Ideological Labels: Nationalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Neoliberalism
I have just read a thought-provoking article on The American Interest website entitled National Conservatism: A Guide for the Perplexed. The post, written by Aaron Sibarium, notes how political and ideological labels are used with differing meanings by different groups.
In particular, what do we mean by the term “nationalism”? This question is of particular importance today, given the revolts of populist nationalism in both Europe and the United States in recent years. The term “nationalism” is clearly connected to “conservatism” in the minds of many, both on the political Left and the political Right. In addition, many conflate “conservatism” with the Right and “liberalism” with the Left. To complete the confusion, many consider “progressivism” to be a synonym for “liberalism.” Yet, there are many reasons to believe these various conflations are a confusion of incompatible ideas.
Why is this important? As Sibarium himself notes in his post, “Muddled language can reflect muddled thought …”. More than that, muddled language can create muddled thought.
The Political Left and Right
Let us begin with the ideas about the Right and the Left. In their original connotation during the French Revolution, the terms were associated with those who wanted to conserve the ancien régime on the Right and those who wanted to change the regime on the Left.
As history progressed, the Left became those who wanted increased government control over all the economy for the benefit of all the people. This progression required vast changes in social arrangements. The Right became those who wanted to conserve individuals’ freedom to control their own economic behavior. Hence, the association of a willingness to change with the Left, and the conservation of old social institutions and practices with the Right.
However, in the American context at least, these associations make little sense. Both of the major ideological sides have aspects of society they would like to conserve, and aspects they would like to change. The Left would like to conserve the administrative state they have constructed since the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921). They desire to change the American economy to be much more socialist. The Right would like to change the administrative state to have a great deal less control over our lives. They would also like to see it changed to be more accountable to the political branches of government. The Right would like to conserve and strengthen the free-market nature of our economy. In addition, they would choose to conserve our traditional freedoms from encroachment by the state.
If we cannot uniquely define the Left and the Right with attitudes about social change, how can we accurately characterize them? Relatively time-independent traits they display are their antithetical views on the role of government. The Left sees government as the primary tool to solve all social and economic problems. The Right sees government as fundamentally incompetent even to ameliorate most such problems.
Let us agree to the following one-dimensional spectrum of political ideologies. The greater the social role you propose for government and the more powers you would grant government, the farther to the Left you are on the political spectrum. The smaller the role you give to government and the fewer powers you would concede to it, the more to the Right you are.
Conservatism, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Neoliberalism
What about the ubiquitous terms of “conservative,” “liberal,” “progressive,” and “neoliberal”? How are they related to “Left” and “Right”?
One can construct a very cogent argument that the U.S. possesses no naturally conservative group. Two so-called “conservative” (actually neoliberal) intellectuals who disagree on this are Yuval Levin and Victor Davis Hanson.
Yuval Levin believes that both American progressivism and neoliberalism are just different outgrowths of classical liberalism. In asking about the nature of American conservatism, James Pethokoukis asked Levin the question,
Is it fundamentally that there isn’t a natural conservative element to American society, and rather that we have two different versions of liberalism? We have the old liberalism—free markets, free trade, individual rights. And we have the more modern version which is the more progressive version.
To this question, Levin replied in part,
First of all, I certainly think that liberalism broadly understood—and classical liberalism, but not simply classical—is America’s native way of understanding and governing itself. But conservativism in America has always been a conservative Liberalism and progressivism is a progressive liberalism. They’re different ways of thinking about how the free society works and what it’s for. I think the conservative version is very much native to America and the political debate we’ve had in this country has really always been a coherent debate between left and right forms of liberalism.
Yet this belief that progressive Democratic “liberalism” continues to be a variation of classical liberalism disregards how far progressives have so decisively devolved from it. Liberalism, or what is today called “classical liberalism” was all about protecting individuals’ freedoms and property from the depredations of the state. In their zeal to centralize ever more economic power in the government, the American Left has forfeited any claim they might have had on the name “liberal.” “Progressive” is a more historically accurate label for the Democratic Party members on the American Left.
Victor Davis Hanson has a much darker vision of progressives. In his view, they have not just strayed from liberalism; they have abandoned it. This can be seen in their disrespect for the U.S. Constitution and in their war on the separation of powers in government. Hanson believes we are in a “larger existential war for the soul of America.” Progressive elites question just about everything of importance about the United States. They question — or even reject — our classically liberal political principles, our institutions (see the posts Progressives’ Disrespect for the US Constitution, The American Deep State, and How a Democracy Evolves Into Fascism), our mores and values, and just how exceptional a nation the United States is in the world today. Hanson writes further about the progressive war on American institutions that
We are no longer in the late 1950s era of liberal reform. It is now a postmodern world of intolerance and lockstep orthodoxy.
