Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Important Is the Nation-State?
Today I’ve been reading over the first issue of American Affairs, a new intellectual journal that appears to have grown out of the (largely Claremont-based) American Greatness movement. American Affairs seems to understand itself as a possible seed-ground for exploring an intellectual foundation to Trumpism.
I should admit forthrightly that I look on this project as a skeptic, and as one who considers that the founders of this project have taken a large (not to say foolhardy) burden on themselves. I’m not, in general, the sort of person who seeks to shut down ambitious intellectual projects. But to my mind, the trouble with American Greatness was always the extent to which it understood itself in rejectionist terms. The spirit of the thing seemed not to be, “The right could use some fresh ideas around now, so let’s explore,” so much as, “The whole conservative movement is intellectually and (probably) morally bankrupt, so we’re starting over. Sign onto our program or be rendered irrelevant.”
That kind of “convert or die” attitude makes it hard to climb aboard, especially if you think (as I do) that there’s quite a lot of good to be found in the conservative movement from Buckley through the dawn of Trump. I’m in favor of exploring new ideas and making needed adjustments, but I’m also quite opposed to chucking free-market economics and neoconservative geopolitics as though they were groceries past their expiration date. Reading the American Greatness blog, I regularly have the same thought: This is all fine, but apart from the overt belligerence, these arguments could easily have been advanced in the conservative movement of yesteryear. What has your blanket excommunication accomplished, except to insulate yourselves from critique that would likely be quite helpful?
Having said all this, I pulled up the first issue of the new journal resolved to give it a fair shot. I could only read three articles without subscribing, so I haven’t gone through the whole thing. Here’s my reaction thus far: This reads to me like choir-preaching. It’s hard to see how these arguments would be compelling to anyone who wasn’t already deeply sympathetic to the perspective being advanced. Perhaps that’s the idea; after all, if the rest of us anachronisms have already been excommunicated, maybe we’re not worth the trouble. Or we could just say (to put the point less snarkily) that it can be acceptable to have a journal. It still seems a little unfortunate, because after all, Buckleyite conservatism has been developed across many years, and even its origins involved some large and very theoretical brains. If the Great Americans are looking to toss out whole realms of conservative theory (or perhaps I have misunderstood?), they should really be revved to start laying some serious, theoretical foundations. I would have expected that to be the point of starting a journal.
Of course, it’s only the first issue. Maybe they’ll get there. But here’s a concrete example of where the argument seems so thin that I can only suppose that the author is presuming a sympathetic readership. In his opening article, Joshua Mitchell argues that Trumpism is not populist, because it in fact represents a struggle against a real enemy (globalists) on behalf of a real good (national sovereignty). Once we understand the evils of globalism, we will appreciate that Trumpism, as a part of the global war against globalism, is substantive and entirely coherent, and not (as detractors like me suspect) an emotion-driven uprising whose goals mostly boil down to a resentment-and-nostalgia-tinged wish-list. The globalists are deeply wrong, Mitchell argues, because they do not appreciate that national sovereignty is, “the final word on how to order collective life.”
At this point in the 9.000-word article, I was intrigued, presuming that Mitchell would now undertake to argue for the extraordinarily strong privileging of the nation-state that, in his view, is the motivating and justifying principle behind Trumpism. Although I have encountered a great many people who assert the primacy of the nation-state, I have yet to hear a really thorough defense. Here’s what Mitchell gives us to justify his principle:
The Peace of Westphalia, which formally inaugurated the modern European system of nation-states, came into effect in 1648. Shortly thereafter, in 1651, Hobbes wrote one of the great works in the history of political philosophy, Leviathan. In a now-common reading of that work, and correct so far as it goes, Hobbes’s Leviathan provides us with the individuated self, oriented by self-interest and the fear of death. These ideas are in Leviathan, but they only scratch the surface of that great work. Hobbes’s deeper concern in Leviathan was the English Civil War, which in no small part was a religious war involving the claims of Roman Catholics and Presbyterians. The doctrinal difference between the Roman Catholics and the Presbyterians need not concern us; what matters is where each of these Christian sects located sovereignty. Hobbes thought that Roman Catholics were guilty of what we might call “false universalism,” because they vested sovereignty at the supra-state level, in Rome. Hobbes thought that the Presbyterians were guilty of what we might call “radical particularism,” because they vested sovereignty at the sub-state level, in private conscience. The English Civil War occurred, on Hobbes’s reading, because of these religious wagers that peace and justice were possible without national sovereignty. In his estimation, these supra- and sub-state alternatives are perennial temptations of the human heart. Their defenders may promise much, but neither “commodious living” nor justice are possible through them. Only by vesting sovereignty in the state can there be improvement for citizens and workable understandings of justice.
