Good morning,
LEADERS AND AIMING LOW
One would like to believe that we go to the polls every two years to elect people to lead us whom we determine to be special. One would hope they are two versions of smart, thoughtful, diligent, hard-working, and earnest people—merely differing on policy. I think of Barack Obama versus John McCain. A brilliant law professor versus an American hero. Ditto with Obama versus Mitt Romney. People of good will and clear intent with vision for the future. Values generally shared, with differing policy prescriptions for how to achieve their goals.
These days, it feels like we continue to aim lower and lower. No longer are we voting for people who might be greater than ourselves. Now, it seems we’re sending people to Congress and the White House who are noticeably lacking. Few people would claim Donald Trump is an aspirational figure—one to whom one can point with pride. And don’t even get started on Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, or Matt Gaetz. Does the system result in the lowest common denominator? Do our voters no longer identify with greatness and/or have lowered expectations? Are voters just voting for the loudest voice? Or are voters just exhausted, don’t care, and vote for whomever the local party puts up for office, regardless of their qualifications? Whatever the reasons, we increasingly are represented by the unqualified, the unintelligent, and the unimaginative.
LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM
I’ve thinking a lot about the tension between the angry, jingoistic nationalism of the right, as it flies in the face of the democratic liberal order in America. Some amount of nationalism is not only desirable, but necessary, to achieve cohesion in a society. When, however, that nationalism omits some of the citizens in a country, the nationalism devolves into racism. We are seeing that in the current debates on immigration.
As I’ve noted before, there is a distinction between nationalism (“we’re always right”) and patriotism (“we can strive to be better”). Patriotism identifies with ideals—like freedom and the rights of the individual. Nationalism, on the other hand, tends to speak of physical manifestations of the nation—“blood and soil.” It is one thing to be patriotic and defensive of a nation’s core ideals. Nationalism, however, tends to reduce the complexities of society to a “love it or leave it” mentality.
In some sense, nationalism in small doses is a proxy for collective pride in the nation. Regardless of the semantics, every nation (and, for that matter, any organization of individuals) requires a glue that binds people together, rather than their being nation and not merely a collection of people occupying the same real estate. Today’s charged political and social environment suggests that, increasingly, a broad-brush nationalism has been replaced with tribalism, and those tribes attempt to lay claim to the birthright of the nation (to the exclusion of the other tribe(s)).
America and its democratic allies depend upon both nationalism and liberalism as the two necessary components of a healthy society. Nationalism—a love of the people and the land— can bind people to each other, while liberal democracy (that to which patriotism hearkens) binds people to ideals that better their lives and ensure their freedoms. George Packer in The Atlantic, addressed the current isolationism on both the left and the right and the tensions between nationalism and liberalism. Packer maintains both are necessary to national health:
“In the age of Putin, Xi, and Trump, liberalism and nationalism seem morally opposed. The first is universal (‘globalist,’ in the derisive phrase of nationalists), the second particular; the first ennobles the individual, the second exalts the community. But in a healthy society, liberalism and nationalism coexist; in fact, they’re inextricable. Without shared identity and social bonds, liberty atomizes citizens into consumers, spectators, gamers—easy targets for a demagogue. But national solidarity can’t endure if it’s coerced. A people kept compliant with lies of national greatness, shopping, and police roundups will turn on one another in the face of crisis.”
LIBERALISM AND NATIONALISM IN PRACTICE
Packer gives examples of how both liberalism and nationalism are necessary preconditions to a healthy society. Ukraine is one such example. “Without a sense of nationhood, Ukrainians wouldn’t have the unity and collective will to resist at such a steep price. Without liberal values and a democratic government, Ukraine would likely divide into ethnic and regional factions.”
He wraps up with these descriptive, prescient, observations about America today and its place in a complex world that needs America, its ideals and its peculiar national identity that binds us all together in this great experiment. I feel these words should be the opening lines of the description of an American civics curriculum:
“Our national identity has always been rooted in democracy. Nothing else, not blood and soil, shared ethnicity or faith, common memories or moneyed pursuits, has ever really held Americans together—only what Walt Whitman called “the fervid and tremendous idea.” It’s as fragile as it is compelling, and when it fails, we dissolve into hateful little tribes, and autocrats here and abroad smile and rub their hands. Don’t imagine that America can bring the light of freedom to the world, but don’t think the world will be better off if we just stop trying.”
Have a great day,
Glenn
Excellent.