Woe Be to the False Lures of Neo-Nationalism

The neo‑nationalists’ focus on the supposed evils of globalization is a case of misdiagnosis. The discontents of the age of globalization are many and real, but globalization is the context, not the cause.

And just as a reversion to the fortress mentality of nationalism and ethnic autarchy is not the answer, the great hope held out for nativism is a curse, not a cure.

1. The political dimension

The temptation to normalize and institutionalize the neo‑nationalist way of thinking should therefore be resisted in an advanced democracy.  

It is more than ironic that those who decry identity politics in progressives often embrace in a heavy dose of identity politics when it comes to their preferred cause of nationalism.

What is unfolding in these uncertain times is not an honest debate about principles worthy of pursuit and wider societal embrace.  Rather, what we are witnessing in many a nation is an intensely political power struggle over dominance in general and, more specifically, over which myth of identity will control the common narrative.

Sadly not a bygone era

As nationalist rhetoric pulses ever more fervently through political culture, we are clearly living through a sweep of resurgent ethno‑nationalism.  

This is bizarre insofar as we had all long believed, or been led to believe, that the era full of slogans about national rebirth, alarmist language about invasion and decline, efforts to narrow membership in the political community and the wholesale denunciations of globalists was well beyond us.

And yet, across the world, we hear the voices of leaders presenting themselves as restorers of greatness in the name of national purity, sovereignty and civilizational self‑assertion.

Nationalism poor track record as ideology

Yet nationalism has an exceedingly poor track record as an ideology. During the era of the breakup of empires, it may have served as a force for self‑determination. 

However, as a form of modern political life, it has repeatedly and compellingly revealed its great dangers, including to the nations for a time so ardently — and blindly — wedded to the pursuit of the nationalist cause.

Remember the burden of proof

Especially at this juncture, after a long period of what widely assumed to be a sustained global move toward democracy and the general enlightenment of the public at large, history places the burden of proof on those who now choose to espouse nationalism.

The great conflicts of the 20th century, along with earlier internal conflicts fought in the name of rival national projects, all demonstrate one key insight compellingly: nationalism by itself offers no reliable standard of justice.

Often quickly detached from constitutional principles, equality and civic restraint, it becomes a vehicle for grievance, myth and exclusion (ab)used by those who hitched their political wagon to this sooner or later domestically(!) highly corrosive cause.

Once carried beyond a healthy sense of civic duty and patriotism, it becomes an intellectual and moral affliction that is likely to end in tears for its most ardent proponents.  And yet, the lesson from that self-imposed defeat often gets forgotten far too quickly.

2. The economic dimension

Then as rather precisely a century ago, the rollout of the neo‑nationalist argument follows a familiar script. It claims that globalization has ignored fundamental truths about the importance of native soil and national bonds.

It posits that globalization has run amok over recent decades and that it is now urgently necessary to restore place, identity and sovereignty. A “cosmopolitan” class is said to be pursuing worldwide efficiencies through trade, finance and technology. 

In its eager pursuit of shameless self-enrichment, it regularly stands accused of leading the world astray while presumably disregarding the interests, grievances and aspirations of “ordinary” citizens at home.

The negative emotions are real

It would be foolish to ignore this thesis, because it expresses anxieties that are widely and genuinely felt. Many people do feel left behind by what they think—or are told—are the effects of globalization.

They long for a stronger sense of home, protection and belonging. But the answer lies in better socio‑economic policies, not in capitulating to myths of national closure.

Economic dislocation, uneven regional development, wage stagnation and social insecurity are real problems, but they are not solved by retreating into some form of ethnic autarchy.

Globalization has undeniably produced distortions and dislocations, yet it has also raised living standards dramatically for much of the world’s population. Billions have been lifted out of dire poverty through technological advances and freer trade.

Even migration pressures, which today fuel so many nativist reactions in destination countries, would likely have been more severe without those gains.

A fact of life

Globalization is no longer merely a policy agenda. It is a fact of life. We inhabit a world of deep interdependence in which risks such as nuclear war, climate change and supply‑chain disruptions transcend borders.  So do the opportunities for collective action in the service of peace, prosperity and justice.

The real economic error of neo‑nationalism lies therefore in the wrong diagnosis. It mistakes the structural setting of living in the world of today for the root cause.

That is also why any national policy built around the promise of social exclusion and economic closure may fleetingly offer emotional compensation.  But it offers in no manner or form even the prospect of serious reform.

Converting social grievances into hostility toward outsiders while deliberately overlooking entirely domestic failures of governance, distribution and institutional adaptation from adequate scrutiny is a recipe of blame shifting that has been around for a long game.

In fact, as far as the Western world is concerned, it goes back at least to the Romans’ habit of distracting the masses via the “bread and circuses” strategy.

3. The social dimension

Nationalism is a convenient ideology because it indulges acquired prejudices and a preference for the familiar. Likeness and sameness are reassuring, while difference and diversity are often difficult for people to contend with.

Simply put, dealing with strangers requires more intellectual effort, more moral imagination and greater reserves of compassion and generosity.

For that reason, nationalism offers a seductive simplification of social reality. It turns the complexity of modern life into a story about insiders and outsiders, belonging and betrayal, purity and contamination.

As a way of understanding the world, nationalism is too simple and too self‑referential to take us very far. It reduces what it means to be human to a narrow sense of belonging.

True, birthplace, ancestry and inherited identity matter enormously at the emotional level, but very little of intellectual or moral significance follows from those accidents of birth.

Humanity precedes nationality

It is a profound insight and not a trivial observation that humanity precedes and transcends nationality. Once human beings are conceptualized primarily through categories such as ethnicity, nationality, religion or civilization, they are effectively narrowcast. Their full and overlapping identities are pushed into a narrow set of politically charged labels.

Exclusionary nationalists often conflate nationalism with citizenship and patriotism, but these are not the same thing.

The citizenship, patriotism and nationalism triad

Citizenship belongs to a constitutional and civic order. Patriotism can express attachment to a political community without demanding hostility to others.

Nationalism, by contrast, too often confuses packaging with substance. It elevates symbols, rituals and myths into tests of belonging and loyalty.

In such a framework, healthy forms of patriotism can easily be converted into false idols.  They become substitutes for what the virtues and qualities we should all be aiming for – civic confidence, democratic responsibility and the ability to engage in moral self‑criticism.

Conclusion

Given all that, nationalism reveals weakness, not strength. Confident citizens do not need constant demonstrations of symbolic purity or collective self‑assertion. Neither do they seek reassurance in spectacle, loud-mouthed sloganeering and being stuck in rigid boundaries.

In our modern societies, we know too much about our own individual, group and collective complexity to accept the over‑simplifications of neo‑nationalism as a guiding idea.

The hard but truly pivotal task is to resist the lures of neo-nationalism and focus on the ability to developing a sense of solidarity across borders without diminishing healthy patriotism.

Editor’s note: This feature has been adapted from a longer essay that originally appeared in The Washington Spectator https://washingtonspectator.org