Tag: theodorerooseveltnationalism

2024 Election, Nationalist Theory, Politics

2024 American Nationalist Voting Index – A Strong America

Bob Claude |

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

Score

Harris -7.5 Trump -.5

The USS Theodore Roosevelt has returned to San Diego after a nine-month deployment in the western Pacific and Middle East. The 6000 sailors on the “Big Stick” visited numerous ports and conducted over 9000 aerial sorties from the ship. We should be proud of them and all of our soldiers and sailors who work hard to keep us free.

However, their bravery would be futile if it was not backed by a nation whose people were equally determined to defend its national strength and values. We learned during the COVID pandemic that resilience – the ability to withstand an internal or external shock – is now a key factor in national strength. We know that China, Russia and other adversaries are forming alliances to challenge our security and values.  They are strong-willed, though the attraction of our values makes them weaker in the long term. Nevertheless, we are in a dangerous transition. If we ignore the very basics that keep a country sovereign and free, we risk losing our children’s future to those adversaries.

Border Security

The most fundamental duty of any government is to secure its own national borders. Kamala Harris was tasked by President Biden to be the “border czar” in charge of controlling the influx of migrants. By any measure, she miserably failed

The statistics don’t lie. As disclosed by Congressman Chip Roy, at least 7 million migrants illegally crossed the border, including an estimated 2 million “gotaways” who were never identified.  Worse still, the administration knew that thousands of past and new migrants had violent criminal histories yet were turned loose with simple notices to appear.

Then came the hypocrisy. No assistance was given to the border states initially hit by this wave of millions, so they were relocated to other cities where they were put up in hotels and given benefits American citizens could only hope for. Some children ended up being trafficked into child labor and sexual slavery.  The administration actually began flying migrants into the country on the theory that it relieved pressure on the border. When the electoral backlash finally hit, it claimed that it had no power to close the border and tried to use the crisis to blackmail Congress into passing aid to Israel and Ukraine. It didn’t work, and when the uproar continued, Biden suddenly found the authority to control the border that he said he did not have,

The inevitable threat to our internal national security that developed caught the administration by surprise. A new violent Venezuelan gang called Tren de Agua used the opportunity to set up bases in cities and began to terrorize residents. Reports emerged that thousands of Chinese men were crossing the border as well as potential Muslim extremists from the Middle East.

While President Biden bears ultimate responsibility, all of this was done on Kamala Harris’s watch as border czar. Indeed, it broadly matches her own past statements opposing strict immigration enforcement. Thus, there is no reason to believe it will not continue in a Harris Administration and thus rates a minus 3 score – the worst possible globalist score.

Donald Trump clearly appreciates the gravity of this crisis and has committed to closing the border.  Otherwise, he simply has used it as campaign fodder. Any solution will be through a process that will need broad legislative and public support, not an event like the slogan of “Mass Deportation Now”.  Nevertheless, Trump earns a plus 1.5 for promising to secure the border and committing to reverse in some way this threat to our national and economic security.

Manufacturing and Trade

In his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, realist international relations theorist John Mearsheimer cited manufacturing and infrastructure as key elements of a state’s inherent power. There are two ways to spur the development of manufacturing – tariffs or subsidies and tax expenditures. The Biden-Harris Administration opted for mainly subsidies through the Chips Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.  At the same time, they maintained most of the Trump tariffs on Chinese goods and imposed new restrictions. How has that plan worked out?

On these kinds of economic issues, I rely on Alan Tonelson of the website RealityChek, a former Foreign Policy magazine editor who examines economic issues from the nationalist standpoint. His post from October 18 analyzes the manufacturing data since Biden took office. It shows that, after taking into account the recovery from the COVID shock, manufacturing output has increased only marginally despite the new subsidies. Some sectors like construction materials actually declined. In contrast, spending on goods like steel rose more during the Trump Administration.

It is true that it can take years for manufacturers to build factories and respond to  governmental incentives.  The Biden – Harris Administration deserves credit for promoting manufacturing, but since the results are still uncertain, they earn just a .5 score. Trump has long been a champion of reshoring manufacturing but wants to rely more on much higher and across the board tariffs. His administration showed targeted tariffs can be successful with a minimal or no impact on inflation. Trump deserves credit for his commitment to the issue, but the uncertain impact of his current radical tariff proposals on inflation and the economy earns him just a plus 1.5.

Budget and the National Debt

The numbers are staggering and dangerous. Our national debt has swollen to the point where the interest payments alone now exceed $1 trillion.  The total debt equals over $106,000 per capita, a burden that will pass to our children.  The main causes are rising health care costs, changing demographics and insufficient revenues. The debt endangers the future of the dollar as a reserve currency because of the temptation to simply inflate the debt away. A true nationalist leader would call us to make the tax and spending sacrifices necessary to begin to close this gap.

Neither candidate exhibits any such leadership. Instead, Harris and Trump promise further cuts and expenditures that would swell the budget deficit. Trump and his new supporter Elon Musk trumpet a Department of Governmental Efficiency as a solution along with vague but huge tariffs. This ignores the fact that amount of the budget that is discretionary is dwarfed by entitlement programs.  In the end, government is not a business and should not be. Solutions will require inspirational leadership, not pandering to American’s lowest instincts.

A recent economic analysis shows both the Harris and Trump plans would increase the deficit, though Trump’s is worse. Trump thus deserves a minus 2.5 for his program, while Harris should still be ashamed of her minus 2 score. Leadership on this issue will have to wait, hopefully not after it’s too late.

