The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My New National Affairs Article on "The Case Against Nationalism"
Coauthored with Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh.

National Affairs has published my article "The Case Against Nationalism," co-authored with Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh. Alex is also the coauthor (with economist Benjamin Powell), of the excellent book Wretched Refuse? The Political Economy of Immigration and Institutions (Cambridge Univ. Press).
Here is an excerpt from the Introduction:
Nationalism has become a dominant ideology on the American political right and has gained ground in many European countries over the last decade. This has happened without sufficient attention to the dangers inherent in nationalism — dangers evident in theory and in practice in this latest iteration of nationalism as well as prior ones.
Nationalism is particularly dangerous in a diverse nation like the United States, where it is likely to exacerbate conflict. The ideology is virtually impossible to separate from harmful ethnic and racial discrimination of a kind conservatives would readily condemn in other contexts. Like socialism, with which it has important similarities, nationalism encourages harmful government control over the economy. Nationalism also poses a threat to democratic institutions. Finally, nationalist ideology is at odds with America's foundational principles, which are based on universal natural rights, not ethnic particularism.
In crucial ways, nationalism is just socialism with different flags and more ethnic chauvinism. All Americans, but especially traditional conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians, should recognize nationalism's dangers and recommit instead to the core principles of our founding.
We go over each of these points in greater detail in the body of the article.
From the Conclusion:
Nationalism's failures in the 20th century, from starting two world wars to genocide to jingoistic economic policies that have immiserated millions, rank it as a horrific failed ideology, second only to communism. Conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians rightly mock leftists who claim that "real communism hasn't been tried" or that "the Soviet Union wasn't really communist" when confronted with the disastrous effects of their policies. Those who make similar excuses for nationalism are on no firmer ground.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s a complicated issue. But briefly, I think that nationalism is one of those aspects of being human that polities and governments need to learn to live with, rather than either attempting to extirpate or attempting to rally around and base everything on. Human existence cannot be made completely rational, but we cannot survive if it is completely irrational either. We can only even approach rational existence if we learn to accept and live with our irrationality and some of the irrational aspects of our nature. It’s a paradox. But it’s an essential and existential one.
Agreed. I suspect that tribalism is somehow in our DNA, because strong and cohesive tribes were more likely to survive in prehistoric times. Nationalism is, in essence, an expression of those tribalistic feelings. Not everyone seems to have those feelings (obviously Ilya doesn't have them, and I don't have them very strongly), but the great majority of humans do, and to deny their existence is quixotic. I suspect that the best we can do is to recognize humanity's nationalistic impulses and to try to channel those impulses in nondestructive ways (e.g., competitive sports).
"In essence" is doing a lot of work in your comment. I think your proposed link between prehistoric tribalism and nationalism today is questionable, at best. Even the best research struggles to show much of a consistent relationship between behaviors/beliefs and DNA. Are you aware of any research along these specific lines?
Here's the best I can do. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/
I admit that what I'm suggesting may perhaps be pseudoscience. But there's a lot we still don't know about nature v. nurture, and it seems logical to me that, just like certain instinctive animal behaviors are inherited, certain human behaviors/beliefs, or at least a predisposition thereto, are inherited.
If you think I'm wrong, please explain the tribalistic behavior of fans at football and soccer games. I find it very difficult to believe that they're engaging in learned behavior.
I think you are wrong in how inevitable you make it.
Humans, by and large, don't have irresistible impulses that often, we just have emotions.
Emotions are not so simple as an inevitability. So something like nationalism/tribalism can be embraced, risen above, can rise above, channeled, fool
Oops. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40574370?seq=1
F.D.R. and the Triumph of American Nationalism
Randall Bennett Woods
Presidential Studies Quarterly(Summer 1989)
1) Doesn't seem to be the same definition of nationalism.
2) FDR did some heinous shit so it's not like disagreeing with him is liberal kryptonite. Contrast Reagan on the right was until Trump came along.
I mean...no. Just in general to your argument.
"Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,"
More specifically
"Civic nationalism, also known as democratic nationalism and liberal nationalism, is a form of nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, individual rights and is not based on ethnocentrism.[1][2] Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need it as a partial shared aspect of their identity (an upper identity) in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[3] and that democratic polities need a national identity to function properly."
Armchair,
I agree with your first definition, the alternatives are Globalism and Anarchism.
In the USA, Nationalism is best defined by support for the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Ilya imagines that the america firsters started the world wars, he is delusional.
I believe that Ilya is specifically referring to Nationalism as an angry, limiting ideology (ethnonationalism) as opposed to an inspirational and aspirational ideal like the civic nationalism Armchair referenced.
In general, I think the right largely is drawn to ethnonationalism. Think Steven Miller or Kris Kobach. They seem to be hostile to (or at least opposed to) civic nationalism, particularly the tolerance and equality parts.
Heck, any -ism is angry when it feels far from influence and subject mostly to its opposites.
Globalism, anarchism, and sub-nationalism (wherein more of the important matters of public policy are decided by polities smaller than the nation).
A number of folks are using other definitions of nationalism than Prof. Somin means.
