The Ethics of Nationalism

The basic dichotomy at the heart of our politics at the moment, nevertheless, is the one between economy and “democracy.” Or in other words, the dichotomy between economy and culture. And this is where nationalism and religion – which are perhaps the two most powerful forces in the social world – come into play. As Morgenthau argued, nationalism is first and foremost a class issue. Nationalism is most relevant when “dynastic” or “elite” interests are replaced with mass and popular interests. Nationalistic fervor also arises out of a state of social disintegration and insecurity due to economic cycles and war. Nationalistic fervor also transposes itself on a scapegoat, such as minorities or immigrants, when in reality, the economic and social conditions which give rise to nationalistic fervor are self-inflicted. 

Nationalistic and religious fervor amount to “the transformation of individual frustrations into collective identification with the nation” at the very least and in a most basic sense. These individual frustrations are also projected onto the international scene, as Morgenthau noted, as was the case with Nazi Germany during their wars with England, France, and Russia among others. There is also an underlying belief or “conviction” to the nationalistic and religious fervor of a nationalist which Morgenthau noted and is important to highlight:

“The conviction, seemingly supported by historic experience, that the nation with which he identifies himself is constantly menaced by capitalist enemies serves to elevate his personal fears and insecurities onto the collective plane. His personal fears are thus transformed into anxiety for the nation. Identification with the nation thus serves the dual function of satisfying individual power drives and alleviating individual fears by projecting both onto the international scene.” 

There is a basic trend which develops and is made up of a combination of “domestic frustration and international instability” to borrow from Morgenthau, which in turn drives large numbers of people to take part in “an ever more complete and intensive identification of the individual with the nation.” And it is inevitable that such an intensive identification with the “nation” which arises out of personal frustrations will lead to clashes on the international scene, as Morgenthau contended. 

Not only do nationalist figures and groups clash on the international scene, but they also ally themselves with the nation’s foreign adversaries or enemies against domestic opponents. The “ethics” of nationalism is in a sense conflict with perceived enemies, whether real or imagined and both domestic and foreign. The prestige associated with identification with the nation, the breakdown of basic morality as a result of the “ethics” of nationalism which are one and the same as perpetual conflict, and the breakdown of “supranational ethics” as a result of the two aforementioned conditions mean that “national ethics” will prevail over “universal ethics” to borrow from Morgenthau. There is an “impotence” demonstrated by supra-nationalists or internationalists and liberals in the face of “nationalist ethics.” Morgenthau argued: “The individual comes to realize that the flouting of universal standards of morality is not the handiwork of a few wicked men, but the inevitable outgrowth of the conditions under which nations exist and pursue their aims.” In short, it is “the preponderance of national morality” which motivates “the actions of men on the international scene” more than anything else, and as a result, the liberal or the internationalist “and his conscience does not cease to be ill at ease.”