Category: Politics

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!

2024 Election, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – Draining the Swamp

Bob Claude |

This is the second in a series examining the issues in the 2024 presidential election. To see other articles in the series, click on the “2024 Elections” link under the heading “Politics” in the above menu.

Score

Harris 0 Trump -5

“Preserving democracy” has dominated the rhetoric of this year’s presidential campaign. Democrats rightly condemn the horrific January 6 insurrection and takeover of the Capitol while casually dismissing Republican’s concern about ballot security and tabulation. As important as the legitimacy of the election process is to the success of democracy, Theodore Roosevelt’s jarring call above reminds us that elections are hollow and deceptive if they do not result in policies that match the goals of the average American.

Sadly, the same alliance TR condemned then has risen from the grave to haunt us. Only Robert F Kennedy Jr. seemed to understand this, but he is now sidelined as a supporter of former President Trump. Thus, we find ourselves choosing between a candidate crowned in a back room deal who never received a single vote in the primaries and an unstable septuagenarian leader of a fringe cult. It looks more like a Russian or Chinese election than anything Thomas Jefferson would recognize.

Nevertheless, choose we must, but in a way that at least begins to challenge this hidden corruption. We can start by addressing three of its pillars – the avalanche of dark campaign money, the wily administrative state and the use of the courts as a weapon against democratic choice.

Campaign Finance and Voting Rights Reform

Our present campaign finance mess rose out of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case which found one of Roosevelt’s initiatives to limit corporate influence in federal elections unconstitutional. The case raised important First Amendment issues, but the same result could have been achieved on much different grounds. Instead, it unleashed a flood of dark money from not only the wealthy and corporations, but potentially foreign governments as well. Many have called for a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision, but there is nowhere near the two-thirds majority in Congress necessary to send such an amendment to the states for ratification.

The Democrats introduced a bill early in the Biden Administration called the “For the People Act” to improve campaign finance disclosure and preserve voting rights. Unfortunately, it was a 800-page legislative grab-bag of good and bad ideas (see this post for a more detailed description of the good). It would have expanded and tightened disclosure requirements for corporate contributions (the “DISCLOSE Act”), strengthened the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”), and improved election integrity, among many other improvements. However, it met with solid opposition from Republicans and serious questions from moderate Democrats. 

Sen. Joe Manchin then drafted a compromise that preserved the better parts and added several new ones (see this post for a summary). It preserved the DISCLOSE Act corporate requirements and the FARA amendments, allowed practical voter identification requirements, preserved early voting rights, and made Election Day a national holiday. The bill also would have addressed discriminatory voting practices and election integrity issues. However, Republicans continued to oppose the bill and it can be safely assumed that Trump does as well. President Biden supported it and so Vice President Harris undoubtedly does also.

Meanwhile, the flood of illegal and other immigrants into the country over the last three years has raised legitimate issues about the possibility of non-citizens voting in our elections. This is currently illegal, but there is no national procedure for verifying eligibility. Texas recently discovered 6,500 non-citizens on its voter registration rolls.  The SAVE Act would establish documentation requirements for establishing citizenship, which could include not only the usual methods like a birth certificate, but also other more accessible methods. Democrats oppose it as unnecessary, but the Texas example justifies the concern.

Biden and Harris’s support of the For the People Act and the Manchin proposal earns them points, though their opposition to the SAVE Act means they earn only 1.5 on the nationalist scale.  Meanwhile, Trump’s and the Republican’s position on both rates a minus 1.5.

Curbing the Administrative State

Theodore Roosevelt originally believed that corporate reform would be best accomplished through federal agency action. If he were alive today, TR would be horrified at the Frankenstein‘s monster that has developed from the growth of administrative agency power. From the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to the Clean Power Act, this new form of “invisible government” has arrogated to itself the right to restructure vast swaths of American life with only the input of a select few.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. highlighted how invisible alliances between business and agencies could endanger the health and welfare of American citizens, the exact opposite of TR’s vision.

