Nationalism and Globalism

Map showing democracies in shades of blue; Economist Intelligence Unit.

I would not have thought that, in suggesting that endorsing “family values” is no different from endorsing nationalism, that I would get pushback on the idea that there were problems with nationalism.

Yet, when I suggested this to my friend Darius, I did.

He writes, “Being a patriot is a good thing not bad; maintaining an awareness and respect for one's heritage and national accomplishments … is a defense against Godless globalism.”

I do not condemn nationalism in itself. I wrote that nation is “useful,” and a national government “desirable.” The danger is in seeing the nation or national government as sacred or holy, as we tend to with “family values.” That is, straight up, Fascism.

I would call myself a “Canadian nationalist.” I support a nationalist view of Canada because I see Canadian nationalism not as a defense against globalism, but against tribalism: against ethnic allegiances like those of Quebec, or aboriginal groups, or various special interest groups. Canadian or American or Australian or Singaporean nationalism is special in this way, because Canada or the USA or Singapore are not nations in the conventional sense. They are not based on blood ties, but on adherence to shared values. In this, they are more like a monastery than a family.

To be American is to commit to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. To be Canadian is to endorse the principles stated in the preamble to the Canadian Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since I wholeheartedly endorse these principles, and think they should be extended to all mankind, I endorse Canadian or American nationalism. All men are created equal; all are endowed with inherent rights. Among these are freedom of speech, of assembly, of conscience, and so forth. But this sort of nationalism is, implicitly, globalism; since these principles apply to all men.

I am much less well-disposed to other nationalisms: most nations are ethnically based, and so nationalism there amounts to tribalism. It is fine to feel a special warmth for your homeland, because it is human nature to do so, it is pleasant and enriches life. It is fine to feel an appreciation for your (or another) culture, as a thing of beauty, just as one can appreciate a fine painting. But it makes no rational sense to me that I should take any pride in what some other person did, because we are both Canadians. This is in principle the same as collective guilt. Are we going to hold Jews guilty for the crucifixion, then?

And I reserve the right to appropriate from whatever culture I so choose. Culture is for man, not man for the culture. The latter idea, again, is Fascism.

In principle, I am in favour of globalism over nationalism, just as and for the same reason I am in favour of nationalism over tribalism. This is one important reason I am Catholic: the sense of unity and brother hood around the globe. This is a reason I even lament the loss of the British Empire―despite my Irish heritage. It united people around the globe in one common endeavour, and under comparatively liberal principles. This is why I am essentially pro-American: because American culture is globalist culture. Where do you think hamburgers come from? America? Where do you think ketchup comes from? Pizza? Hot dogs? Jazz?

I do oppose “Godless globalism.” That adjective identifies the enemy. I rather think we liberal democracies should walk away from the United Nations and form a League of Free Nations, perhaps built on NATO’s foundations. If any member veered from the path of democratic elections and a fundamental list of human rights, their membership would be revoked. The present situation is pernicious: the worst offenders always get the first seats on the UN panel meant to deal with any given issue of human rights.

Any such league must recognize the supremacy of God. As the Canadian constitution does explicitly, and the Declaration of Independence does implicitly. You cannot have human rights and human equality without belief in God. As Locke himself pointed out, the two cannot be separated.

Moreover, any such league must be founded on the principle of subsidiarity, or federalism. This is where the EU went awry. Powers must always reside with the lowest level of organization capable of dealing with them. This is required by the very concept of human rights, which means that the individual has, as much as possible, the right to decide for himself.