Ross Douthat recently had this to say:
It’s always been the case that a liberal society depends for unity and vigor on not entirely liberal forces — religious piety, nationalist pride, a sense of providential mission, a certain degree of ethnic solidarity and, of course, the fear of some external adversary. Liberalism at its best works to guide and channel these forces; liberalism at its worst veers between ignoring them and being overwhelmed by them.
I have two problems with this claim. First, the liberal societies of northern Europe seem relatively successful, despite lacking a high level of religious piety, nationalism or “providential mission”. But my bigger complaint is that Douthat seems to use the term nationalism synonymously with patriotism. People who defend nationalism this way remind me of those who say, “What’s wrong with socialism; look at Denmark”. (Denmark has one of the most free market economies in the world; even the fire departments have been privatized.)
Nationalism as a political movement is very distinct from patriotism. The post-1990 nationalists in Yugoslavia did not “love their country”; they set out to destroy it. Serb, Croat, Bosnian, and Slovenian nationalists tore apart Yugoslavia. Hindu nationalists seem determined to destroy the tolerant, multi-cultural India set up in 1947. Hungarian nationalists feel closer to ethnic Hungarians in Romania than to Roma people in their own country. The same is true of Han nationalists in China. In the 1930s, German nationalists felt no solidarity with German Jews.
The Americans who fought in WWII were motivated by patriotism, not nationalism. Our armies contained a diverse mix of ethnicities that lacked what Douthat calls “ethnic solidarity”, and defeated two military powers that were very much motivated by nationalism, by ethnic solidarity. When I was young, WWII films actually highlighted this ethnic diversity. In school, we were taught how nationalism had led to the two world wars.
Some people claim that Ukrainian patriots are “nationalists”. In fact, Russian nationalism is the cause of the current war. Ukrainian patriots wanted their country to join the European Union, perhaps the least nationalist organization in all of human history. Ask the British nationalists that pushed Brexit what they think of the EU. Indeed, one of Putin’s foreign policy goals is to destroy the EU.
I’m not interested in dictionary definitions of nationalism (or capitalism or communism.) Actual existing nationalism is not patriotism. Rather it is:
1. Fake history, which glorifies the past and denies a country’s past crimes
2. Bigotry against minority groups (and in many cases misogyny)
3. Protectionism
4. Opposition to immigrants
5. Authoritarianism
6. Militarism
7. Intolerance of alternative lifestyles
These are the things to expect when nationalists take power.
Douthat is correct that liberalism requires a certain level of solidarity. People are not robots. But it is important to distinguish between the positive solidarity that comes from patriotism and the negative solidarity that comes from nationalism. Patriots come from all races and creeds.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Apr 10 2022 at 10:24pm
Hear, hear. As you say, people aren’t robots, but the liberal principles that the USA stands for are easily inspiring enough to serve the purpose of uniting people and generating solidarity. Democracy, transparency, free speech and rule of law really are better than what the rest of the world has, and deserve celebration.
Mark Z
Apr 10 2022 at 10:43pm
The correct response to “what’s wrong with socialism; look at Denmark,” is to ask what specific socialist policies the person favors, and point out (as is often the case) that Denmark doesn’t practice those policies. Debating semantics – especially words that describe loaded political abstractions like nationalism, liberalism, freedom, etc. – is pointless. Defining socialism as evil incarnate and acting as if that were just the matter of fact definition of the word is probably the least convincing argument one could conceivably make against it (ditto with nationalism or any other ism). You’re argument – if it can be called that – is basically a tautology. ‘If I define good national sentiment as patriotism and bad national sentiment as nationalism, any instance of national sentiment I deem positive, is by definition patriotism, because by definition nationalism is bad.’
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 1:44am
“You’re argument – if it can be called that – is basically a tautology. ‘If I define good national sentiment as patriotism and bad national sentiment as nationalism, any instance of national sentiment I deem positive, is by definition patriotism, because by definition nationalism is bad.’ ”
Actually, that’s not my argument. Read the post again. I am describing nationalism as it is practiced in the real world.