He takes issue with some of the definitions as "purely theoretical, and bear almost no relationship to how nationalism actually exists:"
"Real-world nationalism is a primitive, statist, protectionist, anti-capitalist, xenophobic, and often ethnocentric proto-ideology of "my tribe best, your tribe bad," with the tribe lying at the core. Indeed, the Latin root of the word "nationalism" — natio — means "a race of people," or "tribe." This is how nationalism is understood in Europe and the rest of the world, and why most Americans recoil from it, preferring instead to think of nationalism as a form of "super patriotism" or assume that the terms "nation" and "country" are synonyms."
When you strawman a definition, people recoil from it.
Strawman...a definition?
Are you saying no one uses nationalism like Prof. Somin defines it here?
It's a perfectly legitimate definition, just not the one you wanted to argue against.
I'm saying it's a strawman, and not used how the concept of nationalism is understood in the US today.
It's set up to be an artificial construct, in order to be more easily knocked down.
You can assert no one uses it, but you'd just be wrong.
It's not a definition set up to easily knock down - it's set up to say don't be this.
No wonder you're not a fan.
protectionist, xenophobic, and often ethnocentric proto-ideology
Sounds a lot like Trump to me.
I'm not sure about the "anti-capitalist business," but I suspect it does have some validity. Certainly protectionism is anti-capitalist.
I’m saying it’s a strawman, and not used how the concept of nationalism is understood in the US today.
I'm in the US and that's exactly how I understand nationalism.
Which ethnicity is "America". German? English? Scottish? Irish? Dutch?
America doesn't HAVE an ethnicity beyond "American." This concept of ethnic nationalism just doesn't apply to America. It can't.
The existence of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory contradicts this assertion entirely. White Anglo Saxon Protestant has been the dominant US ethnic nationality since its beginning.
White Anglo Saxon Protestants make up less than 10% of the US population. Poor for a "Dominant ethnic nationality"
You sure do talk about the benighted white man a lot to claim America has no ethnicity.
No. But you do talk a lot about how bad the Jews are, and how they deserve to suffer.
That's not an "American value" in my view. And immigrant groups who come here would ideally drop that from their views if they want to assimilate.
a) you need to [re-]read Through the Looking Glass
b) the definition is a reasonable one
If you find the definition unuseful, that doesn't make it a strawman.
It’s a strawman. It’s an artificial set up that doesn’t apply to how nationalism is understood today in America…or even during America’s founding.
Keep stamping your foot.
“This is how nationalism is understood in Europe and the rest of the world, and why most Americans recoil from it, preferring instead to think of nationalism as a form of “super patriotism” or assume that the terms “nation” and “country” are synonyms.”
What's happening is you want to argue against a different definition than what this article is talking about. Strawman? You’re soaking in it.
Ilya hates America....
Yes, that is the common thread in all Somin's posts. He wants to destroy our borders, destroy our electoral system, and many other great American things. If he does not like American nationalism, he should go back to Russia.
On the contrary, he loves America so much he wants the entire world to have America.
He's just in denial about the fact that he'd destroy it in the process of sharing it.
Wow.
So just “define” “nationalism” by a laundry list of dismissive pejoratives, a parade of horrible buzzwords ? How is that defining?
This may be one of the stupidest things Somin has ever written. And that’s saying a lot.
IMO the number of people bucking the definition and doing nothing further is telling.
Lotsa people want to call themselves nationalists alluva sudden. Right about when Trump uses those words.
And then going further into what he describes, most of them fit it they just don't wanna admit they do; they just want to buck the definition and pretend that's a substantive critique.
This is why I excerpted below, to get people on subject.
Beyond the ethno-centrism, "NatCon economic policy channels early 20th-century progressivism by embracing industrial policy, immigration restrictions, and trade protectionism."
Your wish is granted. See my comment below.
You wrote a bunch bucking the definition, and then get caught up making love to your own preferred definition and forgot about the OP for a while there.
The most informative bit was where you briefly managed to equate being anti-immigrant with being pro-citizen, as though that's a zero-sum game.
Not great at engaging with the substance of the OP, but pretty good at accidentally supporting one of the assertions it makes.
I don't understand anything you've said here. Can you elaborate?
Your comment below is mostly still about the definition of nationalism.
But also it falls directly into the anti-immigration fallacy Prof. Somin lays out as a common issue with nationalists.
So good jerb.
You guys assert, without a single scrap of evidence, that:
“Real-world nationalism is a primitive, statist, protectionist, anti-capitalist, xenophobic, and often ethnocentric proto-ideology of “my tribe best, your tribe bad,” with the tribe lying at the core.”
Perhaps YOUR nationalism looks like that. Mine bears no resemblance to that at all. For example, mine is not “My tribe best, your tribe bad”.
Instead, it’s “My tribe different from your tribe, and we’d like to keep it that way” … e.g., Muslims are allowed by the Koran to keep sex slaves. In the US we’re different from that, and that’s how we'd like to keep it.
And my nationalism is not “xenophobic” or “ethnocentric”. I’m happy to have LEGAL immigrants come, they add to the country.
Protip: it’s not “xenophobic” to condemn the hordes of rapists, criminals fleeing their home country, cartel members, prostitutes, MS-13 and other gang members, sex traffickers, fentanyl smugglers, and yes a few good people streaming across our southern border.
