The Evolution of Nationalism's Meaning
The term "nationalism" has undergone significant changes in its meaning over time. Today, it is often associated with the self-determination of people against a growing global hegemony in various sectors, including finance, agriculture, health, military, and surveillance. Nationalists advocate for the rights of a people within a defined geographical area to manage their own affairs, free from the impositions of a neoliberal order that has significantly weakened over the past decade.
The Catalyst for Change
The book that triggered this recent shift in understanding is "The Virtue of Nationalism" by Yoram Hazony, which was published in 2018. Hazony argues that nationalism, understood as a wide diversity of governing principles among sovereign nations, is vital for preserving freedom, tradition, and cultural meaning. He posits that nationalism is not aggressive, but protective, serving as a barrier against impositions by international agencies, manipulative finance, and a secular media that often raises a clamor. The book gained significant attention among conservatives as it broke the taboo associated with the term "nationalism."
A Personal Perspective
When I first encountered Hazony's book, I was ready to oppose its central idea. My intellectual formation occurred during a period of old consensus, and I had assumed that all forms of nationalism had a toxic root compared to the aspiration for universal human rights and global cultural norms. However, the experience of pandemic controls, imposed simultaneously worldwide, caused me to reconsider my views. The pandemic was a paradigmatic case of globalism's illiberalism, and it forced me to consider aspects I might have previously overlooked.
Three nations resisted compulsory measures such as lockdowns, business closures, population masking, and vaccine mandates: Sweden, Tanzania, and Nicaragua. Each of these nations had their unique reasons for their stance, but they all essentially boiled down to the sentiment: "That is not how we do things here." Despite the global media's outcry against these nations, they ended up with similar or better health outcomes without devastating their citizens' lives or infringing on their rights and liberties. This practical experience shattered the association many people, including myself, had between globalism and freedom.
The Controversy Over Nationalism
The controversy over nationalism began in the late 19th century when multinational empires began to crumble, and new nations formed based on language groups, ethnicities, and religious groupings in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. The meaning of nationalism shifted one way then another during this period.
The self-determination of nations became the central slogan of postwar policy, a slogan pushed by the Woodrow Wilson administration as the map of Europe was redrawn in ways that proved unsustainable. However, in those years, nationalism was regarded as benign and even necessary for peace.
The controversies over nationalism were not over, however, as democratic institutions in Germany collapsed following an economic crisis and political upheaval. What took its place was the aggressive nationalism of the Nazi Party, leading to a repeat and intensification of the first world war. This experience discredited the nationalist idea, particularly as it pertained to race and language.
Globalism took center stage again following the war, with the creation of the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Nationalism was discredited yet again, and that’s where we stood for the better part of four decades.
The Struggle Between Globalism and Nationalism
Since 1990, the struggle between globalism and nationalism has been a defining feature of world politics. With the UK's decision to withdraw from the European Union, a new nationalism took hold that was strongly resisted by globalist ambitions.
Was the new nationalism liberal? That’s a complicated question. In some places, yes, and in others, no. The drive toward immigration restriction was an inevitable consequence of refugee upheavals all over Europe and the United States. The push to repudiate the World Trade Organization’s ambition for a tariff-free world came after decades of industrial loss.
The bitter combination of lockdowns, the refugee crisis, and sketchy plans for zero emissions that threaten industrialization itself kicked the nationalist spirit into overdrive, as populist movements have swept the world. The two sides have lined up in predictable ways: those advocating sovereignty and those wanting to preserve what remains of the neoliberal order. That is the essential dynamic of our times.
Bottom Line
So, where does this leave those who value freedom in their opinions about nationalism? It puts us back in the 1880s with Renan’s outlook: whether and to what extent freedom is best guaranteed by the national principle depends on time and place. Regardless, based on what we are seeing in politics today, there is no stopping the eventual replacement of the neoliberal order with a world of sovereign nations, some liberal and some not.