Mark Z
Apr 12 2022 at 2:53pm
Where do you prove that all 7 of those traits aren’t also attributable to patriotism as well? You mention Americans fighting in WW2 (most of whom probably were, I’ll remind you, bigots, misogynists, opponents of alternative lifestyles, and militarists), but what then do you make of nationalists Giuseppe Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Edvard Benes? Or do you just retroactively redefine them as patriots because they were (comparatively) good?
J Mann
Apr 12 2022 at 9:38am
The other response is to ask for a measure of success, then compare it to Denmark. They’re doing so well on most metrics that the argument I have to deal with more frequently is “We should institute socialism so we can be more like Denmark.”
In my circles, most anti-socialists like to say “what’s wrong with socialism; look at Venezuela.”
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Apr 13 2022 at 7:16am
“Look at Denmark” is a perfectly good reply to those who equate “socialism” with high taxation. Somewhere people have forgotten that socialism means state ownership.
Jon Murphy
Apr 11 2022 at 7:29am
Good stuff. If I might make a suggestion, it may be more accurate to change your number 2 to be “Bigotry against out-groups” rather than “minorities.” For example, white nationalism tends to revolve not just around the “white” qualifier, but also around religious qualifications too. Some of the nationalist movements in the late 1800s/early 1900s in the US opposed various religious groups (Catholic, Eastern Protestant, etc).
Jon Murphy
Apr 11 2022 at 7:30am
Upon further reflection, my point here may fall under your Point 7.
bb
Apr 11 2022 at 10:33am
Jon,
I still think you are correct. out-groups and in-groups is a better framing, because sometimes the out-group is not a minority.
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 12:37pm
Good point.
bb
Apr 11 2022 at 10:38am
Scott,
Great post. I would add to #1 some reference to victimhood. And I think misogyny is under-appreciated in nationalist movements, and is often more prevalent that other forms of out-group in-group discrimination.
I also think you are right about religious piety. Ross is great, but he seems to have an impulse to shoehorn religion into a lot places where it isn’t needed.
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 12:38pm
“Ross is great, but he seems to have an impulse to shoehorn religion into a lot places where it isn’t needed.”
I agree on both points.
John Thacker
Apr 11 2022 at 10:46am
Russian imperialism is the cause of the current war. Russia is a multiethnic and multinationial country with a dominant ethnic group, like a number of other countries, e.g. China. Like China, it has had this nature under several radically different forms of leadership. Like China, while sometimes there are Russian nationalists and chauvinists, and sometimes Russian nationalists set the stage, at other points Russian leadership tries to guard against Russian chauvinism and to permit a wide range of ethnic and nationalist feelings among minority groups (including but not limited to titular minorities in places like Tatarstan) – so long as the imperial overlordship of the state is paramount and the groups remain loyal. Hence why the sons of Chechan nationalists (and former nationalists themselves) like Kadyrov (formerly in the independence movement!) can be Putin loyalists, and why Putin’s top aides can include Shoigu, who is Tuvan.
Russian nationalism, like Han nationalism, waxes and wanes throughout periods of history. (Early complaints against the Qing were from a Han nationalist perspective, abandoned once the ROC had a chance to rule and the Five Nations Under One Union flag was brought in.)
Russians, like Han Chinese, because of numbers always at least are the “big brothers” who will rule, but it’s the unity of the imperial state and not willing to give up territory that is the issue, not nationalism. Russian imperalists feel the same, at heart, about losing land and inhabitants from groups that no one could possibly consider the same nationality or ethnicity as ancient Rus’.
John Thacker
Apr 11 2022 at 10:55am
And because Putin, sincerely, like Russians and Chinese before him, celebrates the multiethnic Russian state, he without irony claims that he is opposing nationalism and that he is the one celebrating patriotism divorced from nationality and ethnicity. He gave a speech recently claiming “I am Dagestani, I am Chechen, Ingush Russian, Tatar, Jew…” justifying the war.
That Russian nationalists do not acknowledge Ukrainians as a separate nationality does not change that Russia and Putin’s reaction was entirely the same when it came to Chechnya, Dagestani, or Tuvan independence movements, or to any desire from Crimean Tatars to be apart from Imperial Russia. And no one would possibly say that Chechans and Tuvans and Tatars are the same nationality or ethnic group as Russians.
