Jonah Goldberg of National Review has written a response to my post criticizing nationalism. Here is his main point:
Somin admits that he’s being more than a bit unfair to me in his post since, I was praising a “little mystic nationalism is a good and healthy thing because it provides the emotional sinew that helps us hold onto our patriotism.” From this entirely defensible and (in my view) completely correct yet utterly banal observation Somin goes off on a tear about how nationalism has killed lots of people and has led to very bad economic policies and, therefore, nationalism is bad…..
Here’s the point: Taking nationalism and setting it apart from other concepts as uniquely bad because, in its most extreme form, it does terrible things is sort of a debater’s trick. Pretty much all things, including perhaps even love (depending how you define it), can be taken too far if it means losing control over our faculties and reason.
I fully acknowledge (as I did in the original post) that Goldberg is only advocating a small “dose” of “mystic nationalism.” However, Goldberg ignores a crucial point I made that anticipates his response: “doses” of nationalism are hard to calibrate. A government that promotes a little bit of nationalism can easily end up with a lot more than it bargained for. Moreover, few governments are willing to confine themselves to promoting just that little bit in the first place. The relatively moderate nationalism of late 19th century Germany and Italy readily morphed into Nazism and Fascism. The same thing has happened in many other countries, even if not to the same extent. This is true in part because, as Goldberg notes, nationalism is a form of “irrational affection.” Irrational sentiments are difficult to restrict to small doses, and easily taken too far.
It is true, of course, that mass murder is “the extreme form” of nationalism. But that extreme form isn’t all that rare. In the last century alone, at least a dozen or so governments have committed mass murder in large part because of nationalistic motives (Germany, Japan, Rwanda, Uganda, Iraq, and Turkey are among the most important examples). Nationalism doesn’t inevitably lead to mass murder. But it greatly increases the risk.
Furthermore, as noted in my original post even less extreme forms of nationalism still promote repression, discrimination, protectionism, and other evils. It is true, as Goldberg notes, that almost any principle can cause harm if taken too far. But few are taken to an extreme as readily as nationalism is, and few have such devastating consequences when they are.
Goldberg’s other key point is that we need nationalism to motivate our troops and people to defend our freedom. I am not convinced that this is true. Many people have sacrificed for freedom even absent nationalistic motives. Americans made great sacrifices in the Revolutionary War, despite the fact that there was no nationalistic objective involved (18th century white Americans overwhelmingly came from the same ethnic and cultural background as the British they were revolting against). Even if nationalism does help motivate Americans to protect freedom, it also motivates many of our enemies to want to take that freedom away. On net, both sides might be better off if there were no nationalism, or at least if there was less of it.
Goldberg also tries to defend nationalism by arguing that “irrational affection” isn’t always bad, noting, for example, that love is a good thing. I agree that some forms of irrational affection are good. But that doesn’t mean that all are, or that nationalism is in particular. Whether irrational affection is good or not depends on its effects. In the case of nationalism, the good consequences are greatly outweighed by the bad ones.
Finally, Goldberg points out that nationalism was not the only factor motivating Nazi mass murders. I certainly agree that other motives were involved as well. However, nationalism was absolutely central. Hitler and the Nazis clearly believed that their wars and mass murders – including the extermination of the Jews – were needed to promote the nationalistic interests of the German/Aryan people. If 1930s Germans were not nationalistic (or even if their nationalism were greatly diminished, as it was post-WWII), it is inconceivable that they would have supported the Nazis. In trying to diminish the role of nationalism in Nazism, Goldberg claims that “The uniting vision of the National Socialists, the Bolsheviks, the Jacobins, the Maoists, the Khmer Rouge et al was that they invoked nationalistic sentiment in order to wipe the slate clean, to start over at Year Zero.” That may be true of the various other movements that Goldberg lists (though all of them were in fact based on explicitly internationalist ideologies, except perhaps the Khmer Rouge), but it was not true of the Nazis, who constantly claimed to be merely continuing the thousand year tradition of German nationalism, and adapting it to modern circumstances. In any event, our disagreement on this point is relatively minor, since Goldberg concedes that “nationalism was a big part of the equation.”
The bottom line, as I see it, is that nationalism is extremely dangerous. As I put it in my original post, “playing with nationalism is like playing with fire. It’s not inevitable that you will get burned, but the risk is high.” I would add that a small nationalistic flame can often turn into a conflagration that burns down the whole neighborhood.
Suzy says:
I agree with this; for me the word “mystic” was significant. Does “mystic” nationalism imply something that cannot be defended or explained rationally? If so, then it seems like an inherently bad thing to encourage, unless it’s good for people to have even more irrational motivations for their political judgments than they already do. Obviously, I think the less of that the better!
The other problem is that “mystic nationalism” encourages us to substitute a kind of appearance or fantasy about what’s good in our nation for the reality. Yet the reality–the foundational beliefs of our democracy, and the good and bad points in our history, and the shared culture that shapes our lives–is so important to understand and celebrate! We don’t need some mystic feeling when we have such an impressive reality. Let’s not take away from it with something that Prof. Somin points out can easily turn into a menace.
December 5, 2009, 12:30 amJM Hanes says:
The only real basis I can see for claiming mass murders in Rwanda & Uganda as an function of nationalism is that they were committed in Rwanda and Uganda in an attempt to control the levers of sovereign power. I see very little relationship between the struggles there and nationalism as you seem to have defined it. Nationalistic rhetoric is not enough to make such cases. Indeed, you provide next to nothing that describes the progression between the causes and the effects you have been asserting.
I get the distinct impression that your distaste for nationalism came first and that both your definition and your argument against it came second. Ditto patriotism. It looks to me like you are actually arguing against exceptionalism not nationalism, a distinction your mushy conflations obscure.