And “anti-capitalist”? I want some of what you’re smoking. The people opposed to capitalism are socialists, communists, and Democrats, not nationalists.
I do have to congratulate you for one thing, however.
You’ve built the most complete, complex, and charismatic straw man I’ve ever seen. Well done … but you seem to think tearing it down means something.
Nope. This is nothing but a scummy attack on the right disguised as intellectual discourse.
w.
“My tribe different from your tribe, and we’d like to keep it that way”
Your tribe -- the old-timey, religious, right-wing bigots -- lost the culture war and will be replaced, clinger. Education, modernity, inclusiveness, science, progress, and reason have defeated backwardness, superstition, ignorance, dogma, and insularity at the modern American marketplace of ideas. Skilled, modern, educated, accomplished communities have left behind the uneducated, economically inadequate, desolate, superstition-addled, Republican backwaters.
You get to whine about it as much as you like, of course, until the moment a better, younger, reasoning, modern American takes your place in our diversifying electorate and improving society.
Let's review the scoring:
• You've never met me and know nothing about me
• You call me a "bigot", which my friends of all colors would loudly deny.
• You accuse me without a scrap of evidence of "backwardness, superstition, ignorance, dogma, and insularity"
And you call yourself a "Reverend"??? What the hell kind of religion do you practice? Cause it sure ain't Christianity … he said to love your neighbor, not piss on your neighbor as you are gleefully doing.
Medice, cura te ipsum! I am NONE of the fantasies in your sick fantasies. That's the voices in your head. Ignore them. They are not your friends.
w.
Yes, that's his shtick. He's a troll, but a useful one. Notice how the left of center people here keep silent as he indiscriminately calls anyone right of center who pushes back against leftist orthodoxies backwards bigots. Emphasis on indiscriminate. Of course it's beyond the pale when anyone right of center generalizes like that.
Oh, and he's a victim too of unfair censorship. Can't forget that.
Yes, the Rev is an insufferable bigot, I'm afraid. I used to unmute him from time to time to see if he's changed his tune, but lately it's not worth the bother. Mute.
I don't comment on the incessant repetition of his usual shtick because he's muted. He adds nothing of value.
If I used vile racial slurs at half the frequency Prof. Volokh exhibits you guys would love me.
You don't believe you're a bigot. I'll give you that.
You accuse me without a scrap of evidence of “backwardness, superstition, ignorance, dogma, and insularity”
Well, there's this gem...
Muslims are allowed by the Koran to keep sex slaves.
Oh wait and also...
it’s not “xenophobic” to condemn the hordes of rapists, criminals fleeing their home country
Backwardness, check. Superstition, check. Ignorance, check. Dogma, check. Insularity, check.
Seems like the Rev. was spot on!
"mine is not “My tribe best, your tribe bad”
Next sentence: "Muslims are allowed by the Koran to keep sex slaves. In the US we’re different from that, and that’s how we’d like to keep it."
First, you sure do think your tribe is best, you're just lying about it for some reason.
Second, your generalization about Muslims is incorrect and bigoted. Do you see a lot of sex slaves held by American Muslims? Maybe your take on the Koran isn't quite right.
You have proven the OP's definition applies to you. Way to go.
Thanks, Sarcastro. I made NO generalization about American Muslims as you falsely claim.
I said the Koran allows Muslims to keep sex slaves. I see that pushes your buttons, but it's true no matter how much you dislike it. ISIS does it. Boko Haram does it. Hamas does it.
And call me crazy, but no, I don't want that to spread to the US.
Do I think my "tribe" is best? I've worked and wandered all over the planet. I don't think any tribe is best. Everyone has their own ways and means. Here in America people value things like freedom of speech. In Europe they don't, they have "hate speech" laws. Different strokes. They like their ways, I like our ways. I make no overarching claim that our ways are "best".
Finally, dial back on the aggro, please. I'm not your enemy.
w.
I don’t think Hamas stands for all Muslims. You do.
You keep saying different strokes and then talking about freedom for us, slavery for them. Either you have no morals at all or you are lying about your different strokes attitude.
Oh yes, look! It's not just the Rev that's generalizing about people who believe different things.
If dud doesn’t mean Muslims he should say Muslims.
I get along fine with people who disagree with me. But I also listen to what they say.
Please point to where I said that I think “Hamas stands for all Muslims”.
You can’t because I never said that.
You really should stop listening to the voices and respond to what I actually wrote.
I said the Koran says Muslim men can keep sex slaves.
True.
I said ISIS, Boko Haram, and Hamas keep sex slaves.
True.
I did NOT say either of the three “stands for all Muslims”. That’s your fantasy.
Next, point to where I said "freedom for us, slavery for them".
Again, you can't. I never said that.
w.
So you'd agree that the Bible allows Christians to keep sex slaves?
Why don't you tell us what the 'right' take on the Koran is, Sarcastr0? I am intrigued.
Ostensible adults arguing the finer points of childish superstition is always a treat. “My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale . . . on second thought, my fairy tale can beat up every other fairy tale. Just because!”
Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit.
" Do you see a lot of sex slaves held by American Muslims? "
No because it is illegal, but in much of the Muslim world a man is allowed to have up to 4 wives as long as all the wives enjoy equal benefits of marriage.