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 12:43pm
I disagree. He doesn’t respect Ukraine’s internationally accepted boundaries because he views Ukrainians as Russian. I doubt he has any interest in absorbing Tajikstan or Uzbekstan.
On the other hand, if someone argued that it was Slavic nationalism rather than Russian nationalism, I would not object.
John Thacker
Apr 11 2022 at 6:11pm
Except that he has made public statements that “letting” Kazakhstan and Tajikstan and Uzbekistan go was a mistake, and making them separate republics instead of constituent republics like Tatarstan was a mistake by the Communists.
And he has fought to bring the very non Russian Persian speaking Ossetians of South Ossetia into Russia (which has a North Ossetia republic), and fought to keep the Chechans in, and been resolute against movements by the Tuvans and others.
It’s like how China may make special pleading for Taiwan based on Han Chinese ancestry, but certainly isn’t going to give up Tibet, Inner Mongolia, or East Turkestan.
I’m sorry, but your response convinces me that this is more than a dispute about definitions, but that you are making the common mistake of not knowing Putin’s past actions, his current statements, and his repeatedly expressed opinions on history. I fear that it will lead to more wars, more misunderstanding, because of not realizing the cultural pull of Russian imperialism.
Everett
Apr 13 2022 at 4:20pm
Putin seems to be both imperialistic and nationalistic. Both serve his purpose of regaining Russia’s might.
John Thacker
Apr 11 2022 at 6:28pm
The biggest reason why Ukraine and not Uzbekistan or Tajikistan is that the Central Asian republics have been more willing to accommodate Russian foreign and economic policy, at times seeming like puppet states (but at times playing the US or China against Russia). Ukraine has been seeking to integrate itself with Europe more, not just in defense policy but in economic and cultural policy too. (The Baltics, of course, are NATO, and he was not going to invade a NATO country.)
Yes, he reaches for the history of Great Rus’ now, but he expressed repeatedly his view that fundamentally all the territory “lost” since 1915 should be Russian again.
Carl
Apr 11 2022 at 1:38pm
I think you’re both right. Putin is a nationalist trying to rule an empire. He keeps running up against this contradiction. It is why he has to be brutal with the non-Russian nationalities within the current Russian borders such as the Chechens. And it is why he cannot attract the countries of the former Soviet Empire (which he wants to reconstitute). To those countries his nationalism holds no appeal, only the promise of cultural and political subjugation.
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 7:20pm
Good comment.
John Thacker
Apr 12 2022 at 11:00am
Again, look at South Ossetia. The Ossetians prefer being ruled by Russian multiethnic imperialism to be ruled by Georgian nationalism. Of course, they’d prefer an independent Ossetia (joined with North Ossetia), but unfortunately that’s not an option.
Simply untrue to say that the prospect of Russian imperial rule holds zero appeal to minority groups, at least if they have to compare it to nationalist rule by other nationalities.
For the same reason, the invasion of Crimea was much, much easier than that of Ukraine, because the Crimean Tatars found Ukraine nationalist as well, and while they might want an independent Crimean Tatar country (and Turkey would like that too), many were reasonably persuaded by the experience of their coethnics in Tatarstan and elsewhere in the Russian Federation.
John Thacker
Apr 11 2022 at 11:14am
This, of course, is how Putin views Chechans, Dagestanis, Tuvans, and others who try to leave Russia – and how fundamentally he views all the titular republicans who left the Russian Empire after the fall of the USSR. He believes that it was a mistake to treat Kazakhstan, Ukraine, the Baltics, and elsewhere any different than such inside the Russian Federation Republics as Tatarstan, Dagestan, Tuva, Altai, Chuvashia, Ingushetia.
It’s why he can see himself as fighting against Nationalists when he opposes the Georgians over South Ossetia – the Ossetians are not Russian, and speak a Persian language, same as their co-nationalists in the Russian republic of North Ossetia.
He fundamentally sees the Ukrainians the same way he sees those others – those who do not “love their country” of Russia but set out to destroy it. Russia is their country in the same sense that the multiethnic Yugoslavia was the country of various South Slavs (as related as the Ukranians and Russians), and as Czechoslovakia’s Velvet Divorce was indeed caused by a peaceful form of nationalism.
