Tracinski - What is Nationalism?

Speaker 0 00:00:00 Um, all right. So I chose nationalism because there is a rising sort of trend towards what's called national conservatism and a right-wing movement that is quote unquote national list. And that's a name and an idea, a word that has many different meanings and associations. And I think this is a particularly good example of a topic in which philosophy and having a full Sofitel analysis really helps because it helps you to differentiate out what are the different meanings of nationals. So I just want to take a brief few minutes to talk about, talk that out a little bit, uh, and then we can talk about applications of it and the political ramifications and all of that. Uh, now national ism is different. Fro is not the same thing as the belief in the value of the nation state. So, you know, if you go heavily into, uh, the sort of geekish political science stuff here, where they talk about the history of the nation state, because if you go back historically far back enough that you don't really have a modern nation state, which you have is you have a feudal system with, you know, princes and Dukes and Earls, and you don't really have the apparatus of what's a modern nation. Speaker 0 00:01:14 You know, you don't have France, you have, uh, various Dukes that are also control different areas. And, you know, the, the, the Normans control, you know, that you have the Moore's over, who controls exactly what territory, but it's not a modern nation state. So the idea of a modern nation state as a good form of organ of organizing a society is different from it. It's sometimes referred to as nationalism in political science is different from what other people mean by nationalism. Uh, also national Orbitz was not the same thing as patriotism or pro Americanism. So if you're waving an American flag, that doesn't mean you're a nationalist. It means you're a Patriot, but nationalism has a slightly different aspect to it. And that sort of gets though to the strangeness of American patriotism or even of American nationalism, because there's a certain paradox of American patriotism in that this is an individual's nation to nation based on the idea of individual rights, you know, but, uh, uh, all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights and the government exists to preserve those rights. Speaker 0 00:02:24 Uh, American individualism is even a phrase, you know, it's something as sort of, as an idea developed in the 19th century, that what defines America is not just our system of government. It's not just the ideas of the declaration of independence. It's also that we are an individualist country where we believe in the right, in, in the, uh, not just as a political idea, but as a moral ideal, or a social or cultural ideal that the individual should be allowed to develop his own talents and, and preferences and decide own fate, uh, in the world. So individualism is sort of built into America's, uh, political and cultural identity. Uh, so at the same time, then you say, well, we're nationalists. Uh, then the question is, well, what's the identity of the nation, if it's, if the nation is individualist and that I think is the key philosophical issue here. Speaker 0 00:03:24 So, um, w we, in our little discussion that Jennifer was mentioning that we, we started to get into a false optical discussion in the middle of, uh, what was basically a business meeting. And I think we tried, uh, Jayla Perez patients a little bit. Uh it's when you get to intellectuals are together to discuss business and strategy and that sort of thing, they tend to, we tend to, it's like herding cats. We tend to wander off over on it, pursuit of the things we find intellectually interesting. Uh, but that's why it was great that I've got, we got the clubhouse coming up where we're going to discuss it. So, um, one of the things that was brought up as well, what about civic? Nationalism does do one of the uses of the term nationalism is I think, uh, it was, um, uh, Stephen who said that, uh, um, Steven Hicks, who said that, you know, he, he thought of it in Canadian context or in American context, or even in the French context that nationalism in those contexts doesn't mean ethnic nationalism, uh, that these are countries that are defined and have been defined from the very beginning in terms of ideas. Speaker 0 00:04:30 So that that's what civic nationalism it means. So the idea is that, you know, you can, uh, pro Americanism means being pro in favor of certain basic American ideas. And it's not an ethnic thing, and it's not even a religious thing. It's something that anybody, um, and then anybody who embraces those ideas can be part of your civic, nationalism. Uh, but the thing that I think was what really raises the, the, the, the issue for today's politics and in today's context, because there is a wing of conservatism as they call themselves national conservatives or nationalists conservatives, I prefer to call them nationalists because the ism is important. There it's an ideology, um, but they are people who actually reject the idea that, um, that they reject that America is an idea. And they will say, they will literally say, America is not an idea. It's a nation. Speaker 0 00:05:26 And what they mean by a nation we'll get to in a second. But it's the, the important thing here is rejecting that civic, nationalism rejecting the idea that America is an idea, and that's a big deal because America is totally an idea, right? So America was not formed out of any one, uh, ethnicity. It wasn't formed at if any one religious group, we had Catholic settling here and we had Protestants and we had Puritans and we had Anglicans, and we had a w over, over our time, we've had people of all different religions from around the world, uh, in smaller numbers here. Um, but what was always true of America is we have that civic nationalism, the idea that American national identity is defined by the, the civic creed, the creed, and the declaration of independence. And if you back that civic creed, that you're an American, and you can see that in the way we have a swearing in ceremonies and the citizenship process that, uh, uh, a new citizen has to pass a test showing that he's aware of various aspects of American history and various aspects of American law. Speaker 0 00:06:31 And, you know, the, the basic principles of