National Review has sparked an important debate about nationalism. As someone who has been accused throughout her life of excessive love of country (can’t count the number of times I’ve been reproached for arguing that despite slavery, Jim Crow, and the internment of Japanese Americans, our country is eminently lovable), I feel a bit awkward rebutting anything that travels under the name “Love of Country.” Nevertheless, I must join Jonah Goldberg, Ben Shapiro, and others in demurring from Rich Lowry’s and Ramesh Ponnuru’s defense of nationalism.
Lowry and Ponnuru are two of the writers I most admire (at a time when that group is shrinking fast). If they make an argument with which I disagree, I’m inclined to question my own judgment. So I remain open to the possibility that they are right. But it seems to me that their willingness to believe that nationalism, as opposed to patriotism, can be benign is not convincing.
Patriotism is enough — it needs no improving or expanding.
Nationalism is something else. It’s hard to think of a nationalist who does not pervert patriotism into something aggressive — either against foreign adversaries or against domestic minorities, or both. When Mexican president Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized the oil industry in 1938 (expropriating the property of hated foreigners), he was favored with a chanting crowd of 100,000 supporters in Mexico City. Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalism also found expression in nationalization (of the Suez Canal, in that case) and also in aggressive war against Israel and Yemen. Putin’s nationalism has been characterized by demonization of the United States in domestic propaganda and invasion of neighboring countries. Mussolini believed in reclaiming Italy’s lost glory and invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) to fulfill his vision.
I believe that nationalism is a demagogue’s patriotism. Demagogues of the Right and Left both play upon natural and even benevolent instincts for their own purposes. The Left’s demagogues distort love of justice and equality into a leveling desire to scapegoat others. Bernie Sanders doesn’t just appeal to people’s desire for fairness, he encourages them to believe that they are the victims of the “1 percent,” who are siphoning all of the nation’s wealth for themselves. If you are poor, Sanders claims, it is because someone who is rich has taken your share.
Demagogues of the Right — or nationalists — argue that our troubles are the result of immigrants’ taking our jobs or foreigners’ stealing our factories. This is not natural love of home and hearth or reverence for America’s founding ideals; it is scapegoating.
Which brings us to the proximate cause of this debate — President Trump. Far from deepening our appreciation of our history or institutions, he embodies the reasons to be wary of demagoguery in the name of country. In him we see strutting nationalism (“America first”!) but little true patriotism. He claims to pursue America’s interests, yet has shockingly little respect for the nation he heads. He doesn’t love the country enough to have familiarized himself with the basics of our system. In one debate, he said judges “sign bills,” and in a Capitol Hill meeting with congressmen, he praised Article XII of the Constitution. What patriot can claim that we lack the moral authority to criticize Turkey’s crackdown on independent journalists, or impugn this country as no better than Russia when it comes to political assassination? As Trump demonstrates, nationalism is not patriotism in a hurry — it is resentment draped in the flag.
In his concurrence with Lowry/Ponnuru, John O’Sullivan indirectly makes a similar point, defending Trump’s disavowal of American exceptionalism. O’Sullivan offers that this is delicacy on Trump’s part. “He doesn’t want to humiliate the foreigners who will shortly be losing to America…When you intend to shoot a man, it costs nothing to be polite.”
That’s not my idea of patriotism.
— Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Copyright © 2017 Creators.com