Putin is 100% in the wrong, but it’s worth understanding the view so that one can oppose it.
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 7:27pm
Hitler also ruled over many non-German ethnicities (such as the Poles and Czechs), but I doubt anyone would claim he wasn’t motivated by nationalism.
John Thacker
Apr 12 2022 at 10:52am
But you can’t explain the war against Georgia regarding South Ossetia as Russian nationalism or Slavic nationalism. South Ossetia is 70% Ossetian (and most of the rest Georgian.) Ossetians aren’t Slavs at all, and they are one of very few groups outside Iran to speak a Persian language.
It is nothing like German expansion in WWII. He has not moved Russians into South Ossetia, and the Ossetians preferred rule by the Russian Empire to rule by a (nationalist) Georgian government. The percentage of Russians living in South Ossetia has remained tiny. The Ossetian South Ossetians are, indeed, more free to use their native language than they were under Georgian rule (and the Georgians less so, conversely.)
The Ossetians had previously, during the Soviet Union, asked to be moved all into one autonomous republic, but for complicated reasons (including not wanting to redraw lines or encourage more such requests), South Ossetia was left in Georgia (but somewhat autonomous) while North Ossetia in the Russian Federation.
The war was wrong, but your analogy makes no sense.
The only way to resolve both the war in South Ossetian and the war in Ukraine is via Russian imperialism, not nationalism, whether Russian or Slavic. Indeed, in South Ossetia, Putin was upholding the logic of imperialism against that of Georgian nationalism.
John Thacker
Apr 12 2022 at 11:23am
Somewhat difficult to imagine him appointing a Czech or Pole as Minister of Defense, the way that Sergei Shoigu, a Tuvan, is under Putin and has been for a decade. (Whereas, in empires it’s fairly common to have high ranking people from minority ethnic groups because they aren’t a risk to take the top job.)
Between South Ossetia, Russia’s relations with all former territories (especially under Putin), and elsewhere (note Kadyrov was a former independence fighter and has been leader of the Chechan Republic for a while), it is inconsistent to view things as Russian nationalism as opposed to Russian imperialism.
Observing the Ukrainian war in a vacuum, and ignoring everything else, it’s possible to come to your conclusion, but it contradicts so many other facts and statements, most notably but not limited to South Ossetia.
TMC
Apr 11 2022 at 1:24pm
“But my bigger complaint is that Douthat seems to use the term nationalism synonymously with patriotism.”
That is because they are literally synonyms. If you want to use it differently than the accepted definition, make up a new word please.
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 7:19pm
Maybe in some dictionary you might find, but obviously not in the real world. Look at the examples I cite in my post.
steve
Apr 12 2022 at 9:54am
No. In any serious study of international relations or policy sci there is a very clear difference between patriotism and nationalism. Scott’s definition is not bad and those who have read on fascism will note it overlaps a lot with classic definitions of fascism.
It is true that nationalists like to call themselves patriots and try to portray themselves as the true patriots of their country but it is always an exclusionary patriotism that identifies a specific group as the true patriots and eliminates others, usually with he criteria Scott sets out above or similar though “Blood and Soil” seems to be most common. At least the tiki torch guys got that part right.
Steve
Mark Z
Apr 12 2022 at 3:15pm
What you call patriotism would’ve been considered nationalism until WW2, and to some extent even after. Nationalism started to become a dirty word after WW2, but nationalist (by your definition) policies remained under ‘patriotic’ regimes. E.g., jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood, rather than by birth) immigration law persists to this day including in Sweden and Norway, for example. For most of the 2oth century the ‘patriots’ of the western world were still pretty chauvinistic. Most did not merely identify with the people who happened to live within the boundaries of their country, but with their national culture or even ethnicity. How does one argue that countries that still had miscegenation laws well into the second half of the 20th century met your definition of ‘patriotism?’ In practice, patriotism historically has just been ‘nationalism lite.’
