Populism, Liberal Nationalism, and Political Friendship

• In Event: Constituting Nationalism: Populism, Whiteness and Pluralism

Abstract

The recent rise of right-wing populist nationalism in advanced liberal democracies has prompted many condemnations of nationalism. So these arguments go, nationalism is dangerous, not only because it is a sort of solidarity that is grounded in imagined commonalities, but also because it is too easily exploitable by the proponents of xenophobic, illiberal, and anti-democratic causes. With that, the opponents of nationalist populism often go on to argue in favour of “patriotism” – a sort of solidarity that is rooted in liberal democratic political principles (and that some academics have called “constitutional patriotism”). In this paper, I argue against this tendency among self-declared defenders of liberal democracy. To begin, I note that the juxtaposition of patriotism against nationalism is a false dichotomy. As the debate between ‘constitutional patriotism’ and ‘liberal nationalism’ demonstrated, nationalism need not necessarily be an illiberal phenomenon; it can in fact evolve into conformity with the broad normative contours of liberal democracy. Next, I argue that the opponents of nationalist populism ought to pursue a liberal nationalist strategy rather than a constitutional patriot strategy. I do so not because the metaethical foundations of liberal nationalism are necessarily more sound, but rather for pragmatic reasons: by refusing to draw upon the resources of the “imagined national community,” constitutional patriots allow populist nationalists to exploit those resources uncontested, thereby making it easier for populist nationalists to construe them (constitutional patriots) as opponents of the nation and to undermine liberal democratic norms and institutions. I acknowledge, however, that nationalism can devolve in illiberal and anti-democratic directions – particularly, when society is plagued with distrust and when citizens are apt to understand politics to be war by alternative means. Therefore, in order to ensure that the nationalism we pursue is ‘liberal,’ I propose that citizens be encouraged to understand themselves as “political friends.” Drawing upon Danielle Allen’s notion of political friendship as a disposition whereby citizens incorporate the good of their fellow citizens into their respective self-interests and are potentially motivated to reach an equitable accommodation of their differences and disagreements, I argue that when citizens think and act “as if” they were friends, it becomes less likely that they will consider one another with suspicion and that they will view politics through the war metaphor – and, thus, it becomes less likely that they will behave in manners that will facilitate the growth of illiberal nationalism (and, indeed, that will perpetuate oppression). To conclude, I suggests ways in which this ethic of political friendship can be promoted.

Author

• Eric Cheng, University of Toronto