Earlier today, former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy caused a bit of a stir by calling for a “libertarian nationalist alliance.” This is definitely not a new idea. “Paleoliberals” like Lew Rockwell have been arguing the same thing for years. But it’s still as wrong as ever. Nationalism is deeply antithetical to liberalism and liberal values more generally. An ideology based on liberty, free markets, and universal human rights cannot be reconciled with an ideology based on collectivism, racial particularism, and government control of large parts of the economy. Cato Institute scholar Alex Norast and I set out this point in more detail in “The Case Against Nationalism,” published in national affairs earlier this year. Here are excerpts from the presentation:
Nationalism has become the dominant ideology on the political right in the United States and has gained ground in many European countries over the past decade. This happens without adequate attention to the dangers inherent in nationalism—dangers that are evident in the latest iteration of nationalism as well as those that preceded it, both in theory and in practice.
Nationalism is particularly dangerous in a diverse country like the United States, where it is likely to exacerbate conflict. It is virtually impossible to separate this ideology from the pernicious ethnic and racial discrimination that conservatives would readily condemn in other contexts. Nationalism shares important similarities with socialism in that it encourages harmful government control of the economy. Nationalism also poses a threat to democratic institutions. Finally, nationalist ideology contradicts America’s founding principles, which are based on universal natural rights rather than racial particularism.
In key respects, nationalism is nothing more than socialism under a different banner, with more national chauvinism. All Americans, especially traditional conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians, should recognize the dangers of nationalism and rededicate themselves to the core principles of our founding.
Eric Boehm reason Additional criticism of Ramaswamy’s idea:
Of course, there are many factions of libertarians, but the one belief that unites the movement is that people are best served by deciding for themselves how to live their lives. Nationalism is fundamentally a collectivist ideology that places the needs of the nation above individual choices…
The wave of nationalism currently sweeping the right of American politics is not about something as innocent-sounding as restoring national pride. Its proponents have been very public about their desire to empower the state to pursue industrial policy, aggressive deportations, and even very silly things like banning lab-grown meat.
This puts the two views in a state of great tension. In practice, liberals advocate reducing the power of the state to control individual freedoms. Nationalists will not hesitate to restrict the free movement of people or goods if these restrictions are seen or imagined to be in the precarious interests of the state.
It is true that “nationalism” and “libertarianism” are relatively vague terms, and different people use them in different ways. It is theoretically possible to imagine a movement that calls itself nationalist but actually promotes freedom. But, as Alex Norast and I explain, this is not what today’s “national conservatives” or any historic nationalist movement advocates.
Likewise, of course there are people who call themselves “liberals” but are actually right-wing cultural warriors who are highly sympathetic to national justice. Sadly, much of the current leadership of the Liberal Party is like this. But insofar as liberalism is about free markets and individual freedoms, it cannot be compared to nationalism, an ideology that is universally understood by the vast majority of its adherents.
Clearly, history has examples of alliances between ideologically distinct groups. The alliance between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies during World War II is an obvious example. For a short time, they were able to work together because they had a common enemy that they feared and hated more than each other (although this only happened after the Soviet Union’s failed attempt to ally with the Nazis, when Hitler decided to attack them).
But the alliance between liberals and nationalists has no similar basis. In this era, nationalists themselves are the greatest threat to freedom in most Western countries, including the United States. They support as much or more government spending and government control of industry as most left-libertarians. Moreover, they have introduced protectionism, massive immigration restrictions (which themselves pose a serious threat to the economic freedom of locals), and culture war-driven regulation of personal behavior. On the latter front, they even advocate escalating the already horrific drug war into a real war by attacking Mexico. For these reasons and others, a libertarian nationalist alliance makes no more sense than a libertarian socialist alliance.
One occasionally finds specific parochial issues on which liberal and right-wing nationalist views coincide; the same goes for liberals and leftists. For example, both liberals and nationalists object to government-imposed racial preferences for minority groups (although most nationalists abandon colorblindness when it comes to issues like racial profiling and immigration). But there is no basis for any broad alliance.
