Rethinking the nation, beyond nativism

[Celerity]

Challenging intolerance does involve a political economy of justice. But it must also provide an affective alternative.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/rethinking-the-nation-beyond-nativism



Democracies around the world are turning away from liberalism to ethnonationalism for security against the upheavals of an open society. In the last decade alone, majorities in the United States, Britain, Brazil, India, Poland, Hungary, Italy, and Turkey have voted for nationalist parties decrying elites, migrants, minorities, liberals, experts, professionals and cosmopolitans as the enemies of a prosperous and cohesive society. Heroically and without much evidence, these targets are blamed for corrupting the democratic process, sacrificing the economy, destroying national identity and betraying the interests of a historic ‘people’.

This is a dangerous and punitive shift in political culture, with strong echoes of the aversions that culminated in the victories of fascism and Nazism a century ago. The seismic proposition is that liberalism has failed and that a strongarm state is needed, ready to suppress dissent and constitutional legacies, tighten the boundaries of the nation, promote indigenous interests and communicate directly with the people. The precepts, protagonists and beneficiaries of liberalism must be sacrificed to revive national order and wellbeing, so the nativist narrative goes, with worryingly widespread popular and media consent.

Loss of progressive verve

This is partly because of the absence of liberal thinking able to convince the ‘left behind’ that their interests will not be best served by the strongarm state, sequestered behind boundaries. If anything, the slim victories of social-democratic parties in recent years have the ring of liberalism surviving by virtue of just sufficient electoral fear of the consequences of xenophobic nationalism—not out of conviction that a pluralist, open and democratic society is the source of prosperity and wellbeing. It is ironic that the steady spread of progressive social attitudes, especially among younger and urban populations, towards consumption, conservation and personal, sexual and cultural liberty, has not strengthened support for liberal democracy.

This disjunction may be due to a sense that liberal democracy in its least protective forms has betrayed the material interests, sense of place and voice of ‘ordinary’ citizens. But progressive parties—liberal or social-democratic—also seem to have lost their verve, pushed by nativist populism towards a drawbridge politics of selective welfare, populist appeasement and border closure to secure electoral survival. They have not responded to the nationalist turn by developing a clear and compelling narrative of the ‘good society’, premised on the reinforcements of cosmopolitan engagement, generalised wellbeing and democratic expansion. They have not presented a vision of what it means to belong, beyond the strictures of a closed nation and historical community. In the gap, nativism has managed to insert nationalism and old-country traditions into the heart of popular understanding of what the good society is.

Affective dimension....................

snip

[TigressDem]

1. Using the word, "Nativism" shows a lot of hubris. Only indigenous people are native to a land.

BE HONEST.

At least in America, this Christian Nationalism is all about the "Rights of Whites" over everyone else.

YES. People of all races can be intolerant.


AND PLEASE can't we just all find ways to get along and solve problems together instead of fighting all the time about stupid stuff that really doesn't change anything?

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM is OLIGARCHY and the rich and powerful of all cultures trying to go back to rule of the rich over the peons.

They are using intolerance to keep people fighting among themselves so they can't see the truth.

[Celerity]

2. this article is not at all limited to the US, the use of the term nativism is hardly hubristic when applied over here in the EU

[TigressDem]

4. Even in Europe, the Oligarchs are more the problem. Nativism is the smoke screen.

I agree with what the article sees as intolerance as being hurtful to all, but underneath all that is the quest for power and the filthy rich using these tactics to keep people fighting among themselves because if we get together, there are more of us than them and we will win.

I don't have a problem with people being rich.

I have a problem with them thinking that means they are supposed to rule like Kings because they have money and of trying to destroy democracies.

Liberal policies don't try to rule over anyone.

People who are educated might appear snobbish and might not always do the right thing, but the more one knows the more likely one understands the world is a better place for the vast majority of people if we respect people's right to have a say in their lives.


Peace.

[Celerity]

5. I absolutely agree with you about the rule of oligarchs, but the RW using nativism is also a problem

[TigressDem]

7. The RW using nativism is them weilding a TOOL that causes problems.

It would be like taking a sword away from a Knight who is bent on destroying everyone around him.

YES. Take away the sword. Identify the use of lethal force as an issue.

BUT do NOT take our eyes off the wielder as he picks up a mace and starts in again.

UNTIL the issues underneath nativism are dealt with, removing it just makes room for the next divisive ploy.

The RW is projecting their desire to rule us unfairly onto people trying to keep Democracy alive.

People who live somewhere all their lives have a vested interest in keeping their homeland safe.

The smokescreen and messaging has them running around wildly attacking the firefighters trying to put out the fire.

[Happy Hoosier]

6. I think that slightly ignores....

.... the pressures of migration.

It's becoming a very large issue across Europe. The question is: to what extent can a nation act to pretect its culture without being racist or cruel.

I think managing the pace migration and of cultural change is going to be important going forward.

[TigressDem]

9. Common sense immigration reform is a good thing.

We need to make the system work better and quit allowing the RW to depict all immigrants as evil usurpers.

Dealing with actual facts and working to resolve actual problems instead of putting up walls and hiding from other countries can only make things better.

I think US could put up Tiny Homes along the border with hydroponics in all those shipping containers they stacked and just put people to work building solar panels and harvesting food while they wait out the process. Everyone would benefit and no one needs to be sent back to a river with razor wire in it.

Not sure where all the border crises are in Europe, but a way for people to wait out their application process while being useful could be found if that is how we were approaching the problems.

[AkFemDem]

3. People everywhere

People of all political affiliations, race, religion, and income level want and need to feel financially secure enough to ensure housing, food, water, healthcare, and they want and need to feel safe from crime and war. These are the bottom and largest tiers of Maslow’s Hierarchy.

If those needs are met then the top tiers, love, belonging and respect, esteem, and self actualization take on more importance.

These nationalist parties and groups tend to tap into those bottom tiers and focus messaging on that. Progressive parties tend to tap into the top tiers and focus messaging on that.

In a world where a completely accessible 24 hour news cycle and social media amplify every terrible thing constantly, it is unsurprising that many people feel less financially secure and less physically safe than ever before. The psychological impact of the images and messaging we all are pummeled with every day has a stunning effect whether we are actually less financially secure/physically safe or not.

[TigressDem]

10. True, mostly.

I think the difference is more in the fact that Progressives realize that people working together can ensure housing, food, water, healthcare and safety from crime and war VS presenting a boogey man that must be attacked to save yourself.

This is a different world that isn't fact based because of all the willingness to use media as a tool of propaganda.

WHEN people work together on the lower levels of Maslow, THEN we can ALSO get to the top tiers.


I don't think Progressives are missing the bottom levels, I think they look at the whole picture.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

8. George Orwell's 1984, but in different colors...

Being snuffed out when it is the color BLACK that is being promoted as the only color allowed.

According to Wikipedia...
Black is a color that results from the absence or complete absorption of visible light. It is an achromatic color, without hue, like white and grey.[2] It is often used symbolically or figuratively to represent darkness.[3] Black and white have often been used to describe opposites such as good and evil, the Dark Ages versus Age of Enlightenment, and night versus day. Since the Middle Ages, black has been the symbolic color of solemnity and authority, and for this reason it is still commonly worn by judges and magistrates.[3]

Nationalism, strongly on display in this country and around the world, is a return to the Dark Ages. No other colors(ideas, peoples, religious or political views) are allowed. Conformity and authority controlled by very few with the money and power to do so.