The atmosphere in Moscow is vividly depicted by the Financial Times bureau chief there, Max Seddon (“A Moscow Diary: Fear, Loathing and Deep Denial,” January 6, 2022). The subtitle reads:
Champagne still flows at elite parties in the Russian capital, as cowed critics only speak openly in their own homes.
One striking passage depicts the interface (I am tempted to write “the intersectionality”) of nationalism, authoritarianism, ordinary people, and the elite. As is typically the case, nationalism buttresses state power, and both trap ordinary people. Seddon quotes a senior Russian businessman, whose children are educated in Europe, speaking about some members of his family:
Some say ‘Fuck everyone! Let’s nuke Holland! Let’s bomb London and Washington! Send the missiles!’ I say, What about your nephew, my son? He lives there! And they say, ‘Let them live in their own country.’”
READER COMMENTS
Peter
Jan 6 2023 at 12:37pm
Just to be fair, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. I’m also pretty sure the nationalists providing Ukraine arms have the exact same attitude as that guy’s family above about their own expats living in Russia getting killed by weapons their own government supplied. Nobody honestly cares about collateral damage when on the inflicting side. Ukraine bombs its own people for example.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 6 2023 at 3:39pm
Peter: If your point is that nationalism is dangerous on all sides, I could not agree more. (You probably know that I have made this point zillions of times, too often even to link to a representative example.) Similarly if your point is that the state (the enforcer of nationalism) is dangerous and that states have killed close to 200 million of their own “citizens” during the 20th century. Similarly if your point is that American nationalism is dangerous too, and not only when the American state forbids its “citizens” to buy furniture or toys from China on terms they agree on. Similarly if your point is that Ukrainian nationalism is dangerous too (and not only for the reasons exposed in my post “The Traitor Was Paid to Cook for the Russians“).
However, I would disagree if your point is that there is no difference between an aggressor state and people defending themselves against a tyrant much worse than their own. In fact, the Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggressor appears to be one example where nationalism or patriotism can be useful in the defense of liberty–but the idea should still to be handled with white gloves. And I have seen no evidence of the Ukrainian government intentionally targeting Ukrainians–except through conscription, of course, a universal bane.
David Seltzer
Jan 6 2023 at 7:30pm
Pierre: You state, ” In fact, the Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggressor appears to be one example where nationalism or patriotism can be useful in the defense of liberty–but the idea should still to be handled with white gloves. ” Yes, but do we get a revolution or a constitution or victory in war without nationalism as some argue? Regarding “white gloves,” Trump’s America First nationalism was a ban on Muslims, a border wall and separating incarcerated families. I suspect his acolytes conflated patriotism with nationalism. Apologies for restating your reply to Peter.
Mactoul
Jan 6 2023 at 8:07pm
This so-called Muslim ban is a falsehood that has survived refutations. Immigration from a few Muslim-majority nations was suspended– most populus Muslim nations like Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh were not affected along with 200 million Indian Muslims while non-Muslims in Syria were affected.
David Seltzer
Jan 6 2023 at 11:27pm
Mactoul, Wikipedia Trump travel ban. Under executive actions.
Executive Order 13769.
Executive Order 13780.
Presidential proclamation 9645.
Hardly so -called.
Mactoul
Jan 7 2023 at 8:23am
So-called is precise. Most Muslims or even most Muslim-majority countries were not included. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that the term Muslim ban is called by the critics of the travel ban.
Monte
Jan 7 2023 at 1:40am
I hate defending Trump. When I do, I feel like the reverend in the scene from the movie, Arthur, “Whenever Mrs. Kissel breaks wind, we beat the dog.” But the idea of building a border wall is perfectly a sensible one. And to lay the separation of incarcerated families solely at Trump’s feet is either to be ignorant of the facts or delusional.
Who’s Responsible for Separating Alien Kids From Their Parents? Many People. but Not Trump.
Jose Pablo
Jan 7 2023 at 11:33am
“the idea of building a border wall is perfectly a sensible one”
It is a pity that native Americans were not that sensible!
Jose Pablo
Jan 7 2023 at 11:43am
Sensible for whom?
