Yoram Hazony was a guest on EconTalk and discussed his recent book that argues in favor of nationalism. He contrasts nationalism with imperialism. Before the Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended the 30 Years War, empires were the standard. This was a culmination of earlier hints of national self-determinism such as Henry VIII enacting the first Brexit when he founded the Anglican Church to escape the supremacy of Rome. Empires seek a one size fits all approach to governance and culture. Nationalism provides a people with a shared history and culture to rule themselves. He has an idealistic vision of nationalism as a sort of global federalism, which he links to American federalism of the Constitution.
Among his more shocking claims are that freedom can only exist as a byproduct of ingrained mutual loyalty. He declares John Locke's ideas clearly false and mostly idealistic. In fact, he places Hobbes and Rousseau in the same ideological boat of liberals in the more classical sense of that word. They approached politics like mathematicians, positing axioms that do not describe any government that had existed or currently exists. Their ideas are aspirational rather than historical. Yes, it would be ideal if civil society was based on the consent of each person but it isn't. No one chooses their family or the country in which they are born. Considerable loyalty to one's family, clan, tribe, and nation is developed long before one can engage in thoughtful consent.
Hazony argues that the current push toward globalism and borderless nations is founded on the benefits of economic freedom. The fewer barriers to trade, the wealthier all societies become. However, what works for economic theory does not work for political theory. Nations built on mutual loyalty are better and healthier than diverse peoples bound together under an imperial authority. So says Yoram Hazony.
It is a fascinating discussion and worth a look. I may have to buy the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment