I learned a very long time ago that, in many discussions, you need to understand the meaning of the key words used in the discussion.
Nationalism is one of those words. I saw the word used in an opinion column recently.
(History is a journey we all must take together
February 2) The article didn’t
actually define the word, but it was definitely a bad thing. Republicans were said to be using it relentlessly
to assault the teaching of black history in our country. Relentlessly.
And I’m not making this up.
I looked for some official definitions. I stopped at four:
1)
identification with one's
own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or
detriment of the interests of other nations.
uncited source in Microsoft Word
2)
aims to build and maintain
a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture,
ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government),
religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote
national unity or solidarity. Nationalism, therefore, seeks to
preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture. Wikipedia
3)
a feeling that people have of being loyal to and proud of
their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than
other countries Merriam-Webster
4)
loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially: a sense of
national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary
emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other
nations or supranational groups
Merriam-Webster
My conclusion
is that, in modern usage, nationalism is a good thing that inevitably goes bad.
My
question is: what would you call an idea that incorporates all the good
features here but doesn’t have the bad ones?
Is that even possible?
My
answer is, yes, of course.
I
believe that this word had been caught up in the political debates of the day,
and its opponents have sought to discredit it by looking at it with eyes that
wanted to see something that they figured had to be there. Or they just want it to be there, so they label
everything in a way that makes it look bad.
So
let me explain it this way.
The
smallest unit of government, if we can call it that, is the family. There are two unelected leaders who rule over
children for a substantial part of their lives.
But unlike the general elected ones, these two leaders generally live
for the welfare of their children. They
will sacrifice time and money and energy to provide for them, giving them the best
possible resources and experiences so that they can live fruitful and happy
lives.
Now
this does not mean that they hate all the other children on the block or anywhere
else in the world. They may or may not give
of their time and resources to help children outside of their small unit, but
nobody will criticize them if they don’t.
In fact, society expects them to care for their children first.
This
is nationalism at its smallest form.
The
Preamble to our Constitution says that our government exists to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
In
other words, our government exists for the welfare of the people of the United
States.
Now
this doesn’t mean that we hate people in other countries. It just means that we have a government to
take care of our people, just like a family has parents to take care of their
children.
Now
let’s look at the four definitions of nationalism that we found and look at
them in this light:
1) Nationalism is said to have no interest
in the interests of other nations and will pursue its own to their detriment.
Now I
won’t say that something like this is not possible and may even happen at
times, but is this a necessary attribute of nationalism?
Go back
to the picture of the family.
How
many decisions do you make where you consult all your neighbors first or even think
about them actually?
Now
you may see a child who is obviously in need.
What do you do? Would you take
your childrens’ college fund and spend it on this child? No, you wouldn’t. But many parents do think of the needs of
others outside their family. But those
children already have parents of their own.
Like people in other countries have governments of their own. But you would not put the needs of that other
child over the needs of your own.
I am
not sure of what decisions a parent can make that would be to the detriment of
their neighbors, and I am not sure what decisions our government would make to
the detriment of its neighbors, but I contend that to call such a thing
nationalism is a mistake.
2) Here nationalism is seen as guilty of
seeing its country as having a unique character and wanting to preserve
it.
Now there
are two issues here: a) Our country was
formed a unique nation in the history of the world by its belief that God gave unalienable
rights to human beings. So our country as
a nation acknowledges God, otherwise there wouldn’t be any unalienable rights.
Now
if our country is unique in human history, in the light of the fact that we
allow into our country millions of people every year, if we want to preserve
that uniqueness, it is necessary that we teach those people who come here what
that uniqueness is, and we should be able to expect from them at least an
acknowledgement that they support those ideas.
It
is no fault to want to preserve the very things that made our country what it is
and even that it exists at all.
Our
country is failing to do this entirely, and it is no fault to want and insist
that it correct this.
b)
The second issue is one that is seen more now in Europe, but there are applications
here as well.
Every
country in Europe has been known for its unique culture. Now in the last few decades, millions of
immigrants have come to Europe with no intention or desire to merge with those
cultures. They want to remain distinct
and even expect European culture to become more like theirs.
I
insist that there is nothing blameworthy in a country recognizing its unique culture
and wanting to preserve it. This has no
disregard for other people. They are not
going to their countries expecting them to change, so they merely expect the
same in their own countries.
3) Nationalism is accused of having the
belief that this country is better and more important than other countries.
Certainly,
any parent thinks their child is more important than other children. Not because in the real world, their child
has more value than other children, but they can’t take care of other people’s
children. They have their own by the grace
of God.
Most
countries like their country, and they believe that their country is simply the
best place in the world to live.
But,
no, in real life, all human life is sacred, and no person’s life is more important
than others simply by virtue of where they live.
So I
submit that any fault here is not an inherent fault of nationalism. It’s just a common people fault.
4) This last perceived fault is an
interesting one. This would probably
only apply to American Nationalism. For
some strange reason, Americans think that freedom is how people are supposed to
live. They believe that these rights
come from God, not the government, so, of course, they apply to every people in
every country.
Is it hubris to think that
all countries should be like ours? Only
if you believe that all cultures are equal.
And that’s too big of a subject to get into here. But thinking that all countries should be
like ours is consistent with the founding principles of our country.
So, yes, some Americans,
including Presidents, have believed in the promotion of our culture and
interests even in and for countries with vastly different cultures and
interests.
Does this mean that nationalism
is bad? Only if you believe that freedom
is bad.
I think in our current
political atmosphere, a person would use that word only in the securest of company,
because anyone associating that person with that word would attach the
negatives to the person without making sure they really apply.
So what do we do?
I would say that we focus on
our Constitution that simply says that our government exists for the welfare of
our people. And by extension, that means
the welfare of the people of the United States before that of the citizens of
other countries. That’s why governments
exist. That’s its job. Just don’t complain when people tell it to do
its job and do it better.
