A thoughtful and measured piece which poses three key areas where the leaders of Europe face striking contradictions between their domestic and foreign policy namely: borders, industry and national identity.
We have an elite that has championed a borderless post national world, initially celebrating the mass trespass into an area whose integrity they were obliged to defend, yet these same elites are now rhetorically calling for the defence of a nation state and the maintenance of its borders.
They have promised to aid the defence of this same nation state, yet an effective fighting force would require an adequate industrial base, however our elites have pursued deindustrialization for short term economic benefit, and later through ecological zealotry, both goals pursued to such an extent that as a continent we lack the very raw materials to make weapons.
The final point has been made many times, most recently by the historian David Starkey: our European leaders have suppressed and pathologized the celebration of national identity in their own states and across the EU, yet they will happily wave a Ukrainian flag. Ukraine’s national identity is one that is being reshaped by a conflict; this would entail a much more militantly nationalist society than one that the older EU members (especially Germany or France) would be comfortable with but would ironically be far closer in temperament to the Visegrád Group whom they regularly denigrate and belittle.
It can only be hoped that these crises push our leaders to change course and to address these problems with the same clarity and tenacity with which Ukrainians defended themselves. My fear is that they redouble their current efforts and fight against the new realities before them.
I sure hope. I am noticing a real complacency here as we travel around Europe. It is breathtakingly, astoundingly easy to go from one country to another and no one knows where you are.
I like the way Trump and Vance are shaking the assumptions. Zelensky is so obnoxious with his army fatigues and endless lectures.
An eloquent piece. I’m not sure if you were implying this, but I think the “caricatured form” of nationalism describes Trump and MAGA very well.
On the other side, I feel that Western Europe’s support for Ukraine, apart from the obvious pragmatic motives, betrays a hidden affection (or at least recognisance of the power and utility) of a force they have lost in their own nations – or indeed actively helped to destroy! In any case, you’re right that grappling with this issue is one of the most (perhaps the most) important problems facing Western politicians today.
In what way are Trump and MAGA a caricature of nationalism? What would a genuine US nationalism look like?
Hillbilly Elegy seemed genuine to me. And a real estate tycoon doing peace deals with an ex KGB Russian dictator sounds as American as apple pie. Especially after all the efforts of the cartoonishly democratic democrats to stop that tycoon's rise to power.
In brief, there are no real positive underlying values, rather just tub-thumping "America First" rhetoric and a concomitant vague notion of protectionism and quasi-isolationism – which has *some* merits for sure, but does not seem fully thought-through (to be polite). This all stems from the fundamental issue that Trump himself does not have any coherent value system. He's a businessman above all, and clearly a libertarian-hedonist at heart, who thinks economics is pretty much all the national government should be concerned with at the end of the day. Clearly not remotely a conservative, in any case. Which, yes, is very American in some sense. Trump can be seen as a Clinton Democrat in many (but not all) respects.
From what I've read of history (most recently C R Hallpike "How we got here"), the businessmen have been derided for being Philistines since the beginning of civilisation, and usually by aristocrats who don't need to work. Yet the businessmen are the ones who help build the economies where humans flourish in more than just a material sense, and isolationism is curbed through trade relationships.
Doing deals without moralising can be very positive and, in itself, moral. Isn't that what Adam Smith thought? I'm not sure.
And America needs to put itself first, as a strong America looks to me like the best guarantee of some kind of stability in the world.
And I'd still like to hear something about what you consider are positive nationalist traits for the US. If you could point me towards 2 or 3 books or websites that could give me an idea and I'd be grateful.
Well, I would say rightly derided (in large part), and one doesn't need to be an aristocrat to do so. History has some excellent examples of purely economic "empires" losing out to ones with solid national identity and associated allegiance/loyalty – I mean, for that very reason. Machiavelli notably discussed this. Carthage vs Rome, Italian City States vs European Nation States (mainly Spain and France), and arguably the modern liberal-progressive-globalist West too.
I agree that America and every nation putting itself first is the sensible, pragmatic, and even moral thing to do. But I also think it's too easy to take an awfully naive approach in effecting this and thereby falling into the isolationist trap. You're right that free trade is typically an antidote to isolationism, but I'm not sure it's sufficient, and Trump may be demonstrating that right now.