The post-1989 experiment with globalism and identity politics demonstrates that Hobbes was correct, so long ago, that supra- and sub-state sovereignty are perennial temptations of the human heart. The post-1989 version of that temptation saw global elites use the apparatus of the state to bolster so-called free trade, international law, global norms, and international accords about “climate change,” the advances towards which purported to demonstrate the impotence of the state itself. In such a world managed from above, the only task left for the Little People was to feel good—or feel permanent shame—about their identities, and perhaps to get involved in a little “political activism” now and again, to show their commitment (on Facebook, of course) to “social justice.” The Little People in such a world were not citizens, they were idle “folks,” incapable of working together, because what really mattered was not rational deliberation with their neighbors, but what they owed, or were owed, by virtue of their identities. Determining the calculus of their debt, in turn, were Very White Progressives in the Democratic Party who cared not a jot about the real outstanding debt of $19 trillion owed by the U.S. treasury. These Very White Progressives sought to adjudicate justice from above, by legal carve-outs or, if necessary, by executive actions pertaining, for example, to transsexual bathrooms, so that all “identities” could have their due. Fortunately, 2016 was year the American electorate decided this ghastly fate was not to be theirs.
That’s it. In two paragraphs, Mitchell dispenses with the absolute prioritizing of national sovereignty, and moves right along to lambasting universities, discussing different possible strains of nationalism, and complaining about the undue influence of European thinkers on Buckleyite conservatives. This is an absolutely crucial piece of his argument (and indeed, in his view, a dividing line so critical that people who fail to side with him should not even be regarded as Americans but rather as “proxies for globalism”). Nevertheless, he evidently regards those two paragraphs as sufficient to establish the point.
This seems to me like a pretty blatant example of what I call “the Fallacy of Confusing Complexity.” Political and moral reasoning are really so much easier and less complicated if we presume that we don’t have significant moral obligations to non-Americans. Once people start thinking they might have obligations that go “above” (cosmopolitanism) or “below” (individual conscience) national boundaries, who knows where we’ll end up?! Probably fighting among ourselves, like the English did! The only solution is to insist that national sovereignty is absolutely primary, and that no other sources of obligation can really count.
As a pragmatic claim it might be true. But of course, life often seems simpler when we dismiss as too messy or complicated obligations that may in fact still exist. I think patriotism and shared nationality mean something, but I don’t they don’t mean everything. I believe that I can have obligations to non-Americans for all sorts of reasons: Because they are my blood relatives or personal friends, or because they are my co-religionists, or because our nations are allies and have assumed obligations towards one another, or possibly just because they are human beings in great need. Any of those might, in some respect, affect my compatriots as well as myself, thus going outside (either above or below) national sovereignty.
In other words, I don’t see how national sovereignty can be the absolute “final word” on collective life. Moral obligation is indeed quite complicated at times! But we aren’t entitled to dismiss moral truths just because they’re complicated and confusing.
What do others think? Is there more to this argument than I have appreciated, or is it really as thin as it seems to me?
Published in General
America worked as “melting pot” multi-ethnic state. We don’t know yet if it’s going to work as a “tossed salad” multi-ethnic state. The signs aren’t encouraging.