the constitution, I think oftentimes new citizens are way more aware of that than, than the average person who grew up here. If you've ever watched the old, uh, uh, J Lennar used to these jaywalking segments where he'd walk on the streets of now, admittedly, it was the streets of Hollywood among, you know, so you're probably not getting the best people there, but he would ask people basic questions that they would have no idea. And that's, you know, the state of American education being what it is that's fairly common. So the idea is that you can become a citizen of the U S simply by showing your knowledge of this American civic creed, the basic ideas on which the country was based. Now, if you have a conservative movement that believes a nationalist conservatism that believes that America is not an idea, well, then what is it, if it's not an idea now in the European nationalism, the traditional answer has been that a country is not an idea. Speaker 0 00:07:27 It's an ethnicity. And usually it's, you know, it's, uh, people from the same ethnic background who speaks the same language and have the same customs, et cetera. And so it becomes, it's a very, a racial ethic way of dividing it. And of course that has a very, very troubled, uh, history, um, and not just, you know, not just world war two and the Nazis, uh, but also, uh, um, you, you know, Russian nationalism today is very much, we have the whole drug war about to start in Ukraine because Russia, Vladimir Putin thinks he just gave a talk, said something publicly where he says, that's part of quote, unquote, historic Russia. So it's the idea that there's a Russian national ethnic identity and that the crane and Ukrainians and Ukrainian territory are a part of that. Whereas you have a bunch of Ukrainians who disagree and think there's a separate Ukrainian national identity. Speaker 0 00:08:22 Um, so you can see how, even to this day, that sort of F extreme ethic nationalism is causing problems and conflict and warfare in Europe, but there's the nationalists conservatives as best. I've been able to tell now, the people I'm talking about, they've had a couple of conferences in the last few years, but it's people like Sarov Omari. Who's the editorial board director of the new editorial page editor or the New York post. Um, and Patrick Deneen, who's a professor, uh, at, uh, um, uh, Notre Dame, I believe who is sort of a, sort of a Catholic, uh, integral lists. Uh, I wrote, uh, the failure of liberal a book about the failure of liberalism and by liberals. I mean, he means not just, you know, left wing liberal wasn't, he means a free society in general. So he's one of these people who says that, uh, defining America as a free nation is not important. Speaker 0 00:09:16 We usually define it as a, uh, we need, we need to take this nationalist approach. Uh, and your arm has only is another one of the prominent ones. He said, he's Railey, but he has become influential in America, uh, advocating this form of nationalism. And when you asked for what kind of nationalism are they talking about, it's not quite ethnic nationalism, this that isn't going to really fly in, uh, as multi-ethnic the country as we have, but it's more of a religious nationalism and the nationals have based on sort of quote unquote traditional values. Now, how you define what are American traditional values is kind of interesting question. I think by default, they tend to have the sort of leave it to beaver, um, sort of 1950s sitcom, uh, uh, image or caricature in their heads of, of what, uh, of what America is. And so that, for example, they have a huge nostalgia for the idea that, well, we should to clamp down on international trade, we should stop all trade with, with, uh, with other nations, we should stop outsourcing jobs cause we should all have the be swinging our lunch pails on our way to the 1950s, uh, industrial factory job that, uh, that, that, that, that P everybody used to have. Speaker 0 00:10:29 And you should be able to have the moms stay at home and have, uh, the father go off and work at the factory and be the breadwinner. Uh, so they have this very sort of traditionalist, 1950s, um, uh, leave it to beaver television, kind of idealized over idealized view of, of what traditional quote unquote lifestyle is in America, uh, which they want to get back to. But by default, it's mainly religious. So you're on his own. He was saying that the deal should be that everybody needs to recognize that in, uh, you know, we're, we're Christians, our majority that Christianity is the sort of majority official ideology or, um, uh, it's the, it should, that Christianity should dominate the culture because Christians are majority. And of course he says in, in Israel, because Jews are majority Judaism should dominate the culture. So it is a, uh, it's a national is based on religious identity and traditional values, however that's defined. Speaker 0 00:11:29 But the big thing here is I think is, is a collectivist nationalism. So that's where we get to the ism in nationalism. And, uh, I think the national ism is specifically at the idea that the nation is at the center of everything. Now I mentioned the paradox of American nationalism or Americanism or American patriotism is the fact that we have a national in which the individuals at the center of everything. And this is very much what the nationalist conservatives are against. So they rail against the autonomous individual as being the center of politics. That's the worst thing that can possibly happen. And so what I think that that's the key in differentiators is do we have an individualist nationalism in which, you know, we, we rec we are proud of America, we're pro-American Patriots, but the essence of America to us is the liberation of the individual, both culturally and politically versus do we have a collectivist nationalism in which the fundamental thing is that the individual must sacrifice for the good of the nation. Speaker 0 00:12:34 So we have to sacrifice economically by accepting all sorts of controls and, uh, trade restrictions and what have you, uh, or we have to sacrifice culturally by, uh, accepting the rule of traditional morality and, and conformity to a traditional morality and to the dominant religion, uh, and, and subordinate our individual goals and desires and ideas to that. So that's, I think what I mean by saying that this is an