Bloomberg has a very good article on the deteriorating global situation, but they gave it the wrong headline:
Pandemic Shatters World Order, Sowing Anger and Mistrust
Here’s how the headline should read:
Nationalism Shatters World Order, Sowing Anger and Mistrust
Every time I read an intellectual defending nationalism I think to myself; “Have these people not studied history?” Haven’t we been here before?
READER COMMENTS
Alan Goldhammer
May 19 2020 at 4:40pm
One would have thought the Great War (WW I) would have been horrible solution to the problem but as Scott notes, nobody learns from history.
Short post and to the point.
P Burgos
May 20 2020 at 12:18am
I believe that there is a common definition of nationalism that places it in the context of its historical development that opposes it to monarchy, aristocracy, and theocracy. The idea being that the nation should be ruled by the people, who are equal citizens who share a past and future, and that the nation should be ruled in the interest of said people, with the common people and the ruling elite bound together in a social contract whereby the common people owe loyalty to the nation and the elite rule in the interest of the common people. It is, I think, very clearly a vast improvement over monarchy, aristocracy, etc., and hence why almost every leader around the world pays lip service to the idea, even if they prefer not to put its principles into practice.
Any nation founded on those principles is going to be susceptible to sentiments against foreigners and anyone perceived as not being part of the cultural majority. But there isn’t really an alternative out there that can beat nationalism; who in their right mind would abandon an ideology that says that the government should promote the interests of their in-group? So it seems to me that the only way to beat the kind of nationalism that wrecks nations is to forge a better version of it. And it is clear, that a nationalism that supports an authoritarian government is much worse than a nationalism that supports a democratic one. One example of this is the nationalism of HK or Taiwan versus that of mainland China.
mike
May 20 2020 at 2:34am
Great, and insightful comment. I really would like Scott to detail what part of the “good version of nationalism” that you talk about that doesn’t make sense. Sure, there can be some dumb nationalistic policies (like Sen. Cotton saying we don’t want chineese students to learn science here…in fact that is THE exact type of immigrant we want to train and RETAIN to grow our domestic economy).
But the US govt sure as hell should care more about the average US worker vs the average global worker. There is no doubt it would be certainly morally and probably economic efficiency wise better to take resources and tax money from us in the US and support factories / innovation / investment in africa, SE asia. But even Scott wouldn’t advocate that I don’t think? And if the global elite relate more to foreign global elite vs wage earners and bottom 90% in the US that is not a good thing….stupid post with no details from scott..annoying
Scott Sumner
May 20 2020 at 1:19pm
You are confusing nationalism with patriotism. Nationalism is all about demonizing minorities, lying about history, protectionist trade and immigration policies, etc.
TMC
May 20 2020 at 9:16pm
The vastly more common definition of nationalism is “Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes interest of a particular nation (as in a group of people) especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.”
P Burgos
May 20 2020 at 11:10pm
I understand the distinction that Prof. Sumner is trying to draw. However if patriotism is an ideology that holds that the “nation should be ruled by the people, who are equal citizens who share a past and future, and that the nation should be ruled in the interest of said people, with the common people and the ruling elite bound together in a social contract whereby the common people owe loyalty to the nation and the elite rule in the interest of the common people,” than the nationalism that Prof. Sumner is decrying is clearly an offshoot that sees all of those bad things as restoring the nation to one in which the basic social contract of a modern nation is honored, that is “A government of the people, by the people, for the people”.
Felix
May 23 2020 at 9:42pm
The nationalism of the many 1848 revolutions included spreading the word, coercively, to other nations. Lots of French wanted to repeat Napolean’s adventures. Lots of Hungarians wanted nationalism for them to include forbidding nationalism to their subject kingdoms like Serbia, Croatia, Romania. Czech nationalism wanted to include Slovaka.
Nationalism sucks.
Phil H
May 20 2020 at 5:02am
The pessimistic reading is: human idiocy and mutual suspicion are a constant. Any perturbation to the hard-won peace automatically causes inter-group friction. So in the same way as “gravity causes rock to fall” is the correct headline, it’s not actually as informative as “guy pushing sideways causes rock to fall”.
TMC
May 20 2020 at 9:12am
I’d think the attempts at globalization in the early 20th century would be more frightening.
Thomas Hutcheson
May 22 2020 at 8:23am
“Misunderstanding of the National Interest Shatters World Order, Sowing Anger and Mistrust”
There is nothing wrong with “America First” so long as politicians do not mistake positive sum games for zero or negative sum games. A supply shock OUGHT to lead a true nationalist to favor even freer trade and immigration, greater international cooperation.
[I think the spam filter at Money Illusion is still blocking me. Thanks]
Comments are closed.