American liberals, most especially those who sell words for a living, and most especially because almost all of them come from the upper-middle class (or higher) and have never missed a meal, served in the military or had to hunt and kill their dinners, have talked themselves into this weird ideological cul-de-sac where any mention of attachment to place and nation automatically equates with Hitler and the Nazis. Are we all really supposed to denounce and abandon the nation-state just because the Germans went nuts 90 years ago?
There's two things (at least) they're blind to in their constant crusade to defeat their blood enemies, conservatives aka Deplorables, and declare everyone but themselves benighted bigots:
First, their idealistic lives are supported and protected by a military and a police force that protects an actual territory, often made up of members with a deep love and connection to that specific territory, and pulling out these roots could very well be like tearing down a load-bearing wall; also, this same land is farmed by people with a deep connection to an actual piece of territory, and these are the same people who deliver all the necessary calories to our urban thinking classes. Sever this connection and we're all at the mercy of the global corporate state, which may not always be there.
Second, while American liberals may pour scorn on any manifestations of Western nationalism, they're all for every other type of nationalism: Palestinian, Cuban, Tibetan, Maori, etc or even urban enclaves like Harlem—if a black person told someone like Adam Serwer they had multigenerational roots in Harlem (or even the Louisiana Bayou) he'd get weepy and try to arrange an NPR feature on them; but if someone like Vance does it, well, it's time to play 6 Degrees of Nazi/Jim Crow.
In any time or place there's only a small sliver of people who can live high up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Most people need and crave roots, fetishize and celebrate the roots they have, it is literally grounding and doesn't imply any ipso facto hatred of anyone else. Man cannot live by abstractions alone!
The blue people , if they don’t believe America is a nation too, would just as likely hand our nation over to foreign interests such as Islam or Mexican cartels who will laugh their way to the bank. Great articles and spot on.
The US is an imagined community, in which a shared past, common values, and a common future are purely imagined. Because in reality Americans don’t share those things, on the contrary—they’re fighting over them.
Psychological tribalism ? Leftist criticism of this article would probably regard the real tribalists in Arab countries or Somalia or other violent , backwards regimes with no concept of statehood as superior to our western, enlightenment inspired nation state.
Nationalism is a version of psychological tribalism with an unnatural and unallied tribe. It is bad. There is a reason that identifying as an American is a predominantly Red rather than Blue phenomenon.
Humans are naturally tribal. Nationalism is a means of scaling and subordinating our tribal instincts in the service of a higher cause. The alternative to the nation isn’t a utopian society of individualistic, rational individuals. It’s clan warfare (if not open, then the tribally divided failed states so common in the developing world) or a competing means of channeling our tribalism.
In the modern era, these other means have proven to be dismal failures (eg, Communism in the Soviet Union, theocracy in the Islamic State). Nationalism, despite its own failures and excesses, endures because it is rooted more deeply (in ties of history, territory, culture, language, etc) and is capable of greater moderation (coexistence with other nations instead of ideological bids for world domination) than the alternatives.
Soviet communism and Islamic theocracy do not exhaust competing means. The persistent talk of "the right side of history" and stuff like that exists because identifying with an idea-based tribe instead of a populace of a blob on a map is possible and useful.
There are plenty of other idea-based tribes, but on the state level, there’s no successful alternative to nationalism as an organizing principle. Of course, nationalism is usually tempered by liberalism and other universal “ideas.” But the bedrock on which those ideas rest is attachment to the nation. Even the most liberal regimes rely on a foundation of nationalist sentiment.
Stalin sarcastically asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” Similarly, one could ask, “How many armies will defend ‘persistent talk of the right side of history’ compared with their land and people?” And of course, despite official communist internationalism, Stalin himself appealed to nationalist sentiment during WWII, or “The Great Patriotic War.”
> Similarly, one could ask, “How many armies will defend ‘persistent talk of the right side of history’ compared with their land and people?”
My answer is "quite a lot, for ideas actually believed in". Note how Stalin had pre-WW2 basically destroyed the ideological logic in favor of cult of personality, whereas Russian Civil War had Bolsheviks (and several other groups) quite sincerely (if misguidedly and bloodily) fighting for the idea.
Likewise, Catholicism used to have quite a lot of divisions in Middle Ages, despite some very dubious specific Popes, as evidenced by... ahem... Crusades. It wasn't an army of a nation or even of a specific feudal lord collection (or, rather, feudal lords having their own armies helped but didn't exhaust anything). It was, for better or worse, an army of believers.