area where philosophy really helps to straighten this out is understanding that American patriotism has always been sort of paradoxical or had a, an unusual aspect to it. And that the key issues are first, is America an idea? Does America stand for a set of ideas for a creed, uh, political, uh, political and cultural Creek, uh, political creed of, of individualism, or does it stand for a, uh, uh, as America, a nation that stands for simply whatever is traditionally, uh, the traditional ethnic or religious or lifestyle background that we have. So it's the issue of is nationalism ideological, uh, is an American idea, or is it a set of traditions and also is, is nationalism, do we have a, uh, patriotism that's individualistic, or do we have a nationalism that is collectivist in its basic premises? So that's what I wanted to sort of use to open up this discussion about what natural nationalism is and whether it's a good thing. Speaker 2 00:14:11 Excellent. I want to also recognize we have the founder of the Atlas society, uh, professor David Kelly with us up on stage also in the room is our senior scholar professor Stephen Hicks, as well as the chairman of the board of the Atlas society. Jane repair, you guys are indefatigable because we just got off of a three hour, uh, faculty brainstorming meeting, David. Um, do you have some feedback or reaction to Rob's introduction? Speaker 3 00:14:47 Yeah. Thanks, Rob. Uh, I've been trying to nationalism, uh, or the populist version of, you know, the sort of Trump Trump appeal to, or was said to have appeal to, um, for awhile. And it's, it just changed the political landscape, uh, in my mind, but I, here's a question about traditionally, um, you mentioned that, that nationalism, in the sense you're talking about it is a collectivist doctrine, traditionally, the, um, the distinction between the left and the right, um, both of which in that, in this sense, our collectivist yeah. Has to do with advocating equality on the side of the left and hierarchy on the side of the right or hierarchy means, um, accepting established authorities complying with, uh, tradition, but tradition as embodied in institutions that you just, you don't criticize. Um, how much does that equality versus hierarchy distinction play in the kind of national nationalism you're talking about? Speaker 0 00:16:07 Yeah, that's interesting because I also want to recognize that there is a left-wing tradition of nationalism that the progressive movement to the late 19th century and early 20th century had its oftentimes very stridently, nationalistic, uh, aspects to it. I mean, they, they very much had an, uh, uh, I mean a Jonah Goldberg group, sort of a whole book about this called liberal fascism. Although I would question the use of the word liberal, because now it's a word that they stole the progressive stole the word liberal, um, to mean something. It didn't mean, but you know, there was a stridently nationalistic left wing, progressive movement, uh, that sort of wanted to harness this idea that they were the ones who, who, uh, invented the idea of the moral equivalent of war. So they were the first ones to become fascinated, especially after world war one, with the idea that look how much we can accomplish in war, we can get people to sacrifice their lives. Speaker 0 00:17:07 We can get people to accept this high degree of privation and regimentation in order to win a war. What if we could organize all society like that. And basically, you know, I approach every problem as if it were a war we could draft anybody we like and people would live in barracks and they would, uh, you know, sacrifice their interests and they would go without et cetera. They wanted to have the whole sort of wartime system. And so they were very interested in tapping into nationalism at the time. Um, but I do think that the, the, what happened is eventually the left split between the sort of the more nationalist part and the more anti-American part, uh, w that they, uh, uh, a sort of anti-authority version of the left. And I think it was because they realized there was a version of the left, uh, that really embraced the idea that we need to break down all existing institutions in order, you know, the more Marxist aspects of the left is in order to have the revolution in order to totally change transform American society become collectivist. Speaker 0 00:18:19 Here's what I think they, they realized that America is an individualist nation is an individual station. It's a capitalist nation. And that in order to achieve this perfect collectivist ideal of sort of the Marxist ideal, you had to break down all the institutions. And so we had to have a culture culture that would break down the existing culture. And we had to have, uh, the, you know, these attacks to break down all the existing institutions of our society so that we could replace them with, with this new collectivist ideal. And in sort of as a reaction to that, you had people that had said, no, we have to embrace authority and the authority of institutions. And again, they're not Speaker 4 00:19:05 Rob, we seem to have lost you at least on my end, Scott, David, Rob, now you're muted. So on mute, Speaker 5 00:19:25 You may need to leave the room when he come back in or he's just stuck. Yeah. Speaker 4 00:19:30 Robin, you're that new device that you mentioned you're using might be at issue. So if you want to, um, to maybe leave and reenter the room and as he attempts to do that, uh, Scott, do you want to, uh, you were going to add something in terms of your thoughts on Speaker 5 00:19:58 Yeah. Um, I just think that, I don't know how important, you know, for Rob to be able to hear this, but it's an important distinction between, um, you know, a concern, a national conservative, someone that just believes in the nation state and then calling them a national list or saying they scribed to that. Because I think in most cases that they really don't there it's more of a reaction against this kind of global socialist model on the, um, uh, you know, European, uh, model. Um, but, uh, there, there was, uh, an anecdote. I was going to share this with Rob, but I think it's very relevant. I just had this with an objectivist because, um, I posted about Leonard Peikoff, um, identify saying, uh, in his recent birthday party that he identified as politically conservative now. And, um, in response, I