In your earlier post you state that “the US — or any nation — is only great in so far as it effectively promotes universal principles such as the protection of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’” It seems to me we look relatively good in that respect, but never mind. In the context of the argument you have been making, that assertion seems a rather bizarre extrapolation of prototypical American values from the national to the universal. You are really presuming that they ought to be universal values, as the President disingenuously characterizes them in foreign policy messages, and that we ought to be promoting them as universal (i.e unexceptional), and not national, values. Would that they were universal!
Nor am I persuaded that “mass murder is ‘the extreme form’ of nationalism,” any more than Timothy McVeigh is the logical extreme of conservatism.
December 5, 2009, 1:12 amDavid Bernstein says:
I went to the Holocaust Museum in DC years ago, and was struck that the introductory film they showed on the origins of the Holocaust didn’t mention nationalism at all, even though its obvious that German nationalism, combined with the historical contempt of nationalists for Jews who had no homeland of their own (and who allegedly therefore tried to “corrupt” the countries they lived in), played a significant role in precipitating the Holocaust. I’m not saying that they need to give this as much weight as historic anti-Semitism motivated by Christian theology, but nothing?
December 5, 2009, 1:20 amwilliam jones says:
Your tagline at the end reminds me of the Court in Gitlow who, despite the 1st Amendment, upheld the communist pamphlateer’s conviction for criminal syndicalism.
December 5, 2009, 1:58 am“A single revolutionary spark may kindle a fire that, smouldering for a time, may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration.”
Ilya Somin says:
The only real basis I can see for claiming mass murders in Rwanda & Uganda as an function of nationalism is that they were committed in Rwanda and Uganda in an attempt to control the levers of sovereign power. I see very little relationship between the struggles there and nationalism as you seem to have defined it.
-In both cases, the government promoted the mass murders on the basis that ethnically alien groups had to be expelled (Uganda) or exterminated in order to create an ethnically homogenous, more united nation (Rwanda). If that isn’t mass murder motivated by nationalism, I don’t know what is.
December 5, 2009, 2:39 amIlya Somin says:
I see very little relationship between the struggles there and nationalism as you seem to have defined it. Nationalistic rhetoric is not enough to make such cases. Indeed, you provide next to nothing that describes the progression between the causes and the effects you have been asserting.
The causation is not all that complex: those who committed the mass murders were (primarily) motivated by nationalism. The rhetoric they used to justify them was also nationalistic. The people they targeted were perceived as racial or ethnic enemies of the nation. More could be said, of course, but I think this line of causation is pretty clear, and is in fact the conventional wisdom about the causes of those particular mass murders.
December 5, 2009, 2:41 amkrs says:
Does this post call for a conflict of interest watch notation that the author is a member of the Red Sox Nation, or is my premise mistaken?
December 5, 2009, 2:42 amIlya Somin says:
I went to the Holocaust Museum in DC years ago, and was struck that the introductory film they showed on the origins of the Holocaust didn’t mention nationalism at all, even though its obvious that German nationalism, combined with the historical contempt of nationalists for Jews who had no homeland of their own (and who allegedly therefore tried to “corrupt” the countries they lived in), played a significant role in precipitating the Holocaust. I’m not saying that they need to give this as much weight as historic anti-Semitism motivated by Christian theology, but nothing?
I agree. In fact, I think nationalism played an even greater role than “historic anti-Semitism motivated by Christian theology.” The anti-Semitism of the Nazis was not the traditional Christian type (motivated by Jewish rejection of Christ), but of the nationalistic 19th century type – which viewed Jews as an alien “race” that could not be assimilated, and which, as you say, corrupted the nations where Jews resided. The racial and nationalistic nature of Nazi Anti-Semitism explains why they would not spare even those Jews who converted to Christianity. It wasn’t about religion, at least not primarily.
December 5, 2009, 2:45 amIlya Somin says:
Does this post call for a conflict of interest watch notation that the author is a member of the Red Sox Nation, or is my premise mistaken?
You got me! But Red Sox Nation is, of course, open to members of all ethnic and racial groups, and serves the important function of countering the Evil Empire of the Bronx and its massive government stadium subsidies.
December 5, 2009, 2:48 amIlya Somin says:
I get the distinct impression that your distaste for nationalism came first and that both your definition and your argument against it came second. Ditto patriotism. It looks to me like you are actually arguing against exceptionalism not nationalism, a distinction your mushy conflations obscure.
This makes little sense. I have no problem with the word “nationalism.” What I object to is the ideology that word denotes, as I defined it (which is also what it often means in ordinary usage.
In your earlier post you state that “the US — or any nation — is only great in so far as it effectively promotes universal principles such as the protection of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’” It seems to me we look relatively good in that respect, but never mind.
I agree. But that in no way counters my argument, which was a response to Goldberg’s claim that it is great just because it is “ours.”
In the context of the argument you have been making, that assertion seems a rather bizarre extrapolation of prototypical American values from the national to the universal. You are really presuming that they ought to be universal values, as the President disingenuously characterizes them in foreign policy messages, and that we ought to be promoting them as universal (i.e unexceptional), and not national, values. Would that they were universal!
Actually, none of these values were invented in America, nor are they unique to us today. In any event, I meant that they were universally valid, not that they are universally accepted.
December 5, 2009, 2:51 amJM Hanes says:
“The causation is not all that complex: those who committed the mass murders were (primarily) motivated by nationalism.”
National sovereignty (i.e. international non-interference) and control of government is what enabled systematic genocide. Nothwithstanding the convenience of nationalistic rhetoric, I would not characterize such exterminations as an outgrowth of nationalistic fervor, but as an expression of long standing territorial tribalism. If your definition of nationalism is not susceptible to such distinctions, it strikes me as too broad to be terribly useful.