There are few Berkeley-like free speech areas on college campuses any more. Students charged with particular crimes enjoy little due process. There is no Joan Baez-style acknowledgment of the tragedy of good Southern poor men fighting for an awful cause. No one acknowledges tragedy anywhere at all; it has all become melodrama. We may yet see Joan Baez’s version of The Band’s ballad or Shelby Foote’s commentaries in Ken Burn’s epic Civil War documentary Trotskyized.
The media is not disinterested. Networks such as CNN see their role actively on the barricades, devoted to the higher cause of destroying the Trump presidency, not as reporting its successes or failures. The danger to free expression and a free media is not even Trumpian bombast. It is the far more deliberate and insidious transformation (begun in full under Obama) of journalism into a progressive ministry of truth.
The portrait Victor David Hanson paints of progressives reveals no possibility for truce or compromise. The only visible prospect is for everlasting ideological warfare until one side conquers the other. The most basic lies progressive elites tell themselves [see The Lies Progressives Tell (Especially To Themselves!), More Lies Progressives Tell To Themselves, and Even More Lies Progressives Tell To Themselves!] ensures their intolerance for neoliberals. Their hatred precludes any hope for ideological peace.
From all this, we can conclude that most members of the Democratic Party should never be described as “liberals.” Instead, their more historically accurate label is “progressive.” Also, we should never call members of the American Right “conservatives.” The proper label for almost all American so-called “conservatives” is actually “neoliberal.” A neoliberal is a classical liberal who also believes in free-market capitalism. A desire to minimize the size and role of government is almost embedded in his or her DNA.
Nationalism
This brings us back to the question of nationalism, and why nationalism is associated almost entirely with the Right. Nationalism is a devotion to one’s own nation. A nationalist believes his government should serve the needs of its citizens before the needs of other nations. This does not preclude cooperation with other countries to deal with mutual problems. Although the demands of one’s own people must come first, those needs might be promoted through economic or military cooperation with other nations.
There is nothing in the Left’s basic ideas to prevent it from advocating nationalism as well. As long as the government is used as the primary tool to solve social problems, nationalism contradicts no progressive tenet.
To be sure, a multicultural internationalism is equally compatible with the Left. In the wake of World War II, history has caused the dirigiste elites of the West to favor internationalism and multiculturalism. (Progressivism is the American version of dirigisme.) Following the drive of the fascist Axis (Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo’s Japan) to dominate the world, the Western dirigiste elites saw a way to unite the world without war. Commercial ties would bind all the countries together through international free-trade. In addition, international institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization would settle any real problems between nations before those problems could be settled by violence
Clearly, there can be several kinds of nationalism, varying on how benign they are. There can be nationalist regimes that view other peoples as untermenshen to be dominated and used. This is the kind of nationalism exhibited by Germany’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) of Adolf Hitler. Then there is the relatively benign nationalism of Donald Trump. He does not seek international domination but does insist other nations trade or otherwise deal with the U.S. on an even playing field.
Yet, both in Europe and in the United States, nationalism is advocated almost entirely by the opponents of the dirigiste elites. Over the decades, the ruling dirigiste elites have compounded many policy errors. These errors have been made both in domestic economic policy and in foreign policies to enhance international trade and immigration of cheap labor, and to pacify hostile authoritarian countries. The resulting widespread populist revolts against these failed policies have taken on a nationalist character. The nationalist rebels believe that rather than concentrating on binding the planet together with internationalist policies, governments should concentrate more on the well-being of their own citizens.
In the United States, the dominant dirigiste elites are progressives. The nationalist reaction against their internationalist and multicultural policies was one of the causes of Donald Trump’s election. A major promise of his was to move heaven and earth to get control of our borders. Echoing Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan, Trump declaimed “a nation without borders is not a nation.” In yet another reaction against the loss of jobs to overseas, Trump has worked hard to achieve reciprocity in trade relations.
Part of the reason for this association of the Right with nationalism lies in a particular progressive need. This is their need to destroy the credibility of Republicans in general and of President Trump in particular. Progressives almost subliminally link nationalism with the horrors of fascism during World War II. The thought there could be a more benign form of nationalism does not occur to them. When Trump repeatedly proclaims the battle cry of “America First!”, the automatic response from Democratic politicians and their media allies is “Trump is a fascist!” The idea that fascism is not what Trump displays when he is deconstructing the administrative state also seems beyond them.
It is vital we keep straight the meanings of all these ideological labels. If we do not, it will prove impossible to think clearly on our political civil war.
Views: 4,589