I agree that, historically, people have fought for ideas. But it's telling that all formerly Communist countries have reverted back to nationalism (most obviously Russia but also Poland, Hungary, etc). Even nominally Communist China appeals to national sentiment for legitimacy. Nationalism is clearly more deeply rooted than competing ideologies and a more stable basis for political order. When the USSR broke up, it fractured along (currently disputed) national lines, as did Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
Religion has historically been a serious contender with the nation for ultimate loyalty. But even in the Middle Ages, shared Christianity was never enough to politically unite the fractured European peoples. (It's also telling that "ethnic churches" proliferate, like Russian Orthodoxy, and that even ostensibly universalist religions like Catholicism fused with nationalism in countries like Spain.) In the Middle East, Islam does frequently command greater allegiance than colonially drawn states like Iraq, but perhaps that's an argument for more nationalism, not less?
When the USSR broke up, it fractured along the lines that happened to be enshrined in legalese because no one cared much about changing them along national logic (and sometimes changed it against the national logic, as with Crimea). From Karabakh to Kyrgyzstan to Tajikistan to Chechnya to Russian western border, it is rather obvious that the fracturing wasn't by tracking nation in any persistent sense. (Likewise, Republika Srpska in Bosnia shows that even in Yugoslavia, where the conflict was far more ethnoreligious, the resulting borders are not that national.)
One, there is little evidence most of "fractured European peoples" actually tracked that much what feudal lord they happened to track allegiance to as opposed to either an extremely local identification like village or their religion; it is telling, for instance, that in Poland-Lithuania religion was persistently a divider. Two, what exactly makes Russian Orthodoxy ethnic? They are no Druzes, they actively proselytized among various Siberian peoples and, until very recently at least, claimed universalism. (What currently happens in the majority of Russian Orthodox Church is basically-open post-KGB rejoinder.) Three, regarding Islam, it isn't an idea we would want to win, but this doesn't mean that the thing to beat it with is nationalism, not a better idea.
American liberals, most especially those who sell words for a living, and most especially because almost all of them come from the upper-middle class (or higher) and have never missed a meal, served in the military or had to hunt and kill their dinners, have talked themselves into this weird ideological cul-de-sac where any mention of attachment to place and nation automatically equates with Hitler and the Nazis. Are we all really supposed to denounce and abandon the nation-state just because the Germans went nuts 90 years ago?
There's two things (at least) they're blind to in their constant crusade to defeat their blood enemies, conservatives aka Deplorables, and declare everyone but themselves benighted bigots:
First, their idealistic lives are supported and protected by a military and a police force that protects an actual territory, often made up of members with a deep love and connection to that specific territory, and pulling out these roots could very well be like tearing down a load-bearing wall; also, this same land is farmed by people with a deep connection to an actual piece of territory, and these are the same people who deliver all the necessary calories to our urban thinking classes. Sever this connection and we're all at the mercy of the global corporate state, which may not always be there.
Second, while American liberals may pour scorn on any manifestations of Western nationalism, they're all for every other type of nationalism: Palestinian, Cuban, Tibetan, Maori, etc or even urban enclaves like Harlem—if a black person told someone like Adam Serwer they had multigenerational roots in Harlem (or even the Louisiana Bayou) he'd get weepy and try to arrange an NPR feature on them; but if someone like Vance does it, well, it's time to play 6 Degrees of Nazi/Jim Crow.
In any time or place there's only a small sliver of people who can live high up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Most people need and crave roots, fetishize and celebrate the roots they have, it is literally grounding and doesn't imply any ipso facto hatred of anyone else. Man cannot live by abstractions alone!
Well argued
As a fellow American immigrant, I thank you for this. I chose to immigrate here because of a person, not an idea.
The blue people , if they don’t believe America is a nation too, would just as likely hand our nation over to foreign interests such as Islam or Mexican cartels who will laugh their way to the bank. Great articles and spot on.
The US is an imagined community, in which a shared past, common values, and a common future are purely imagined. Because in reality Americans don’t share those things, on the contrary—they’re fighting over them.
Psychological tribalism ? Leftist criticism of this article would probably regard the real tribalists in Arab countries or Somalia or other violent , backwards regimes with no concept of statehood as superior to our western, enlightenment inspired nation state.
