Humanism not Nationalism
I look at the horrors today in Gaza and I’m deeply troubled. When Hamas attacked Israeli civilians I was outraged and Netanyahu’s war on the civilians of Gaza is even worse. Hamas slaughtered some 1,200 civilians and in response Netanyahu has slaughtered some 34,000 people including 97 journalists, over 200 aid workers and 179 UN relief workers attempting to help the civilians. This is the result of religious fanatics on both sides of the conflict.
Given how Netanyahu has killed so many, as outraged as I was over the Hamas attack I’m now more saddened and despondent over his over-the-top response.
What I see running rampant is a form of one of the most toxic, collectivistic concepts making the rounds: nationalism.
I had nationalism drummed into me as a child. At age 11 I was sent to boarding school and every morning we had to gather and stand in formation and salute the flag as it was raised. Every evening at dusk we had to do the same as it was lowered. We were in uniforms every Sunday and on “special occasions” and taught the inherent superiority of the United States.
But, like most nationalism what we were taught wasn’t loyalty to the principles of the country but to the raw national identity and to political authority. It was more “My country right or wrong” than it was “We holds these truths to be self-evident.” It was about collectivism not individual rights. It was might not right that made up its core philosophy and blind obedience to authority was part of the package deal.
The classical liberal, Edwin Godkin (1831–1902), the founding editor of The Nation, warned nationalism could easily replace classical liberalism and called it an “old foe” leading to the “aggrandizement of a particular nation” over “the welfare of mankind.”
Economic historian Deirdre McCloskey called it “an important evil — aside even from its intrinsic collective coercion, in line only with an ‘ancient’ liberty, and its tendency to define minorities such as Jews and Muslims and Mexicans as ‘not us’ — is that it inspires war.” The liberal Ludwig Mises — whose name is regularly soiled by bigots who pretend he was one of them — warned, “The nationalists are not innately aggressive men; they become aggressive through their conception of nationalism.”
At its core nationalism teaches the superiority of one group of people, based on the accident of birth, over all the rest of humanity. It is an ugly, dangerous disease that justifies the worst of slaughters. It justified Hitler’s campaign to make Germany great again and led to the slaughter of millions of Jews, gays, Gypsies and other civilians along with millions of troops on all sides of the conflict.
Instead of making Germany great again Hitler’s narcissism destroyed his country and levelled much of Europe. It directly resulted in the creation of another great enemy of humanity — Soviet collectivism, which stamped out freedom in half of Europe. Albert Einstein called nationalism “an infantile disease” and “the measles of mankind.” Nationalism results in make entire cultures sick and deadly.
In contrast to the nationalism drummed into my head I found the liberation of the individual — not some collective identity — as the core value of my philosophy. Starting in my college years I travelled to Europe every summer and then spent a significant portion of my life living in Africa. I spent some years residing in New Zealand and then shorter periods experiencing life in the United Kingdom and Germany.
In each place I found the values of most people were similar, as were their foibles and fallacies. While I saw citizens of these countries as similar I kept running into advocates of nationalism who asserted their own innate superiority — not because of any great achievement on their part, but solely because they were members of some nation. Nationalism, like racism, was a way for them to take credit for the achievements of others.
The Russian Hitler, Vladimir Putin, promised to make Russia great again by reviving the Soviet empire. In the process he commits war crimes and slaughters innocent people. Hamas did the same and now Netanyahu is responding with exactly the same sort of thing.
In each case I side with the victims; but I don’t do so out of any commitment to the collective identity of groups of people — whether based on their nationality, religion or race. Any nation founded on such collective identity, to the exclusion of individualism, will always be tempted to stamp out the rights of the individual and enshrine some great collective as the be all and end all of existence. The end result will be war, genocide and tyranny and in the end it requires the state to wage war on its own people.
I find nationalism to be the core enemy of the principles on which our country was founded: “that all men are created equal.”
I side with the people of Ukraine, not because they are Ukrainian but because they are victims of a tyrannical, war criminal responsible for genocide. I oppose Russia’s action not because they are Russians but because what they do is a crime. I sided with the victims at the concert in Israel attacked by Hamas, but not because they are Israeli, but because Hamas criminals violently attacked them. I side with the civilians of Gaza, not because they are Palestinian, but because their rights to life, liberty and property are being trampled on by another group of nationalists.
I am not a nationalist. I do not believe rights or responsibilities are doled out based on one nationality, race, ethnicity or any other such group. Instead rights, and their accompanying responsibilities, reside in individuals alone.
I am not a nationalist I am a humanist.
I agree with this paragraph from Ludwig Mises as he spoke of his sort of liberal society.
[In a liberal world] the working of the market is not hampered by government interference. There are no trade barriers; men can live and work where they want. Frontiers are drawn on the maps but they do not hinder the migrations of men and shipping of commodities. Natives do not enjoy rights that are denied to aliens. Governments and their servants restrict their activities to the protection of life, health, and property against fraudulent or violent aggression. They do not discriminate against foreigners. The courts are independent and effectively protect everybody against the encroachments of officialdom. Everyone is permitted to say, to write, and to print what he likes. Education is not subject to government interference. Governments are like night-watchmen whom the citizens have entrusted with the task of handling the police power. The men in office are regarded as mortal men, not as superhuman beings or as paternal authorities who have the right and duty to hold the people in tutelage. Governments do not have the power to dictate to the citizens what language they must use in their daily speech or in what language they must bring up and educate their children.
Amen.
The desktop used to prepare this page and our other pages is past it’s use-by date with an operating system that is running into lots of problems, especially in opening other sites for research. Your support to fund these columns is critical, visit our page at Patreon to make a $10 pledge. If you wish to pledge another amount per month you can do so at this link — anything starting from $1 and up. All of it helps especially now.
