2024 Election, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory

American Nationalism Wins! – If

Bob Claude |

Congratulations to new President-elect Donald Trump and his Vice President-elect J.D. Vance. They achieved a solid and historic victory crossing demographic barriers that had previously defined American politics.  The black community, once confined to the Democratic Party, broke free and gave him over 20% of their vote.  Latinos also joined his coalition. Even dark blue urban metropolitan communities voted for Trump in unprecedented numbers.

The crux of my past doubts about Trump centered on whether he could unify the country around nationalist principles. This breadth of his victory shows that he can do so. Indeed, he has the opportunity to cement a historic realignment from the globalist political culture that began in 1992 to a politics of nationalism. The coalition is still fragile and can be lost unless it becomes not only a “big tent” demographically, but ideologically as well.

The Old Culture

The 1992 election between George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot marked the end of the Cold War, a nationalist conflict fought with globalist methods.  The real issue in that election was which of these two ideologies would define the post-war political debate.  On the globalist side was Bush, who believed the US had a duty to lead the coalition that fought the First Gulf War to preserve an international system of stable nation-states. On the nationalist side were Clinton and Perot. Clinton campaigned on redirecting attention to domestic issues while Perot criticized the Gulf War and deficit spending.

Clinton’s victory seemed to usher in a nationalist era in American politics.  However, his failure to incorporate the Perot nationalists into his coalition led to the 1994 midterm Republican sweep. In response, Clinton pivoted not only on domestic issues but also on foreign policy.  He championed the concept of a new world order where the US would use its apparent unipolar primacy to spread, by economic and military force if necessary, democracy and free enterprise throughout the world. American politics would be fought on globalist rules, which included the corporate globalist goals of free trade and relaxed immigration. The 9/11 attacks and the Global War on Terror gave this crusade a nationalist patina, but the core goal of reimagining the world in our own image remained.

The New Political Culture

Trump’s victory renews a revolution against this previous culture he began in 2016. To succeed this time, he must govern as the head of a coalition of the two different nationalist ideologies discussed in my Globalism vs. Nationalism series (see the category under the Politics tab above);  namely, cultural nationalism and progressive nationalism.

In that series, I originally described one of these sub-ideologies of nationalism as Ethnic Nationalism.  In fact, it is more accurately termed cultural nationalism. It is the belief that the particular values and way of life of a nation are valuable and must be preserved. It can be based as much on religion, cultural traditions or even economics as it is on race or ethnicity.  In particular, American culture has always prized individual autonomy and free enterprise entrepreneurship. Trump may be best characterized as such a cultural nationalist. It is why business leaders like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy became such avid supporters.

At the same time, President Trump has signaled the importance of progressive nationalism through the addition of Robert F Kennedy, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to his coalition.  RFKJr brings his commitment to health, safety and the environment and Gabbard her commitment to a more restrained foreign policy. Both wings of nationalism share a hostility to lawfare and the unchecked administrative state.

However, there will be differences that need to be bridged. Obviously President Trump will have the final word, but there is another influencer in the coalition to be reckoned with – Vice President JD Vance. He has a history of articulate advocacy for both progressive and cultural nationalist causes. For example, he castigated the railroad industry after the East Palestine derailment and introduced new stringent railroad safety legislation in response. Unlike the other members of the coalition, Vance can’t be fired as Vice President. In the end, his chances of succeeding Trump after this one term will depend on preserving and expanding the nationalist vision.

There is no guarantee in politics and thus, no guarantee that the realignment towards a nationalist political culture will succeed. If Trump wants to engineer the same kind of generational change that presidents like Lincoln and FDR achieved, he will work to incorporate both the individualist and community ideals of nationalism. Otherwise, the globalists will win again.

2024 Election, Nationalist Theory, Politics, Uncategorized

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Summary, Final Score & a Personal Decision

Bob Claude |
Issue (linked to past articles)
 Harris Trump
Political Reform 0 – 5
Foreign Policy – 6 + 1.5
The Square Deal + 4 + 2
Conservation & Environment +6 – 5
A Strong America – 7.5 – .5
Political Philosophy – 2.5 + .5
Character – 3 – 5
FINAL SCORE – 9 – 11.5

This series of articles was designed to provide an ideological structure for evaluating the presidential candidates in the face of a campaign filled with pandering and personal invective. I believed in doing so through the metaphorical eyes of fellow progressive nationalist Theodore Roosevelt. While this analysis generated a numerical score, I recognize that it is based on a series of subjective judgements. You may believe other issues should have been included or the issues weighted differently and thus come to a very different conclusion. I hope it at least was helpful in cutting through the noise of the campaign and creating a focus on real issues.

Nevertheless, based on these metrics, the scores of the two candidates are appalling. Neither come close achieving the nationalist ideals of TR. We thus are not choosing the more nationalist candidate. We are not even choosing the least globalist candidate. We are left with choosing the candidate who would do the least harm to the nation and the nationalist cause.  Once again, I cannot endorse either one. Yet, as I grudgingly accepted in the introduction to this series, choose we must among these two, while being clear eyed about the realities of the choice. At the same time, we remember we are electing a new Congress as well.  Here is where the genius of our Constitution can save us from a disastrous result.

A Personal Decision

The introductory post in the series cited TR’s comment about a vote being like a rifle. My vote will arguably be more akin to a shotgun than a rifle. Nevertheless, and relying on the above results, I will be voting for Vice President Harris and then voting Republican for the House and Senate.