Oh hey unsupported bigotry.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/12/07/polygamy-is-rare-around-the-world-and-mostly-confined-to-a-few-regions/
"In other parts of the world, including swaths of the Middle East and Asia, polygamy is legal but not practiced widely."
Really revealing yourself to be awful in your heart.
No, we don't see Moslems with sex slaves in the USA because it is illegal. If Moslems ever get a majority in the USA, they will turn it into an Islamic state.
.
Nationalists are socialists.
"Nationalists are socialists."
Explain why that is necessarily true.
Nationalism — again, not patriotism; those are different — takes the form of a collectivist ideology that suggests that ordinary economic decisions on the individual level exist to serve the nation rather than the individuals involved, and therefore the collective can decide who people can do business with and on what terms. Thus, nationalists inevitably oppose free trade and the free movement of labor.
You are defining nationalism as fascism, which is not necessarily the case. One of the problems (as these discussions demonstrate) is that nationalism does not have any clear and commonly-accepted definition .
In fact, if you dig into what most self-identified American "nationalists" think, you will find that they are good old-fashioned populists. They don't believe that the individual exists to serve the state (fascism), but rather that the state exists to serve the "regular guy" which, coincidentally, tends to be the "nationalist" in question.
Protip: it’s not “xenophobic” to condemn the hordes of rapists, criminals fleeing their home country, cartel members, prostitutes, MS-13 and other gang members, sex traffickers, fentanyl smugglers, and yes a few good people streaming across our southern border.
OTOH, it is extremely xenophobic to make these manufactured accusations against the people coming over the border.
So yeah. You're xenophobic.
So your claim is that there are not a bunch of "rapists, criminals fleeing their home country, cartel members, prostitutes, MS-13 and other gang members, sex traffickers, fentanyl smugglers" coming across the border?
You REALLY need to get out more.
w.
You're not fooling anyone with your juvenile, bigoty word games. Try this one: Willis Eschenbach likes to jerk off while looking at naked men. That's just as true as your Muslim and immigrant claims.
“My tribe different from your tribe, and we’d like to keep it that way”
Who's we and can you describe your tribe please?
"Who’s we and can you describe your tribe please?"
Americans, both left and right, who care about the Constitution.
w.
Before or after "terminating" it?
WillisEschenbach : And my nationalism is not “xenophobic” or “ethnocentric”. I’m happy to have LEGAL immigrants come, they add to the country. Protip: it’s not “xenophobic” to condemn the hordes of rapists, criminals fleeing their home country, cartel members, prostitutes, MS-13 and other gang members, sex traffickers, fentanyl smugglers, and yes a few good people streaming across our southern border.”
1. Back in the 1850s, your xenophobic or ethnocentric forefathers put together a similar rant against the Irish. They were savage inhuman brutes, born criminals, incapable of assimilating, a threat to society and danger to our Christian womenfolk. Demagouges stoked this fear & rage since an angry mob is ever-easy to manipulate and the cheapest means to political power.
One hundred years from now, your xenophobic or ethnocentric descendents will be afraid and enraged (once again!) about their time’s chosen “Other”. They will likewise be egged on by demagouges who (I’m sorry to say) will see your descendents as chumps and dupes.
2. In-between, we have you. As for your own modern-day “Other”, I must point out the crime rate of immigrants approaches one-third that of native-born Americans. The crime rate of illegal immigrants (excepting their existence) is still one-half of True Americans.
So, yeah, there are a few good people streaming across our southern border who don’t conform to your cartoon picture of absolute evil villiany. But your forefathers probably made the same concession about the Irish….
https://www.cato.org/blog/new-research-illegal-immigration-crime-0
Well, this is the year for dropping the pretense.
.
Agreed.
Prof. Volokh will be free to publish and speak racial slurs every day, even hourly if he wishes, after he departs UCLA and lands at a right-wing mouthpiece farm.
The Volokh Conspiracy will be able to return to imposing viewpoint-driven, partisan censorship against liberal and libertarian commenters.
This blog likely will intensify its ardent coverage of Muslim, white grievance, transgender rest room, racial slur, drag queen, male grievance, transgender parenting, Black crime, transgender AI, conservative grievance, lesbian, and transgender sorority drama issues.
Perhaps most interesting, this blog will be able to explore and explain more fully its recently emerged trans fetish.
A big 2024 seems likely -- after the pretense falls -- for the Volokh Conspirators and their fans!
Don't forget "baiting the closet cases into producing copius amounts of vivid gay porn fantasies."
That is apparently what on-the-spectrum right-wingers consider good times.
Imagine a world with no refugees... Because abolishing national boundaries led to there being no refuge. That's where this is leading.
National identities and borders anchor the local differences that make your precious foot voting possible. And it takes a very unrealistic view of the state of the world today to think putting the world through that blender of yours would average out to liberty, rather than extinguish it.
There is plenty of middle ground between not liking nationalism as laid out by the article and wanting open borders.
There may be, but I was addressing Somin, and we already know Somin doesn't occupy that middle ground. So save that point for when I'm not talking to somebody who advocates open borders.
So just ad hominem.
Deal with the argument in the OP, not off topic attacks.