December 5, 2009, 3:04 amOff Kilter says:
I think Goldberg and other nationalists are typically unprincipled. That is, they did not call for “a little mystic nationalism” to motivate citizens of the former Soviet Union. They’re not currently in favor of Iranians becoming more nationalistic. No, it’s only the American people that are to get teary-eyed over love of country and hymns to freedom as they’re told to line up and fight another foreign war.
December 5, 2009, 3:25 amVeracitor says:
Nearly all of your examples show the dangers of socialism/communism, not nationalism per se. I don’t think you make much of a case that nationalism without socialism is very dangerous. For a readily-accessible example, nationalism had a big influence in the USA from the mid-19th Century until the mid-20th and yet, coupled with capitalism (and some mercantilism) produced little in the way of mass murder domestically (some American Indians were killed, in effect, by anglophone nationalist imperialism), and little abroad (the fate of say, Filipino Insurrectionists and the like notwithstanding). Ordinary imperialism (of the kind known throughout the ages, long before “nationalism” in the modern sense became common) would have produced as many casualties as American nationalism did. Consider the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the Albigensian Crusade, the Conquest of Mexico… examples are endless.
No, I think nationalism, though it may sometimes fuel imperialism and thus produce casualties from that time-honored activity, only leads to really impressive mass-murder when coupled with socialism (the Nazis were officially and ideologically socialist, though they ended up taking all industry under state control without necessarily asserting state ownership (“state corporatism”). The largest practical difference between the Nazis (and Italian Fascists) and the Russian Communists was that only the latter collectivized agriculture. The former avoided that step and thus avoided the famines collectivization always produces).
Moreover, I think it’s pretty clear that nationalism has gotten its bad rep chiefly from Red propaganda. Socialism has always– since the French Revolution– been an “international” movement and has often been in competition with nationalist movements. Of course socialist leaders have often appealed to nationalist sentiments to motivate people. Other socialist leaders have let nationalist sentiments influence their programmes. Stalin revived Russian nationalism for the duration of the “Great Patriotic War;” French socialists and communists famously disgusted Ho Chi Minh by supporting French imperialism in Indochina after WWII despite their nominal commitment to decolonialism and the “fratricidal” aspect of their colonial war against another communist party. Despite many examples of socialism yoked with nationalism, they remain distinct ideological forces, and socialists remain theoretically and commonly opposed to nationalism. (Nationalists struggling with communists have killed no few (consider Franco or Pinochet) but notice that none have murdered millions. This is mainly because nationalism (as such) does not demand massive counter-productive economic changes such as state control of industry or agricultural collectivization. Communism necessarily leads to famine (yes, even in Russia; the CPSU averted starvation (and likely counter-revolution) for decades by importing food from capitalist countries); nationalism, even imperialism powered by nationalism does not.
I’m surprised to see you fall for the party-line “black legend” of nationalism spread by so many Marxist and fellow-traveling college professors and the mindlessly-leftist schoolteachers and journalists and other riffraff those professors indoctrinate in good Gramscian fashion.
December 5, 2009, 3:50 amJM Hanes says:
“Actually, none of these values were invented in America, nor are they unique to us today. In any event, I meant that they were universally valid, not that they are universally accepted.”
I take your point, but I’m not sure it’s any clearer what the universal standard for universal validity might be, outside of the kind of appeal to authority the signers found themselves making in the Declaration. In any case, I didn’t suggest, and am not now suggesting that such values were invented here, or that they were exclusively American. They are however, foundational, emblematic, both valid and accepted here, and, IMO, beloved. Ironically, actively promoting those values (which you suggested as a positive) outside our own borders seems to be frowned upon as chauvinistic in many quarters as well.
December 5, 2009, 4:02 amJM Hanes says:
As a slight aside, Rhys Isaac’s lively history in The Transformation of Virginia 1740-1790 is a surprising must read when it comes to American cultural underpinnings, including issues of allegiance. If pressed for time, I recommend Chapter 5 in which you might be pleased to discover that the rural courthouse was the center of gravity, along with almost everything else from drinking to nearly continuous fisticuffs. While I hesitate to say it, you’ll also find a passage describing the unique character of American flag waving — something I believe Europeans tend to associate with the inarguably dangerous forms of nationalism in their own history. Flag waving has a very different history here.
December 5, 2009, 4:56 amStrick says:
I’ve got to agree with some of the commenters above. This post confuses nationalism with racism and any number of “isms” it is distinct from. I can’t help but wonder if the disagreement with Goldberg isn’t just the result of radically different (and in one case doubtful) definitions of the word. There’s a difference between a nationalism and death camps and even when the former becomes extreme, it’s not the cause of the later but a tool that can be exploited by evil men to achieve whatever their ends, not just racial purity or genocide.
I don’t know that anyone objects to Iranians being nationalistic. The issues are their government’s support for international terrorism and refusal to comply with the treaties they entered in to restricting their nuclear programs. Its a deadly combination that seems to have most of the world worried, not just the US. Iranians can march and sing all they want if they cut that stuff out.
December 5, 2009, 6:24 amJeff Walden says:
It seems to me that perhaps it could have been far worse than only a dozen governments, and that therefore we should count our blessings while still continuously striving for better. Out-of-control nationalism appears historically to be a pretty isolated occurrence relative to the total number of nations (although profound in its destruction when it does occur).
But that raises another question: why should the number of countries really be all that important, rather than the number or proportion of people affected? I think, speaking in as emotionally detached a manner as possible, we all would be willing to add a good number more instances than two if we could simply remove Germany and Japan from the list. If the problem is the number of instances of extreme nationalism, counting them is of course important, but I would think only their effects should count in the analysis. (This does seem to beg the original question — is nationalism bad, or is it only bad when it’s, well, bad — but maybe it’ll shed a little light here. I just don’t see why the instances of basically harmless nationalism that went to no extremes are worthy of such suspicion or concern.)
