To Thine Own Nation be True
Or, Why I Am (Still) an Internationalist
What is the biggest global cultural trend of the past decade?
Many possible answers suggest themselves: the dominance of social media apps, the rise of artificial intelligence, an increasingly fluid view of gender, and anything related to Taylor Swift. I will not argue that any of those answers are wrong, though Swift’s popularity may reflect cultural trends more than establish them. But while several different technological breakthroughs may yet prove to be the most important historical development of the 21st century, there is one trend that has grown substantially in popularity despite being as old as the hills: nationalism.
In my study of political theory at university, nationalism was presented as one point on a spectrum of human thought. There was patriotism (good), nationalism (bad), and nativism (really, really bad). Patriotism was presented as a love of country. Nationalism went beyond that, either arguing for a superiority of one’s country to other countries or raising up national identity as the most important form of human identity.
Note that I am here defining nationalism closest to the fifth definition on Dictionary.com: “The policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or of the international community.” There are other possible definitions of nationalism which are not the subject of this article.
While it is hard to pinpoint an exact date that any cultural trend begins, the global economic crisis of 2008-9 is often identified as the beginning of the rise of nationalism in the West. The period that began after World War II had seen increasing international cooperation in the economic, security, and cultural sectors. The end of the Cold War seemed to prove that this internationalist way of thinking was the right one. But as the heavily globalized economy suffered from mass contagion during 2008-9, causing financial hardship for many in the West (even as the Chinese economy continued to grow at a rapid rate), many lost faith in the principles of free market capitalism.
Likewise, a rapid shift in public opinion about gender and sexuality, best exemplified by the legalization of same-sex marriage in many Western countries, led some people to feel that their nations were changing beyond recognition, and their own positions in society were fragile. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction: that is a rule of politics as well as physics. The opposite reaction has been the rise of nationalism, or so it seems at the present. (In our era, nationalism is often combined with populism, to the extent that it can be difficult to separate the two.)
This increase in nationalist thinking can be seen in many situations: the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, Marine Le Pen’s success in making the final run-off ballot two French presidential elections in a row, and Viktor Orbán’s ascendancy in Hungary. But as the most powerful nation in the West, it is the American situation that seems most significant.
When Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 with an “America First” policy, he was consciously repudiating the post-World War II history of the United States, upending the very definition of what it means to be a Republican. Before Trump, the Republican Party consistently promoted free market economics, which meant embracing the globalization of the economy. Trump instead promoted an economic policy designed to keep certain jobs in America and favor American-made goods, mostly by penalizing China. He hoped, in short, to reverse a trend of globalization that had been occurring for at least three hundred years (since the ascendancy of capitalism) and perhaps more than five hundred (since the dawn of the Age of Discovery).
In terms of security relations, Trump openly questioned American participation in NATO, pulled the U.S. out of a deal meant to limit Iran’s nuclear development, and showed little interest in improving relations with America’s traditional allies. Admittedly, Republicans had long disdained European politicians and the United Nations, but Trump’s isolationist streak was very much at odds with the administration of George W. Bush, which was heavily influenced by neoconservative thinking that favored international interventionism.
At the heart of Trump’s worldview was this simple belief: America is the best nation, and it should put its own interests first. Such thinking has many predecessors in world history. Nearly every powerful nation has seen itself as superior to others and placed its own interests ahead of those of the global community. But following the disasters of the first half of the 20th century, in which highly nationalist regimes went to war with one another on a scale never before seen, resulting in millions upon millions of deaths, nationalism was thought to be a very dangerous thing that leads inevitably to conflict with other nations, if only to prop up the nationalist narrative.
See, for example, what is happening in Ukraine. Unlike most of the West, Russia never experienced a post-World War II renaissance of internationalist, free market, liberal democratic thinking. It went quickly from one nationalist regime to another, with the chaotic decade of the 1990s providing the only breathing room. The Soviet Union did not fall because the majority of Russians ceased believing in their nationalist narrative. It fell because their nationalist narrative was a lie.
But many Russians do not understand this, because they see how their economy collapsed following the break-up of the Soviet Union, and how it has rebounded under Vladimir Putin’s leadership. Having found their identity in their narrative of national greatness, these Russians were thrilled to see their nation taking its place again among the world’s great powers, and when Putin pledged to remedy one of the alleged horrors of the Soviet Union’s breakup—the severing of Ukraine from the union—many Russians who remember the Soviet days with pride were happy to accept the narrative he presented. (I must stress here that some Russians have objected to all of this, and their voices are typically silenced by the state.)