He did. You just didn't like his answer.
Of course Somin doesn't occupy a "middle ground". As has been discussed ad nauseam, he thinks any restrictions on immigration are illegitimate. How else can you have a "nation" if that entity cannot control its borders? It becomes a meaningless term, more like a tribe.
The triumph of the post Napoleonic world was the rise of the nation state, because nationalism...however one chooses to define that. And subsequently the source of many conflicts, when where those people lived didn't align with contemporary state borders. Maybe we should go back to the good ole days of "empire"?
Read it again. Brett said he wasn’t dealing with the OP but with Somins politics elsewise.
I am not obligated, when addressing the OP, to pretend that Somin's politics are other than they are. I will, instead, unapologetically point out how his various beliefs interact, because they are one whole.
Somin benefited enormously from immigration, personally, and he wants to share this great good with everybody who might benefit from it, and tear down every barrier to doing so.
Nationalism is simply one of those barriers.
His motives are entirely benign, even noble, but... He's a guy who'd feed the seed grain to the starving, who'd pull the drowning into the lifeboat until it sank. He'd destroy the very good he treasures if he got his way.
And this needs to be pointed out any time he attacks one of those barriers to his dream. We should not pretend that those attacks are disconnected pieces, or conceal where he's going with this.
This is off topic and boring.
You can put it on every Somin post, but that kind of axe to grind is no one’s cup of tea.
that kind of axe to grind is no one’s cup of tea.
Metaphor of the year, so far.
A statist argument!
An idiotic comment!
Explain why!
National identities
Care to go into that?
Good point. Somin's project, ironically, makes it much easier for tyranny to arise.
Because abolishing national boundaries led to there being no refuge
Can you quote the part of the article where abolishing borders is mentioned?
Can I pretend that I've never ever read anything else by Somin?
Sure, but I won't.
Everything Somin writes is anti-American garbage.
You want to, but can’tseem to engage with the argument because Somin made it.
That’s a personal problem.
“Real-world libertarianism is a primitive, individualist, selfish, anti-communitarian, oikophobic, and often adolescent proto-ideology of `my desires best, all obligations not consented to bad,' with the unencumbered self lying at the core.”
What are you quoting?
Libertarian colonialists disparage nationalism, since it means that indigenous peoples have a right to their identity, their traditions, and their resources, and the obligations they believe arise from tradition and not choice.
Reducing nationalism to an irrational prejudice--in order to justify converting unwilling "primitives" and "deplorables" to the regime of "freedom" and the traditions it unravels--is exactly what the doctor ordered for the libertarian colonialist who wants to believe he is on the right side of history.
Libertarian colonialists?????????????????
If dictatorships are large scale hostage situations, which they are, I have no problem freeing the hostages by topping the dictators.
There are plenty of practical reasons to think twice, but no philosophical reason.
You are not describing colonizing.
It describes an idealised aspect of post-war imperialism. It leaves out the rest, though.
Can you define "libertarian colonialist"?
Wait, you've bought into the colonialists vs. indigenous peoples narrative? What's going on. You're a colonialist in that worldview, you know that, right?
The ideology is virtually impossible to separate from harmful ethnic and racial discrimination of a kind conservatives would readily condemn in other contexts.
No, it isn't. This is another example of an unchallenged BS statement. American nationalism and patriotism stems from pride in its history and ideology. That can cut across ethnic and racial lines, and often does.
"nationalism and patriotism"
Not the same thing.
Maybe you'd like to address the point: nationalism and patriotism cuts across ethnic and racial lines and comes from a sense of pride; not racism.
But I kind of doubt you can.
It might cut across them, it doesn’t necesarily break them down. In some cases, it even reinforces them. After all, Dermocrats and Republicans both claiming to be patriotic doesn’t stop either side from branding the others traitors. As such, racism is not precluded from being a part of some peoples’ patriotism. Nationalism, on the other hand, tends to lean towards authoritarianism, even in democracies.
Patriotism can cut across ethnic lines, nationalism -- practically by definition -- cannot.
Read the OP for once in your life before coming to play with us in the comnents.
Patriotism and nationalism are two different things.
Professor Somin, always here with the COMINTERN point of view. How the crap is he still writing on a Libertarian blog??? An international Communist supporter????? On Reason???
The Comintern intended to fight "with all means, also with arms in hand, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international soviet republic as a transition to the complete abolition of the state."
That's what you think Prof. Somin supports? I think you've finally outdone Trump in the derangement department.
Prof. Somin is the only Volokh Conspirator who is not a lying piece of shit with respect to this blog’s self-described libertarianism.
The Victims of Communism Day guy is not an international Communist supporter.
“Nationalism is particularly dangerous in a diverse nation like the United States, where it is likely to exacerbate conflict.”
Exactly backwards. A “melting pot” where people leave their old world tribal identities and adopt a new one as simply American citizens is precisely how we can remove conflict. There is a concerted effort underway to resurrect these long-dead divisions, as proven by the reemergence of segregation among our elites.
Our New Segregationists apparently want to incite a new civil war. We mustn’t give it to them.
But then of course, you think you're the one who gets to decide what it means to be an "American citizen." That's the nationalism part.