The Supreme Court finally forced the issue with its recent opinion in Loper Bright vs. Raimondo, which ended the court’s deference to agency interpretations of the extent of their powers. Congress and the next administration now have an opportunity to thoroughly review agency powers, clarify and specify the necessary ones, and insure that only the democratically elected members of Congress may, by legislation, enact major policies decisions that affect their constituents’ lives.

Unfortunately, neither candidate has a history of reining in executive power.  Instead, they both boast of the executive orders they will sign on their first day in office, not the legislation they will work with Congress to enact. The Biden- Harris administration has responded to the Loper Bright decision with attack rhetoric, which matches their longtime addiction to the use of sweeping agency powers. It earns them a negative 2 score on this issue.

Meanwhile, the Republican House passed a bill last year called the REIN Act, that would require Congressional approval of major rules. The alliance of RFKJr with the Trump campaign suggests the former President would be more supportive of such legislation. However, Trump’s rhetoric and his own past addiction to executive power suggests caution, and so he merits only a zero score on this issue.

Lawfare

Tort reform was one of my first political causes because, as an attorney, I was outraged that the manipulation and gaming of the system by a few well-connected trial lawyers was producing unjust results and enriching only themselves.  Over the last few years, the same type of abuses have moved into the political realm. It acquired the name “lawfare”, which literally means warfare through criminal and civil litigation designed to suppress rights, not protect them.

Both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in lawfare or the threat of it.  We now know major social media sites like Facebook and Twitter (now X) were bullied by the Biden Administration to suppress or remove speech discussing the pandemic response, the Hunter Biden business scandals and other controversial issues. The Democrats engaged in a concerted campaign to keep RFK, Jr. off the ballot and, in a bizarre twist, are suing to keep him from withdrawing and thus assisting Trump.  The New York criminal and civil cases against Donald Trump were brought on shaky legal theories and by a district attorney who campaigned on prosecuting Trump. Meanwhile, the Georgia case is mired in scandals surrounding its prosecutors. There is no question that Trump brought much of this on himself, especially the classified documents case pending in Florida. Nevertheless, Harris and the Democrats encouraged this concerted legal campaign and thus rate a minus 1.5  for these tactics.

Unfortunately, Trump’s response has been to threaten the use of similar lawfare against his perceived enemies, bragging about being “dictator for a day” and proclaiming his own enemies list.  We can hope that RFKJr’s commitment to free speech might blunt Trump’s rage, but there is no guarantee.  These vulgar and incendiary threats only feed this un-American trend and also rates a minus 1.5 on this issue.

There is another form of law enforcement abuse that continues to affect local communities. Four years ago, the killings of African-Americans by the police sparked nationwide protests and led to changes in policing practices in most of our major cities.  However, The Economist magazine recently pointed out that the rate of police killings actually has increased since then, mainly in rural areas and smaller cities (link requires free subscription) . There are several bills, including the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, that would establish standards and practices to reduce these killings. The Biden Administration supported such legislation and also funded an increase in the number of police officers and innovative responses that reduce the likelihood of violence (see also my previous post on this issue).  Republicans have generally opposed these reforms, though they have talked about federal law enforcement issues.  The Biden-Harris approach merits a plus 2 on this issue while Trump and Republicans rate a minus 2.  

Conclusion

For all the rhetoric about saving democracy, the two candidates actually score poorly on this critical and most basic value.  Vice President Harris would open up campaign finance and voting, but then deprive those elected officials of any real authority by pursuing much of her policy through the shadow government of the administrative state. Meanwhile, Trump deserves his reputation in the media as a danger to democratic values. Yet, as I mentioned in the introduction, democracy is not just about using the right process, but also about producing the right policies. The remaining posts in this series will dive into their most important policy positions.

Next: Speaking Softly – Foreign Policy

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