had all of these like Orthodox Objectivists come at me and saying, Leonard Peikoff is not rejected objectivism and adopted conservatism. And I said, I wasn't saying he adopted conservatism. I said that he said that he considers himself politically conservative. And I just think that's an important distinction between those two terms. I think Rob tried to make it, but I just, I don't think that applies to everyone that that's part of the national conservatives, uh, you know, Jason Hill included. Speaker 4 00:21:37 Yeah, no, I think Jason had a very interesting distinction on sort of civic nationalism. And he was also talking about, um, we, we were talking about what are the current threats opportunities? And, uh, I had talked about the increasing popularity of socialism and Rob countered. You know, he thought that the increasing popularity of nationalism was also a threat. And, um, I think what Jason had said was there that it was in part, a reaction against, um, a anti-Americanism, um, an anti-Western kind of post-modern, uh, agenda, uh, and that it wasn't necessarily authoritarian in its, in its goals. But Rob, now that you're back, can you unmute yourself? Speaker 0 00:22:34 I think I am. Can you hear me? Speaker 4 00:22:36 Oh, I can hear you, even though it's showing up as needed, so, okay. Speaker 0 00:22:40 Yeah. Clubhouse occasionally drops me. I don't know why. Uh, I don't, I'm not sure where I just kept talking and I don't sure that people stopped speaking. Speaker 6 00:22:48 Yeah, that's a good question, Rob. Sure. So it's what kind of stuck out to me. It's very interesting. Um, America's a north America, I'm Canadian. Uh, nice to meet everybody here. Um, Mr. Hicks, I'm a huge fan of yours, great books. Um, so America, north America, definitely. Yes. Individualism selfish individuals. We all have our own, um, sort of way of looking at things. There's no one way of, of, of doing stuff. You know, I lived in Japan for a decade and in Japan there's a right way and a wrong way to do it, nearly everything to sort of oversimplify. Okay. But then the socialist, or even we would say the pre, um, enlightenment ideals of group collective socialist need to bring people together and for selfish reasons. So what I've noticed with a, of sort of these group identity people, there's a narcissism to them. Speaker 6 00:23:50 Look at me. I am the biggest loser. Um, I am the biggest victim and for, and it feels good. It's this like Nishi and what is it more, uh, the slave morality? Uh, what is that called? Um, spite feels good to be spiteful sometimes. Yeah. Yeah. So it's an interesting, this play between how does the ideals of socialism and group identity make itself to be an attractive thing in a selfish society while you do that, by making people feel special, to be part of a group and leave that individualism behind, and you do that through the, um, attractions of spitefulness. W what do you think of that? Speaker 0 00:24:46 Yeah, I think there's something to that. So for example, I was just on, I mean, Twitter is the ground zero for this, right, where you have the Twitter mobs gang up on somebody and you can see them bonding over the way they gang up on somebody. So, one thing I've noticed is the way the, the tr there's this tremendous sort of, um, cottage industry of hating JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, because she said some things that depart ever so slightly from the orthodoxy on, on transgender, uh, ideology, uh, trying to, you know, that offended the transgender activists. But it's amazing how I've noticed that there's a patron focused specifically on her. That seems to be particularly intensive way out of proportion to anything she said. And I think part of the explanation for that is that by folk is, and I've, I've, it's not just, sorry, I'm sort of this many times that they'll people will tend to pick a hate figure, right? Speaker 0 00:25:40 They'll pick a person who's the designated bad guy, and we all pile on that person and, and, and vilify that person and talk about terrible that person is. And that's how we bond together as part of a group that through our shared hatred, I think, uh, uh, Orwell understood that with assuming it's eight and what is it, Emmanuel Goldstein, who's the, uh, the hate figure that everybody's supposed to, uh, to, to, to, to, to, um, to, to work themselves up into absolute lather of hatred against. So I do think that, yeah, and so thinking of herself as a victim, and then thinking of yourself as being, having certain standard pro villains propped up there that you select as, as your hate figures, that is part of this sort of formation of these tribal identities. Speaker 6 00:26:28 And isn't there some danger to the person who the revolution never comes to them. Maybe the revolution never comes, but they live out a spiteful life. It's self destructive in the end, isn't it? Um, oh yeah, Speaker 0 00:26:47 Yeah. It's so it's so good to feel so bad nobody's ever going to die on the deathbed. Say, I wish I was mean to more people on Twitter. Uh, but he also has to do with the fact that, um, you know, American patriotism and American pride has often been found in the idea of, you know, Americans are people who go out and do things and build things and create things and accomplish these great things. And that's part of the sort of individualistic nationalism that I think is, is traditional to America. Um, that we see ourselves as a nation of individual achievers, often as people going on doing things, you know, that defy the existing authorities or that, uh, departed from the existing norms or that, you know, people said was impossible. I mean, that's, I think it's overdone, but that's almost sort of part of the Elon Musk cult of personality that you have, as everybody said, he said it couldn't be done and he did it. And that's so very, you know, I think there's some, I have some skepticism about how well that applies to Elon Musk, but I think that is very much in this tradition of sort of American individualistic patriotism. You know, we're great because, and he's, he's not even born in America, south African. Um, but the, the, these were great because we go out and we do these unusual things that everybody thought was impossible. And because we often, because we defy tradition and authority, Speaker 6 00:28:13 Aye, aye, aye, aye, aye. And I'll lend all land with this. I