Why does everyone else have to become more like you? What are you giving up to the melting pot?
Nationalism, as depicted here, is about the imposition of conformity and strict social values on other people, hence the repitition of assimilation and integration as unqualified positives. Toleration of other values and community structures runs along a scale from benign paternalism, as towards wayward children, to seeting rage and resentment, but there is always a terror at the back of it all that their own values are somehow being threatened by the mere existence of people who are different. Look at how 'racism' is often conflated with 'race.' 'Long dead divisions.' 'Tribal identities.' Black people, Hispanics, Asians, have all been in the US since its conception, to say nothing of native Americans, and yet are still viewed as outsiders, as seperate tribes because of their differences from white conservative ideals. That's nationalism for you. Even when nationalists tolerate differences, they are always aware of them.
The only folks talking about a new civil war are the ones that fit this nationalist appellation.
The folks who brought us the old Civil War also fit this nationalist appellation.
nationalism
Thanks, but I think I like the honest definition a bit more than the definist fallacy version. Trying to win arguments with Humpty Dumptyism is a bit weak.
Seems to me like he's using the word in sense #3.
Sense #3, without the "cultural or" part. And in his article, Somin completely writes off this definition because some other writers say that's "patriotism." It's as if he has to split hairs because if he broadens the concept of "nationalism" to include this definition, then he can't have a provocative title. "The case against mindless nationalism and ethno-nationalism" isn't as catchy.
No, you're still wrong. Patriotism can cut across cultures. Nationalism (Ilya's version) is a rejection of multiculturalism and an imposition of a preferred culture, which could be (and often is) ethnicity-based, but doesn't have to be (though there are usually ethnic and racial overtones even when the preferred culture isn't defined explicitly in those terms).
I'm not convinced that either Burke or Rousseau, who saw merit in a adherence to a national zeitgeist were the narrow bigots and imperial warriors you envision as coterminous identities for nationalism.
Certainly those may be found amongst those who carry it's banner, but if liberal nationalists recognizing a utility to a circumscribed polity eschew to defend the polities then the voices espousing nationalism may be thus caricatured.
Favoring borders does not signify whether they are closed or not. But it is a reasonable question whether those entering the borders are in effect consenting to the existing order and values. I think that answer is yes, albeit those existing orders are subject to change over time as Burke's notable observation in the Reflections despite his reputation as arch reactionary: "in what we improve we are never wholly new; in what we retain we are never wholly obsolete."
THe Founders said unequivocally : If you come here you MUST adhere to the American ethos. You doubt on no basis whatsoever, yet this is staple of the Perennial Philosophy !!!
Saint Thomas: “Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1).”
Saint Thomas: “Man’s relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts.”
Commentary: In making this affirmation, Saint Thomas affirms that not all immigrants are equal. Every nation has the right to decide which immigrants are beneficial, that is, “peaceful,” to the common good. As a matter of self-defense, the State can reject those criminal elements, traitors, enemies and others who it deems harmful or “hostile” to its citizens.
The second thing he affirms is that the manner of dealing with immigration is determined by law in the cases of both beneficial and “hostile” immigration. The State has the right and duty to apply its law.
“[S]uch advances as the abolition of slavery and the gradual extension of equal rights to racial and ethnic minorities have been achieved by appealing to the universal principles of the founding, even if the founders themselves often failed to live up to them. Nationalists view the tribe as the building block of society, and individuals as serving the collective interests of that tribe.
By contrast, the American tradition, as espoused by classical liberals, libertarians, and many traditional conservatives, views individuals and their interactions with each other as society’s building blocks, and attempts to construct governing institutions that defend and support individuals in their diverse pursuits of happiness.”
"As a practical matter, it's difficult to enforce cultural nationalism without extensive ethnic discrimination, or disparate enforcement that will justifiably be perceived as ethnically motivated (at least in a society with a substantial degree of ethnic or racial diversity).
...Nationalism's implication of identity-based discrimination has reemerged among some conservative nationalists today.
The popularity of the "great replacement" theory (the notion that nefarious elites are using non-white immigrants to "replace" native-born Americans) on much of the right is the most blatant example.
But even more intellectually respectable and academically credentialed conservatives, such as University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax, openly advocate racial discrimination in immigration policy, for fear that immigrants (Asians are the particular object of Wax's concerns) will detract from American values and vote for the wrong political party."
No, and Lincoln saw through your argument most insightfully. What must be done is a national ethic independent of any but the enduring religious and natural law foundations of the Declaration and the Constitution. Call it 'civil religion' if you want.But your way is disaster as the Mormon bigamy case showed
Reynolds v. United States (1879)
" “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
As Karl Popper showed (and I am not a fan of his):
to maintain a society of tolerance, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance… hence the paradox.
Popper proposed the Paradox of Tolerance to explain why a German public full of otherwise good people allowed Hitler to come to power and commit so many atrocities.
sexual perversion, killing of innocents, destruction of marriage ---alll inimical to the Founding.
"In the United States, NatCon economic policy channels early 20th-century progressivism by embracing industrial policy, immigration restrictions, and trade protectionism — three policies that almost always produce harmful outcomes, suffer from problems similar to those that bedevil socialist central planners, and can lead to disaster."
