Category: Globalism vs. Nationalism

Globalism vs. Nationalism

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!

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Ethnic Nationalism and the Gods of Blood and Soil

Bob Claude |

I am insisting on nationalism against internationalism.

Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to Sen. Albert Beveridge

Theodore Roosevelt lived during the last great era of European nation-building of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He saw Germany and Italy transformed from small city-states and kingdoms into strong unified states, while the Austrian – Hungarian Empire was broken apart by ethnic tensions. These movements were driven by the most basic form of nationalism – the concept that peoples with the same ethnic heritage and common geography should constitute a distinct and separate nation-state within those geographic boundaries. He then saw how the resulting national unity created powerful and successful states, though sometimes with tragic consequences.

Ethnic nationalism continued to be a primary driver of international relations through the 20th century and past the millennium. The nations of the Global South freed from colonialism after World War II cherished their own past history and native lands and are committed to building their national sovereignty and economic power (see this previous post).  Russian expansionism is based on a combination of pan-Slavic identity, religious superiority, and a sense of victimhood. Chinese nationalism has always rested on the inherent superiority of the Han Chinese based on their millennia of history and now the ideological call of Maoist communism. In his book “When China Rules the World”, longtime China expert Martin Jacques described the myth of Han Chinese superiority and maintained that the Chinese may very well be the most racist people in the world. Even the vaunted European Union is beginning to fracture due to nationalist movements within its membership.

History has illustrated the benefits and dangers of ethnic nationalism. It prioritizes national unity and a sense of community over short- term efficiency, thus making those nations more resilient in the face of domestic and foreign challenges (see this post on the importance of resilience). Its call to community service promotes selflessness over personal economic equality. This sense of community, however, is often confined to the primary ethnic group and can quickly descend into claims of racial superiority. Excluded minorities often fall back on the own national histories, resulting in internal division, mass emigration, or civil war and thus destroying the solidarity nationalism is supposed to foster. Racial nationalism also can lead to fascist expansionism. The most notorious example is still that of Nazi Germany, whose call to “Blood and Soil” was used to justify some of the worst brutality in history.

Roosevelt’s American nationalism sprung from love of his land and the history of its people, tested by the Civil War and its call to save the Union. His love of the American landscape spurred his drive for conservation. The man who invited Booker T. Washington to dine with him at the White House, appointed the first Jewish cabinet member and fought for direct presidential primaries demonstrated by his actions that our history of democracy and human rights was his paramount value. Unfortunately, this love of America sometimes expressed itself in a belief in Anglo-Saxon or “English” racial superiority.  In his book “The Winning of the West”, he wrote that the pioneering of the American West was part of the triumphant spread of “the English-speaking peoples “and ranked it with the rise of Germanic and other races. This reflected a common belief among the elite of his time that racial characteristics shaped history, which itself may have been inspired by the nationalist movements of Europe.

Nevertheless, ethnic nationalism is the most common national ideology in the world and thus a reality Americans must deal with. The sense of community and national resilience it creates gives those nations real power that supports their sovereignty and unity. However, in a multi-ethnic nation like the US, this form of nationalism is more likely to be divisive than unifying.  TR knew this and became the champion of a nationalism tailored to our unique American history and values.

Next in the series: Progressive Nationalism and the Goals of Community and Opportunity

General, Globalism vs. Nationalism, Nationalist Theory, Politics

Socialist Globalism and the God of Equality

Bob Claude |

Source; Library of Congress

When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, they were reacting to the wave of globalization that came with the industrial revolution of the 19th century. The cartoon above from the British magazine Puck graphically showed the toxic political results of the resulting despair. It shows a boar of corporate greed sowing the seeds of the socialism that Marx & Engels advocated. Their response was a radical form of equality that believed “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. It closed with the famous phrase “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains”.

Thus, socialism began with a cry to abandon national identity for international class identity and struggle. The Socialist Internationale was organized as a cross-border movement of similar political parties in various European nations. As resistance to its goals stiffened, the movement turned ugly with the rise of the anarchists, whose tactics of assassination and violence eventually reached the U.S.. Theodore Roosevelt never forgot he became President due to the bullet of the anarchist who assassinated President McKinley. It sparked his own commitment to fighting corporate greed and concentration and the exploitation it created, but within a free market system.

In the end, the nineteenth century call for international worker solidarity perished in the trenches of World War I as each nation’s proletariat willingly marched to war not against the rich, but against opposing enemy nations. The pull of national identity proved to be more powerful than class identity.  The Soviet and Chinese Communist attempts to build a globalist socialist movement resulted in further oppression and eventually adopted nationalist themes to spur their people to defend themselves from foreign foes. While western European socialist parties saw limited success in the interwar period, the U.S. turned to a conservative isolationism and during the New Deal of FDR, a brief progressive nationalism.

Modern socialist globalism is no longer the province of some small Western political parties, but is now officially advocated by the foreign policy of the majority of the Global South that still sees itself as victims of colonialism (see this previous post). In the US, the call to class identity is joined to similar calls to ethnic and gender loyalty fueled by a strange combination of victim psychology and guilt. They consider themselves victims of oppression by the rich while also being guilty of oppressing other nations simply by being American. In foreign policy, this leads to either liberal interventionism to forcibly spread “freedom” or subordinating legitimate national interests to other nations as a way of appeasing the god of equality. Domestically it creates a destructive race to the bottom as risk-taking declines and social jealousies feed on themselves.

TR spent his political career fighting not only the boar of corporate greed, but also the siren song of victim psychology.  He called Americans to remember their heritage as leaders of a new social experiment.  This was the basis of his nationalism.  As we move to explore the nationalist response to globalism, we will first consider another, more basic form of national identity and how it can go wrong as well.

Next; Ethnic Nationalism and the Gods of Blood and Soil