Category: Globalism vs. Nationalism

Globalism vs. Nationalism

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, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Political Philosophy

Bob Claude |

This is the seventh of a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see previous articles, click on the “2024 Election” category under the “Politics” tab above.

Score

Harris -2.5 Trump +.5

Presidential campaigns should be informative discussions about the issues that face our country. Many historians believe that the 1912 election between Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and William Howard Taft was among the most intellectual and consequential in our history. Unfortunately, this campaign so far is sorely lacking in those qualities.

However, presidencies often are defined not by the issues raised in the campaign, but by crises that were totally unforeseen. Think George W. Bush and 9/11 or Donald Trump and Covid. Both risks were “known unknowns” discussed only in academic circles and were never campaign issues. Nevertheless, they happened and required fateful decisions by the president on behalf of the nation that became right or wrong.  Since we don’t know what the crisis will be, we lack any indication of how today’s candidates may deal with it. There is only one indication of how they might – their political philosophy or ideology.

In a recent series on this website, I argued that the most relevant ideological divide in politics was between globalism and nationalism (see the category under the “Politics” tab above). Globalism believes that national borders should be irrelevant. Leaders and elites should have obligations not just to their own peoples, but to the entire world. Nationalism believes that individual communities represented by nation states are natural and legitimate actors in the world.  National leaders owe primary allegiance only to their respective peoples. The two ideologies actually break down into four subsets – socialist globalism, corporate globalism, ethnic nationalism and the progressive nationalism of Theodore Roosevelt. If we can place a candidate’s ideology on this spectrum, we can make an intelligent guess about their approach to future issues.

Kamala Harris‘s rhetoric and past issue positions place her squarely in the camp of socialist globalists. As she repeated in these clips from past interviews, Harris believes government should insure that everyone “end up in the same place”, regardless of circumstances. While she is clearly correct that people do not start in the same circumstances, her goal is not equity (equal opportunity) as she claims, but an empirical equality that is inherently impossible in a free society.  Moreover, her past positions on issues like immigration enforcement suggest that this desire to achieve empirical equality extends to the rest of the world as well.  Thus, when confronted with a crisis, her response will likely be to cater to the rest of the world, even to the detriment of the American people. She thus rates a -2.5 on the globalist side of the ledger.

Donald Trump is more difficult to pin down. While he campaigned in 2016 on a nationalist platform that included progressive ideas, his administration adopted policies dear to the corporate elite. His 2018 tax cuts reduced taxes on business and higher earners while widening the budget deficit and stoking inflationary pressures. His immigration policy successfully limited and deterred illegal border crossings, but it was often justified on ethnic rather than economic grounds. He has also favored increasing the number of higher skilled immigrants to compete with American tech workers, even to the point of “stapling green cards” to foreign students’ diplomas. His new alliance with consummate corporate globalist Elon Musk is also worrisome.

Thus, Trump may simply be a corporate globalist masquerading as an ethnic nationalist. Nevertheless, there are three groups that could pull him back to the nationalist side.  First and foremost is his voter base, which is ardently (and sometimes dangerously) ethnic nationalist. He will be loathe to cross them after their past support. His embrace of RFKJr. also introduces a progressive nationalist influence that will be more difficult to dismiss in a new term. Finally, his vice president JD Vance is a professed foreign policy nationalist.

Needless to say, Donald Trump is a mercurial and strong-willed candidate who has ignored outside advice in the past.  When all of these influences are taken into account, he is best rated as plus .5. In other words, he will tend to react to a crisis as a nationalist, but exactly to what extent will depend on the particular nature of the crisis.  Since we cannot know what those particularities will be, we can only hope that his nationalist side will prevail.

I recognize this analysis is based on guesswork, though it is leavened as much as possible with the facts. Trying to predict a person’s future decision on an unknown matter can easily degenerate into a form of divination. However, TR teaches us that avoiding such decisions can have worse consequences and the unpredictability of today’s world requires that a decision be made. I hope the four ideological categories I cited earlier are at least helpful in telling you where you stand, and then aiding you in determining where your candidate will stand as well.