Nationalism is a version of psychological tribalism with an unnatural and unallied tribe. It is bad. There is a reason that identifying as an American is a predominantly Red rather than Blue phenomenon.
Humans are naturally tribal. Nationalism is a means of scaling and subordinating our tribal instincts in the service of a higher cause. The alternative to the nation isn’t a utopian society of individualistic, rational individuals. It’s clan warfare (if not open, then the tribally divided failed states so common in the developing world) or a competing means of channeling our tribalism.
In the modern era, these other means have proven to be dismal failures (eg, Communism in the Soviet Union, theocracy in the Islamic State). Nationalism, despite its own failures and excesses, endures because it is rooted more deeply (in ties of history, territory, culture, language, etc) and is capable of greater moderation (coexistence with other nations instead of ideological bids for world domination) than the alternatives.
Soviet communism and Islamic theocracy do not exhaust competing means. The persistent talk of "the right side of history" and stuff like that exists because identifying with an idea-based tribe instead of a populace of a blob on a map is possible and useful.
There are plenty of other idea-based tribes, but on the state level, there’s no successful alternative to nationalism as an organizing principle. Of course, nationalism is usually tempered by liberalism and other universal “ideas.” But the bedrock on which those ideas rest is attachment to the nation. Even the most liberal regimes rely on a foundation of nationalist sentiment.
Stalin sarcastically asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” Similarly, one could ask, “How many armies will defend ‘persistent talk of the right side of history’ compared with their land and people?” And of course, despite official communist internationalism, Stalin himself appealed to nationalist sentiment during WWII, or “The Great Patriotic War.”
> Similarly, one could ask, “How many armies will defend ‘persistent talk of the right side of history’ compared with their land and people?”
My answer is "quite a lot, for ideas actually believed in". Note how Stalin had pre-WW2 basically destroyed the ideological logic in favor of cult of personality, whereas Russian Civil War had Bolsheviks (and several other groups) quite sincerely (if misguidedly and bloodily) fighting for the idea.
Likewise, Catholicism used to have quite a lot of divisions in Middle Ages, despite some very dubious specific Popes, as evidenced by... ahem... Crusades. It wasn't an army of a nation or even of a specific feudal lord collection (or, rather, feudal lords having their own armies helped but didn't exhaust anything). It was, for better or worse, an army of believers.
I agree that, historically, people have fought for ideas. But it's telling that all formerly Communist countries have reverted back to nationalism (most obviously Russia but also Poland, Hungary, etc). Even nominally Communist China appeals to national sentiment for legitimacy. Nationalism is clearly more deeply rooted than competing ideologies and a more stable basis for political order. When the USSR broke up, it fractured along (currently disputed) national lines, as did Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
Religion has historically been a serious contender with the nation for ultimate loyalty. But even in the Middle Ages, shared Christianity was never enough to politically unite the fractured European peoples. (It's also telling that "ethnic churches" proliferate, like Russian Orthodoxy, and that even ostensibly universalist religions like Catholicism fused with nationalism in countries like Spain.) In the Middle East, Islam does frequently command greater allegiance than colonially drawn states like Iraq, but perhaps that's an argument for more nationalism, not less?
When the USSR broke up, it fractured along the lines that happened to be enshrined in legalese because no one cared much about changing them along national logic (and sometimes changed it against the national logic, as with Crimea). From Karabakh to Kyrgyzstan to Tajikistan to Chechnya to Russian western border, it is rather obvious that the fracturing wasn't by tracking nation in any persistent sense. (Likewise, Republika Srpska in Bosnia shows that even in Yugoslavia, where the conflict was far more ethnoreligious, the resulting borders are not that national.)
One, there is little evidence most of "fractured European peoples" actually tracked that much what feudal lord they happened to track allegiance to as opposed to either an extremely local identification like village or their religion; it is telling, for instance, that in Poland-Lithuania religion was persistently a divider. Two, what exactly makes Russian Orthodoxy ethnic? They are no Druzes, they actively proselytized among various Siberian peoples and, until very recently at least, claimed universalism. (What currently happens in the majority of Russian Orthodox Church is basically-open post-KGB rejoinder.) Three, regarding Islam, it isn't an idea we would want to win, but this doesn't mean that the thing to beat it with is nationalism, not a better idea.