Sensible for some people and not so sensible to others I guess. Like almost everything. Bombing Kyiv is sensible to some people too, after all.
Monte
Jan 7 2023 at 4:20pm
It is. If they’d been more civilized in establishing and controlling their borders rather than resorting, as they did, to raiding, enslaving, and slaughtering neighboring tribes, their legacy might have been more lasting:
For everyone. Controlling who enters your country by whatever means necessary is a legitimate function of the sovereign state. And an appeal to extremes (moving from building a wall to bombing a country) doesn’t help you make your point.
Jose Pablo
Jan 8 2023 at 8:42am
What’s the definition of “your” in “your country”?
“an appeal to extremes”
Extremes do help to grasp the emptiness of “sensible” in your argument.
“Controlling who enters your country by whatever means necessary is a legitimate function of the sovereign state”
It is to prevent an invasion by another government. But that is not the purpose of the wall you deem “sensible”. The purpose of the wall is to limit the freedom of an individual preventing this individual from pursuing their own happiness.
And with no “sensible” moral or economic arguments to limit that individual freedom.
https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250316967/openborders
Please note that the idea that “all men are created equal” (not all nationals of a given country, no. “ALL” men) and the idea that all men (individuals walking thru an artificial non existing line in the sand too) have the unalienable right to pursue their own happiness; are the basis of the “government building the wall” legitimacy (or its lack thereof, as in this case).
Monte
Jan 8 2023 at 11:16pm
No, using extremes is a logical fallacy that erroneously attempts to make a reasonable argument into an absurd one, which is what you did when you compared building walls to dropping bombs.
No. Every country in the world has a policy of limiting immigration. It is a sensible way to control those who wish to enter a country for legitimate or nefarious reasons. Armed forces are what prevent invasions by other governments.
There are countless moral and economic arguments limiting individual freedom, which time and space prevent me from going into at length. By your logic, the fence I build around my home “limits the freedom of an individual, preventing this individual from pursuing their own happiness.” What, then, happens to my rights?
You hold up Prof. Caplan’s book, Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, as proof that a borderless world would, in his words, “eliminate absolute poverty worldwide and usher in a booming worldwide economy―greatly benefiting humanity.” This is professional opinion, not settled science, and, IMO, bad policy. See, for example:
Open Borders and the Tragedy of Open Access Commons
The Falsehoods that Drive Open Borders Theory
Jose Pablo
Jan 9 2023 at 12:42pm
Open Borders and the Tragedy of Open Access Commons
The argument here is that open borders would lead to “safety nets and public goods in general, disappear(ing)”.
Is it limiting the ever increasing scope and coercion of governments a bad thing?. How come?
Increasing the options of individuals to “vote with their feet” is extremely positive. It is difficult to argue that having more choices at the individual disposal is bad and it will increase the accountability of bad governments.
But, in any case, if this is your worry (don’t worry that much!, you seem to be afraid of everything! be brave!) access to safety net can be deny to immigrants (forever, for ten years, whatever you want ..)
The Falsehoods that Drive Open Borders Theory
Arguments here are extremely poor (as I have already warned you, your argument was as poor as saying that bombing Kyiv was “sensible” to somebody and these ones are no better)
“Multiculturalism”, Open borders are a threat to the culture of immigrants, not to the culture of the hosting country. In two generations (at best) even the language of origin is lost in the family (or very poorly spoken). Second generation inmigrants are well known for being extremely eager to integrate and even more eager at rejecting the culture of origin.
But, again, in any case, culture evolves. Women are fortunately allowed to vote nowadays, despite the fact that this was not in the “culture” of Europeans moving to the present territory of the USA in the XVIIIth century. So, changing your culture can even be a positive thing.
“Utopianism”, that’s a straw man argument since “advance equality” is not an argument for Open Borders. It could, very well, increase inequality in the USA. Should “it would increase inequality in the USA” be an argument “in favor” of open borders? … I am confused here.
“Social Justice”, ¿? this is even a worst argument that the previous one.