Bob johnson
Apr 11 2022 at 4:02pm
“Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a “diversitarian”; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right.”-Erik leddihn, one of the greatest writers of the last century
the funny thing is that the early catholic conservatives-leddihn, Carlton hayes, Dietrich hildebrand, maritain-strongly opposed nationalism, because they saw it as only undermining the unity of catholic states like Austria-Hungary and pre-revolutionary France that enjoyed good relations and relatively open borders with other catholic states. The first European nationalists were the jacobins. Nationalism began as a movement that wanted a strong national identity divorced from any religion.
it is for this reason that many of the architects of the Eu and post war Christian democracy-Robert schuman, alcide de gasperi, Adenauer, De gaulle-were religious conservatives. A common European identity that transcends nation comes from mutual Christian roots
I do think that Northern Europe is not a great example, as it is ethically Homogenous. A true patriotism that spans race and class needs a mutual sense of civilitaziobal purpose and a society grounded ina religion, even if not everyone shares it. Austria-Hungary is a good example
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 7:25pm
Good points. I agree that northern Europe is not a great example (except perhaps Sweden.) But at the same time northern Europe is clearly not nationalistic.
BTW, Switzerland is a great example.
John Thacker
Apr 12 2022 at 10:54am
Russia, of course, views itself as like Austria-Hungary. The incorporation of South Ossetia is what belies Scott’s comments. There’s no way to interpret that as Russian or Slavic nationalism, but it is easy to view it as imperialism. In the South Ossetian conflict, the Georgians, for good or ill, were the nationalists.
Everett
Apr 13 2022 at 4:30pm
Scott is differentiating between nationalism and patriotism, not nationalism and imperialism. Are you conflating patriotism and imperialism with your South Ossetia example? If not, why are you bringing it up? Nationalists can also be imperialists (it works quite well with colonialism, for example), and patriots can also be imperialists, but imperialism per se doesn’t require nationalism or patriotism (an imperialist can betray their own country or nation if they see another country as a better means to imperialism).
Michael Rulle
Apr 11 2022 at 4:32pm
This is an anti-Trump essay in disguise 🙂
Scott Sumner
Apr 11 2022 at 7:23pm
I oppose all nationalists, which obviously includes Trump. There’s a reason that Trump has frequently praised Putin over the years; he approves of Putin’s way of governing. Ditto for Viktor Orban.
Michael Sandifer
Apr 12 2022 at 5:00am
These are extremely clear, incisive comments. And kudosm particularly, for explaining so well why dictionary defintions don’t matter. You operationalized definitions of nationalism and patriotism, in the process drawing the distinction between them. Definitions are only valuable to the degree they are demonstrably useful.
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2022 at 12:37pm
Ok, fair enough, “nationalism” is not “patriotism” … but then,
what is “patriotism”? (apart from “not nationalism”), and
what is it good for? Particularly as different from “cosmopolitanism”, that, I believed is a much more desirable base (certainly less prone to “mistakes”) for the “certain level of solidarity” required by any “non robotical” society.
Your post does not clarify this two (relevant, I think) questions.
Mark Z
Apr 12 2022 at 3:21pm
This is what I don’t understand. Even conceding Scott’s dubious equation of nationalism to ethno-nationalism, why is “I care more about people born on this side of an imaginary line than people born on that side of an imaginary line,” less absurd than “I care more about people who speak look like me than don’t?” The former is also no more consistent with utilitarianism than the latter.
There’s a whiff of Straussianism to this discussion. Maybe the thinking is, it’s inevitably that people are irrationally going to identify strongly with some abstractions, and identifying strongly with some lines on a map is comparatively less harmful than other kinds of identity, so let’s encourage that.
steve
Apr 12 2022 at 5:26pm
Patriotism is support/care/love for your nation. Doesnt mean you think it is perfect and you can certainly believe some groups in your nation are more right or more wrong, but you arent going to demonize them or exclude them for their different beliefs/value. With nationalism you arent valuing your nation, just those in your nation you claim have the right values and as Scott noted a lot of those supposed values are made up based upon a glorified false narrative about the history of that group. With nationalism you purposely choose out groups, usually based upon religion, race or sometimes sex to demonize and sometimes harm. One can be a powerful uplifting of an entire nation. The other divides nations and sets groups against each other on purpose.
Steve
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2022 at 7:07pm
My point was not nationalism vs patriotism. The fact that nationalism is better than patriotism does not make nationalism a good thing. It is not.