do worry about the attractive nature of spite, um, because we do live in a selfish society and we live in a society of exceptionalism, one that doesn't Hmm. You know, in my opinion, um, doesn't, um, really love, uh, or, or hold, uh self-control or inter I don't even know how to explain it inter interdependence so much. So, uh, it's this narcissistic thing where you can make love with yourself when you view yourself as a victim, you're attributed all these amazing things in a way it's falling in love, staring at your belly button. And I think, unfortunately, you know, I think, um, the culture creators on the far left, they, I think they found, they found the Achilles heel. Um, Speaker 4 00:29:20 We'll return to that. Uh, we've got fasc and Allen who also had a question or comment se Speaker 7 00:29:28 Um, Hey. Yeah. Uh, actually, so, um, in terms of nationalism and work, sorry, poodle just said, I, I kind of disagreed to be honest. I think these, that mob people, um, you know, where it nearly shows nationalistic traits on the far left, they don't think themselves as bad or put apart. I think they think themselves as morally superior. So I think what's taken over. I mean, it's not, I mean, there's Bible bashing Christians, but then what's taking over is more of a kind of goody two shoes, you know, like nearly puritanical, uh, we know better, good leftist kind of as a mob. So for me, that's a lot more anti individualistic and definitely on JK rounding, um, for that comment or for, you know, Dave Chappelle or whatever. Um, that for me is more like nationalism. Um, and I mean, spite of course, I mean that's by everywhere, but for me it's, I don't see them as spiteful. I see them as they think they're better. Do you know what I mean? And it's the kinds of mob mentality dictatorship nearly. Speaker 0 00:30:45 Well, I think that the connection here is though that is that they do use victim hood. So for example, against JK Rowling, they use the idea that she's actually causing harm. She's endangering the lives of trans people. So they use that sense of we are victims, but I think it comes from a philosophy in which victim hood also gives you status and superiority. Right? And I've talked about this a little bit before in these clubhouse meetings where, um, there's a brilliant study. That's done a number of years ago where these guys talked about different ways in which societies were organized and what it is that gives, gives your life meaning and gives you personally gives you status within a society. And instead of well, in some societies, it was honor in others. It was dignity at today. We, you know, in our current society, what gives meaning and status in your life is victimhood. Speaker 0 00:31:33 And so it's this weird thing of what they call it. The cry bully is the other term they use for it, right? Where you, you talk about what a horrible victim you are. And then at the same time, you turn around to use that as a means to bully somebody else and push them down and to assert your, the power of your group over them. So it's this weird sort of victim hood at the same time as giving you this sense of superiority, but that's, I think how it's happened. And I think, you know, for the perspective of somebody who's, who's a fan of iron Rand's philosophy. You can see how this is totally in line with her critique of altruism as a philosophy that in altruism, if it's the need of other people, if it's other people's need, that is a moral claim on your life, then that creates the conditions for this sort of victim hood society. Speaker 0 00:32:22 And this cry bully that, uh, you know, like, like, uh, Jim Taggart and Atlas shrugged, uh, who's always pulling this sort of, you know, it's, it's, it's this whole thing of the cry Bali phenomenon is very familiar to you. If you've read Atlas shrugged, because she has a whole bunch of characters, especially, um, Jim Taggart, who do this, who pull this check all the time of look at me, I'd put upon I'm, I'm a horrible victim. And therefore I get to force you to do something and, and, and, uh, um, uh, pressure you to do something that you don't want to do and to sacrifice to me. Speaker 8 00:32:58 Thanks. Speaker 9 00:33:03 Thank you. I think David is, oh, okay. I thought David wanted to speak. Yeah, I mean, I would add to that. Rob is, especially in the case of RK rolling, that there's a sense of betrayal because she was so beloved as an author, that the idea that she could even dare to, to go against what the current narrative was, what it was even, it was even more of a emotional impact for everyone to hear that. Um, but, um, uh, and I could talk about more, more about that, but I won't, but I, but in terms of the topic of nationalism, um, I just wanted to comment in terms of the way the right and the left ha ha ha. What you were saying before, how the left tried to claim it. And what it reminded me of is, um, in the book the year to yet by , which was written in, uh, with first published in 1868, there's a whole section where one of the characters is discussing how liberals are always going against their country. Speaker 9 00:34:31 So, so I think so I think I mentioned that because I think that the idea that liberals are trying to claim any sense of nationalism for whatever country they are ran. I tend to be very suspect of that. Um, and, and I don't know if anybody wanted to expand on that further, but the other thing I wanted to ask a question about is, um, living here in California, um, where we see the ideologies of the left creeping in, especially in the school system and with critical theory and all its incarnations is it seems, and maybe this is a trend, uh, maybe this is a new trend or maybe it isn't that whenever one is in discussion and I've seen this a lot on Facebook and one, and, and you, you try to pin someone down that it never is, whatever you, whatever you say, something, is it never, they never claim ownership of it. Speaker 9 00:35:53 And I'll just say, I mean, I've, I've met dozens of experts who are willing to tell me what critical theory and critical race theory and critical gender theory isn't and how, whatever. I think it is that that is it, but they won't tell me, but they'll never say exactly what it is, even though I've read enough on it to know what's going on. So I don't know if anybody wants to comment on any of those two points about liberals, tradition