‘Nationalist’ Straw Man

What Macron didn’t dare face in slapping Trump

FRENCH President Macron denounced nationalism and slapped President Trump at Sunday’s ceremony on the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War.

Given the way in which the war ended, with the arrival of an American army, this was a stunning example of ingratitude. And since Macron gave his speech at a monument to French nationalism, the Arc de Triomphe, it was more than a little hypocritical.

Still, Macron’s condemnation of nationalism deserves our attention. Even if it’s faulty.

Macron distinguished between a bad nationalism and a good patriotism: The nationalist doesn’t care about people in other countries; the patriot supports the French Republic’s universal values, as seen in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and thinks this extends beyond a country’s borders.

If only it were that simple. Edith Cavell didn’t buy Macron’s distinction. Before she was executed by a German firing squad in 1915, the British nurse wrote, “Patriotism is not enough.”

Forget the definition game. Whichever label you choose, there are things we owe to fellow citizens and things we owe to people in other countries. And they’re not the same.

If anyone should know that, it’s an American nationalist, more, perhaps, even than a patriot. The patriot simply supports his country, right or wrong. I’d argue, con- tra Macron, that it’s nationalism that requires something more, a sense of allegiance to his country’s values and institutions. For the French Republic, this includes the Declaration of the Rights of Man; for the United States, the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Both nations are founded on a belief in universal values that don’t stop at a country’s borders.

What binds Americans together as a country isn’t a unique language or culture, like that of Denmark or Finland. America has a special mission to promote liberty, as guaranteed by the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. These have assumed the status of what historian Pauline Maier called “American Scripture.” They’re what make Americans out of Americans.

Yet there’s another difference between nationalism and patriotism. The patriot doesn’t have to care very much about his fellow citizens. Nationalism requires a sense of fellow feeling, of solidarity, with one’s compatriots.

Nationalism therefore will pull one leftward on economics, since it asks one to support social-welfare programs for fellow-citizens.

Not aliens, mind you. The nationalist will distinguish between aliens and citizens, but what he’d deny the former must be paid for by what he’d give the latter. Otherwise the pose of nationalism is a fraud. That’s why libertarians who object to social welfare nets cannot be nationalists. And why, properly understood, nationalism is progressive.

Macron faulted America First economic nationalists like Trump who judge our trade deals and immigration policies according to whether they serve American interests. But what’s wrong with that, if the alternative is not caring at all about ordinary Americans?

So what Macron gave us was a straw-man argument. Either you subscribe to universal values, or you’re a benighted economic nationalist. That’s just silly, and it misses the point about Trump’s economic nationalism. Trump accused elite Democratic voters of professing a fictitious support for non-Americans while not really caring about ordinary Americans.

All the same, the anniversary of the end of World War I is a good time to remember that Macron’s insistence on duties owed to foreigners does have some bite. We have a duty to our nation, but also to others.

So American nationalism is benign. But let’s take Edith Cavell’s point about patriotism a further step. If you’re a Christian or otherwise believe in universal values, nationalism isn’t enough either.

F.H. Buckley is the author of “The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed.”