Nationalism and globalism not incompatible

Attaching labels to people is all the rage in the U.S. Current favorites include “nationalist” and “globalist.” The categories aren’t mutually exclusive. Moderate nationalist sentiment and outward-looking liberalism can overlap. In America, especially, to be partly nationalist and partly globalist comes naturally. It’s what you’d expect of a nation of immigrants.

Isaiah Berlin called nationalism a pathological expression of national consciousness. Aggressive nationalism caused terrible harm in the 20th century – but Berlin’s point was that national consciousness (or some functional equivalent) is not just less harmful than the pathological form, it’s also valuable in its own right. It might even be essential in building a just, compassionate and well-ordered society.

If the first part of the 20th century showed how this idea can be perverted, the second showed the good it can do. Evil regimes were destroyed and an outward-looking, international order was established. This didn’t require the suppression, much less the eradication, of national consciousness. Indeed, without the especially pronounced national consciousness that energized and strengthened the U.S., the liberal global order could not have been built.

National consciousness based on racial pride is both repellent and uniquely dangerous. The mistake is to conflate national consciousness with racism. When they go together, as they often have, the results can be catastrophic. But they don’t have to go together.

- Advertisement -

I’m a believer in American exceptionalism, and the core of that idea is the possibility of devising a nation based on principles, as opposed to inheriting a nation based on ethnic loyalty, historical accident or religion. National consciousness based on a commitment to the liberal principles written into the Constitution seems to me nothing but admirable. But it’s still national consciousness – it still involves, or ought to involve, a measure of pride and patriotism.

Identity-group politics now poses a growing challenge to national consciousness. It emphasizes what divides Americans over what unites them.

The debate over immigration shows how easily the bogus distinction between nationalism and globalism can distort these conversations. Maybe pure globalists see no distinction between foreigners and fellow citizens, and dream of open borders. Good luck with strengthening the welfare state if that dream ever comes to pass.

At one extreme, to be sure, are bigots who think that foreigners are bad because they’re foreigners. In the wide middle are people who believe that immigration hurts U.S. citizens and should be curbed, or helps U.S. citizens and should be expanded, or helps U.S. citizens so long as other things are done, or is good for the U.S. so long as the immigrants accept those founding principles and assimilate – or who aren’t sure about any of this but at least believe that the laws on immigration ought to be enforced.

That’s national consciousness. It isn’t the least bit unworthy. It’s fully compatible with an outward-looking liberalism in international affairs. And in case the left hasn’t noticed, it’s the necessary condition for an ambitious social-justice agenda. There’s no perfecting the union without it. •

Clive Crook is a Bloomberg View columnist.

No posts to display