What do you think?
Rate this book
The Virtue of Nationalism
A leading conservative thinker argues that a nationalist order is the only realistic safeguard of liberty in the world today
Nationalism is the issue of our age. From Donald Trump's "America First" politics to Brexit to the rise of the right in Europe, events have forced a crucial Should we fight for international government? Or should the world's nations keep their independence and self-determination?
In The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony contends that a world of sovereign nations is the only option for those who care about personal and collective freedom. He recounts how, beginning in the sixteenth century, English, Dutch, and American Protestants revived the Old Testament's love of national independence, and shows how their vision eventually brought freedom to peoples from Poland to India, Israel to Ethiopia. It is this tradition we must restore, he argues, if we want to limit conflict and hate -- and allow human difference and innovation to flourish.
Nationalism is the issue of our age. From Donald Trump's "America First" politics to Brexit to the rise of the right in Europe, events have forced a crucial Should we fight for international government? Or should the world's nations keep their independence and self-determination?
In The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony contends that a world of sovereign nations is the only option for those who care about personal and collective freedom. He recounts how, beginning in the sixteenth century, English, Dutch, and American Protestants revived the Old Testament's love of national independence, and shows how their vision eventually brought freedom to peoples from Poland to India, Israel to Ethiopia. It is this tradition we must restore, he argues, if we want to limit conflict and hate -- and allow human difference and innovation to flourish.
285 pages, Hardcover
Published September 4, 2018
About the author
Yoram Hazony
19 books99 followersYoram Hazony is an Israeli philosopher, Bible scholar, and political theorist. He is president of the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem and serves as the chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation. His books include The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture, The Virtue of Nationalism, and Conservatism: A Rediscovery.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews
April 18, 2019
I will write a longer review soon. In short this book is a repetitive restatement of traditional illiberal views on political order, framed within a larger effort at apologia for the modern state of Israel.
November 13, 2018
A barely passing-grade worthy defense of what should be a pretty defensible thesis. I’ll start with a few of Hazony’s winning gambits. He kicks it off with framing Hebrew Bible as a plea for national independence in the face of ever-changing Fertile Crescent empires, I like it already! He then rapidly proceeds to explain European religious conflicts as a struggle between universalism of Catholic church and particularism of Protestant Reformation. This lands us in the Promised Land of Westphalian sovereignty, hallelujah!
With Enlightenment around the corner, Mr. Immanuel Kant himself calls for a universal state, but his utopia has no takers. In fact, the principle of self-determination is reaffirmed 70 years later by JS Mill (“only national boundaries can protect free institutions”) and it is reiterated yet again in 20C in Woodrow Wilson’s ’Fourteen Points’, and then again in FDR and Churchill's ‘Atlantic Charter’.
However, Nazism tames the enthusiasm for nation-state and since then political theorists were looking for a palatable replacement of tribal group loyalty. The quest gives us Jurgen Habermas’s “constitutional patriotism” that still holds on to the nation, but eventually we get “pooled sovereignty” of EU where national sovereignty goes full Heisenberg.
All of this makes for a pretty fun read. Hazony never takes his eye of dangers of rationalist universalism embedded in modern globalist ideas, and continually contrasts it with empirical trial-and-error nature of diverse independent nations charting their own course. But he does leave some major issues unaddressed.
First of all, he seems to have forgotten about evolution and biology. Hazony’s hammer for just about every nail is group loyalty and to make things worse his loyalty is analytic. At some point he explains marriage as loyalty and propagation of ‘cultural inheritance’. Eh… dude, a simple sexual selection is all you need here, and it would only strengthen your thesis.
Same goes for ever-increasing scale of group cooperation which is a prominent feature of human history. We have plenty of plausible evolutionary mechanisms on sale - Henrich’s “cultural drive hypothesis”, Miller’s “equilibrium selection”, or Harari’s religion as cooperation enabler – but you can’t just leave the store emptyhanded waving your loyalty around, otherwise you look a tad silly.
Another big problem is incessant Russell’s conjugation. When a state behaves well Hazony calls it a nation-state, but when a state is objectionable he labels it an imperialist regime (e.g. Nazi Germany).
My last pet peeve is that all too often he presents choices as dichotomies. For example, any attempt at federalism is either an imperial tyranny or a bag of independent self-governing nations. For the guy who claims to appreciate uncertainty and messiness of politics he seems very black-and-white when it comes to options for political order.
I’ll end on a good note – the book is incredibly short and with enough of tasty history and political theory to warrant a few thoughts. And, given the subject matter, your mileage for vices and virtues in his argument will likely be different from mine.
With Enlightenment around the corner, Mr. Immanuel Kant himself calls for a universal state, but his utopia has no takers. In fact, the principle of self-determination is reaffirmed 70 years later by JS Mill (“only national boundaries can protect free institutions”) and it is reiterated yet again in 20C in Woodrow Wilson’s ’Fourteen Points’, and then again in FDR and Churchill's ‘Atlantic Charter’.
However, Nazism tames the enthusiasm for nation-state and since then political theorists were looking for a palatable replacement of tribal group loyalty. The quest gives us Jurgen Habermas’s “constitutional patriotism” that still holds on to the nation, but eventually we get “pooled sovereignty” of EU where national sovereignty goes full Heisenberg.
All of this makes for a pretty fun read. Hazony never takes his eye of dangers of rationalist universalism embedded in modern globalist ideas, and continually contrasts it with empirical trial-and-error nature of diverse independent nations charting their own course. But he does leave some major issues unaddressed.
