it easier for the government to launch and wage wars seems clear, especially when it can do so with a minimum loss of American life. Thus the bombardment of Yugoslavia enjoyed broad popular support, despite the moral insanity of a war based in lies against an historically Christian people who had been our allies in two wars and had never wronged us in any way. That war was justified in the name of abstract “human rights” and the “international community,” but it would not have been politically possible were Americans not reconciled to the demonization of other peoples through a steady diet of propaganda, the glorification of our own national nobility and the identification of the people with the state that nationalism has facilitated. Whether or not the managerial elite actually believes in any form of nationalism (I think they do, but I accept that it is debatable), they could not pursue the policies that they do if they could not reliably whip up nationalist enthusiasm for foreign conflicts. Some of us may be through with nationalism, but nationalism is not through with us.
Dr. Fleming says later:
We can, however, draw a valid distinction between patriotism as an ethical and political virtue, originating in natural attachments but formed and directed by the state, and nationalism as a statist ideology that opposes and excludes other loyalties, whether those loyalties are to an international religion and civilization or to the province or region of one’s birth.
It is this matter of exclusion of other loyalties that is most important. To some degree, different loyalties will always conflict, but nationalism insists not only on the priority on loyalty to the nation, but assumes that competing loyalties are a threat to the nation. Hence the Kulturkampf waged by German nationalists both in Germany and Austria against the Catholic Church and the supporters of political Catholicism as Reichsfeinde, and a related hostility here in the United States to Catholicism; catholicity, in its transcendence (but not elimination) of national divisions, is the enemy of the nationalist habit of setting one people against another. It can hardly escape notice of my colleagues here the absurd hatred of all things European that preceded the invasion of Iraq, which was cultivated by the administration and the leadership of the ruling party whether or not one wants to dub the individual politicians at the top nationalists or not. They exploited nationalist fervor and demagogued against our cousins in Europe in order to consolidate support for the war. Even some Catholic supporters of the war felt obliged to attack their own hierarchs for pointing out the obvious injustice of the invasion--this is what nationalists do. As Prof. Lukacs said over twenty years ago, “[T]hey put their nationalism above their religion, their nationalism was their religion....There were many Catholics among the conservatives; but their publications would criticize popes and bishops when the allocutions of the latter did not coincide with the desiderata of their ideological nationalism.” We are just a few years removed from the most obvious expressions of this very phenomenon, yet my colleagues are asking how nationalism is relevant to the present moment?
On a related note, I have found striking that in the entire patriotism/nationalism discussion that has been going on over the last few months from Cato Unbound to The American Scene to Eunomia to this magazine to Chronicles is that no one, including myself, has said anything about how the thought of M.E. Bradford might illuminate this question. That is a subject for another day, but I think it will address many of the objections to the critique of nationalism.
Comments
So what’s “nationalism” anyway? Anyone ever get that sorted out? Is America a nation?
It’s been a while since I read Mr. Fleming’s article at Chronicles, but it seems to be a variation on a common definition: “nationalism is bad patriotism”. To call nationalism a “statist ideology” is to miss the important point that loyalty to nation (whatever that is) and loyalty to the state are typically conflated in true nation-states--e.g., Germany and Japan in the 1930s--and only then.
While I greatly respect much of Fleming’s other writings, Mr. Fleming’s article is a bad starting point for a discussion of nationalism here. (I’m commenting on his Chronicles post here because Mr. Fleming has banned me from posting comments at the Chronicles site. Viva Takimag!).
In particular, the sentence quoted in boldface in Mr. Larison’s article is patently false by any of the several reasonable definitions of “nationalism”, by which I mean to exclude the “bad patriotism” definition. I think this is so obvious that it would be superfluous to supply examples. Note also that the rise of the nation-state in Europe coincided with the “bracketing of war” and the “relativization of the enemy” as a justus hostis rather than a foe who must be destroyed.
On to Mr. Larison’s remarks. Of course he’s right that nationalism, especially what Benedict Anderson called “official nationalism”, has had a historical tendency to homogenization, but Mr. Larison didn’t mention that some of the “competing loyalties” it opposes are supra-national ones. The EU, for instance, which seems to be resisted more effectively by nationalism than by subsidiarity or other ideologies.
On the demonization of “the Europeans” before the Iraq War, note first of all that it was the “old Europe” which was demonized and the “new Europe” which was valorized. That points to another obvious fact: nationalists can view other nations as friends as well as enemies. And please note that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a violation of state sovereignty--sovereignty being a principle defended by not a few self-described nationalists.
If it were my purpose to list all the “pluses” of nationalism on the balance sheet, I could go on and on in this already over-long comment. Instead, I’ll just once again recommend the best book I’ve read on the concept of nationalism: Ethnonationalism by Walker Connor.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I do not share your view of nationalism Daniel, or at least, I don’t share the view that it always trends in the bad direction you describe. I think even in its excesses, you underestimate the need of such solidarity in the face of things like foreign attacks, national crises, and the like.