Look, I don’t know where you are trying to take this discussion. For a site supposedly dedicated to conservative conversation, I’m not especially interested in spending my time examining the past personal behaviors and political philosophies of Progressives who spent major portions of their careers trying to undo the work of the founders. If you want to respond to Rachel Lu’s question you may want to say that the importance of the Nation-State to ‘conservative conversation’ rests solely in the study of the history of Woodrow Wilson, the worst active President of the US ever. I personally have little tolerance for extended examination of famous Progressives like Wilson, I start feeling mentally ill.
Which is fine. I think, though, where @jamesofengland was taking things was to supplement your own arguments, @bobthompson, by using past Progressives as an example of what not to do.
It is precisely because Wilson was so bad, and so interested in repudiating the US Founders (more openly than any other president), that his advocacy for nation-states and “self-determination” (of nations, not individuals) should serve as a warning for conservatives flirting with nationalism. You believe nationalism is not right for American traditions, Bob, and how and why Wilson endorsed nationalist sentiments makes your case: you yourself say he was the worst president; he was also quite a nationalist one.
You should. The past informs the present and if you want to understand and combat the progressives of the day it’s good to understand their history. Jonah a Goldberg did the yoemans work for a lot of us in Liberal Fascism but primary sources are often best.
I guess I did not count Germans as Anglo-Saxon, I mean if you do don’t you have to count the French also? After all the Franks were a German tribe, and so were the Lombards which adds Northern Italy too. In fact there isn’t much of Europe that didn’t get overrun by Germans in the fifth through eighth century. Of course I guess in Wilson’s day the racial theory divided Europeans into three difference races, Northern, Alpine, and Southern Caucasians. What is more the racial theories of the day implied that behavioral characteristics and culture were closely linked to ones genetics, and that Northern Europeans represented some particularly pure bread strain, whose dilution would inevitably mean a loss of cultural identity as everything slipped back to the wild hybrid strain of humanity. A kind of reverse domestication.
Tossed salad, melting pot… I like think stew personally. If you look at the America of today and yesterday, neither tossed salad or melting pot work. We have never been fully integrated nor have we ever been discreetly separated. The individual elements are all for the most part distinguishable, but as they simmer together they all blend into one new flavor. So that any individual piece still has aspects of the whole as well as it own native flare.
I can’t figure out if James of England is warning us in this sequence of the dangers of Progressives, who push for political globalism, or of the Nationalists, who, if we had such, would push for ethnic cleansing. Now, we know we have the former and I didn’t take that to be what the OP was trying to address except maybe James was onto Wilson being a ‘national socialist’. I suppose Wilson was full of both but didn’t get far with the League of Nations and the globalism part. In any event, I will simply try to push for and preserve the America the founders gave us and welcome other individuals who want to be part of that America.
The OP was still about why Never Trumpers are intelligent in addition to right, Trumpers are shallow thinkers as well as wrong, and Catholic social justice is the appropriate moral worldview. Most of you choose not to or can’t see it like that. So be it. I know I’m right about that as those are core beliefs of the author.
I’ve been shallow for as long as I can remember.
Wilson and his crowd talked up the Germans a lot. More or less all beliefs about race of this kind come down to myths and preferences, and Wilson really liked Germany and Bismark’s reforms.
Right.
Do you genuinely not understand why a conservative site might spend time discussing American history or learning about the horrors of progressivism? Those things appear to me to be two of the core functions of a conservative discussion site. It’s like telling people on a pop culture nerd forum that it was inappropriate to quote Monty Python.
If you’re not comfortable learning about Wilson then by all means avoid persuading my comments on the topic; your health and comfort come first. If you want to understand the meaning of “nationalist” in American culture, though, then it’s probably going to be helpful to find out what past nationalists have said and believed. When you raise problems with nationalism in an American context, again, it’s probably helpful to understand how past American nationalists have dealt with the issue.
Let’s put it this way. I know all I feel the need to know about Wilson. Now back to the topic of the post. We have some people at American Affairs trying to use the word ‘nationalist’ in their work related to ‘American Greatness’. I’m of the opinion that they should drop that attempt and avoid the label as well since America’s form of government and the manner in which the States and the people divide sovereign responsibilities belies the use of the term to describe any way in which the Union functions. Wilson embodies everything wrong with the use of ‘nationalist’. I’m fine with America First. All we’re doing there is taking Washington’s sage farewell advice.