of anti nationalism and their use of denying, uh, accountant, not accountability, but denying ownership of the ideals or narratives that, Speaker 0 00:36:45 Okay. So I want to talk about this idea of liberals and nationals, because I don't know Dostoevsky well enough. I haven't subjected myself to dusk, Dustin. I was getting off. It's very Russia. It's very depressing. So, uh, to, to know the example, you're there, but there are the problem with the word liberal is it has had, so has such radically different meanings over time. So in America, in the late 19th century, a bunch of a bunch of quote unquote Progressive's stole well, they stole the word progress and then they stole the word liberal to describe what was essentially a collectivist, uh, big government status anti-liberal, uh, viewpoint, whereas in a lot of the world today still, and, and historically liberal meant pro-freedom. And I could see how, if you were pro-freedom in Russia in the 19th century, uh, you might not be anti nationalist or anti Russian because Russia was a highly illiberal stage, right? Speaker 0 00:37:39 So, uh, you know, in fresh and patriotism means you have to support the unlimited power of the czar. I can see that, uh, if you were an advocate of freedom, you would not be a Patriot. And that's what I think is so unusual and different and refreshing about American patriotism is that you can be, uh, you know, a full on an American Patriot. You can love this country. You can proclaim how great America is. And at the same time, you can also be a liberal in this broader, more, uh, more accurate sense of being an advocate of freedom, because this is a country based on freedom and liberalism and not on, you know, everybody serving. Those are, uh, so, so that's why you have to be careful when you use the term liberalism and you talk about the history of liberalism, that it has meant a amount, the ideology and an anti freedom ideology over time. And depending on what country you're in, Speaker 3 00:38:50 David, why don't you respond to some of that? And then we'll get Brian and Roger in. Okay. Yeah. I just had quick comment on, or hopefully quick on, uh, rats reference to altruism, um, which is essentially the idea that one person's need is a claim on those who can satisfy that need it's a claim and their ability, money, resources, whatever, but there's another strain of altruism, which I think of as the river inversion of values, that those, and it's laid out in gold speech and Atlas shrug. It's your lack of value that entitles you. It's not so much you need, it's your lack of value. And that's, that's what underlies the issue of envy, which I think is involved in identity politics and is, um, um, the, the ultimate source of what ran called the hatred of the good to be good. When you prize yourself as a victim, you are prizing yourself by that inverted morality. That lack is an, is it an entitlement? It's a badge of honor. So just to add to that point, which I think relates to what he was saying by not your name correctly. Okay. That's all we can move on. Thank you, David. Brian. Speaker 0 00:40:27 Hey, thank you. Um, I like this topic and I want to ask a question that, that maybe pulls it back and incorporates what, uh, Tessie and Allen said. Cause I really liked what they were saying. When I think about what they were saying, I think about how the left, co-ops a lot of language and that's kind of the shift in the tactics where, you know, in the, in the forties, fifties, sixties, whatever it used to be kind of a frontal assault, you know, communism is better. America is evil and, and we just have different views and it was easy to kind of spot those people who were anti-American. But then, um, you know, rules for radicals and, and different books came out basically saying, Hey, let's kind of infiltrate instead of directly oppose. And one of the tactics was to, um, co-op the language, whether it is, you know, what does freedom mean to you? Doesn't mean what it means to me or, or Patriot or nationalism, for example. And so, um, um, I'm interested in your, your thoughts on that shift and the tactics, and more specifically, what, in terms of nationalism, can we draw as a line between the pro versus anti-American folks who may both call themselves nationalists? Does that make sense? Speaker 0 00:42:03 Uh, he may have dropped out again. So I'm interested in the front lines, you know, the tactics, the front lines of these battles. And, um, so Rob, I don't know if you heard my question or not. I think I heard all about it, like 10 seconds of it. Okay. So, so I was just saying where they, they, the left has kind of moved from a frontal assault to a more co-opting tactic and, uh, in terms of, uh, taking the same word and just redefining it and saying that, well, you know, I'm a nationalist as well, but to me, nationalism means being anti-American whereas, you know, a Patriot would, would say, well, a nationalist means being pro-American. So what's the best line of distinction or demarcation when, you know, we get into these arguments or discussions with these folks who take the word nationalism, for example, and, uh, you know, turn it around to mean anti-American, what's, what's the best argument when we get on those front lines of these battles yeah. Speaker 0 00:43:07 With national. So I don't think the left has really tried to own that one for about a hundred years. That was really, uh, it was, you know, you got to go back to Woodrow Wilson and the sort of progressive move into the early 20th century, uh, for them to have been nationalists. Uh, and today I think it's the conservatives who are using nationalism as a way of appropriating patriotism, American patriotism, but for an anti individualist agenda, or at least some, one wing of conservatives is doing that. And you can see the tremendous appeal because there's, you know, if you're on the right and you're seeing all these attacks on America from the left, you want to find somebody who's going to be, you know, stand up for America. Who's going to be pro-American, who's going to want to make America great again, uh, to coin a phrase. Speaker 0 00:43:52 And so that, uh, there's this tremendous appeal, uh, nationalism tries to attach itself to the appeal of that patriotism and view it and present itself as the answer to the anti patriotism, essentially anti-Americanism of left, uh, while then