I’ve already done several posts on the internal contradictions of nationalism (see here, here and here). The Financial Times recently offered two more examples in a single issue. Before considering the first example, recall that a portion of Romania contains a large ethnic Hungarian population living in a region that was once a part of Hungary. Here’s the FT:
Viktor Orbán’s support for an ultranationalist candidate in Romania’s presidential election has prompted a backlash in the Hungarian diaspora, potentially jeopardising the Hungarian leader’s own election chances next year.
Romania is home to about 1mn ethnic Hungarians, many with dual nationality, who have been a crucial source of support for Orbán’s nationalist Fidesz party. But many of them have been incensed by his recent endorsement of George Simion — a populist with a history of physical and verbal violence against Hungarian speakers.
“Hungary’s leader seems to have loftier plans than the fate of Hungarians in Transylvania,” said Szilárd Toth, a history professor at the Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj.
Nationalism derives much of its power from resentment against other nationalities. This creates a dilemma—should nationalist leaders look to align with nationalists in other countries, or with minority groups that share their ethnicity?
President Trump has frequently expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin. Both are authoritarian nationalists who believe big countries should dominate small countries. During the recent campaign, Trump suggested that he would be able to almost immediately end the war in Ukraine, presumably by using his influence with Putin, as well as by pressuring Ukraine (which relies heavily on US aid). The Trump administration even went so far as to join Russia, Iran and North Korea in voting against a UN resolution that blamed Russia for starting the war in Ukraine.
Under pressure from the US, Ukraine has indeed agreed to a ceasefire that would leave Russia in control of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory. But Putin refuses to agree to the ceasefire, causing frustration in the Trump administration. Another FT story explains the situation:
When US vice-president JD Vance was asked about the war in Ukraine at a foreign policy forum in Washington last week, diplomats were expecting Maga-style criticism of Kyiv and veiled sympathy for Russia.
Instead, they heard something quite different. Vance said of a set of Russian proposals to end the conflict: “We think they’re asking for too much.”
The phrase “Maga-style criticism” refers to the fact that many people in the Trump camp live in an alternative reality where Ukraine is to blame for the war and Zelenskyy is a bloodthirsty dictator. But even people living in an epistemic bubble must eventually face the reality that Russia is the aggressor:
Vance’s comments were part of a noticeable shift in tone by the Trump administration. US officials appear increasingly impatient with Vladimir Putin, as suspicions grow that the Russian leader, rather than Zelenskyy, may be the biggest obstacle to peace.
“The Americans had this simplistic idea — let’s charm Russia, put pressure on Zelenskyy, and we’ll get a deal,” said Wolfgang Ischinger, the former German ambassador to the US to whom Vance made his comment at last week’s forum. “It turned out that simply charming Russia is not enough.”
Putin may share Trump’s authoritarian nationalist perspective, but he doesn’t share Trump’s view of “America First”. Trump faces a dilemma. Should he align the US with other authoritarian nationalists, or should he align the US with other regimes that share our national interest?
The Trump administration offered major concessions to Russia before the negotiations even began, including a statement that Ukraine would never join Nato, as well as an offer that the US could accept the Russian acquisition of Crimea. I’m no expert on “the art of the deal”, but I’d always assumed that you’d at least wait for the negotiations to begin before offering concessions.
READER COMMENTS
Fazal Majid
May 18 2025 at 3:16pm
It’s called “negotiating against yourself” and a rookie mistake in negotiation theory.
Mactoul
May 19 2025 at 12:03am
Hitler himself wrote off South Tyrol, a cause dear to Austrians, in return for Mussolini’s neutrality during Anschluss . He was willing to deal with Poland over the corridor as well–writing off the German minority there. If these are contradictions, then I wonder which politics is without them. Certainly not the spectacle of modern liberal countries banning leading parties and imprisoning the opposition figures in order to safeguard the democracy.
I don’t understand the imperative —should nationalist leaders look to align with nationalists in other countries? Where does it come from? Certainly not from nationalism itself. What nationalist leaders are doing–aligning or not aligning with other leaders, leave alone foreign leaders, is practical politics where compromises are inevitable.
Perhaps the Hungarians aren’t sufficiently nationalistic. You need to look at Asia. There you don’t find the contradictions. It is pure unadulterated nationalism.
nobody.really
May 19 2025 at 10:58am
I share this view. In general, I would expect a nationalist to pander to whichever group he champions–often an ethnic one–and demonize everyone else, including the champions of rival nations/ethnic groups. Of course, this demonization might be feigned, much like rival professional wrestlers demonize each other on camera and lunch together off camera. But the idea that we should expect to find a League of Nationalists, akin to a League of Supervillans, seems kinda goofy.
But maybe not? I could imagine some international-minded nationalists promoting the idea that each ethnic group should return to its “homeland” and stop bugging the other ethnic groups. Thus, I could imagine that the KKK’s animus towards Jews would extend to Israel–but perhaps the KKK would celebrate Israel as a place to deport Jews?
Perhaps Scott Sumner is reflecting on the idea that leaders who endure criticism for flouting democratic norms take comfort in other leaders who also do so, thereby helping to normalize the norm violations. In this sense, rule-violators value each other–and nationalism is kind of incidental.
steve
May 19 2025 at 1:21pm
I dont think it’s nationalism per se but rather authoritarianism. Nationalism is a common tool for authoritarians but not an essential one. There does seem to be what amounts to at least a mutual admiration club amongst authoritarians even if they may disagree on some details. It looks like Trump wants to be part of that club.
Steve
Mactoul
May 20 2025 at 12:44am
The term international-minded nationalists is getting too close to oxymoronic.
Daniel Hill
May 19 2025 at 2:25am
We must always remind ourselves this is the crowd led by a man who said “Who knew healthcare was hard?”
Eventually they will also realize tariffs are paid by Americans and that you should be nice to your allies and tough on your enemies, not vice versa. The only question is how much damage they do before then.
David S
May 20 2025 at 8:52am
It’s impressive how many contradictory nationalist ideologies that MAGA can sustain concurrently. Trump’s superpower is that he can switch between ideologies at an instant and suffer no criticism for inconsistency. He is consistent on the fact that he is the Nation of Trump. Meanwhile, his acolytes seem to fall into some different camps:
-Racial Isolationist Nationalism: Stephen Miller’s dream country of a pure white America that has no economic dependency on the rest of the world. Also include Vance, and maybe Bondi and Noem.
-Neo-Mercantilist Nationalism: Navarro’s dream country of re-shored manufacturing and unbalanced international trade where America reigns supreme with a trade surplus and dollar dominance. Includes Lutnick and some domestic businesses. Less interested in racial dominance and mostly opportunistic about international relations.
-Neo-Liberalism with American Characteristics Nationalism: The MAGA oriented tech bro set that includes Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg. They’re mostly interested in personal wealth and absurd vanity projects like colonizing Mars. They can align with the other MAGA camps as required, but seem to be losing some political influence.
nobody.really
May 20 2025 at 12:58pm
“The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other. It is often said that men are ruled by their imaginations; but it would be truer to say they are governed by the weakness of their imaginations. The nature of a constitution, the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know and easy to mistake. But the action of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are easy ideas: anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, ‘Will you be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?’ the inquiry comes out thus—: ‘Will you be governed in a way you understand, or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?’” Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution (1894), Chap. 2 “The Monarchy.”
“L’État, c’est moi!” Louis XIV, King of France and Navarre, articulating the unitary executive theory.