December 5, 2009, 7:18 amgeokstr says:
Perhaps I do not possess the lawyers’ grasp of nuance, but I am at a loss to understand how nationalism per se is bad. Of course it depends on what values and principles the nation is founded on, are held by its populace, and exhibited by its leaders. You seem to be advocating the abolition of borders, and against a distinct culture or language being held by any geographically bound group of people, even if they are quite satisfied with their own way of life as a group. What, are they not allowed to protect it?
Is it a problematic form of “nationalism” to want to prevent the mass invasion of those with different languages and cultures into this country against our own laws? Should we formally renounce our borders (as opposed to our de facto refusal to control them by most of the post-nationals and trans-nationals that run our country) and let the whole world send us their tired, their poor, their huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
If the rest of the world were striving towards the ideals and principles that made this nation unique and great, you might have a point. But it is manifest that not only are they making no effort to emulate us, they are actively working to destroy the US and force us to adopt their way of life. What alternative to this terrible “nationalism” do you see that won’t inevitably move the planet towards one-world government, an end I would think libertarians would find abhorrent? Is there some structure or philosophy other than “nations” that you would recommend, maybe “annrandianism” or something?
I agree with Veracitor above, that it is communism/socialism that has mostly driven the mass murder machine, not “nationalism”. Any “ism” in the hands of a Hitler or an Idi Amin can lead to the same thing, but it seems that communism/socialism, regardless of and in spite of who happens to be leading it, inherently leads to the worst of all worlds.
December 5, 2009, 8:27 amJeff Peterson says:
You’ve got a real problem of definition when you characterize the Revolutionary War, for goodness’ sake — a rejection by force of the claims of the British nation-state and an effort to form an American one, or ones — as involving “no nationalistic objective.” From the parenthesis that follows, which notes the “ethnic and cultural background” that revolutionary America shared with England, it seems as if your real concern is to deny racism as a motive for the Revolution. I think you’re going to need to define your terms much more precisely to salvage this discussion, and as part of this I think you may need to exorcise the ghost of Elie Kedourie and others who conceive of nationalism (and modern nations) as wholly an ideological creation of the eighteenth century. Anthony D. Smith’s several books have documented the continuity of ethnic peoples through history as the root of modern nationhood, David Hacket Fischer’s _Albion’s Seed_ has shown that the American people was formed through the confluence of four English subcultures, and Philip Bobbitt’s _Shield of Achilles_ has outlined the evolution of the modern state from medieval roots.
December 5, 2009, 8:30 amSarcastro says:
I also think Prof. Somin is super-wrong and possibly a Commie. Charges of Naziness are pendant.
First, all those words up there in the main post? As geokstr noted by not engaging them, they don’t count.
And then there is the definition! I don’t like Somin’s definition, with all it’s complicated irrationality business. Instead, I would prefer to substitute my own, much more awesome awesome definition: nationalism means having a nation.
Clearly, under the awesome definition, Prof. Somin hates nations. America is a nation. I leave the rest as an exercise to the reader.
December 5, 2009, 9:11 ambyomtov says:
I think Suzy nails it in the very first comment. Mystic nationalism has nothing to recommend it.
It is the beginning of a direct line – not a slippery slope – to ethnic and religious prejudice and discrimination, with all sorts of disastrous consequences.
December 5, 2009, 10:22 am11-B/2O.B4 says:
This is my sticking point, because it tags nationalism with ethnicity, and while this was definitely true turn-of-the-last-century in Europe and persists to this day, it is by no means the only way to measure nationalism. I would argue that in the US, our “nationalism” is based on the idea of accepting and incorporating various ethnicities and cultures into our own. Original historic nationalism was not evil in and of itself, but the professor’s objections are not unreasonable. It was, quite simply, the belief that each ethnic group deserved their own country, i.e. the Poles, the Czechs, the Jews etc. That, however, does not and cannot apply to countries like the US, Russia, and China, which through size or policy incorporate many ethnicities and cultures. This is equivocation, using a definition invented to describe one phenomenon and attempting to draft it into use in a country which has never and will never accede to that stricture. If patriotism in America was arguing that the granola-eaters in the Pacific NW should have their own country and we should move all the blacks into Georgia, La. and Alabama while ceding the southwest to our hispanic population, then the linkage of nationalism, patriotism and ethnicity would be a valid one. I haven’t seen that proposal yet, so I disagree.
December 5, 2009, 10:38 amClark E Myers says:
Begs the question (traditional meaning). I suggest
the people who later organized and supported the Velodrome d’Hiver were hardly doing that as German nationalists. The troops in the dock for Oradour sur Glane (2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich) were some of them in French military uniforms – as Alsatians they served first in the French Army, then after the surrender in the SS, then after the surrender in the French Army. Ukrainians who chose Hitler over Stalin were hardly German nationalists. Perhaps strictly economic interests and perhaps intimidation led to some support – In any event I for one do find it inconceivable that some portion of the population would support change they could believe in and a yes we can attitude toward the economy.
The only (former) true believer Nazi I have ever discussed the subject with at length pretty much said it all when he said he left school at eleven to be apprenticed as a baker and what did he know – after the sweep through Poland then and only then he began to believe some of the Nazi claims – parading with his unit down the Champs Elysee after the fall of France he was a true believer – when the Americans saved him at bayonet point from a French mob and he looked the mob in the eyes he began to see the Nazi regime as others saw it. That is I suggest the nationalism came after not before the successes and weak in origin died with the failures rather than persisting as say attitudes did in the southern United States.
December 5, 2009, 10:55 amgeokstr says:
As a matter of fact, SirCastro, I did read what Prof Somin wrote, on both posts, and clearly posited my comment on possibly not understanding his definition of “nationalism”. But my reading of it was that “nationalism” is bad no matter what, because it will too easily lead to too much of it, and that will lead to the type of thing that happened in Uganda and other places. If your reading is correct, perhaps he could expand on why his definition of “nationalism” has nothing to do with “nations”, or a people wanting to preserve their own borders and culture.