The standard response of most partisans to this ticket-splitting is “But nothing will get done”. This is not true. For example, the Trump tax cuts will expire of their own accord at the end of next year since it is highly unlikely the two sides can agree on successor legislation. This resulting tax increase, combined with the Republican resistance to new spending, will keep the budget deficit in check. As discussed earlier in the series, a Harris Presidency would continue the aggressive antitrust and consumer protection agenda of the Biden Administration and its climate and environmental program.

However, the voting index also shows her administration would require close supervision on curbing the administrative state, immigration and foreign policy.  The Congress can and should hold a President Harris’s feet to the fire on these issues. On administrative power, the Supreme Court ‘s Loper Bright decision ending deference to agency interpretation should start a process of specifying agency jurisdiction in more detail lest more rules be struck down. The Republican House has been eager to challenge open immigration policies by impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas. Meanwhile, an opposition Senate would hopefully create a check on a continuation of Biden’s liberal interventionist foreign policy. Harris cabinet nominees also would be subject to the advice-and-consent authority of the Senate. There would be sharp and sometimes unpleasant policy disagreements that could create progress on nationalist legislation or, at the very least, highlight the issues for the American people to eventually resolve.  In a constitutional structure that encourages consensus, the debate would begin building the necessary support for a true nationalist presidency in 2028.

In contrast, the first Trump Administration damaged the nationalist brand with his erratic behavior and autocratic methods.  He has little patience or understanding of the need for consensus in the American constitutional system.  Instead of restraining executive administrative power, he prioritized policies he could enact by executive fiat and failed at enacting lasting legislative changes. Immigration is a classic example. Trump certainly controlled the border as president but failed at passing a comprehensive immigration reform through a Congress controlled by his own party that could have prevented the Biden-Harris border fiasco. Thus, he is unlikely to unify the nation around the extent of change he is promising while risking future broader support for such change.    

As TR said, you do what you can with what you have. Politics in a democracy is the art of the possible and not necessarily the perfectly correct. This election is proving to be an extreme and heart-wrenching example of these realities.   As American progressive nationalists, we believe in this democracy and that we can succeed in it.  Let us keep the faith and continue to build support for our cause.  Now (if you haven’t already done so) get out and vote and God bless America! 

2024 Election, Nationalist Theory, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Character

Bob Claude |

SCORE

Harris (-1.5 *2) = -3 Trump (-2.5*2)=-5

On Sunday we celebrated the 166th birthday (posthumously) of Theodore Roosevelt. Few presidents personified America as well as TR. In the next week, we will elect a president that will have to fill that role over the next four years.

As I said four years ago during the 2020 version of this index, the American presidency fills two discrete functions that are usually separated in other democracies – chief of state and chief of government. The chief of state is a unifying figure, such as a king or queen, who symbolizes the history and values of the nation. In short, he or she symbolizes its character. In contrast, the chief of government is usually a prime minister elected through a partisan process tasked with advocating and implementing certain public policies.

The previous articles in this series concerned the policies an American nationalist president should pursue in their role as prime minister. However, the chief of state role is equally important. Indeed, an American president who cannot symbolize the nation and its character cannot really be said to be nationalist. Thus, the score for this role will be doubled to reflect its importance.

Sadly, neither Kamala Harris or Donald Trump appear to be capable of being a unifying chief of state. They are both running two of the most divisive campaigns in history. Whether it’s Harris calling Trump a fascist or Trump calling her retarded, both clearly see this election as a kind of personal vendetta against the other. They allow their supporters to demonize and degrade each other with no condemnation or apparent concern. Both concentrate on holding rallies in front of thousands instead of engaging in civil debates. In light of this contempt for the American public, the question before us may actually be “Who is the least divisive candidate?.

The Harris candidacy has energized women and people of color but seems unable to connect to men or other groups. She has a reputation for imperiousness and a history of high staff turnover.  Her inability to articulate a coherent thought without the help of a teleprompter can be maddening.  We can only hope she will accept more substantive help in governing. As a result, she rates a minus 1.5 for unifying skills, which, after doubling, becomes a minus 3 .

Meanwhile, Donald Trump‘s arrogance has only worsened since he left office. He seems to believe that unifying means threatening his adversaries and engaging in vulgar epithets and insults. He has condoned the January 6 insurrection and refused to safeguard and return highly classified documents, showing a disgraceful contempt for the law and the national security.  He has been found liable for sexual assault, for financial fraud and campaign finance violations in New York, though the latter two cases are legally questionable. Nevertheless, his attacks against the judiciary during those cases showed a further contempt for the law. Yet the most damning indictment comes from many staffers of his prior administration, including his vice president, who are on record saying he is unfit for office.

Trump thus rates a minus 2.5 for his own unique failures as a unifier, which, after doubling, equals a minus 5. Only the endorsements of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and former congressmember Tulsi Gabbard prevent him from reprising his minus 6 score of 2020.  They have vouched for Trump and hopefully will inject some patriotic unselfishness into a second Trump Administration. Otherwise, we would be guaranteed another four years of juvenile meanness, personnel turmoil and a frightening dictatorial approach.

There is an old cartoon of a boy looking up at a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt and wishing he could be like him. Few Americans would look on the two presidential candidates today and say that. Let us hope that these ratings are wrong, or we will have to look for someone else to unify America over the next four years.

Next: Final Score and a Personal Decision