2024 Election, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Progressive Nationalism and the Goals of Community and Opportunity

Bob Claude |

“Our country, this great Republic, means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system, under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. That is why the history of America is now the central feature of the history of the world; for the world has set its face hopefully towards our democracy, and, oh my fellow citizens, each one of you carries on your shoulders, not only the burden of doing well for the sake of your own country, but the burden of doing well, and seeing that this nation does well for the sake of mankind.”

Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism speech in Ossawatomie, Kansas, remains the best expression of American progressive nationalism. He began by saying America must be a strong example of democracy in the world. America is strong when her people are strong, and her people are strong only when they can be the best they can be. We lead because of who we are and what we stand for. TR called all Americans to look beyond their own interests and realize they are a part of the bigger, more important, community of their nation and, indeed, the world.  This love of country also means love of the land it enjoys and so TR’s commitment to conservation was a natural outgrowth of his commitment to America and its promise.

“One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege…. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men in methods of government for their own profit.”

Opposition to “privilege” was a constant theme of TR’s progressivism. Large fortunes and corporations, especially those gained from mere financial speculation, were both a threat to democracy and to equal opportunity. Roosevelt was thus among the first American statesmen to recognize that “bigness”, even if obtained lawfully, could be a threat to democracy because of its potential to grow in power beyond the nation’s ability to manage it. Property thus exists to serve the common good and not selfish private interests inimical to the broader interests of the nation.

“The fundamental thing to do for every man used to give him a chance to reach a place in which he will make the greatest possible contribution to the public welfare. Give him a chance, not push him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try and carry him…”

Progressive nationalism offers an opportunity, not a guarantee. TR had no patience for shirkers. Every citizen must work hard, develop their skills and contribute to society not just for their own benefit, but for that of the nation as well. At the same time, Americans deserved to live dignified, individual lives that enabled them to raise good families and build successful local communities. TR’s faith in America rested on his faith in the average American and his belief that most people would seize this opportunity and make the most of it.

“I do not ask for over centralization; but I do ask that we work in a spirit of broad and far-reaching Nationalism when we work for what concerns the people as a whole….. The national government belongs to the whole American people, and where the whole American people are interested, that interest can be guarded effectively only by the national government.”

TR was no libertarian. As a Lincoln Republican, he believed a strong Union required a strong federal government. As business became more interstate in size and scope, he realized that only an effective national government could manage the power these businesses were able to wield. The Constitution also clearly gave only the federal government the power to manage foreign and defense policy.  Thus, a strong and effective federal government was necessary to protect America’s increasing interests overseas.

“Justice and fair dealing among nations rest upon principles identical with those which control justice and fair dealing among the individuals of which nations are composed, with the vital exception that each nation must do its own part in international police work. If you get into trouble here, you can call for the police; but if Uncle Sam gets into trouble, he has got to be his own policeman; and I want to see him strong enough to encourage the peaceful aspirations of other peoples in connection with us…I should be heartily ashamed to see us wrong a weaker power, and I should hang my head in shame forever if we tamely suffered wrong from a stronger power.”

Theodore Roosevelt knew the world was inherently anarchic and thus dangerous, especially for a democracy like the United States. He was a constant advocate for a strong defense and, at the same time, relied as President on adroit diplomacy to avoid using it as much as possible. His diplomacy recognized that the world was full of diverse cultures and powers whose differences must be respected and sometimes even emulated.  In particular, he often held up Switzerland as an example of an enlightened and strong form of nationalism. The Swiss commitment to national military service and neutrality helped knit together a country of diverse cultures and languages (see this article for a modern description of Swiss nationalism). After negotiating the Russo-Japanese peace treaty, he became an advocate for international arbitration of disputes.

Progressive nationalism thus is not an exclusively American concept.   The American version is unique since it seeks to reconcile the often-competing goals of liberty, community, and opportunity amid a welter of diverse peoples and interests. This is why ethnic nationalism is destructive and inherently un-American. Our unity springs from our ideals and not just from our homeland and history.  Theodore Roosevelt believed we were at our best when we married those ideals with our love of our land and our heritage.  We have done it before, and we can do it again!