The Political Hat

     The difference between a “nationalist” and it’s purported antithesis of “globalism” (said boogie-man being variously trans-national corporations, international Communism, the Stonecutters, &c.), is for many, more of a proxy for the division of the hoi polloi and their populist white knights vs. elites who are seen as conspiring against the people.

     An interesting example of this come from Glenn Reynolds (AKA “Instapundit”) and his response to a quote by Congressman Justin Amash, who quite the Republican Party over Trump. Amash is quoted as saying:

“I started to hear [the word] nationalism more and more. And that’s a concept that really is about a love for your people simply by virtue of being your people, not related to any principles you hold or what your country stands for, what ideals you’re striving for.”

     Clearly, Amash is denouncing a collectivist form of nationalism that substitutes unity of a people through common mores, folkways, traditions, and heritage (that is, the American Essence) with a blind loyalty based on mere common government or, worse yet, blut und boden. In that vein, he is right to condemn those who eschew defining traits to settle into an intra-tribalism wherein one defends one’s own defined “tribe” be they right to wrong. The irony that those who push this are seeking to divide and destroy the nation by destroying the common society and community is lost on them, but then that is why they need a globalist conspiracy to blame rather than admit that they see tens of millions (if not a hundred million or more) of their fellow American as an enemy to be crushed, and who in turn would crush them first.

     Mr. Reynold’s response seems to miss Rep. Amash’s point.

“Yes, Justin. Voters like the idea that the people who govern them are loyal to them”

     The loyalty of the people who govern us ought to be not to some majority, or plurality, of voters, but to those common social norms and beliefs that define us as a united people. An elected representative, judge, or executive officer work on the behalf of all Americans they represent, rather than be a promise list that some subset of those people wanted to inflict on the rest. No, they have no duty to be loyal to any trans-national governance or globalist ideology, and would disserve the people they represent or govern for if they had such loyalties just as much as if they let factionalism denigrate the common and beneficent governance of all the people they represent or govern for; it is not, then a manichean choice between the two.

“Nationalism is unpopular with elites because it involves such loyalty, and loyalty to one’s own people limits one’s options in ways that our governing class finds unacceptable.”

     Nationalism does not equate with loyalty to those common social norms, traditions, and heritage that defines us. The reason that the term patriotism is superior to nationalism is because the former necessarily elevated those common elements that defines us as a people, while for the later it is ancillary. After all, a nationalist could very well demand a fundamental transformation of America if that is what the “nation” wants (or what the leaders decide the collective will demands). A patriot would defend those beliefs and traditions that are part and parcel of what makes America America. A nationalist, on the other hand, may very well also be a patriot and hold those things sacred, but then one could be an American Nationalist and believe in collective ownership, lack of basic civil liberties, or of disenfranchising those they deem enemies of the nation and “outside of the body politic”.

Continue reading →