Nationalism Is Not A Dirty Word

Whenever the topic of “nationalism” is broached, there seems to be a cloud of taboo surrounding the usage of that word. Patriotism is permitted, and chauvinism can be tolerated, but to be nationalist? For many, that is a bridge too far.

This has resulted in a convoluted conceptual web surrounding nationalism within its typical understanding and usage. In a previous article of mine published on The National Policy, I wrote the following on the contemporary understanding of nationalism:

“Nationalism is a term whose use has become glib, now it can mean anything from ‘civic nationalism,’ which places emphasis on a nation’s culture as being its defining element, separate from heritage; all the way to ‘Christian nationalism,’ which can be simply put as ‘Protestant Integralism’—removing the separation between Church and State.”

These attempts to rehabilitate the concept of nationalism – or to redirect the urges which manifest themselves as nationalism – are paths fundamentally directed towards failure. Since advocates of globalism will reject any form of nationalism irrespective of any concessions made towards the globalist, adherents to a watered-down form of nationalism are subject to all of the same scrutiny and outrage which is borne by a supporter of an unqualified nationalism.

Simultaneously, by their inherent opposition to unqualified nationalism, they lack the philosophical or practical foundations with which to benefit from nationalistic policies. So, civic nationalists, and advocates of other similar forms of qualified nationalism, are subject to the worst consequences of both elements of the ideologies that surround them.

All of the stigma of supporting nationalism, with none of its beneficial attributes.

Another thing to consider is the manner in which this phenomenon is functionally isolated to the Western world. If one were to venture to the West’s primary competition – China, Eastern Europe, and India – all of these countries are deeply nationalistic. Even countries on the periphery of Western influence, such as the Ukraine, carry with them an entrenched nationalism out of necessity of defence against their much larger and more powerful neighbour, Russia.

Thus, when looking at the countries who are competing over the world stage, it is evident the degree to which their nationalistic policies are effective in maintaining their relevance – despite their often materially poorer conditions.

In China, for example, their productivity dominance is maintained partly due to their intense focus on nationalistic policies; heavy focus on domestic Chinese economic development and sustenance, protectionist policies for underdeveloped Chinese industries, and the encouragement of Chinese identity at home and abroad.

The same can be said for all of the aforementioned countries and then some. Frankly, the same can be said for nearly every non-Western country on earth. To that end, the propensity of Western nations against nationalism is a new one.

As I mentioned, the West maintains a materially superior way of life to those which we compete with, and many would make the argument that these prosperous material conditions are a direct result of our anti-nationalistic tendencies. Yet, I find that this opinion is one which is born as a post-hoc confirmation of the value of our oikophobia, not a genuine cause-and-effect relationship.

If we were to investigate the greatly loathed histories of the Western world, we find nationalism abound in each and every one of them – especially so in Canada. What we also find is that the prosperity we enjoy today not only existed in these nationalistic manifestations of our countries’ past, but in some ways surpassed the luxury which we enjoy today.

Obviously, it can be said that Canadians today enjoy a greater degree of convenience. Nobody in Victorian Canada would be able to get already prepared food delivered directly to their doorstep; yet, one may consider that the doorstep which was bereft of a fast food bag was one which was owned outright by the attached house’s occupant.

I think that this illustration is rather indicative of the difference in prosperity enjoyed by our ancestors when compared with the prosperity of today. Our prosperity is enjoyed in the form of luxury and convenience, whereas theirs was one of quality and possession.

We may own one hundred different articles of clothing, but their odd few outfits were made in Canada and lasted them a lifetime. By contrast, our Chinese spun shirts will wear out in only a few years. Now, the kind of quality which was taken for granted by Canadians of years past is reserved only for luxury goods.

We can therefore say that nationalistic Canada – despite being strictly “poorer” – was in fact wealthier in terms of their material goods, according to the measure of what we consider luxurious today.

This is especially unique considering the absence of this factor in the consideration of materially poorer countries which are our contemporaries. Chinese people wear Chinese clothing, which is still of poor quality; ditto to the knockoff Western brands worn by Russians; or the factory store clearance goods worn by Indians.

To me, this demonstrates that it is not the ideology of nationalism itself which imbues a particular quality of life – further, this betrays why civic nationalism is an unsustainable model for the assurance of nationalist prosperity.

Re-shoring manufacturing in of itself does not a quality good make, particularly if the hands which manufacture those goods are accustomed to labour which produces poor quality goods. It is not the soil under which a good is made, nor the tool which fashions it, nor the material which constitutes it, but the craftsmanship and character of the manufacturer.

Writing for Western Standard, I alluded to this concept in an article entitled “You can’t have a strong nation without hard work.” In it, I write; “That relationship [between man and tool] is intimate—a shaping of the tool by the man, and the man by the tool—which fosters competence and identity.”

Under a globalized system, the interconnected web of trade and offshoring dissolves this relationship. Under a civic nationalist system, the effect is the same—a dilution of connection between a particular people and their goods due to their fabrication by foreign peoples with foreign modes of being. The only difference between the two being the particular location of manufacture, which is irrelevant if they are not representative of the location’s inhabitants.

“It is through work—real, tangible, demanding work—that a people comes to understand itself,” I write in the aforementioned article. It is not enough for Canadians to be the merchant custodians of a foreign labouring underclass – as has become of the United States, for instance – as that nevertheless divorces us from the means of production, which in turn moulds us into something other than Canadians.

Both Liberals and Conservatives oscillate in position between a strictly globalist to an implicitly civic nationalist political platform, yet both fail to manifest longstanding positive outcomes for the Canadian nation-state.

The current Liberal conception of Canada as a “middle power,” gives a patriotic flourish to a globalist view of Canada as bureaucrats and merchants, who exist solely to be moralistic policemen of the international liberal order, and manage the flow of commerce outwards from Canada into other states.

I contend that this was not the view held by the Fathers of Confederation at the time of the formation of this country. Particularly not of Sir John A. Macdonald, whose National Policy sought to maximize both the quantity and quality of goods made in Canada; for the Canadian market.

Nationalism is not a dirty word, it should not be something couched in qualifications and concessions. Canada is a territory for Canadians, whose state ought to pursue every avenue at its disposal to maximize the benefit of Canadians, which may at times be uncomfortable to the emergent Laurentian merchant-bureaucratic class.

It was once said by Lord Dorchester that “barring catastrophe shocking to think of, this country must, to the end of time, be peopled by the Canadian race, who have already taken such firm root, and got to so great a height, that any new stock transplanted will be totally hid.” Our people are firmly rooted in Canada, and in-keeping with Dorchester’s vision those roots must be maintained and further heightened.

To allow that vision to falter, would be a catastrophe “shocking to think of.”