Here is a thought I had on why nationalists in Russia and the US should find common cause (I should note I don’t draw a very sharp distinction of patriotism and nationalism):
Putin is impressive to me as a type of Burkean reformer in the manner of a Napoleon or De Gaulle. In other words, he is trying to forge a healthy national identity among a people whose identity has been permanently altered by an ideological revolution. He has managed the transition from Communism by emphasizing that era’s patriotic aspects, technical achievements, and victory over the Nazis, while deemphasizing its concern for ideology and total state control of society. At the same time, Putin has restored respect for the Old Russia, the Orthodox religion, the historical Russian identity, and the traditionally expansive authority of the Russian State. America should encourage this development in a tone of mutual respect, rather than hectoring Russian leaders with abstractions like free markets and democracy, especially considering the recent history of such advice in the Nineties.
A true nationalist does not wish harm to other nations. Patriotism is not a zero-sum game. Nationalists and patriots the world over recognize the corrupting influence of homogenization and globalization. Whether in the guise of NATO, the EU, “democratization,” or short-sighted American interference with internal affairs, all of these are potentially a threat to national cultures and their distinctive peoples. I want to see Russia evolve in a natural and independent direction. I would like the same respect from them. But how can I or any American ask for such respect when we view it as our role to be the Nanny State to the world, dispensing unwanted and often bad advice wrapped in veiled threats of retaliation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
This is all very *interesting*, but it’s also very *unclear*
To take one example among many:
“...nationalism insists not only on the priority on [of?] loyalty to the nation, but assumes that competing loyalties are a threat to the nation...”
Is this supposed to be an empirical generalization, or a conceptual truth? And “priority” compared to what?
Suppose that, like most normal human beings, I’m partial to my fellow Americans, in comparison to foreigners (all else being equal)...while at the same time having no problem at all with foreigners who feel just the same way right back at me - and certainly not considering them (necessarily) a “threat?”
Is that not enough to make me a “nationalist?”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You are a “nationalist” if someone at Takimag or Chronicles doesn’t like your politics.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
No one here is a nationalist, bloodthirsty or otherwise, for placing loyalty to Hellenic Cyprus above loyalty to family or region for example? National loyalty is still the only one that has sovereignty. Why should those far on the right, and highly educated and intelligent, give the appearance of being afraid of EU-type anti-patriotists, by failing to acknowledge that national loyalty is the only one which may be commanded under sovereign power? The left has to smear national loyalty and nationalism both, but why should loyal men of the right want to mimic them? One-worlder machinations are a clear and present danger, but American or W.European nationalism are remote possibilities, as unthreatening as monarchism as live movements.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A thought towards a clear definition of nationalism and patriotism. I’m tempted to involve the loyalty to a geographic region, but I don’t think it is correct. Rather, the two ‘isms’ involve a loyalty to country and culture when sufficiently presented together. I will ignore the patriotic/nationalistic sentiment over international athletic rivalries, and simply consider the political uses and sentiments of the ‘isms’.
I think the confusion may stem from two different definitions of ‘country and culture’, and role played by government in a patriot’s mind versus that of a nationalist. For a patriot, the whole ‘apparatus of the state’ exists to serve the interests of country and culture, but he is cognisant that this may not always be true. The nationalist sees the government as representatives of ‘country and culture’, and being so, they must always act in the interest of ‘country and culture’. That is to say, the nationalist does not differentiate between private and public. The latter is the representative of the former.
This mental block would cause patriots and nationalists to view international events differently. The nationalist distributes the effects of some event (eg war, loans, aid) to all members of ‘country and culture; the patriot divides public action to public figures, and private to private. This division also allows for the existance of a patriot within ‘country and culture’ to oppose or support certain public action, condemning or condoning individuals or organizations. You rarely find hear an outcry over this or that (domestically) because of nationalistic sentiment. Again, this is because the nationalist does not differentiate between the public and private within his ‘country and culture’.
Of course, this is just a theory that forced its way out of my head.
Respectfully yours.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Propagandistic stereotyping in itself is hardly unique to modernity, and the denial of all virtue in the enemy is certainly not limited to nationalists, but nationalism combines the impulse to glorify one’s own people collectively and almost always to impugn other nations in the process. “
Dr. Fleming uses only Union propaganda against the South as an example of this. Never
mind the Confederate propaganda against the Union states. According the Confederate
slant, the Unionists had no redeeming qualities, either, nor did the abolitionists, nor
did Lincoln. The Southern apologists tend to depict Lincoln as beyond any honor. His
use of martial law and suspension of habeas corpus is held up as signs of his tyranny,
never mind Jefferson Davis’ suspension of habeas corpus (the Confederat Vice President
thought that Davis violated states’ rights and was an incipient tyrant in the Lincoln
mode). In the Southern narrative, John Brown and Sherman are mentioned prominently, not
Quantrill’s terrorists or Jesse James (a murderer who got his) or the pro-slavery
murderers and lynch mobs of Bleeding Kansas. Southerners suffers ignominy in this country
because they lost. But that does not justify the blind spots of the Southern narrative,
in which the Union suffers ignominy because it won.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If you read certain Southern apologists, the “Yankee” is virtually devoid of moral
qualities. The things said about Yankee vices is every bit as sweeping and de-humanizing
as what the Northern narrative says about the South. De-humanizing rhetoric should not
go un-condemned simply because the propagators were vanquished and subjected to the
de-humanizing rhetoric of the victors.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.