Tag: progressivism

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!

Domestic Policy, General, Nationalist Theory, Politics

The Crisis of the American Spirit – The Death of Community Spirit

Bob Claude |

By 1950, America was astride the world in political and economic influence and unified at home behind a strong federal government that led the fight against fascism and communism. The political culture arising from World War II and the beginning of the Cold War rested on a pride in American values and a willingness to sacrifice for the country in the form of the military draft and the continuation of high wartime tax rates. This commitment to a nationalist pride and a strong federal government in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt continued past his cousin Franklin’s presidency and into the Eisenhower administration.

However, there was a dark side to this collective unity. This was the era of the organization man, who subjugated his own dreams to the goals of a faceless corporate machine. Meanwhile, a people whose presence in America predated many more recent immigrants by centuries were still mired in legal and economic second-class citizenship. The Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education marked the beginning of a long struggle to end this discrimination. Legal segregation would not end until the end of the 1960s. Economic integration proved to be much more difficult and practically required a collective societal commitment to rival that of World War II.  However, at a time when a national call to a moral equivalent of war necessary, an unrelated movement arose that sapped our ability to achieve such unity.

Ayn Rand and the Rise of Objectivism

In 1957, a Russian emigre to the United States named Ayn Rand published the book “Atlas Shrugged”, which tells the story of a brilliant engineer forced to give up his labor and genius for society and the state. In the chapter “This is John Galt”, Rand set forth the premises of her philosophy of Objectivism, which posited a radical form of libertarian individualism. To Rand, man’s highest responsibility was to think for himself and the achievement his own happiness was his highest moral purpose.  He owed no moral obligation to others or to society. and existed for his own sake. The only purpose of government was to protect these rights from infringement by physical force, the worst form of which was governmental force and regulation. In the Objectivist world, the thinker, inventor and industrialist was the highest form of being. Those who were less intelligent or simply performed labor for others were considered inferior.  With barely veiled contempt, Rand said,” The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains”.  

Objectivism stood in sharp contrast to the sense of national sacrifice and unity necessary to achieve the victory of World War II.  It heralded the rise of the celebrity athlete and CEO, whose right to market power and exorbitant compensation would now be considered almost sacred. Moreover, it supported the idea that big business and monopolies were a positive good no matter what the secondary effects on family life or socioeconomic stability were. There was no question that the deadening sameness and self-satisfaction of post-war America needed to be challenged, but not by the rejection of any obligation to the broader society.

William F. Buckley and Conservative Economics

Meanwhile, in Connecticut, a wealthy intellectual named William F. Buckley, Jr., was developing a macro version of the new libertarianism for application to broader public policy issues. While Rand and Buckley knew of each other, Rand’s strident atheism clashed with Buckley’s devout Catholicism. Buckley’s conservatism was motivated mainly by a traditionalism that, as he wrote in the premiere edition of his magazine The National Review, “stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so.”  Like Rand, he promoted an economic libertarianism that opposed government social programs and business regulation while sharing Rand’s strong anti-Communism.  While Buckley opposed racial segregation, he was a supporter of Sen. Barry Goldwater’s presidential candidacy, whose libertarianism was highjacked by Southern segregationists and would eventually overcome the federal nationalism of Theodore Roosevelt in the Republican Party. 

The Divisive Effects

The new libertarianism of Rand and Buckley would be used to justify extremes they would condemn, such as the hippie philosophy of “If it feels good, do it” and the opposition to desegregation based on states rights.  However, the Pandora’s box had been opened, and the damage was done to the American community spirit and its ability to rise to the heroic mood necessary to solve national challenges. Americans turned inward to their own interests – the “bowling alone” society. The integration of African -Americans slowed to a crawl as the manufacturing jobs that had propelled white immigrants to success disappeared.  It became almost impossible to focus national attention on the need to re-tool education and manufacturing to meet the European and Asian competition. Instead, a new belief in the wisdom of free trade made the resulting socioeconomic dislocation appear inevitable and even desirable. While the technology and information revolutions revived American opportunity and dominance for several decades, intellectual property proved to be hard to protect from theft by other countries.   The ultimate expression of this “get rich quick” economic libertarianism was the decision to admit China to the World Trade Organization despite its mercantilist practices.  American companies flocked there to take advantage of cheap labor, which further eviscerated American manufacturing. At the same time, it handed over much of American intellectual property to Chinese control simply for the short-term profit opportunities.

In the end, the exaltation of individual rights and denigration of community made it more difficult to rally the nation to sacrifice even in the face of threats like the COVID pandemic. American society atomized into internally isolated individuals encouraged to compete for personal advantage rather than cooperate to overcome adversity.  The resulting division made it difficult to confront the rising nationalist unity in Russia, China and much of the Global South.  Then, instead of defending American nationalist unity and community spirit, progressives chose to make the division worse by encouraging a series of distinct group unities transcending borders, and then pitting them against their fellow Americans.

Next – The Rise of Identity Politics