I think what your comment illustrated is what is already quite well known about both of us – that I believe that communism/socialism is an evil philosophy that will inevitably lead to mass slaughter, as has been adequately demostrated by history, when the proles don’t listen to their masters, and you, on the other hand, appear to like that philosophy.
December 5, 2009, 11:34 amDavid says:
I think it’s problematic to conflate–as this series of essays seems often to–patriotism (love of one’s own country, mindful of its defects) and nationalism (a much more externally-oriented, competitive phenomenon).
Patriotism can take many forms, only some of which are inextricably linked to nationalism. Nationalism is–by definition–a love for the “nation” part of “nation-state”, in preference for loving the “state” part. The Magyars of the Habsburg Empire might have been loyal to the dynasty, but they were hardly patriots of the Empire: indeed, they connived greatly to bring it down in favor of an autonomous or independent Magyar state.
But even within this fairly narrow definition of patriotism, there are significant differences. German nationalism is classic blood-and-soil nationalism: if you or your ancestors were German, you are German now–even if you’ve never lived in Germany, don’t speak German, and probably couldn’t find Germany on the map.
French nationalism, OTOH, is much more assimilative: as someone (I think it might have been Victor Hugo) once famously observed, anyone can be French if they are willing to speak of “Nos ancetres, les Gaulois” (“Our ancestors, the Gauls”).
Now it is surely obvious that few if any Frenchmen–even native ones whose families have lived in the same village for generations–have very much Gaulish blood, any more than Englishmen have the blood of their Briton ancestors flowing through their veins: but the point is to have a common national narrative to which all can subscribe.
Indeed, that is largely the nature of the American narrative: city on a hill, plucky revolutionary guerrillas, manifest destiny, the winning of the west, and nowadays, exporters of democracy. And when Jonah Goldberg suggest a little mystic nationalism, I suspect he really means a little mythic nationalism: a genuine revival of the common heritage of a virtuous America.
As a patriot, I subscribe to Stephen Decatur’s (oft-misquoted) toast: “Our country, gentlemen–may she ever be in the right. But our country–right or wrong.”
Loving your country is very much like loving your spouse, your parent, or your child: it’s not wholly rational, and it shouldn’t be conflated either with liking everything they do, let alone sanctioning their bad actions.
But it is unconditional.
December 5, 2009, 11:38 amMark Field says:
Without getting into the merits here, I do think it’s terribly unsporting of you to enter into a duel of wits with Jonah Goldberg.
December 5, 2009, 12:02 pmfrankcross says:
geokstr, you have answered yourself. If there are good reasons not to accept foreign culture or to protect the borders, we can take such actions for those reasons. Not for the separate reason of nationalism. I.e., if aspects of our national culture such as free markets are good, that is a reason to maintain them, we don’t need nationalism. Unless you think every single aspect of our culture is perfect and we must keep out all foreign ideas simply because they are foreign, in which case you are surely a nutty nationalist. A doctrine that opposes tacos deserves no respect.
I think this is tricky, as nationalism is a subset of a broader sense of tribalism, but so is being a member of Red Sox nation. Tribalism seems intrinsically bad but also an intrinsic part of human makeup. While trying to minimize it we can channel it to sports, maybe.
December 5, 2009, 12:05 pmWilliam Woody says:
It strikes me that the root of the underlying debate here is a definitional one: your idea of nationalism is not quite the same as Jonah Goldberg. It’s like two minds debating the merit of color on a wall: one person has in mind off-white, the other, shocking pink: naturally the person who thinks “color” and sees “shocking pink” is probably going to be put off by the idea of any color on a wall.
Now for myself, I feel a certain nationalistic pride in the United States. However, one of the reasons why I feel this nationalistic pride is primarily because I believe the underlying philosophy of the United States (such as the idea that all men are created equal) transcend language, culture, or ethnicity. This idea of nationalistic pride runs completely counter to your own definition of nationalism as “loyalty to one’s own nation-state based on ties of language, culture or ethnicity.” Because my pride in my country comes from the belief that Pennsylvanian Dutch or Spanish-speaking Latinos or English-speaking Scott-Irish can all be part of an inclusive America where all men are treated as equal and all men willingly share the civic responsibility of cooperation regardless of their language or culture or ethnicity, it’s hard for me to see how your negativism on nationalism would apply to my own feelings of nationalism.
Further, I would go so far as to describe feelings of strong affiliation based on language, culture or ethnicity is a symptom of tribalism, the belief that your tribe is better than others because of familial, cultural or shared experience that no outsider can share in. Through most of the world, nationalism is tribalism. And I would argue, as you have, that nationalism as tribalism is bad: you can’t be a member of my tribe because you do not share the familial ties that I have.
And the moment I subscribe to tribalism: the moment I’ve decided based on familial ties that there is “us” and there is “them” and “they” can never become “us”–we’re just one zealot away from starting a war of extermination to get rid of “them.”
December 5, 2009, 12:31 pmbyomtov says:
I think nationalism played an even greater role than “historic anti-Semitism motivated by Christian theology.” The anti-Semitism of the Nazis was not the traditional Christian type (motivated by Jewish rejection of Christ), but of the nationalistic 19th century type — which viewed Jews as an alien “race” that could not be assimilated, and which, as you say, corrupted the nations where Jews resided. The racial and nationalistic nature of Nazi Anti-Semitism explains why they would not spare even those Jews who converted to Christianity.
It is impossible to separate the two. The Nazis’ anti-Semitism, or other ethnic-based anti-Semitism, could, IMO, never have arisen without historical Christian anti-Semitism. They may superficially have been based on different ideas, but the distinction is just too simple to be accurate.