undermining the actual basis of Americanism, which is individual rights and individuals. Uh, but yeah, this whole thing of the left Def redefining terms and being subversive. I mean there, um, Dave Virgie, who's on Twitter as Iowa Hawk, if you don't have, uh, he's a really interesting guy. Uh, he, he really succinctly summed up the approach taken of these groups and it was step one, identify a respected institution, the taps who kill it, gut it, and then where its skin as a suit and demand respectability. And this is what they've basically done recently, for example, with the ACLU, the ACLU has come out in favor of, uh, the, the, the milestone here was that, uh, ACO prominent ACLU lawyer came out in favor of banning, um, AB apical Shire, his book on the transgender issue ban. So the ACU comes out in favor of banning books because the pro transgender, the gender ideology, that agenda became more important to them than defending free speech. And it, none of these cases where you had the left, the people from the left came into the organization, this legendary civil rights pro-free speech organization, they came into it, they killed it, they gutted it. And then they, you know, where its name, where its skin is a suit, uh, to try to demand respectability while doing the opposite of what the traditional mission of the organization was. Speaker 4 00:45:38 Thank you. Um, Roger, and I want to encourage the rest of you that might have a question to go ahead and raise your hand. Now we are going to end this room very promptly at five or even a minute before. Speaker 10 00:45:57 Hey, thanks, Jenny. Hey, Rob. Um, I'm all, I'm all ism doubt. Uh, and I'm wondering if you could boil it down, uh, to what we'll call it, the right, what the right is doing right now. Um, when they're using the term nationalism, I know you've mentioned, you know, anti individualism, uh, kind of Americanism, blending patriotism off the Islams. Um, I'm just wondering if you could try to give, uh, just the, you know, what are they going for it? And I'll just give them what I think they're doing. Um, you know, we have a group of us, we have found each other, we all feel oppressed and we need to band together to form a political unit that can, you know, defend our, our interests. That's what I, that's what seems like is going on. Um, and I know they're using terms like nationalism and patriotism to it to, I guess, that you might have a different way of describing what it is that they're doing. Um, and I, I don't know if you could, if you, if you could Antietam the description, uh, that would be a couple for me. Thanks. Speaker 0 00:47:10 Yeah. So I think that the way a lot of them would define it to themselves is what you said that we are we're, we're targeted we're victims. Uh, I, Trump had a famous thing where he said to his audience, you are the greatest victims. So it's like conservatives embracing the victim of culture, uh, that we used to make fun of on the, on the, on the left. Um, but so I think they see it as we're victims and we're abandoned together to defend our interests. But then the question has to be well, how do you define American interests? How you define your interests as Americans, as people who want to preserve America. And they view it as well. What we mean by that is traditional morality and religion and what they're rejecting, or at least this particular wing of the conservatism is rejecting that as, as the, the wing that has, has, um, adopted national conservatism as his motto is the rejecting the idea that American identity and Americanism is defined by individual rights and individuals. Speaker 0 00:48:12 So that's the thing is that, you know, the idea of, of saying the left is a threat and we have to add the left, the left that threatened the left is anti-American and we have to fight back against it. That's all, that's the correct part. But then the question that leaves you with the question of, well, what is America, what is Americanism what's its defining characteristic. And I think what defines the national list, right? The new nationalist, right? What defines them is a rejection of the idea that individual rights and individualism is the essence of America and the essence of Americanism. And that's the thing that, and that, and the rejection of the idea that that's what we're trying to defend. Speaker 10 00:48:51 So, so it's a rejection of, of individual, you know, the traditional focus on the individual for, um, you know, uh, is it a set of beliefs? It is, is it a set of common, um, stresses? Is it Speaker 0 00:49:10 The actual quote here, I think is from Europe Xone is, uh, that they're funding us the idea that the individual is at the center, uh, of, of that the individual and his rights is at the center of politics. And it said saying that the collective good, the collective good of the nation should be at the center. And then they define that collective good. And in terms of traditional morality, which really kind of boils down to, Hello, Speaker 4 00:49:41 I know Robert, you finished. Speaker 0 00:49:43 I think I was, yeah, Speaker 4 00:49:45 Yes. You could ask your question and then mute yourself. Okay. Maybe he wandered into the Speaker 9 00:50:06 Yeah. You know, well, I had a thought and that disrupted me, ER, it was when you were talking about the individual, an altruism, um, there's this sense also on the left, when you, and talking about victim hood, that since America has, as a country helped other countries, both economically, socially and militarily that the left defines America as, as B as not only being altruistic, but is a re a requirement to be altruistic. And I say that because the other end of the whole victim discussion, and maybe you agree with this or don't, but it's that, it's the idea that whatever causes they are promoting or whoever they identify as a victim, that we should, we should all want to help them in the way that they say they should. The left says that they should be helped and that you're condemned. If you don't want to do that, or don't take up the cause and the way that they say they should. So there's, there's another element of that altruism in that you are, uh, you're not a good person or, or we won't be a good country and less, we take up that cause, uh, have you seen that as well? Or Speaker 0 00:51:53 The left has the myth there mythology isn't that we've helped countries in