I’m not criticizing your open discussion of Wilson’s reign or why understanding it is valuable to conservatives. I entered this commentary with a sense that there was an agenda afoot to show Trump regime is ‘national socialist’. Objection!
I’m glad that you’re keen to join us in pushing for and preserving the America that the founders gave us and I’m glad that you join us in welcoming allies to that struggle.
It’s true that many progressives have pushed for political globalism and that many nationalists have pushed for ethnic cleansing. There are also many progressives who push against political globalism (you can’t throw a stone at an anti-WTO riot without hitting a progressive, The Nation magazine is pretty dead set on pursuing a nationalist approach) and many nationalists who don’t want ethnic cleansing; I’d be somewhat surprised if American Affairs featured even one writer calling for such.
I think that what you’re getting at is that nationalism and socialism are opposed ideas, which is an important and common mistake. Jamie notes that Jonah is one of our leading thinkers on this subject; if Jonah isn’t to your tastes, Glen Beck has also written a lot of relevant material. One of Jonah’s favorite points is that to nationalize and industry and to socialize an industry are not opposites, but synonyms. Most of what is done in the name of nationalism has also been done in the name of socialism; coerced or incentivized cooperation is at the core of both programs. Nationalism is opposed to international socialism, but Bismarck, Churchill, Lindbergh, Mussolini, FDR, Wilson, Lloyd George, de Gaulle; the whole lot of them found nationalism to be key and found big government appealing in part because of that.
No, I with you.
I don’t believe that Rachel is calling Trump a socialist here and still less his administration; this isn’t even really a post about Trump. This is about American Affairs, a journal set up to sell nationalism.
Huzzah!
Well, my mistake. I thought ‘American Affairs’ would be selling American Greatness, that at least some there got bogged down with ‘nationalism’ to the point where Rachel was totally puzzled and I was expressing my view that any effort to sell ‘nationalism’ in any form as a description of the United States was a poor approach because the idea is a bad fit for America as it stands.
As America stands, or the idea?
“A new nation, conceived in Liberty”… a culture “dedicated to the proposition…”
Yeah no it wasn’t. That chip on your shoulder is really weighing you down.
Or your lack of insight or bias is clouding your vision. Either would be possible yet there’s only one truth. I assume we can agree that only one of us is correct here.
Likewise. I guess that leaves us at the impasse.
You could ask the author of the op, wouldn’t be hard to do would it?
I will say this – you seem to have more of a problem with who is saying this than what is actually being said. I’d wish people in this thread who disagreed with Rachel did more work rebutting her arguments. @midge did a great job.
As America stands it is a federation of what started as a group of thirteen independent nation-states, each of whose people exercised complete and total sovereignty through their state government. The federal government so formed does not constitute a nation in the conventional usage, in other words, that government is not a national government, but a federal government of limited sovereign powers, the remaining sovereignty rests with the states and the people. Since the states delegated significant sovereign powers exclusively to the federal government, they no longer exercise the sovereign power necessary for each state to be a nation-state. Any attempt to use the term national in describing the governing of any part of the United States is a bad fit.
If California held a referendum and opted to secede from the Union and the States of the Union each held a referendum and enough States said yes to amend the Constitution and release California from the Union, then California would be a nation-state and have a national government.
You have a stunning grasp of the obvious.
Or I have a problem with BS deceptive self congratulatory posts. Again, only one of can be correct.
Seems there was a good discussion had between two people who disagreed as to the merits of the linked article. I’d think you could have either participated in that or just stayed away. You chose personal insult instead. A shame.
Or I chose reality rather than illusion.
Jamie I have zero intention of altering my perceptions. Feel free to have the last word if you choose . I’m out.
I don’t seek to alter your perceptions, just implore you to abide by our community standards and not insult someone because you have an inferiority complex about her intellect.