The Nazis may have raised anti-Semitic sentiment to the boiling point, but it was already pretty warm when they started.
December 5, 2009, 12:32 pmbyomtov says:
But even within this fairly narrow definition of patriotism, there are significant differences. German nationalism is classic blood-and-soil nationalism: if you or your ancestors were German, you are German now–even if you’ve never lived in Germany, don’t speak German, and probably couldn’t find Germany on the map.
French nationalism, OTOH, is much more assimilative: as someone (I think it might have been Victor Hugo) once famously observed, anyone can be French if they are willing to speak of “Nos ancetres, les Gaulois” (“Our ancestors, the Gauls”).
It’s not as simple as that. Both strands are often found in the same country. Certainly this is true in France. (La Marseillaise talks of watering fields with “sang impur” – impure blood).
I happen to be a bit familiar with pre-WWII Poland, and there the same phenomenon existed. One faction saw Poland as ethnic/religious, based on the traditional agricultural society and the Church. Another saw it as multi-ethnic, including, besides traditional Poles, Jews, Lithuanians, and others. (The great Polish leader of the period, Pilsudski, was Lithuanian by birth.)
I doubt these are the only examples. Indeed, the conflict is present in the United States today.
December 5, 2009, 12:43 pmCJColucci says:
There are probably real ideas worthy of some kind of reasoned discussion here, but all of this started as a response to an off-hand comment by Jonah Goldberg. Even when he’s being, by his standards, serious, there’s nothing to respond to. An off-hand comment is even less reason to go to all this trouble.
December 5, 2009, 12:50 pmSarcastro says:
[geokstr , I'm tired, but it seems to me you don't mention at all the main posts' slippery slope-esque argument ("“doses” of nationalism are hard to calibrate.") I therefore think it's a valid criticism of your criticism that you didn't even address the main argument of the post.
Also, believe it or not, I'm not a commie. Don't like Stalin, think Marx got the econ part wrong. More of a moderate-liberal (pro-gun, anti-welfare, anti-nanny state). I think markets harnessing greed is the best societal technology since religion harnessed guilt. Though I do like regulated markets and a robust safety-net. Of course, that's just what a commie would say.
I just enjoy poking right-wingers. Left-wingers pain me. Likely some sort of misguided tribalism.]
December 5, 2009, 1:18 pmRandy says:
I am reminded of a scene from the movie Madame Souzatska, starring Shirley MacLaine. Takes place in London, and an older woman is in a hospital, and another older man, who is a neighbor, comes to visit. She can’t finish her porridge, so she offers it to him, and he eats it with glee. Then she says, “Aren’t you glad to be British?”
That’s the sort of nationalism I think we can all live with. But really, no more than that.
December 5, 2009, 1:39 pmsubpatre says:
At the end of the day, not a single libertarian comes up with an alternative for what Goldberg proposes, a little bit of nationalism. That in itself is part of THE flaw in libertarianism: there is no way to arrive at what libertarians profess to believe.
Their borderless nation is an abstract —a theoretical daydream— that has no connection to human nature or human needs. Indeed, while Somin pontificates against the evils of WWII German nationalism, he studiously ignores the saving graces of WWII British and American nationalism.
Perhaps more important was the communist Soviet empire —formerly a globalist or internationalist-leaning movement— that managed to inspire some degree of nationalism to repel the Germans. It subsequently saw a lessening of its internal murderous policies in conjunction with that nationalism. That is not to be confused for a claim that nationalism directly caused more humane policies, but the degree of change (from massive internal genocides) and the coincident timing cannot be simply ignored either.
In contrast to Somin, reasonable people recognize that people form bonds, and that encouraging a moderate expression of these bonds is both healthy for individuals and beneficial to society. Ironically it is libertarians —having popularized and advertised the ‘tragedy of the commons’— who ignore its lessons when they denigrate allegiance to state, nation or culture.
Nationalism may be like fire, but fire drives our automobiles, fuels our heating and cooling, produces the clothes on our backs and the food on our tables. Playing with fire is dangerous; eliminating fire is worse. In the end, Somin offers no alternative to patriotism or ‘a little nationalism’, the very things that protect and defend his speech.
December 5, 2009, 2:10 pmXanthippas says:
Maybe I’m being unfair, but Goldberg sounds more than a little paternalistic with all his talk of “mystic nationalism.” As in, it’s the sort of thing that elites like Goldberg should encourage us little people to possess. Or maybe that’s just a sign of the weakness or insincerity of his argument.
December 5, 2009, 2:38 pmRyan Waxx says:
You don’t know what is. There’s a word for that… but it isn’t nationalism.
It’s racism.
December 5, 2009, 2:44 pmlucklucky says:
“The relatively moderate nationalism of late 19th century Germany and Italy readily morphed into Nazism and Fascism.”
It wasn’t moderate specially in Germany. Germany had anti-semitic parties in XIX century for example and the question of German purity, and what was true German charatcer was on important parts of political spectrum. There was not much of that in Italy.
December 5, 2009, 2:54 pmsk says:
Now, I’m not sure of your argument. You seem to believe that Nationalism is inevitably dangerous: witness Rwanda, Germany, Japan, Uganda, Iraq, Turkey). Therefore, we shouldn’t ‘toy’ with nationalism.
Do you really believe ‘nationalism’ is something that is only infrequently used to motivated citizens? My belief would be otherwise: it is always present (at least since the nation-state arouse), in different degrees. Nationalism was present in the US during WWI, and WWI, and in between (though in much less degrees than during the wars), and in post-WWII, and in decline during and immediately after the Vietnam War, and resurgent during the Reagan era, and around, to varying degrees, ever since.
