CULTIVATE SOLIDARITY?

Only with those you rationally choose!

The last decade or so has seen an increase in nationalism across the globe.  From Victor Orban to Christian Nationalists and MAGA fans in the US, nationalism seems to be on the rise.  Even amongst those interested in reducing polarization, there are people suggesting that the way forward is to cultivate solidarity amongst co-nationals. Democrats and Republicans, we are told, should see themselves as Americans first, party-members second.   While there is some truth to such claims, they too easily morph into a claim that we need some sort of national creed (or “creedal religion”) in order to make the country better, ending polarization and the vitriol it brings. I find such claims disturbing.

Desires for national solidarity, I would suggest, are “nationalism light.”  Nationalism of any sort is a form of parochialism—we favor those in our group over those out of it.  Nationalism here is saying “America is better than the rest of the world; the rest of the world is not as good as us.”  Nationalism in Germany is the view that “Germany is better than the rest of the world; the rest of the world is not as good as Germany.”  Put simply, if you cultivate a feeling that “we” are all one, you simultaneously cultivate a feeling that “they” who are not with us are “other” and “less then.”  This is a recipe for a reduction in international cooperation and international trade.  It is a recipe for long term disaster.

Perhaps I am overstating the case and it is possible to have some form of national unity/solidarity based on impartial or universal values or the rule of law.  I am, to say the least, skeptical of such claims.  Once one moves to basing a view—as we should—on universal values, one realizes that all persons deserve equal treatment.  It’s hard to reconcile that with the view that we can treat our co-nationals better than we treat others merely because of their birth place.  Perhaps we could defend a universal value of treating those nearer to us better than those further from us, but that would not explain why we treat people in Nogales, Mexico differently than we treat people in Nogales, AZ and it would not explain our willingness to ignore the truly horrific plight of those suffering in Sudan, South Sudan, Burkina Faso, the Palestinian territories in Israel, etc.  In any case, if “Make American Great” meant “Make America a Leader of States Seeking to Instantiate Peace and Universal Values” or some such and “Make Germany Great” meant “Make Germany a Leader of States Seeking to Instantiate Peace and Universal Values” or such, I would be happy.  That’s simply not what we are seeing.

Importantly, it is near impossible to overstate how dangerous a retreat in international cooperation and trade would be.  We would have to produce what we need for ourselves—and while we can likely do that and, yes, it would involve opening up factory jobs, it would significantly reduce our abilities—collectively and individually—to work to our comparative advantages.  Prices would increase for everyone—probably by a lot.  We would likely see backsliding in the fight against poverty—here in the US and everywhere.  In some countries, those lacking natural resources, things would be even worse.  (Yes, nominal incomes would likely increase in the US, but the gains would be lost to increased prices.)

There are other concerns.  When you preach national solidarity—when you preach any kind of solidarity—you tell people that they should look to each other for support, for sympathy, for their identities.  You encourage people to rely on the collective to which they should be in solidarity.  This is to oppose individualism and self-reliance.  This is, to be blunt, a problem throughout our society today.  People seem more concerned to have a political identity than to be themselves.  While I believe—I am, after all, a libertarian—that people should be free to play with their gender, have sexual relations with whomever they want (so long as it’s consensual), and associate with others they like—even if its because they are like themselves.  But thinking of oneself as wholly the same as—sharing an identity—with any set of others, whether based on ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, gender, religion, profession, or anything other than “an individual person” is something I reject outright.

Granted, when we encourage individualism and self-reliance, it’s not fully “self” reliance we are talking about—no one lives their life without relying on others and no one should—but it gets to something important nonetheless.  We do better when we decide for ourselves on whom we should rely, when we do that based on good reasoning about what most benefits us, and when we keep that group somewhat limited.  Relying on far flung others—those in Washington, DC, for example—is not a recipe for improvement.  Nor is relying on others who one doesn’t know but who one shares one thing in common—whether it be sex, gender, religion, or anything else.  Relying on my self, my wife, my siblings, and my friends simply works better.  Those people have earned my trust.  The stores I do business with have earned my trust.  Their corporate leaders have not.  Those who just happen to be co-nationals have not—at least no more than those who work for or buy from the same international corporations I do business with.  Why should the fact that someone happens to be a US citizen make them more important to me than the fact that they have published a book with Polity Press or Taylor and Francis, as I have?

We are each of us who we are for a great many reasons.  Yes, where we are born—to what governments we are entitled citizenship under—matters.  But so do many other things.  Religions matter to many people.  Ethnic and cultural heritage matter to a great many.  Professions matter. Being a parent matters. Being introverts or extroverts might matter.  Being Type A or Type B might matter.  In short, our entire history matters to each of us.  We can’t be in solidarity with people with the same history—for each of us has our own. Choosing to be in solidarity with people because they share one trait with us is not an improvement. Choosing individually with good reason who to rely on and who to be in solidarity with is.

The key: we are each our own individual being—with our own multiplicity within us.  Better to accept—even glorify—that and encourage everyone to decide on their own who to associate with, who to trade with, who to work with.  Some will likely choose badly.  That’s always the case.  But many—likely most—will choose well.  They will choose to work with those it is rational for them to work with.  That will be a large diverse group of people.  And more power to them!  If solidarity is good, it is solidarity with whom one chooses, for whatever reason or reasons.

---

If you’d like to study these issues—in a variety of ways—the deadline for applying for our master’s program in PPE at GSU is November 1. See cas.gsu.edu/ppe and let me know if you have any questions!