Industrial policy consists of government efforts to promote industries supposedly critical for the nation's economy or security.
Ethanol subsidies offer an illustrative example of industrial policy in the United States — as well as its deleterious effects."
"Opposition to most immigration, even the legal kind, is another common nationalist policy.
Nationalists typically oppose immigration in part for cultural reasons, as noted above, but also for economic ones.
They blame immigrants for everything from receiving excessive welfare benefits (even though immigrants consume less of such benefits than native-born Americans) to blowing up budget deficits (in fact, barring all or most immigrants would increase deficits) and reducing wages of native-born, blue-collar American workers (some studies suggest that immigration increases wages for this population over time).
In other words, nationalists simultaneously blame immigrants for being lazy freeloaders living off the hardworking American taxpayer and also for working too hard and taking jobs from native-born Americans who can't find employment. "
"Trade protectionism is the third major economic policy nationalists tend to embrace — and American NatCons are no exception.
They often justify protectionist policies using a zero-sum mentality, in which gains for the nation necessarily come at the expense of others and vice versa.
As Trump put it, if we have a trade deficit with other nations, it is a sign that we are "losers" (and, by implication, that they are "winners").
During the mid-20th century, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek famously argued that socialism cannot work because central planners lack the knowledge needed to determine which goods to produce and in what quantities — a concept commonly referred to as the "knowledge problem."
Nationalist economic planners, like their socialist counterparts, have no way of knowing this information.
They also have no good way of determining which industries government should promote and how much it should promote them. Nor have they any basis for concluding that foreign products or immigrant workers are somehow worse than domestic ones."
YOu make up your friends and your enemies !!! and then stage mock fights !!!
NatCon has MANY who would reject all 3 things you say define them.
and Socialist central planners and your make-believe NatCons,they exist nowhere. IF you were honest you would adduce Biden sukbsiding EV production, EV buying,and forcing non-EV firms out of business. BUT YOU DON"T
"[N]ationalism often goes further than other ideologies by idolizing the head of state as the embodiment of all the manly virtues — strength, charisma, and the will to succeed — that the nation supposedly holds.
The strong nationalist leader is said to stand above the petty individual disagreements and distinctions between citizens, and instead represents the nation as a whole.
He supposedly wipes away the problems of public choice and political economy that bedevil normal governance. The cult of personality builds from there, whereby the leader — frequently a strongman and sometimes a dictator or king — becomes the nation.
Over the last century, nationalist movements have routinely subverted democratic institutions, often installing brutal dictatorships in their stead.
The Nazis are, of course, the most notorious and extreme example.
But the same was true of other early 20th-century fascist movements in Italy and Spain.
...
Nationalist movements also commonly promote conspiracy theories when they lose.
If nationalists alone represent the will of the people, any political setbacks must be due to the machinations of shadowy, nefarious forces, such as foreigners, "globalist" elites, international bankers, Jews, other ethnic minorities, and so on. "
The same could be said for internationalist movements such as communism/marxism(Globalism). And while there hasn't been much heard from Anarchists lately (except for a few Douchebags in the northwest), that ideology also has potential for destruction.
I don't think you'll find Prof. Somin being super into communism.
I also think equating communism with globalism makes no sense.
Not equating communism with globalism. Communism is just one form of globalist ideology. World federalism is another. A world wide dictatorship would be another.
I do not know if Prof. Somin is a communist, but he sure seems to be a globalist. His concerns seem mostly to be on global level rather than the national.
Communism can be global or local, just like federalism. Or, if you ask Lenin, capitalism!
Prof. Somin has a global vision; more than I do that's for sure.
I like me some Star Trek globalist utopia, but we aren't anywhere near a place to go there yet, I think.
But I also don't buy the 'globalists are an evil conspiracy' take some folks have. Prof. Somin is a bit too idealistic and it makes him wrong, that's all.
I personally call what he describes as 'defensive crouch' nationalism. It's been around for ages. It's nationalistic, no doubt. But it's rarely about pride, it's about fear. And sometimes loathing.
"Prof. Somin is a bit too idealistic and it makes him wrong, that’s all."
That's my take, too. He's very well meaning, but he is NOT realistically examining the ultimate costs of what he advocates.
You and I differ on what a lot of those costs are, but sure.
But when he makes an argument that doesn't include open borders, I think engage with his arguments not this other thing he talks about.
An open border post will be along shortly, I'm sure.
Our difference here is that I think the open borders and anti-'nationalism' are not distinct positions. Somin just opposes absolutely anything that gets in the way of open borders, period.
"But I also don’t buy the ‘globalists are an evil conspiracy’ take some folks have. Prof. Somin is a bit too idealistic and it makes him wrong, that’s all."
Yes, Globalists come in a variety of flavors -from Communists to world federalists. Similar is true for Nationalists. A Globalist is not necessarily a Communist and it is false to equate the two. Likewise Nationalists are not necessarily the evil scum Somin makes them out to be.
Somin equates nationalism with particular evils because his goal is to promote globalism. But if globalism was so ideal, he would not have to stoop so low to promote it.
It’s not that long ago that gobalism was explicitly and exclusively a hyper-capitalist project, whereby the world would be made better by asset-stripping businesses and industries then offshoring them and moving production to places with poor labour standards and low wages. 'No two countries with McDonalds would ever go to war.'