It has also been around, probably to lesser degree, in every other nation-state in the world. Britain had a mini-resurgence during the Falklands War, but it, like much of Europe, has had little (but not absolutely no) ‘nationalist feeling since WWII. In short, if you went through the history of any nation on earth, you would find some level of ‘nationalism,’ at all times.
And this implies that ‘nationalism’ isn’t always or even usually dangerous: it merely seems to flair up to dangerous levels everyy once in a while, in particular nations under particular circumstances.
Which would, of course, demolish your argument.
The correctness or incorrectness of my argument depends upon (as we have brought up several times), how do you define ‘nationalism’? Was the US pretty nationalistic during WWII? Somewhat nationalistic during the Cold War and the Reagan era? Minimally nationalistic during the 70′s and perhaps the 30′s? Or were those not examples of nationalism at all, but rather patriotism?
In short: if nationalism is always playing with fire, and yet most nations don’t play with fire most times (the Japans, Turkeys, Germany’s and Iraqs come along only infrequently), then ‘nationalism’ isn’t very prevalent (its a very infrequent phenomenon). If ‘nationalism’ has had nearly universal presence (with dramatically different levels and thus dangers) since the nation-state came about, well, then, nationalism isn’t always playing with fire, and Goldberg’s views are entirely defensible.
Sk
December 5, 2009, 3:28 pmjosil says:
It looks like someone went off the deep end, conflating nationalism with every historical event that he dislikes. But, as others have noted, the most destructive cases of “nationalism” were based on ethnic evocations (Rwanda massacres)or millenial rationales (e.g., Khymer Rouge), and were not statist. So, I’d say Goldberg def. Somin in this round.
December 5, 2009, 3:44 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Jonah Goldberg on Nationalism -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Jonah Goldberg on Nationalism: Jonah Goldberg of National Review has written a response to my post criticizing .. http://bit.ly/4r5kVB [...]
December 5, 2009, 3:59 pmepignosis says:
Nationalism cannot be characterized as good or bad in the manner that Goldberg and Somin are attempting. Just like the volition or self-determination of humans cannot be characterized.
It depends on what the human is doing. We are restricted to judging the actions because of the difficulty judging motives.
In nationalism, we support our nation which is defined by a mutually (not always entire) held set of belief, laws, and principles. Are those principles good or bad? Depends. You tell me the principle, and I will render my opinion.
Good principle – as much freedom and liberty as is practical, recognizing the need to protect public safety and individual property. Bad principle – attack and kill neighboring countries because we want their property or land.
Nationalism is not inherently bad because of examples that displease us. It is inherently good to the extent that we pursue righteous principles.
December 5, 2009, 4:42 pmDavid says:
I didn’t mean to suggest that French patriotism didn’t include some blood-and-soil elements: but the issue of “sang impur” is a red herring here, as it occurs in the context of repelling invaders who “come right into your arms to cut the throats of your sons and beloved ones” (“ils viennent jusque dans nos bras egorger nos fils et nos compagnes”).
I think it’s safe to say that pretty much anyone would agree that such people deserve all they get. Indeed, the sentiment is not unlike the famous Jefferson observation regarding the tree of liberty (“…and the blood of tyrants is its manure.”). Surely that has nothing to do with ethnicity either?!?
December 5, 2009, 5:12 pmmariner says:
Veracitor:
Yes, and once the socialists have succeeded one of their first moves is to eliminate the “useful idiots” (nationalists) that helped them get to power.
December 5, 2009, 5:47 pmbyomtov says:
I didn’t mean to suggest that French patriotism didn’t include some blood-and-soil elements: but the issue of “sang impur” is a red herring here, as it occurs in the context of repelling invaders who “come right into your arms to cut the throats of your sons and beloved ones”
Well, OK on La Marseillaise. “Red herring” is a nice choice of words, BTW.
December 5, 2009, 5:49 pmmariner says:
subpatre:
I wish I’d had the wit to write that. But since I didn’t:
Thank You.
December 5, 2009, 6:03 pmRyan Waxx says:
I’m forced to conclude that you win the thread, sir.
December 5, 2009, 9:01 pmTwirlip says:
Somin:
.
Of course, the Declaration does say precisely that.
Americans are “one people” who are now to separate themselves from “another” people. The D of I, the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and other founding documents are rife with references to this collective body known as “the people”. Federalist #2 describes Americans as “one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
There may have been a few proto-individualist-libertarians among the Founders – Tom Paine, perhaps – but on the whole they had a mindset which was totally foreign to the ideas you are trying to impose on them. They were prolific writers and left entire libraries of correspondence when they died. Their views on these subjects are not very hard to ascertain. And their views were not Prof. Somins.
December 5, 2009, 9:39 pmTwirlip says:
Yes, this has been pointed out to him on the previous nationalism/patriotism threads and he has yet to offer an alternative “glue” to bind society together.
December 5, 2009, 9:42 pmTwirlip says:
I don’t know if it’s unfair or not to describe the idea that way, but Goldberg is not the author of the idea in question so its probably unfair to either blame or credit him for it. “Mystic nationalism” is simply an acknowledgement that, as in so many other important spheres of human action, politics is not science and does not operate according to the rules of Reason with a Roman R. It’s largely driven by emotion. I suppose that’s not news to anybody who observes the American Presidential election process every four years. People love (or hate) countries for reasons which are frequently inscrutable.
December 5, 2009, 9:55 pmTwirlip says:
Why do I get the impression that this entire “anti-nationalism” kick by Prof. Somin basically boils down to “the Nazis killed my ancestors so we must stamp out nationalism”? Exhibits A through Z in his case are all “the Nazis”.
December 5, 2009, 10:03 pmrpt says:
Goldberg’s definition of nationalism requires you to be sacrificed for his vision (c’hawk version).
December 6, 2009, 12:15 amChris_t says:
subpatre:
great comment.
