Post-Nationalism versus Neo-Nationalism

Trudeau reacting to Neo-Nationalism

Justin Trudeau, in an interview, identified Canada as the first post-national state. I dispute this supposition as Belgium, a union between French-speaking Wallonians and Dutch-speaking Flemish, was founded in 1830. Although, to be fair to Canada, the Belgians did feel closely tied to a Catholic rather than an ethnic identity, in contrast to the Netherlands whose ruling house literally defined Orangism. However, Canada is not too dissimilar from Belgium, what with its large, restless French community. Trudeau’s assertion of postnationalism serves to forestall Quebecois secessionism, by rendering its fundamental question of nationalism moot. As peoples move around the world, exchanging ideas and culture, ethnic nationalism has found itself in steep decline.

 

This movement of peoples has triggered something which I call Neo-Nationalism, a belief that immigrants cannot properly integrate into society, and therefore that they should be kept out. There may be some exception for nations with similar cultures, such as Germany and Austria, or America and the United Kingdom, but for the most part, immigration is frowned upon. Neo-Nationalism has risen in a reaction to Post-Nationalism, much as Romanticism has risen in response to rationalism after the age of Enlightenment. It has been embraced by Fidesz in Hungary, the Law and Justice Party (Polish) in Poland, and closer to home, it has seized the Republican Party away from the rational center.

 

In France, the rivalry between these two concepts was one of the most important controversies of the election, with Post-Nationalist and pro-European Emmanuel Macron running against the Neo-Nationalist Le Pen. Macron campaigned on the idea that immigration would be an economic boon, and he won amidst concerns of rising terrorism—no mean feat. It is perhaps the best example of how serious the debate has become. Indeed, upon further analysis, Trump could have secured his surprise win in the Midwest due to Neo-Nationalism, making it a fundamental wedge issue that pulled away Democrats from the party fold. It seems that as the younger generation becomes less nationalist, the elder generations are heading in the opposite direction. There may be several concerns driving the two generations apart, such as a loss of traditional culture, or the burdening of social welfare programs which elder generations may rely on.

 

To analyze the rise of Neo-Nationalism, we must first understand its adherents. One main aspect to understand is the geography and demography of Neo-Nationalism, both here and abroad. For example, Utah displayed one of the strongest rejections of Trump, which I speculate might be due to missionary activity by Mormons, wherein they expose themselves to different countries and cultures. In contrast, the Midwest is home to some of the most white states, save for Illinois, whose population was close to the national average. What is most intriguing is how Trump made inroads with what I call Mountain Yankees, those in Maine and New Hampshire who live in the rural uplands. Maine and New Hampshire increased their share of votes for the Republican party, and both have a white population over 90%. It may be that the reason for this turn to Trump is a fear of losing white, Judeo-Christian, and English nationality.

 

Akin to this, Le Pen had shown her strength in the rural Picardy region in northern France, and in the southern area of Provence. While an analysis of race is impossible since any race or ethnic questions in the French census have been prohibited since 1978, other factors such as industrialization can be analyzed. Picardy shares many characteristics with the Midwest, including a post-industrial history. As the region furthest removed from the Mediterranean and the Middle East, it has not encountered diverse populations. In contrast, the Provence region has felt overwhelmed with the number of migrants fleeing Africa, and perhaps they felt that the Front National would have done something about the migration wave.

 

Post-Nationalism seems to be rising within urban areas, perhaps due to the inherent diversity in cities. From Los Angeles to New York, cities have swung left in the 2016 election. One of the most notable places where this occurred was the BosWash megapolis, a strip of urbanization stretching from Boston to DC, alongside Utah (although part of this is due to McMullin taking votes from Trump), and the Black Belt in the American South.

 

Of these two ideologies, I am more partial to Post-Nationalism. Although some of the most radical among Post-Nationalists advocate tearing down borders, I am not so much against them insomuch as I am for facilitating the flow of peoples between two nations. Border controls do not make much sense—whatever walls may exist may still be flown over, and stricter controls might spark fears among those who overstayed their visa that if they leave, they may never enter America again. Inspecting and questioning people at our ports of entry makes sense, but a massive wall does not. We need to ensure more ports of entry to facilitate the movement of peoples and goods, and perhaps give passports to businessmen and entrepreneurs who live in the south but work in the North, that allows them to cross borders with ease provided that they do not present a security threat to the United States.

 

However, before I sound like a pie-in-the-sky open border liberal, let me note that the immigration process is long for a reason—it ensures that peoples from other nations have time to adapt to our habits and customs. To allow people an express pass simply because they crossed the border illegally would be unfair to those who crossed the border legally and went through the long and arduous process of naturalization. The only measure of amnesty I support is for tax-paying and law-abiding illegal immigrants who later register through the government to be naturalized. The time that they spent in America while paying taxes will be deducted from the five-year residency period required for citizenship. Regardless of whether or not they crossed legally or illegally, it will ensure that the burden is shared by both, while both minimizing the risk of ‘cheating’ the process and encouraging illegal immigrants to come forward and become naturalized in a proper manner.

 

In short, it is my sincere hope that as America becomes more diverse we will find a nationalism not based on British culture or Christian faith, but based on our deeper traditions of optimism, curiosity, and enterprise. These three things represent true American values, immutable through our history. It was the reason Ricky Gervais had to redo The Office for an American audience—the original show was a cynical, dead-end take on working life that would have fallen flat in a country like America. We were the nation that crossed the vast blackness of space to land on the Moon, braved the Challenger Deep, and created the Internet—the greatest wonder of our age. The way to make America great again is to once again open our arms and lift our lamps for the tempest-tost from faraway lands to come and join us.