Without getting into a grand philosophical or sociological discourse, my view on the US is very damning, I'm afraid. I'm not sure they can rescue any sort of healthy nationalism at this point without massive upheaval. There has not bee a coherent binding monoculture in the US since the mid 19th C, and even then, it was rather weak compared to European nation states with much more sophisticated (I cringe a bit at using that word, but still) cultures and deeper histories and traditions. The civic concept of nationalism is sort of baked into the foundation of the US, even though it's certainly true that several prominent Founding Fathers had a partially ethnic concept of nationalism. There are several forms of both civic and ethnic nationalism, but even a "weak" form of ethnic nationalism, which I tend to advocate (perhaps little more than what might be termed "cultural nationalism") appears quite infeasible in the present-day US. The "American Project" is an incredible success story in several conspicuous ways, but it may have always been doomed to failure in the long run.
My opinion of nationalism as it concerns the US, I must confess, has been formed from a lifetime of experience (I have very close personal connections to the country for an Englishman) and myriad articles and whatnot thatI've read, but no one or two books, I'm afraid. That said, if you're interested in material on nationalism and national identity, especially relating to ethnic vs civic nationalism, I can have a little think about recommendations.
Thanks for such a considered and comprehensive reply.
I'm Australian myself, but raised in England from the age of six by my English mother.
I've been back in Australia over 20 years now but , culturally, I'm much more English. I connect more easily with Brits than with Aussies for the most part.
And looking at Australian nationalism I think I see what you're pointing at wrt US nationalism. I do, however, recall an aspect of Aussie character that Frank says he found and admired many years ago, but on a recent visit says he didn't see or saw much less of. I hope he reads this and can recall and remind me of that quality he admired.
Lastly, perhaps colonial countries are still in their nationalist adolescence. Or, because they were born in a different age to England, they lack a legendary or mythological aspect to their history as well as a lack of breadth and depth in cultural achievement.
Trump and Vance have pulled thd rug out from beneath the West’s post-war settlement. Nk doubt. But this in no way ushers in an wra of peace. Far from it. Now regional powers will be emboldened. Conflicts are going to ignite across the globe as the new arrangement emerges.
Only regional powers I can think of are China and Iran. We don't yet know Trump's policy on Taiwan, do we? And he seems keen to keep the mullahs in their box.
A thoughtful and measured piece which poses three key areas where the leaders of Europe face striking contradictions between their domestic and foreign policy namely: borders, industry and national identity.
We have an elite that has championed a borderless post national world, initially celebrating the mass trespass into an area whose integrity they were obliged to defend, yet these same elites are now rhetorically calling for the defence of a nation state and the maintenance of its borders.
They have promised to aid the defence of this same nation state, yet an effective fighting force would require an adequate industrial base, however our elites have pursued deindustrialization for short term economic benefit, and later through ecological zealotry, both goals pursued to such an extent that as a continent we lack the very raw materials to make weapons.
The final point has been made many times, most recently by the historian David Starkey: our European leaders have suppressed and pathologized the celebration of national identity in their own states and across the EU, yet they will happily wave a Ukrainian flag. Ukraine’s national identity is one that is being reshaped by a conflict; this would entail a much more militantly nationalist society than one that the older EU members (especially Germany or France) would be comfortable with but would ironically be far closer in temperament to the Visegrád Group whom they regularly denigrate and belittle.
It can only be hoped that these crises push our leaders to change course and to address these problems with the same clarity and tenacity with which Ukrainians defended themselves. My fear is that they redouble their current efforts and fight against the new realities before them.
I sure hope. I am noticing a real complacency here as we travel around Europe. It is breathtakingly, astoundingly easy to go from one country to another and no one knows where you are.
I like the way Trump and Vance are shaking the assumptions. Zelensky is so obnoxious with his army fatigues and endless lectures.
An eloquent piece. I’m not sure if you were implying this, but I think the “caricatured form” of nationalism describes Trump and MAGA very well.
On the other side, I feel that Western Europe’s support for Ukraine, apart from the obvious pragmatic motives, betrays a hidden affection (or at least recognisance of the power and utility) of a force they have lost in their own nations – or indeed actively helped to destroy! In any case, you’re right that grappling with this issue is one of the most (perhaps the most) important problems facing Western politicians today.
In what way are Trump and MAGA a caricature of nationalism? What would a genuine US nationalism look like?
Hillbilly Elegy seemed genuine to me. And a real estate tycoon doing peace deals with an ex KGB Russian dictator sounds as American as apple pie. Especially after all the efforts of the cartoonishly democratic democrats to stop that tycoon's rise to power.