the past? Their mythology is we've harmed everybody in the past, you know, because in the past we've done a lot of, you know, America has been, especially in the last a hundred years has been very active on the, you know, since basically since world war one, America has been very active on the world stage and has been, you know, the superpower. And we have used that oftentimes to help out our allies, but usually to help out our allies, you know, help out people who have, uh, uh, we have some reason to want to help them, uh, you know, our European allies during world war two and during the cold war, um, et cetera. So people w cases where it was in our interests. Now, I don't say it's always, we've always done it when it's in our interest, but we've generally done it when it's in our interest. Speaker 0 00:52:42 And then that is the crime that we, you know, that we're guilty of, uh, for much of the left. So the idea is we have to atone for that now by, uh, uh, by, you know, basically sacrificing our interests for the sake of whoever they've designated as being the official victims. Now, the problem they run into of course, is that, uh, uh, you know, the Colonel Putin or the KGB knows all too well, how to take up that kind of, uh, rhetoric. And so you hear from Russian saying, oh yeah, we've been oppressed. Uh, the, the classes Soviet union was terrible. We've been oppressed by this American imperialism. And so therefore we get to invade Ukraine. And of course he's a horrible, he, he is, he is the, you know, the, the ultimate sort illiberal, uh, fascistic nationalist, uh, uh, way better, way worse than anybody at the, uh, domestic politics is even in contemplating. Speaker 0 00:53:35 So, um, you know, you see how the ideas of the left oftentimes end up benefiting it. It's an interesting little angle. I came across recently. Somebody reminded me about that. And in high X, uh, the hikes, the road to serfdom the thing that he held up as, you know, the, the, the, as the end point, what he's warning about how we shouldn't have this big government, we shouldn't have government seizing more and more power and, and, and, uh, being empowered to do more things. His nightmare scenario wasn't that we'd all moved towards communism. His nightmare scenario was we give all this extra power to government, and then somebody like Hitler would come along and grab it and we'd end up with fascism. So, you know, it's interesting that people don't remember that because they view him as being an opponent of communism, which he was, but it's the idea that oftentimes when you come up with these ideologies of victimhood and these ideologies of collectivism and that sort of thing, oftentimes the person you think, you know, where, where, where the, the communist drug, where the left thinks is going to benefit from it, where they think it's going to go, what kind of system they think it's going to result in the often end up creating the conditions and the ideology and the arguments that ended up benefiting somebody they hate. Speaker 4 00:54:48 Yeah. All right. Sorry, guys. We're running out of time, so let's, we've got four more minutes quickly get to Erwin Winton, and then, um, Rob you, and then I wanted to just right now, remind everybody we're going to be back on Thursday with our clubhouse, uh, with, um, professor Richard Salzman. It's going to be an ask me anything. So bring any question you have to, to that conversation. And then also, uh, tomorrow, uh, we're going to have a, um, discussion, uh, current events panel with professor, uh, Kelly and Richard Saltzman. And that's going to be on all of our platforms. You can find all of these details on our events page. So our Winton. Speaker 11 00:55:43 Yeah. Thank you, Jennifer. Well, I have a question about international politics to Mr. Rob, several scholars argue that illiberal democracy is on the rise right now, like in her gallery, Brazil and so on. Do you think that this phenomenon is like what happened in 1930s or 1940s? Or do you have another point of view? So that's it, Mr. Rob, thank you. Speaker 0 00:56:09 Yeah, I, I think, I mean, I think there are some parallels to 1930s. I think, you know, we're about to sign a music deal to, um, to handle, uh, uh, uh, deal of the style of the music conference in 1938 to, to let Putin have, um, I have have Ukraine, but, uh, I, I think it's not anywhere near as bad. I mean, the world was a much less liberal place liberal in the sense of being, having free societies, uh, much, much less liberal place in, in 19, the 1930s than it, than it has than it is now. Um, but I think that there is a natural cycle where there's advantage when free, when, when a freedom and a free society advances as it did after the cold war, that there's, it's sort of like a, it's like a virus and the various methods that things you use to fight the virus, the virus adapts. Speaker 0 00:56:58 And it, it, um, it, it develops new variants that are meant to sort of get around your, your bank. What happened in the last 20, 30 years is that you had the classes of union, you had global communism, it collapsed, and no, instead of censoring the media, you create your own media that confuses everybody by throwing out all sorts of conspiracy theories and disinformation, they found new ways. And by the way, she could tell DELMIA has a new organization. She has a subset called the unpopular list, and she's studying this and she has some great stuff on how this authoritary newest authoritarian toolkit is how she shows it, that they developed a new ideologies, a new ways to presenting themselves that are meant to sort of get around those defenses and find a new justification for dictatorship and for taking away freedom. And I think that's what we have to be aware of and then find our new ways to beat back against that. Um, uh, I crossed the world. Speaker 4 00:58:14 Excellent. Well, you wrong? Thank you everybody. Excellent engagement, uh, great questions. And, um, again, this will be available on our podcast platforms and, uh, please join us tomorrow again, check out our events page on, um, Atlas, society.org for our, uh, our weekly podcasts, uh, our weekly webinars, including the one that we'll have tomorrow with, uh, professor Salzman and professor Kelly. And then join us back here. Bring your questions on Thursday with, uh, our senior scholar, professor Richard Saltzman. So thanks everyone.