December 6, 2009, 12:36 amRoach says:
How is nationalism the least bit dangerous to those of us (a) concerned about disloyal recent arrivals and minorities (b) suspicious of globalization and the shift in power from producers to information manipulators of one kind or another and (c) solidly in the ethnic and religious majority? It seems to me nationalism is good for us, increases our power and influence, and curbs the corrosive influence of disloyal and often hostile elements among minorities and newcomers who mean the nation harm.
December 6, 2009, 2:39 pmVeracitor says:
The mass murder in Rwanda did not grow out of nationalism, but tribalism. Before the 1960′s, educated people generally understood that nationalism was an advance on tribalism– something to be appreciated, not reviled. In the Sixties the Leftist academy rewrote the curriculum to push the notion that only international socialism is an advance on anything. As part of that propaganda campaign the Left equated nationalism with tribalism– but in fact it is something different and more useful. Tribalists compete with (and sometimes murder) folks they don’t consider their close relatives. Nationalists, by and large, compete with (and sometimes kill) people they don’t consider their cultural and linguistic peers. Of course, nationalists come into conflict with ideological enemies such as socialists. But really, nationalism is better for human beings than tribalism, because nationalists will assimilate non-relatives, enabling them to build larger, much more open societies (societies which peoples from different tribes or even races can join).
Nazis? As I pointed out they were socialists and used force to reorganize the German economy. They scapegoated the Jews to facilitate robbing them (as part of the aforementioned economic reorganization) and to provide a convenient enemy to blame for economic troubles. The Nazis also appealed to (an essentially ficticious, but still emotionally powerful) German tribalism to divert popular anger toward the Jews rather than toward the regime. People now forget that German nationalism in the 19th Century was good for the Jews, and that Jews were among the most prominent of nationalist leaders. The final emancipation of the Germanic Jews was only achieved by the triumph of the nationalist movement in 1870, finishing the work begun in 1848. Jews did well in Germany until Hitler chose them as his scapegoat and reversed their emancipation in 1933 as part of his plan of socialist imperialism.
Please note as well that Lenin and Stalin murdered even more people than Hitler and not in the name of nationalism, though the leftists who have dominated American academia and media for more than a half-century now pretend that there was only ever one evil totalitarian state and it was always West of the Vistula. Mao was like unto Stalin, and many socialist/communist leaders in other countries have done their best to emulate Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
Nationalism is often, if not always, a positive force, motivating people away from tribalism.
Sadly, “internationalism,” except in the known- to- be- horrific form of Communism (and the throwback form of simple imperialism), does not seem to be any improvement on nationalism. Nationalism has trouble crossing the natural boundaries of linguistic groups (bilingual Canada is the exception which proves the rule). The polyglot empires of the past (consider the Hapsburg, Ottoman, and even Soviet Russian examples) broke up into national states when liberated from imperial control.
Perhaps someday an ideology which does not involve economic folly and require incredible brutality to perpetuate itself will arise to extend the benefits of nationalism to wider groups still. I wonder what it might look like. I’d bet that however desirable it might be in the long run, it would promote a lot of violence in the short run as nationalists, tribalists, and socialists resisted it to perpetuate their own preferences.
Finally, note that if the United States breaks up, the cause will probably be the nationalist sentiments of the Mexican-Spanish speaking peoples which American governments since 1965 have permitted to take up residence in the USA. Nationalists rationally oppose immigration of linguistically and culturally distinct groups because members of those groups, rather than assimilate to their hosts’ nation, generally generate rival nationalist movements to contend for territorial control.
December 6, 2009, 6:37 pmbyomtov says:
How is nationalism the least bit dangerous to those of us (a) concerned about disloyal recent arrivals and minorities (b) suspicious of globalization and the shift in power from producers to information manipulators of one kind or another and (c) solidly in the ethnic and religious majority? It seems to me nationalism is good for us, increases our power and influence, and curbs the corrosive influence of disloyal and often hostile elements among minorities and newcomers who mean the nation harm.
I hope this comment is satire. Otherwise, it perfectly illustrates the dangers of nationalism.
December 7, 2009, 10:58 ambyomtov says:
Nationalists rationally oppose immigration of linguistically and culturally distinct groups because members of those groups, rather than assimilate to their hosts’ nation, generally generate rival nationalist movements to contend for territorial control.
No doubt about it. Little Italy, Boston’s (Italian) North End, Chinatown in various cities, etc., are but a few of the beachheads of the foreign invader. Americans, beware!!!
December 7, 2009, 11:03 amSuzy says:
Veracitor: you apparently reject Somin’s argument about the dangers of nationalism on the grounds that he’s describing tribalism as opposed to nationalism. But then you point out that nationalism has difficulty crossing the boundary of distinct languages. Why then isn’t it just a species of tribalism, where the tribe is united by a common language or culture? If you think about Spain in the 1930′s, or Germany and Italy, or even some conflicts in South America, that kind of nationalism seems to be operating.
In addition, if people give a rational account of why they so value their nation, then it’s obviously not the “mystic nationalism” I took Goldberg to be describing. It’s precisely the emotional, unreflective kind of nationalism that’s the problem; not the idea that someone would cherish the values in the declaration of independence because they seem like the best basis for government. In other words, our country isn’t good simply because it’s ours, or because we people of this country share certain cultural characteristics. That’s the unreasoned nationalism, and the emotional appeals target these things. On the contrary, our country is good because it is founded on and strives to realize ideals that we have reasoned are the best possible. We value other countries when they share these ideals; our shared rational values are the basis of friendship. Nationalism inherently drives a wedge between peoples because accidental characteristics are valued over and against the alternatives.
December 7, 2009, 1:35 pmDavid Armor says:
Yeah, as long as they’re white, from Western Europe, and not German during the 1930s and 1940s.
January 17, 2010, 9:54 pm