In brief, there are no real positive underlying values, rather just tub-thumping "America First" rhetoric and a concomitant vague notion of protectionism and quasi-isolationism – which has *some* merits for sure, but does not seem fully thought-through (to be polite). This all stems from the fundamental issue that Trump himself does not have any coherent value system. He's a businessman above all, and clearly a libertarian-hedonist at heart, who thinks economics is pretty much all the national government should be concerned with at the end of the day. Clearly not remotely a conservative, in any case. Which, yes, is very American in some sense. Trump can be seen as a Clinton Democrat in many (but not all) respects.
Thanks for this.
From what I've read of history (most recently C R Hallpike "How we got here"), the businessmen have been derided for being Philistines since the beginning of civilisation, and usually by aristocrats who don't need to work. Yet the businessmen are the ones who help build the economies where humans flourish in more than just a material sense, and isolationism is curbed through trade relationships.
Doing deals without moralising can be very positive and, in itself, moral. Isn't that what Adam Smith thought? I'm not sure.
And America needs to put itself first, as a strong America looks to me like the best guarantee of some kind of stability in the world.
And I'd still like to hear something about what you consider are positive nationalist traits for the US. If you could point me towards 2 or 3 books or websites that could give me an idea and I'd be grateful.
Well, I would say rightly derided (in large part), and one doesn't need to be an aristocrat to do so. History has some excellent examples of purely economic "empires" losing out to ones with solid national identity and associated allegiance/loyalty – I mean, for that very reason. Machiavelli notably discussed this. Carthage vs Rome, Italian City States vs European Nation States (mainly Spain and France), and arguably the modern liberal-progressive-globalist West too.
I agree that America and every nation putting itself first is the sensible, pragmatic, and even moral thing to do. But I also think it's too easy to take an awfully naive approach in effecting this and thereby falling into the isolationist trap. You're right that free trade is typically an antidote to isolationism, but I'm not sure it's sufficient, and Trump may be demonstrating that right now.
Without getting into a grand philosophical or sociological discourse, my view on the US is very damning, I'm afraid. I'm not sure they can rescue any sort of healthy nationalism at this point without massive upheaval. There has not bee a coherent binding monoculture in the US since the mid 19th C, and even then, it was rather weak compared to European nation states with much more sophisticated (I cringe a bit at using that word, but still) cultures and deeper histories and traditions. The civic concept of nationalism is sort of baked into the foundation of the US, even though it's certainly true that several prominent Founding Fathers had a partially ethnic concept of nationalism. There are several forms of both civic and ethnic nationalism, but even a "weak" form of ethnic nationalism, which I tend to advocate (perhaps little more than what might be termed "cultural nationalism") appears quite infeasible in the present-day US. The "American Project" is an incredible success story in several conspicuous ways, but it may have always been doomed to failure in the long run.
My opinion of nationalism as it concerns the US, I must confess, has been formed from a lifetime of experience (I have very close personal connections to the country for an Englishman) and myriad articles and whatnot thatI've read, but no one or two books, I'm afraid. That said, if you're interested in material on nationalism and national identity, especially relating to ethnic vs civic nationalism, I can have a little think about recommendations.
Thanks for such a considered and comprehensive reply.
I'm Australian myself, but raised in England from the age of six by my English mother.
I've been back in Australia over 20 years now but , culturally, I'm much more English. I connect more easily with Brits than with Aussies for the most part.
And looking at Australian nationalism I think I see what you're pointing at wrt US nationalism. I do, however, recall an aspect of Aussie character that Frank says he found and admired many years ago, but on a recent visit says he didn't see or saw much less of. I hope he reads this and can recall and remind me of that quality he admired.
Lastly, perhaps colonial countries are still in their nationalist adolescence. Or, because they were born in a different age to England, they lack a legendary or mythological aspect to their history as well as a lack of breadth and depth in cultural achievement.
Trump and Vance have pulled thd rug out from beneath the West’s post-war settlement. Nk doubt. But this in no way ushers in an wra of peace. Far from it. Now regional powers will be emboldened. Conflicts are going to ignite across the globe as the new arrangement emerges.
Only regional powers I can think of are China and Iran. We don't yet know Trump's policy on Taiwan, do we? And he seems keen to keep the mullahs in their box.