“Doesn’t mean you think it is perfect” … if it is not perfect (meaning, I suppose, “there are better solutions”) why are you going to support/care/love more a “worse” thing? just because this worse nation is yours?. It does not seem to me a very interesting argument from a rational perspective.
“You aren’t going to demonize them” … So, you can only “demonize” people that are wrong AND are not from your own nation? And, if someone is deadly wrong (let’s say he thinks that people than think differently should be killed) but is from “your nation”, you can not “demonize” him out of patriotism?
As I was saying …
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2022 at 7:08pm
“does not make PATRIOTISM a good thing”
Everett
Apr 13 2022 at 4:55pm
Hey steve, just to clarify. When you write “nation” do you mean “ethnicity” or “country”? A lot of people (including me until recently) use “nation” and “country” as synonyms, but they aren’t.
A Jewish nation, for example, is all of the Jewish people in the world. It includes sub-nations of Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim (and one other, I think). There is only one Jewish country though, and that’s Israel (and it’s only part Jewish, as it also includes some non-Jewish peoples).
steve
Apr 14 2022 at 11:56am
I think of it as country if it is fitting your definition. It would be defined by geographic boundaries. Never really thought of Judaism that way. From my gentile POV its too complicated to keep track of. You also have the Orthodox, Reform and and others I cant remember. Then there are the pretty small groups that seem to have beliefs fairly divergent from mainstream Judaism. Lawyer’s wife, good friend, is an amateur historian and can explain it all so I almost understand.
Steve
Jon Murphy
Apr 12 2022 at 3:59pm
Why does patriotism have to be opposed to cosmopolitianism? Adam Smith was a patriot (but not a nationalist) and a cosmopolitian.
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2022 at 6:57pm
Jon, is not a “semantic” discussion. My point is that why should “love for your nation” be a better “base for the solidarity that a non robotic liberal society” requires than “love for the human race”.
And “love for your nation” is certainly prone to misunderstandings, mistakes and “overzealous” behavior (as it is easy to see looking at reality).
[Love for your “nuclear family” or your “tribe” could also be candidates to this “base for solidarity” too. After all “nation” is “just” an “administrative” division that comes in all kinds of sizes, colors, histories, traditions … the chances of “nation” being the right “answer” in all these different cases are pretty slim, I think]
Jon Murphy
Apr 12 2022 at 8:44pm
All the quotation marks are making it really hard for me to understand what you are saying. What, precisely, are you asking?
Jose Pablo
Apr 12 2022 at 9:14pm
The asking part was rhetorical.
Just pointing out that the positive solidarity that comes from “cosmopolitanism” (meaning for the sake of this discussion “love for the human race”) is better than the ¿positive? solidarity that comes from “patriotism” (as in “love for your country”).
The latter solidarity is “positive” only by comparison with the solidarity that comes from “nationalism” (as defined in this post)
Carl
Apr 13 2022 at 11:19pm
What does pure cosmopolitanism look like? Are you suggesting that we would be better off with one world government or would you say we need smaller units of government (e.g. countries), but that we shouldn’t feel any loyalty to them(i.e. patriotism)?
I think a world where we have countries but feel no attachment to them might avoid some of the bellicosity on display in Putin’s Russia but might also cause the sort of apathy you see in dying empires.
Evan
Apr 14 2022 at 11:37am
I agree with the core claims, Scott – especially in terms of your stated definition of ‘nationalism’. These distinctions between different kinds of national solidarity (that is, good and bad kinds) are worth making, and you articulate them persuasively.
That said, I think it’s very likely that Douthat would define ‘nationalism’ differently than you have here. Especially given that you stipulate a specific definition to frame your point about different kinds of national solidarity – a definition that you concede is not in the dictionary (i.e. not conventional) – it looks like the the primary point of departure with Douthat is semantic.
Again, I agree with your outline of good/bad national solidarity, and creating a terminological framework of ‘nationalism’ vs. ‘patriotism’ is fine as an instrument to that purpose, but it doesn’t make great sense to me as a response to Douthat. Make his post is just a jumping off point? A topical prompt? If not, what am I missing here? How does framing the post as a disagreement with Douthat add value to your argument?
Comments are closed.