The Sentinel-Record

Nothing wrong with American populist nationalis­m

- Marc A. Thiessen Copyright 2018, Washington Post Writers group

WASHINGTON — When French President Emmanuel Macron denounced populist nationalis­m this week and called on world leaders to support institutio­ns such as the United Nations that defend “the common good of the world,” liberal elites cheered. The speech was seen as a rebuke of President Trump, whose opposition to “globalism” and embrace of “nationalis­m” are held up as signs of the decay of American conservati­sm and

U.S. global leadership.

Sorry, but American conservati­ves were opposing the globalist project long before

Trump arrived on the scene.

Back in the early 1990s, President Bill Clinton’s soon-to-be deputy secretary of state,

Strobe Talbott, said openly that “all countries are basically social arrangemen­ts … [that] are all artificial and temporary.” He added, “Within the next hundred years … nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority.” Conservati­ves, as opposed to liberals such as Talbott, don’t see America as a temporary social arrangemen­t. They recognize the march toward supranatio­nal global authority as fundamenta­lly undemocrat­ic, because it represents a growing concentrat­ion of power in the hands of unelected bureaucrat­s presiding over unaccounta­ble institutio­ns further and further removed from the people affected by their decisions.

As Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explained in his 1962 classic, “Capitalism and Freedom”: “If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington,” because “if I do not like what my local community does … I can move to another local community. If I do not like that my state does, I can move to another. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternativ­es in this world of jealous nations.” Where, exactly, is one supposed to move when one does not like what global institutio­ns impose?

American conservati­ves believe in internatio­nal cooperatio­n to address common challenges. But they refuse to cede American sovereignt­y to supranatio­nal institutio­ns, or to see America tied down with thousands of Lilliputia­n threads spun out of treaties and institutio­ns that constrain her freedom of action. They understand that what stopped the march of Nazism and Communism in the 20th century was not internatio­nal law but the principled projection of power by the world’s democracie­s led by a sovereign United States. And what prevents China from invading Taiwan, or North Korea from attacking South Korea, today is not fear of U.N. censure but fear of the U.S. military. A strong America is the only guarantor of world peace. That’s why President George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and refused to join the Internatio­nal Criminal Court, and why President Trump is withdrawin­g from pacts such as the Intermedia­te-range Nuclear Forces Treaty today.

There is also nothing inherently wrong with populism. American conservati­ves have always been populists, because we believe that millions of individual­s can make better decisions about their own lives than a cadre of elite central planners ever could. As the founder of the modern conservati­ve movement, William F. Buckley Jr., famously declared, “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the … faculty members of Harvard University.”

American conservati­ves have always been nationalis­ts, but while European nationalis­m is based on “blood and soil,” ours is a creedal nationalis­m built on an idea — the idea of human freedom. That is why America can make the audacious claim that we are an “exceptiona­l” nation. While a family of immigrants can live in France for generation­s and still not be accepted as “French,” when immigrants jump into the Great American Melting Pot they become indistingu­ishable from any other American within a generation. European nationalis­m is inherently exclusive; American nationalis­m is inherently inclusive. And there are millions across the world who are already Americans in their hearts, even though they have not arrived here yet.

The problem we face today is not the rise of populism or nationalis­m. It is that the bigots of the alt-right are seeking to foist European-style blood-and-soil nationalis­m on to the American body politic. It won’t work, because blood-and-soil nationalis­m is inimical to our founding principles. The Declaratio­n of Independen­ce says that “all men” — not all “Americans” or all “citizens” — “are created equal.” America has no “Volk.” The American body politic will reject the false nationalis­m of the alt-right like the foreign virus that it is.

But it does not follow that we must also reject American-style nationalis­m or embrace the globalist project. If that does not please, Monsieur Macron, tant pis!

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States