Make America Healthy Again

The Robert F Kennedy, Jr., presidential campaign began as a reaction to the heavy-handedness of the COVID-19 pandemic response. While this website strongly supported the vaccine and the strategy of the response, the Kennedy campaign raised legitimate questions that merit an open investigation. In the process, Kennedy also highlighted the horrible state of American’s health and the contributing effect of food additives and our poor diets. His disclosures of conflicts of interest within federal health agencies are deeply disturbing. Even former Center for Disease Control head Dr. Robert Redfield has come out in support of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again program. Kennedy’s recent alliance with the Trump campaign potentially gives him the ability to implement these reforms.

Theodore Roosevelt greatly respected science. However, as an advocate of “the strenuous life”, he would be alarmed at the state of our nation’s health. The Biden- Harris response has been to lionize the bureaucrats and condemn Kennedy and other critics as “anti-science”. This is ironic since the scientific method squarely rests on the process of constant reexamination of hypotheses and theories, not their exaltation into a quasi-religious faith.  Their position deserves a minus 1 for it’s lackadaisical attitude toward a serious issue, On the other hand, will Trump really allow RFKJr to reform the health bureaucracy in the face of opposition from Big Pharma? Kennedy offered to do so in the last Trump administration but was dropped after such opposition. However, RFKJr’s higher profile and grassroots support would make that more difficult now and so we can hopefully assign a plus 1 to Trump in this election.

Political Violence

As someone who became President after an assassination and survived one himself, Theodore Roosevelt would be sickened by the violence and rhetoric of this campaign. TR was no slouch at using strong words, but they never sunk to the crudeness and inflammatory attacks we are seeing today.  He would admire Donald Trump’s defiance in the face of the Pennsylvania assassination attempt but condemn his sympathy for the January 6 insurrection.  He would also be distressed at the mild response of the Harris campaign to the two attempts and its toleration of personal attacks on Trump.

This will be one of the closest presidential elections in American history that will undoubtedly face real questions afterwards.  The best way to build legitimacy for the outcome is for the winning candidate to give the American people a civil and coherent discussion of the issues. Whether it is Biden’s flippant comment about jailing Trump or Trump’s crude insults of Harris, neither campaign has fully adopted such a respectful approach to the process and the electorate.  Both deserve a minus 2 score.  This does not differentiate them, but at least registers a strong rejection of the poor campaign they have inflicted on us.

Conclusion

Theodore Roosevelt called Americans to the hope and sacrifices that helped build the strong America of the twentieth century. In today’s world where that strength is under challenge by the despotism of China and Russia, the scores of Harris and Trump are positively dangerous. All of the issues in this area require the kind of foresight and vision that neither candidate seems able to muster. It will fall to the Congress and then the rest of us to insist that the winner show some of TR’s courageous commitment to our American future.

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

Globalism vs. Nationalism

Bob Claude |

In every wise struggle for human betterment, one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations arise from barbarism to civilization, and through it people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next. One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege.

Theodore Roosevelt, The New Nationalism

Politics has been most simply described as a contest between the “ins” and the “outs”. Those who are “in” eventually succumb to Lord Acton’s proverb that power corrupts. The “outs” then try to hold them accountable, while the “ins” desperately try to justify and preserve the privileges of their power. Monarchies tried to claim a “divine right” to their power and nineteenth century robber barons adopted the theory of social Darwinism to justify the inequality of the Gilded Age.  This quotation from Theodore Roosevelt’s New Nationalism emphasizes the importance, indeed the inevitability, of the defeat of such excuses for power and the outdated assumptions that underlie them. 

Globalism has become the latest ideological excuse used by international elites to preserve their privileges in today’s world.  This philosophy believes economic and foreign policy should be made on a global basis without regard to any particular nation’s needs or interests. Politicians thus have a duty to improve the lives of every person on earth equally regardless of national boundaries. Peace will occur when there is worldwide homogeneity in economic, political and cultural conditions and practices.  

In theory, these goals are laudable and its attraction has deep roots in Western civilization and history (see my series on “Nationalist Foreign Policy – A History” under the Foreign Policy tab above). It becomes particularly attractive during waves of economic globalization.  Here is where we need to clearly distinguish globalism from globalization. Globalization is a socioeconomic phenomenon involving a significant increase in trade and cultural knowledge across national borders. When Marco Polo arrived in Chinese Emperor Kublai Khan’s court in 1275 AD, he was part of such a wave of globalization made possible by stable and safe trade routes through Central Asia from Europe to Asia.  The history of this process has been brilliantly told in Prof.  Peter Frankopan’s book” The Silk Roads”, which describes how periods of global trade and cultural contact changed the world from ancient to modern times. However, these waves would prove to be temporary. Globalization could not survive a nation’s love of its own culture and desire for independence.

This latest wave of globalization began in the 1960’s with the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions, continued during the latter part of the Cold War and then took off after it ended. A new international elite whose disproportionate privileges arose from the benefits of this wave then proclaimed a “New World Order” dedicated to spreading their interpretation of democracy and free enterprise throughout the world. This became the basis of modern globalism and achieved a bipartisan consensus in American politics. 

Meanwhile, American elections continued to be fought over the increasingly vacuous divide between big vs. small government.  The debate over the domestic and international costs of the new order were incorporated into this old debate. Four ideologies, each with their own goal or god, emerged: 

  • Corporate globalism and the god of efficiency 
  • Socialist globalism and the god of equality
  • Ethnic nationalism and the gods of blood and soil 
  • Progressive nationalism and the goal of community

In the perfect world, each of these ideologies would be represented by four different political parties.  The real world of our two-party system requires American voters to research each candidate individually and determine which of these ideologies best matches the candidate’s philosophy and positions.  As we approach the 2024 election, the American people need to become familiar with the basic premises underlying each of these new ideologies, the political philosophy behind them and their current leaders.  My next four posts will undertake that task, starting with a survey of the tenets of corporate globalism.