UNDERSTANDING PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM

UNDERSTANDING PATRIOTISM and NATIONALISM

This editorial by Alistair McConnachie appeared originally in the October 2003 issue of Sovereignty.

Some internet conversation this month revolved around the idea that eurosceptics should regard themselves as "patriots" and seek to distance themselves from those who call themselves "nationalists".

But what is the difference between a "patriot" and a "nationalist"?

What does the dictionary tell us? According to Chambers 20th Century, a patriot is "one who truly, though sometimes injudiciously, loves and serves his fatherland".

A "nationalist" is "one who favours or strives after the unity, independence, interests or domination of a nation".

The main difference here being that a patriot is one who expresses emotion -- love. A patriot loves his country.

Whereas a nationalist is someone who expresses his love or concern for his nation in an active political way -- someone who takes a hands-on practical approach.

Of course, the real and understandable concern of eurosceptics is, as Edward Spalton suggested to us: "Many good, worthwhile words and concepts get so devalued by abuse that they cannot easily be used in the shorthand of political sloganeering."

For example, there is a valid concern that the word "nationalist" has been tainted by, for example, the actions of "nationalists" like Robert Mugabe, or the violent form of Irish nationalism.

Fair point.

It is a shame that eurosceptics often struggle without a robust word to describe themselves. Such is the reality of modern political discourse, unfortunately. What to do?

Rodney Atkinson has tried to get over this by coining the term "nationist". Only trouble there is that you have to explain what you mean by it every time you use it.

But if you have to go through that explanatory rigmarole anyway, then why not just use the more robust word "nationalist" and define it in your own terms.

Nationalism Is as Nationalism Does
Ultimately we won't be able to "free the country" until we reclaim our language, and that means using it, without apology.

Of course, it may not always be appropriate to use the word "nationalist", but at the same time we shouldn't shy away from it, or be intimidated by it.

We should -- as we said in our September editorial -- define political concepts in our own terms.

In those circumstances where we do not feel it diplomatic, or do not feel able, to use the powerful "nationalist" word to describe ourselves, then at least let us not condemn any British patriots who do.

It is pointless and self-destructive to get into saying that we are patriots, but "they" are nationalists, and somehow different. Or try to define the terms by saying that nationalists love the government, but patriots love the country! Or that nationalists hate other people's countries!

It does not follow that nationalists or patriots should necessarily love or despise their government, or anybody else's country. Ideally, the government and the people should be one and the same, and function organically.

To try to condemn people who identify as nationalists is only playing into the hands of the people who are opposed to both nationalism and patriotism, and who would like to try to deny us the use of both words.

Such an act would further reduce the words available to us in our efforts "to reclaim the nation as a respectable aspiration" -- to use Edward Spalton's expression.

And without words there can be no action.

Ultimately, nationalism is as nationalism does, and the best exemplar of any political concept is ourselves and our own behaviour in our own lives.

And just to clear up one last point which always comes up in this discussion. People who are opposed to patriotism always like to quote Dr Johnson, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

They imagine he was condemning patriotism. Wrong! Dr Johnson was saying something negative about scoundrels, not about patriotism and patriots!

UNDERSTANDING NATIONALISM VERSUS GLOBALISM

Alistair McConnachie considers the political struggle between these two different world-views. This editorial appeared originally in the January 2004 issue of Sovereignty.

On January 29th I attended a dinner on board HMS Belfast. The speaker, Taki, addressed us saying: "We are nationalists who oppose globalists".

Yet, it's clear there are some in the euro-sceptic movement who are afraid of being thought "nationalists" or who don't understand the concept. We've addressed this before in the October 2003 editorial above, but it's worth elaborating again.

One person this month even said to us that the EU was "nationalist" -- and suggested that nationalists are "Statists", who put the state before the individual, and are "totalitarian", just like the EU!

What a straw-man argument -- built up to be knocked down!

The ordinate principle of nationalism is simply belief in the concept of "the nation".

There is nothing else implied politically by the term "nationalism".

To be a nationalist does not imply any particular political point of view other than a belief in the nation as a fundamental organising principle in politics.

If you believe in "the nation" and are prepared to organise politically around the concept, then you're a nationalist.

Consequently, as we said in the October 2003 editorial, "nationalism is as nationalism does".

So, to the extent that the EU is destroying distinct nations, it cannot be said to be "nationalist". Statist and globalist, yes, but not nationalist!

So, what is the relationship of a Nationalist to the State?

A Nationalist does believe in the State and does not wish to destroy it.

A Nationalist conceives of the State as, ideally, the institutional framework which politically expresses the nation to itself, and does so within an organic and dependent relationship -- in the sense that "the people are the government and the government is the people".

That, of course, is the ideal. Practically speaking, a State may usurp power from the people. But that doesn't mean that there is something wrong with "the State" per se, as some seem to think.

Why is all this important?
It is important so we understand ourselves, and the nature of the beast we fight. Otherwise, we lose.

DEFINING NATIONALISM, INTERNATIONALISM and GLOBALISM
The following definitions of nationalism, internationalism, and the dreaded globalism are taken verbatim from US source numbersusa.com

For the purposes of this analysis of globalism versus nationalism, we distinguish 'globalism' as something quite different from 'internationalism.'

The internationalism to which we refer is based on the 'nationalist' philosophy; it is the interrelationship of nations, all of which are working together but in their own self-interest.

Globalism, however, supersedes traditional liberal and conservative ideas of the nation-state and of working toward national solutions of national problems and toward international solutions for international problems.

Globalism refers to elimination of the sovereign nation-state as a locus of community, loyalty, economy, laws, culture, and language.

The heart of the difference between globalism and nationalism is an ethical viewpoint of whether a community has the right or even the responsibility to give priority attention to the members of its own community over people outside the community....

The ethical basis of nationalism is as a community in which every member has a certain responsibility for everybody else in that community.

The highest priority of a national government under the nationalist ethic is the members of that community. This has been the dominant ethical principle in the United States and most other nations in which the national government is expected to establish laws and regulations concerning trade, labor, capital, civil rights, and the environment based primarily on their effects on the people of its own nation.

The globalist ethic that we describe here is less communitarian and more individualistic. It gives a higher ethical value to the freedom of an individual (and by extension, the corporate bodies owned by individuals) to act with fewer or no restrictions by national governments.

This ethic similarly unleashes workers around the world to cross borders to work in ways that maximize their incomes and unleashes corporations to move capital, goods, and labor in ways that maximize their profits.

Under a globalist ethic, immigration policy should not be used to protect America's poor if it blocks the economic improvement of even poorer workers from other countries....

In contrast to those globalist arguments, one can easily see the nationalist and internationalist ethic at work in 1970, when the Sierra Club and other environmental groups jointly endorsed a resolution that committed them to 'bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world.'

By 1998, Sierra leaders had turned around 180 degrees. Rather than endorsing 'stabilization first in the United States and then of the world,' they now called for, in effect, 'stabilization first of the world, and then maybe the United States.'

Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz :
The Environmental Movement's Retreat from Advocating U.S. Population Stabilization (1970-1998): A First Draft of History

www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/Retreat2.pdf