“Social justice” advocates commonly support open borders. The reasoning is clear: North America has a majority of whites, while the wider world consists of people of color.
really? … does this even qualify as an argument in this discussion? Is that what would keep you awake at night on an open borders scenario? an “invasion” of people of color?
But you are right, I concede, the references you provide are, no doubt, closer to “settled science”, that Caplan’s book.
Monte
Jan 9 2023 at 1:48pm
You assume too much about personal beliefs. I’m not scared of open borders or people of color (so typical an accusation by those who try to undermine a POV by implying racism). I just believe, after weighing all the available evidence, that unequivocal support for open borders is naively utopian. I want what’s best for all people everywhere. Open borders policy is not a course of action we should approach with abandon. There are very real and practical concerns that have not been adequately addressed by its adherents, and you are overly dismissive of those concerns.
In any event, it seems we remain unpersuaded by each other’s arguments. Lets us pray that a brighter future awaits us all, with (or without) borders.
Jose Pablo
Jan 9 2023 at 2:32pm
I want what’s best for all people everywhere. Open borders policy is not a course of action we should approach with abandon. There are very real and practical concerns (that should be carefully addressed)
I fully agree with all this. So, some common ground after all!
And I agree too that I could be “overly dismissive of those concerns” (in theory, theory and practices are the same, but …).
But I am sure too that actual border policy in the US is “irrationally cautious regarding those concerns” causing great economical and personal unnecesary damage. And all this due, mainly, to a pure political stance that plays to voter’s irrational well documented bias against “foreigners”
Richard W Fulmer
Jan 7 2023 at 5:01pm
“I would disagree if your point is that there is no difference between an aggressor state and people defending themselves against a tyrant”
William F. Buckley, Jr. had an apt parable about a man who pushed an elderly woman in the path of an oncoming bus and another man who pushed her out of the way. Should they both, he asked, be characterized as the sort of men who push little old ladies around?
Mactoul
Jan 6 2023 at 8:04pm
Following Carl Schmitt, the friend-enemy distinction is generally regarded as fundamental in nonliberal thought. Personally I prefer to rephrase it as neighbor-stranger distinction.
Liberal thought makes no such distinction– either are all are stranger to all others (libertarianism) or all are neighbors to all others (leftism).
For the essence of libertarianism is denial of moral authority of the community while the essence of leftism is denial of particularity of the community.
Jon Murphy
Jan 6 2023 at 8:28pm
That’s news to me. News to such great liberal thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Frederic Bastiat, FA Hayek, James Buchanan, (just to name a few) too.
Mactoul
Jan 7 2023 at 8:26am
Could you provide citation that these thinkers agreed with Carl Schmitt about the fundamental importance of friend-enemy distinction.
Jon Murphy
Jan 7 2023 at 9:42am
Adam Smith in the Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations
James Buchanan in Limits of Liberty
FA Hayek in multiple places, but Constitution of Liberty comes first to mind.
Can you provide any citation of liberal thinkers saying “all are stranger to all others”? Just one will do.
Mactoul
Jan 7 2023 at 11:49pm
The formulation– all are stranger to all others–isn’t provided but a easily demonstrable consequence of libertarian doctrine.
While endorsing Carl Schmitt’s doctrine will get one cancelled or at least removed from polite company these days. Witness Michael Anton being attacked by conservatives for precisely this.
Jon Murphy
Jan 8 2023 at 7:12am
Ok, so you cannot provide direct evidence of your claim but instead rely on implication. Fair enough
So, provide evidence of the implication. Demonstrate that.
Mark Z
Jan 8 2023 at 6:33pm
“Neighbor-stranger” doesn’t capture the importance of conflict and hostility in politics according to Schmitt. He wasn’t merely positing that people form in-groups whose interests they care about while being indifferent to the out-group. He chose the word ‘enemy’ deliberately.
Mactoul
Jan 8 2023 at 8:12pm
Outsider isn’t necessarily an enemy but only a potential enemy.
But the outsider is a stranger because he is ruled by strange gods (in other words, his mind and his moral premises are strange).
Also, the term neighbor captures the geographic idea–the insiders are geographically compact with outsiders around them.
Comments are closed.