Your three example are The Protocols redux.
A very nice piece, one of your best, but to call the Tea Party "quasi-libertarian" devoted to free enterprise and limited government is absurd. The Tea Party was a nihilist movement with one goal: the destruction of Barack Obama, nothing more than a continuation of the Newt Gingrich/Rush Limbaugh brand of Republicanism, devoid of any ideas and running entirely on hatred and a longing for destruction as an end in itself. The fact that many intelligent people deluded themselves into thinking that the Tea Party had any substance whatsoever shows how desperate libertarians are for "good news".
Exactly. Which is why it was so easy for it to quickly shed any pretense and morph into MAGA.
If the Tea Party'd had any substance, it would still be around opposing MAGA.
Based on the "definition" of nationalism posted above, this may be one of the dumbest things Somin has ever written. Qualification: I didn't read the article at the link.
Nationalism might be conceived in a few different ways:
1. Traditionally, the "nationalists" in this country were those that favored a more powerful centralized government to rule over (relatively powerless) present and future states in the union. The nationalist agenda was centralized banks, major military spending, standing armies, foreign interventionism, industrial policies. Power, money, empire - all the usual things.
Of course, this agenda was not realized at first but largely succeeded in the long run. Neocons today echo this. I see in the article Somin says "In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks on the United States, neoconservatism was briefly ascendant." What? Neoconservatism has been ascendant much longer than that, 90s, 80s, 70s . . . really throughout the whole of this nation's short history, this form of nationalism has been ascendant.
2. On the other hand, nationalism more recently has referred to different things. One part of it seems to be the proposition that a government should always act with a pragmatic view toward the best interests of its own citizens first, rather than the interests of all those who are not citizens. This may seem a bit frivolous, since most people would agree (notwithstanding a few unhinged reactions to the idea from people such as the commenter Sarcastr0), and the real question is perhaps just what exactly is in the best interests of the citizens. And so this nationalism tends to take a particular view on that question, and contrasts the best interests of citizens with things like: pursuing costly global charity, foreign/global projects that are perceived as pipe dreams or dangerous utopian ideas, excessive foreign entanglements in precisely the sense that the founders of the U.S. warned about extensively, playing world police with military interventionism and funding of foreign conflicts, etc.
Ironically, this nationalism is rather opposite to the traditional sense of nationalism above!
On Apr 26, 2016, then-candidate Trump gave a speech in which he said: "No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism."
3. At a more basic level, the newer use of nationalism involves an endorsement of the nation-state itself as an entity and model for organization.
On Sept. 17 2017, President Trump delivered a speech to the UN in which he said: "All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition."
This again will be seen as frivolous by some, but it's actually not. As one U.S. Deputy Secretary of State wrote in 1992, "I'll bet that within the next hundred years . . . nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority." So in a sense, this idea of nationalism is defined by contrast to the ideology of globalism.
4. The idea of nations putting their own interests first is basically like a capitalist idea. With capitalism, the idea is that each individual seeking their own self-interest can, within a framework of rules and property rights and a moral society with a good work ethic, lead to the greatest achievable outcomes for society as whole. In the same way that a corporation seeks to maximize the interests of its shareholders, each nation should maximize the interests of its citizens, while respecting all others.
5. As laid out above, there is a tension or outright contradiction between different conceptions of nationalism. In early U.S. history, nationalism tended to refer to the inward-focused perspective of the national government: maximizing its own power vis a vis all constituent/subsidiary political bodies. The more recent use seems to refer to the outward-looking perspective of the national government: maximizing interests vis a vis those outside the borders of the nation. So I think there is a useful distinction to think about in terms of inward vs outward nationalism.
Well said, but I would add that same contradiction existed in early US History. In terms of inward-focus, Washington and Hamilton both supported the Constitution and Federal Government. In terms of outward focus, Hamilton wanted the USA to become a great nation in the sense of being a world player. But Washington wanted the USA to stay out of foreign entanglements -so who would wear the mantle of "nationalist" in that regard?
Is the below Nationalist? (it is certainly not Globalist or Anarchist).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
'all men' is anti-nationalistic.
The whole thing is universalist, not limited to one nation.
"All men" is universal, in the sense that they argue that the principles applied to everyone, everywhere.
"the People" was pretty nationalistic, though.
Just a terminological note: The "neocons" were a particular movement at a particular time in history: The term actually refers to Democratic party liberals who abandoned their party in response to the Democrats' weakness in opposing communism, and moved to the Republican party. Thus "new conservatives".
They had a distinctive viewpoint, being ex-Democrats.
The movement pretty much stopped getting new members by the time of the fall of the Berlin wall, and was already being misappropriated to refer to, usually, Jewish conservatives, since some of the more prominent members had been Jewish.
There were no "neocons" for most of the country's history.
If you look at what Trump actually did and tried to do as president, it doesn't fit well to the mold you cast him in. He's actually more pro-democracy than most, opposing ruling elites within the USA, and otherwise was the most libertarian president we've had in about a century. So I can't take your analysis seriously. I'm sure it fits some leaders in the USA and abroad, but not Trump.