Earlier this week, Ephrom Josine penned two pieces related to the globalism-nationalism debate currently raging throughout the world. He excellently penned both pieces, and I commend him on the attention his articles have received.
All that being said, there are some points I disagree with, and I would like to respond to them.
In his first article, A Case Against Nationalism, Ephrom proposes the notion that nationalism is the communal rejection of outside nations in favor of a single, powerful national government (I hope Ephrom will correct me if I am mistaken). I find this definition to only be true in certain circumstances. He gives the example of Communist China, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I would also posit that Nazi Germany is an excellent example of the type of nationalist state that Ephrom lays out.
However, nationalism is not always found in the form described above. As Ephrom mentions, Rich Lowry suggests that nationalism led to the American Revolution and the ratification of the Constitution. This is undoubtedly true. This is not the nationalism described above, though; these are both cases in which patriotism prevailed.
Patriotism, as I define it, is the love of the ideas and principles that your mother country espouses when your home country is in the right. This last point is what delineates patriotism from Ephrom’s definition of nationalism: nationalists will always defend their home country, whereas patriots will only defend it when the home country is in the right.
Using this definition of patriotism, I believe that Ephrom gets his analysis of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan wrong. Roosevelt’s borderline imperialism is not a form of globalism; it is the expression of American ideals at the time. His interventions into South America spread American influence and power into the region; they did not work to further an international cause, or, as defined by Ephrom, serve to increase the influence of the individual.
The same can be said of the Panama Canal; its original intent was not to increase world trade but to allow the US Navy faster access to either coast and the Pacific outposts of Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines.
Fast forward to the Reagan years, and we see similar circumstances. Reagan did not enforce the Truman Doctrine to protect some global initiative( though I would be remiss not to recognize the global implications of his policies). He enforced the doctrine because it protected American interests and American ideals throughout the globe. Whether it was by sending troops into Grenada or by demanding that the Berlin Wall come down, Reagan protected American values with patriotic fervor.
All of these points are not to say that Ephrom gets everything wrong. On the contrary, the rest of his article does a wonderful job of examining how nationalism can be, and is, bad for the world. I merely wished to make the distinction between good nationalism, such as patriotism, and bad nationalism.
In his second article, Ephrom begins by rejecting the notion that globalism is a word that should not be used. I agree with him in this proposition, but there is still a distinction between globalism and globalization, which I believe Ephrom skims over.
Globalization is merely the internationalization of global economics and trade. Nothing in that definition, at least at face value, suggests a principled stand against the nation-state. This is a distinct philosophy from globalism, which Ephrom defines as individualism.
Here, as well, I take exception to what he writes. Globalism seems to mean more than just individualism. Globalism, in the conventional sense, is the growth of the international world order at the expense of national sovereignty. However, for the sake of this article, I will use the definition provided by Ephrom.
Using this definition, Ephrom proudly states that he would prefer an international government that supported libertarian ideals to a national government that did not. In a perfect world, we would agree.
However, the world is not in theory, and so practical considerations must be taken into account. An international government that supports the principles that Ephrom lays out would be fantastic. But what happens when the government changes?
Let us take these principles down a level, as Ephrom does, and focus on the states inside US boundaries. If a state, such as California, becomes too overbearing in its regulations and laws, there are 49 other states for a citizen to go live. This principle works on a national level, too. If one’s country becomes too intrusive into a person’s life, they are free to move to other countries that are less intrusive.
This rule does not hold on an international level, however. If this glorious international government that Ephrom sets up changes course, there are no corners of the world to hide in.
Freedom on an international level, much like on a state level, is kept via competition between nations, much like states. If a state passes an unpopular law and people leave, the state will repeal the unpopular law. If a nation institutes an unfair program and the citizens become expatriates, the nation will end the program.
There are no safeguards on an international government like this; even if a law is unpopular, or a program unfair, there is no ‘voting with their feet’ for the citizens to engage in. They are forever vulnerable to the whims of a distant international government that must also listen to almost eight billion other people.
This point on how many citizens live in the world is a nice transition to my other argument against Ephrom’s belief in globalism. Individualism is a wonderful principle and one that has led to global prosperity in the form of capitalism and global freedom in the form of democracy.
However, individualism does not scale past a certain point. The core aspect of individualism is its competitiveness. This is what makes capitalism so prosperous and democracy so fruitful.
Competition scales on all levels, whether it be local, state, or national. The advances made by Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were due in large part to the competition between the European powers.
Jared Diamond makes this point in his novel Guns, Germs, and Steel. Europe came to dominate the world instead of China because the unity of the Chinese government led to complacency. The technological advancements made in the 1960s were not due to an international desire to live better, but a national desire to be better than another nation. Patriotism pushes men to be better for the sake of their country; the same, in general, cannot be said on an international level.
The debate between nationalism and globalism is, as Ephrom states, a complex one. The many facets to the argument are each important to recognize and debate. To say that all nationalism is bad, or all globalism is good, refuses to recognize these many facets. I hope that this article shows a third way between these two positions, and I sincerely hope that Ephrom and I can come to a favorable conclusion of this great debate.
Scott Howard is a constitutionally-minded conservative freelance writer with a focus on fiscal matters and foreign policy. He has been a weekly contributor to The Liberty Hawk. You can follow him on Twitter: Follow @thenextTedCruz
Editor’s Note: I am ecstatic that a rational and articulate discussion is brewing on the topic of nationalism and globalism here at The Liberty Hawk. This is a topic that needs far more discussion in the conservative movement today. I hope to enter the fray of philosophical discussion with my own article on nationalism soon. Until then, here are some of my quick thoughts and questions:
I think we can agree that the central them of Ephrom Josine’s “global individualism” and Scott Howard’s “good nationalism” is ideas. Both approaches can be defined as principles first. The question I would ask is this: can you use the terms globalist and nationalist effectively and consistently in a context that ensures ideas remain the central theme? Can these terms be used in a way that avoids the negative connotations of their history? Does allowing these terms to enter the popular lexicon invite tendencies that could betray principles in favor of the ideas of national supremacy on the one hand and an assault on national sovereignty on the other? Are there better terms to effectively label our views that would not involve the necessary caveats of using globalism and nationalism? Is Ephrom’s global individualism actually globalism or is it simply human rights, universal liberty, or transnational individualism? Is Scott’s good nationalism actually nationalism or is it simply patriotism, citizenship, or civic virtue? Are Ephrom and Scott actually in disagreement or are they using different ill-defined (and possibly ill-equipped) terms to describe the same philosophical position? -Justin
- I Was Wrong, Burn It Down - June 25, 2020
- An Open Letter to #ConservativesForBiden - May 7, 2020
- The Danger of Incorporation Doctrine - May 4, 2020