What are your thoughts on this evolving understanding of nationalism? Do you agree with the points made in this article? Share your thoughts and discuss it with your friends. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
The Evolution of Nationalism's Meaning
The term "nationalism" has undergone significant changes in its meaning over time. Today, it is often associated with the self-determination of people against a growing global hegemony in various sectors, including finance, agriculture, health, military, and surveillance. Nationalists advocate for the rights of a people within a defined geographical area to manage their own affairs, free from the impositions of a neoliberal order that has significantly weakened over the past decade.
The Catalyst for Change
The book that triggered this recent shift in understanding is "The Virtue of Nationalism" by Yoram Hazony, which was published in 2018. Hazony argues that nationalism, understood as a wide diversity of governing principles among sovereign nations, is vital for preserving freedom, tradition, and cultural meaning. He posits that nationalism is not aggressive, but protective, serving as a barrier against impositions by international agencies, manipulative finance, and a secular media that often raises a clamor. The book gained significant attention among conservatives as it broke the taboo associated with the term "nationalism."
A Personal Perspective
When I first encountered Hazony's book, I was ready to oppose its central idea. My intellectual formation occurred during a period of old consensus, and I had assumed that all forms of nationalism had a toxic root compared to the aspiration for universal human rights and global cultural norms. However, the experience of pandemic controls, imposed simultaneously worldwide, caused me to reconsider my views. The pandemic was a paradigmatic case of globalism's illiberalism, and it forced me to consider aspects I might have previously overlooked.
Three nations resisted compulsory measures such as lockdowns, business closures, population masking, and vaccine mandates: Sweden, Tanzania, and Nicaragua. Each of these nations had their unique reasons for their stance, but they all essentially boiled down to the sentiment: "That is not how we do things here." Despite the global media's outcry against these nations, they ended up with similar or better health outcomes without devastating their citizens' lives or infringing on their rights and liberties. This practical experience shattered the association many people, including myself, had between globalism and freedom.
The Controversy Over Nationalism
The controversy over nationalism began in the late 19th century when multinational empires began to crumble, and new nations formed based on language groups, ethnicities, and religious groupings in France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. The meaning of nationalism shifted one way then another during this period.
The self-determination of nations became the central slogan of postwar policy, a slogan pushed by the Woodrow Wilson administration as the map of Europe was redrawn in ways that proved unsustainable. However, in those years, nationalism was regarded as benign and even necessary for peace.
The controversies over nationalism were not over, however, as democratic institutions in Germany collapsed following an economic crisis and political upheaval. What took its place was the aggressive nationalism of the Nazi Party, leading to a repeat and intensification of the first world war. This experience discredited the nationalist idea, particularly as it pertained to race and language.
Globalism took center stage again following the war, with the creation of the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Nationalism was discredited yet again, and that’s where we stood for the better part of four decades.
The Struggle Between Globalism and Nationalism
Since 1990, the struggle between globalism and nationalism has been a defining feature of world politics. With the UK's decision to withdraw from the European Union, a new nationalism took hold that was strongly resisted by globalist ambitions.
Was the new nationalism liberal? That’s a complicated question. In some places, yes, and in others, no. The drive toward immigration restriction was an inevitable consequence of refugee upheavals all over Europe and the United States. The push to repudiate the World Trade Organization’s ambition for a tariff-free world came after decades of industrial loss.
The bitter combination of lockdowns, the refugee crisis, and sketchy plans for zero emissions that threaten industrialization itself kicked the nationalist spirit into overdrive, as populist movements have swept the world. The two sides have lined up in predictable ways: those advocating sovereignty and those wanting to preserve what remains of the neoliberal order. That is the essential dynamic of our times.
Bottom Line
So, where does this leave those who value freedom in their opinions about nationalism? It puts us back in the 1880s with Renan’s outlook: whether and to what extent freedom is best guaranteed by the national principle depends on time and place. Regardless, based on what we are seeing in politics today, there is no stopping the eventual replacement of the neoliberal order with a world of sovereign nations, some liberal and some not.
What are your thoughts on this evolving understanding of nationalism? Do you agree with the points made in this article? Share your thoughts and discuss it with your friends. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is available every day at 6pm.
