Nationalism

[Dill]

(11-05-2018, 06:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Dill, it seems to be that you might be suggesting that the rise in nationalism we see today may be of a similar nature to a rise in nationalism that was seen almost a century ago.

Well, somewhat similar. History never repeats itself. Or if it does, then, as Marx said, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce.

I am concerned about the breakdown of the liberal international order. Not that it was ever fully in place or without problems, but it did take universal human rights as a premise for international law. It did, at times, punish rogue behavior, and perhaps prevented some as well. It enabled an expanding cosmopolitan culture which I have much appreciated. I know you'll remind me that order has also enabled a global, neoliberal redistribution of wealth between as well as within countries, of which neither of us is fond.  But there have been no wars between "great powers" for 70+ years now, no world wars. And that was not by accident--NATO, the UN, IMF, the EU--all these organizations have had a stabilizing effect on a chaotic world, collectively addressing problems like nuclear proliferation, climate change, and (spottily) genocide and terrorism. The majority of people/nations wanted that peace and stability.

Now I see that liberal order challenged by an emerging one premised, not on universal human rights, but on defending majoritarian power and ethnically defined "civilization(s)." So I am concerned that, as in the '30s, an increasing number of countries turns autocratic, while others who might curb their excesses tend to isolationism (a return to isolationism in the U.S. case).  I don't see how that can end well, given the current economic interdependence of nations, and given the logic of illiberal governance, which pushes autocratic nations into conflict and violent resolution. Add nuclear proliferation to that anxiety.

NB: In this global context then, "nationalism" would be one of those forces breaking up the old order--at work in the U.S. as well other countries. Some dictatorships have put other countries first in the sense the dictator may sell national assets to foreigners at the expense of his own people. But I doubt that the leaders of any liberal democracy have ever put the interests of any other nation above their own. So in the case of liberal democracies, when we see people putting "Britain first" or "taking their country back," at stake is a certain (usually illiberal) definition of the country/nation. When there is enough "buy in" from the populace, that is scary.