Michael Brendan Dougherty: Nationalism Is a Chameleon

Very true.

“Last week our fearless editor Rich Lowry and departing colleague Jonah Goldberg tried to settle the question of nationalism for the attendees of the National Review Institute Ideas Summit. Lowry defended the American tradition of nationalism, pointing to the accomplishments of Republican nationalists such Lincoln. But, strangely, as the person who wears the “nationalist” label with the least discomfort, I found myself agreeing with Jonah Goldberg. He emphasized the variety of nationalisms and its hard-to-pin-down character.

That is a point that Kevin D. Williamson picked up in his commentary. “As -isms go, nationalism is pretty loosey-goosey,” he observed. Indeed. Historically, nationalist movements tend to be opportunistic when it comes to ideologies. Some pick up on socialism, others on capitalism. Some go communist, and some go democratic, depending on their place in situ. That opportunism is especially found in nationalist movements that are seeking to establish independence or sovereignty from some great power. Their full embrace of capitalism or communism may be a way of heightening polarization with the imperial power they want to eject, or a way of attracting a powerful ally. …”

I’ve already observed that national populism can look like this in 2016:

or this in 2020:

Populists value social cohesion and economic fairness. If they are forced to choose between their values in a hyper polarized electorate, well, they can and often do swing either way. Donald Trump can win them by promising to build the Great Wall of America and bringing back the 1950s. Andrew Yang can win them with Universal Basic Income and student loan debt forgiveness.

Believe me, I’m down with this:

What’s the opportunity cost?

Four more years of Conservatism, Inc? The MIGA agenda? Blompf’s Twitter feed?

Yes, even a TINY GESTURE of respect like Andrew Yang simply acknowledging that there is a suicide and opioid epidemic in White America can pay a huge political dividend:

“Personally, I think America’s liberal elites would be surprised at how easy it would be to mollify the nationalist passions out there, how small the adjustments have to be, how satisfied nationalist constituencies would find themselves if they were offered even tiny gestures of respect. My worry is that even small sacrifices are impossible for people who believe they possess so much merit.”

What would happen if, say, Yang were to toss political correctness in the dumpster in the general election with Trump? Look at the hell it is already causing for Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden to satisfy such a small, highly resented, fanatical constituency of zealots at the expense of tens of millions of White populist voters in the center of the electorate who hold the keys to the presidency?

If Yang came out and said something like, say, it is okay to be a White person and to care about other White people and to value your traditional culture like my people do in Taiwan and China and that doesn’t mean you are evil or hate anyone else and, what’s more, we need to follow China’s example and move beyond political correctness and get rich, well, what would happen then?

What would Conservatism, Inc. and Blompf’s response to that be? What do you do when faced with that choice? Do you give mainstream conservatism its 500th chance?