You see, nationalism comes naturally to human beings. Before the normalization of modern nation-states, it was called by other names: imperialism, tribalism, etc. Taking one’s identity from one’s political or ethnic group makes sense to many people. It allows them to put their own interests and desires first. But more than that, it plays into the natural human instinct to protect one’s own—an instinct that, while good in some circumstances, can lead to selfishness and pride in others. Working together with other nations and even sacrificing your own resources to help people on the other side of the world is far less natural for most people.
But after all, why shouldn’t nations pursue their own best interests? Who is to say that they are not truly superior to other nations and that their priorities should not come first? What possible gain could there be in sacrificing one’s own resources to help people in other nations?
From a purely material point of view, the only good reason to cooperate with other nations is that it promotes everyone’s security and economic prosperity. After all, life is not actually a zero-sum game. Economic growth in one nation spurs economic growth in another nation. But nationalists tend not to think like this. They see only the negative consequences of international cooperation. They believe the global economy really is a zero-sum game, so the only way to improve their own nation’s economy is to take resources from other nations.
Let’s say you could convince a nationalist to play nice in the global sandbox in the hope of achieving collective benefits. For instance, you could persuade them to remain in NATO, because security cooperation leads to lower costs for everyone involved, or you could convince them to treat their allies well because it will prevent a boycott of American made goods.
But why on earth should a nationalist spend government resources to provide food for impoverished people in some other part of the world? Why should they care whether women in Saudi Arabia have the same rights as men? After all, America benefits economically from cooperation with the Saudi regime. More to the point, if a nationalist takes great pleasure in the narrative of national greatness they have constructed, which serves as a guiding force for their life, why should they abandon it?
The answer is that we do not just cooperate with other nations or help vulnerable people around the world because it provides a benefit to us. We do it because all people are created equal, and all people are equally valuable.
You will not reach this conclusion merely by observation. After all, some humans really do seem “better” than others. They may be more intelligent, loyal, or athletic. They may simply be more like you. Darwin looked at nature and concluded that the fittest survive. It was this philosophy which infected much of the nationalism of the first half of the 20th century, reaching its horrific conclusion in the genocides of the Nazi regime. Indeed, most nations in history—and indeed, most people—have not believed that all humans are created equal and possess equal worth.
This idea, proclaimed so eloquently in the American Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…), comes out of the Abrahamic religions, most especially the Christian religion. For Christianity teaches that all people are created in the image of God and therefore have equal and inherent dignity. It also teaches that Jesus Christ brought an end to the traditional division in Judaism between Jews and Gentiles and to old systems of tribal and household loyalties. As St. Paul wrote,
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:26-28)
And St. John prophesied of the end of time,
“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb…” (Revelation 7:9)
The Christian Scriptures therefore allow for no claim of national or ethnic superiority. More than that, they call every person to love their neighbor, regardless of nationality. The chief source of identity for a Christian is not their earthly nation, but their heavenly family. They are to think always in terms of common humanity.
I therefore conclude that the much-ballyhooed movement of Christian nationalism is, according to my definition of “nationalism,” a contradiction in terms. I furthermore conclude that the principles of Christianity are a necessary anecdote to nationalism, and where Western societies remain influenced by Christianity, some of those principles are having a positive effect. But the further the West moves from that philosophical heritage, the harder it will be to promote internationalism, liberal democracy, and even free market economics. For if all men are not created equal, there is no reason not to seek one’s own.
As a Christian, I want to provide the best possible life for all people on planet earth. That is why I am an internationalist, even while being a patriot. I am proud of my own country, and I affirm the necessity of ensuring that Americans flourish. However, I also affirm the necessity of providing for a general human flourishing whenever and wherever that is possible, for I affirm the equal value and dignity of all persons on planet earth. So, I listen to the opinions of those who are not American, and seek where possible to cooperate with them to ensure collective flourishing. I acknowledge that I am not the only wise person, and that I have no ontological superiority to anyone else.
Therefore, I remain an internationalist, even if the world should change and decay, and even if I should be mocked and derided, for I remain convinced of the truth of that old revelation: the image of God.
PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE:
“Karen Swallow Prior’s Journey into The Evangelical Imagination” at 1517
Can’t get enough of me here? Why not follow me on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram? I am also now on Threads with the username amy_mantravadi.
All Scripture quotations are taken from the 1995 New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.
Other example: Disdain with Africa and Africans - thanks to decades of aid regarded as "ineffective"