I was somewhat surprised by the essay. There's not much I disagreed with, but I didn't see the necessity for it or the worth of picking a fight, if that's the intent -- Kesler is writing a polemic, but he's an elegant man, not pugnacious.
Dan is right about Scruton & Manent -- but in their circumstances, talking about nationalism would have been incautious, as he suggests. That's certainly not the case in America. Dunno about Israel. Certainly not in Central & Eastern Europe.
If Kesler is uneasy about the nationalism discourse, because we cannot know the future, sure, that's right. A new departure... But on the other hand if the problem is that nationalism raises questions about what it means to be American -- well, aren't those questions in the backs of everyone's mind? Isn't politics supposed to deal with that? There's something that needs articulating, bringing to political decision. Nationalism must be constitutionalized as Kesler says, but how could one fail to notice that the kinds of political speeches conservatives, political or intellectual, make don't really speak to the people they are supposedly addressing?
I am more familiar with Josh Hammer's work than Hazony's. In his article "Common Good originalism", Josh split up the Founders- claiming that Hamiltonians adopted the common good approach, while Jeffersonians did not- adopting a libertarian, individualist approach. I think that is a classic historical mistake (one that prominent historians such as Gordon Wood have made for example). The correct historical interpretation on balance is that all of the Founders believed in the liberty/license distinction, with natural rights and the common good of morality as limits on the use of liberty. See Robert Webking and Gary Schmitt's devastating critique of Wood on this point- "Revolutionaries, Antifederalists, and Federalists: Comments on Gordon Wood’s Understanding of the American Founding"
I do think the Natcons have an important contribution to make though, especially in the immigration debates. Back in grad school I was not allowed to take all political theory Charles Kesler classes- I also took a Public Choice Economics with a student of James Buchanan, Tom Borcherding. Borch introduced me to the libertarian idea of "Charter Cities." It struck me as unbelievably utopian back then that we could do without nation states- and that is still what I think. But ideas like "Charter cities" have purchase with some elites- Which is why Hazony and Hammer's point about nationalism should be well taken.
John Paul II connected the problem of exaggerated nationalism as opposed to authentic love of country to the problem of technology without ethics:
"Do all the conquests attained until now and those projected for the future for technology accord with man's moral and spiritual progress? In this context is man, as man, developing and progressing or is he regressing and being degraded in his humanity? In men and "in man's world", which in itself is a world of moral good and evil, does good prevail over evil? In men and among men is there a growth of social love, of respect for the rights of others-for every man, nation and people-or on the contrary is there an increase of various degrees of selfishness, exaggerated nationalism instead of authentic love of country, and also the propensity to dominate others beyond the limits of one's legitimate rights and merits and the propensity to exploit the whole of material progress and that in the technology of production for the exclusive purpose of dominating others or of favouring this or that imperialism?"
I was somewhat surprised by the essay. There's not much I disagreed with, but I didn't see the necessity for it or the worth of picking a fight, if that's the intent -- Kesler is writing a polemic, but he's an elegant man, not pugnacious.
Dan is right about Scruton & Manent -- but in their circumstances, talking about nationalism would have been incautious, as he suggests. That's certainly not the case in America. Dunno about Israel. Certainly not in Central & Eastern Europe.
If Kesler is uneasy about the nationalism discourse, because we cannot know the future, sure, that's right. A new departure... But on the other hand if the problem is that nationalism raises questions about what it means to be American -- well, aren't those questions in the backs of everyone's mind? Isn't politics supposed to deal with that? There's something that needs articulating, bringing to political decision. Nationalism must be constitutionalized as Kesler says, but how could one fail to notice that the kinds of political speeches conservatives, political or intellectual, make don't really speak to the people they are supposedly addressing?
I am more familiar with Josh Hammer's work than Hazony's. In his article "Common Good originalism", Josh split up the Founders- claiming that Hamiltonians adopted the common good approach, while Jeffersonians did not- adopting a libertarian, individualist approach. I think that is a classic historical mistake (one that prominent historians such as Gordon Wood have made for example). The correct historical interpretation on balance is that all of the Founders believed in the liberty/license distinction, with natural rights and the common good of morality as limits on the use of liberty. See Robert Webking and Gary Schmitt's devastating critique of Wood on this point- "Revolutionaries, Antifederalists, and Federalists: Comments on Gordon Wood’s Understanding of the American Founding"
https://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2021/06/Final-Hammer.pdf
https://politicalsciencereviewer.wisc.edu/index.php/psr/article/view/160
I do think the Natcons have an important contribution to make though, especially in the immigration debates. Back in grad school I was not allowed to take all political theory Charles Kesler classes- I also took a Public Choice Economics with a student of James Buchanan, Tom Borcherding. Borch introduced me to the libertarian idea of "Charter Cities." It struck me as unbelievably utopian back then that we could do without nation states- and that is still what I think. But ideas like "Charter cities" have purchase with some elites- Which is why Hazony and Hammer's point about nationalism should be well taken.
https://chartercitiesinstitute.org/intro/
The correct link to the Kesler essay: https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/national-conservatism-vs-american-conservatism/
John Paul II connected the problem of exaggerated nationalism as opposed to authentic love of country to the problem of technology without ethics:
"Do all the conquests attained until now and those projected for the future for technology accord with man's moral and spiritual progress? In this context is man, as man, developing and progressing or is he regressing and being degraded in his humanity? In men and "in man's world", which in itself is a world of moral good and evil, does good prevail over evil? In men and among men is there a growth of social love, of respect for the rights of others-for every man, nation and people-or on the contrary is there an increase of various degrees of selfishness, exaggerated nationalism instead of authentic love of country, and also the propensity to dominate others beyond the limits of one's legitimate rights and merits and the propensity to exploit the whole of material progress and that in the technology of production for the exclusive purpose of dominating others or of favouring this or that imperialism?"
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/04/07/american_conservatism_clarifies_national_conservatisms_contribution_150759.html#2