First of all, he seems to have forgotten about evolution and biology. Hazony’s hammer for just about every nail is group loyalty and to make things worse his loyalty is analytic. At some point he explains marriage as loyalty and propagation of ‘cultural inheritance’. Eh… dude, a simple sexual selection is all you need here, and it would only strengthen your thesis.
Same goes for ever-increasing scale of group cooperation which is a prominent feature of human history. We have plenty of plausible evolutionary mechanisms on sale - Henrich’s “cultural drive hypothesis”, Miller’s “equilibrium selection”, or Harari’s religion as cooperation enabler – but you can’t just leave the store emptyhanded waving your loyalty around, otherwise you look a tad silly.
Another big problem is incessant Russell’s conjugation. When a state behaves well Hazony calls it a nation-state, but when a state is objectionable he labels it an imperialist regime (e.g. Nazi Germany).
My last pet peeve is that all too often he presents choices as dichotomies. For example, any attempt at federalism is either an imperial tyranny or a bag of independent self-governing nations. For the guy who claims to appreciate uncertainty and messiness of politics he seems very black-and-white when it comes to options for political order.
I’ll end on a good note – the book is incredibly short and with enough of tasty history and political theory to warrant a few thoughts. And, given the subject matter, your mileage for vices and virtues in his argument will likely be different from mine.
March 19, 2019
This is a superb book, long overdue.
September 30, 2018
Eye opening
In this book Yoram Hazony has opened my eyes to the best system for maintaining the rights and dignity of the greatest number of people in the world. He has truly changed my view of the world. I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to better understand the competing forces in world politics.
In this book Yoram Hazony has opened my eyes to the best system for maintaining the rights and dignity of the greatest number of people in the world. He has truly changed my view of the world. I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to better understand the competing forces in world politics.
April 29, 2019
To my mind the two most important grand-strategic debates of this twenty-first century will be debates on Nationalism vs. Globalism, and how best to organize the political relationship between the East and the West.
Taking the first in this review, it seems that not a day goes by where nationalism isn’t thrown up in headlines as a byword, conjugated with "White" or "Black" or "Nazi" to scare away the easily offended. The ad hominem nature of the attacks on the concept of Nationalism—and all that without even considering it for its merits—lead many, if not most, people to the immediate conclusion that whatever Nationalism is it must be bad. For indeed much of the media are sure to always place Nationalism in bad company.
But is it really evil or racist or phobic of all things exotic? What are the actual merits of Nationalism, if any?
Yoram Hazony takes up these questions in this timely book. The main of Hazony's argument is that among the chief culprits of evil and destruction on the earth are those who seek to establish "peace on earth" by conquering the peoples around them; and forcing them to abide by their better or more just laws and ways of life. He takes as examples the Babylonians and the Syrians, the Romans, the Ottomans, the English. Each a civilization which thought that if they spread their rule over all the earth, or as much of it as would comply, that peace and prosperity would be established.
Against the above mode of Empire, Hazony places the biblical nation of Israel. In the Hebrew Bible God gives Abraham a promise of a land that he will show Abraham. And when Abraham comes into the land God shows him its borders and commands him and his descendants to be content with the land within the borders that he has given them and to not think that they need to extend their rule beyond it, for that is not the will of God.
From the example of the Hebrews and ancient Israel Hazony says the West derived its ideas of the nation state. And in any of the cases of history where atrocities were committed in the name of Nationalism, such as in Hitler's Germany, the atrocities were not the fault of Nationalism as Nationalism but of Nationalism trying to establish itself beyond its own borders, reneging into the oppressive realm of Empire.
If, says Hazony, in an increasingly transient world we—especially in the West—have come to call our own national and cultural identities into question, the answers we are seeking to the most pressing problems of our time are not to be found in the anti-sovereign ideas globalist empire, but in the self-determination of free nation states; nation states who can check and compliment each other for a more harmonious world.
While I agree with Hazony's thesis, I do, however, take issue with the place in which he locates the roots of our present hyper-liberal world order. Instead of locating the totalitarian, anti-property, anti-individual, state-of-nature loving, antithesis in the usual philosophical villains—Plato, and Rousseau—Hazony locates the bad actor father of our time in John Locke. This is surprising to me. Any person familiar with the birth of the United States and its founding documents will know—as I'm sure Hazony does—that the U.S.A. owes much of its greatness to the ideas espoused by John Locke and Montesquieu. Both philosophers of government who established as fundamental to free societies: the individual freedom of conscience, the rights and logic of property, representative government, and the separation of powers.
Locke and Monstesquieu were not political philosophers á la Edmund Burke, describing the cultural elements of a society, traditions and their value, and how they were passed on; apposite to these things, which it seems they assumed, their main object was to describe how people in a given area can most reasonably govern themselves in fairness and truth. Noble objects that have payed immense dividends for the West especially over these past five hundred years. (Niall Ferguson makes a solid case for these things in his book "Civilization".)
Chief among Locke's contributions to the West, though, are his ideas about individual reason and the primacy of the individual. And these things, according to Hazony, are the root of our current Western governmental and political regression. He seems to argue, if I'm not mistaken, that it is precisely a hyper-version of individualism that has called the nation state into question and landed a our present prospect of globalist empire on the table.
While I can see the logic of this, I think that Hazony is committing a careless mistake in faulting Locke for only arguing toward a government of philosophy when what Hazony wishes is that Locke had argued for a philosophy of politics as well—a thing which his favored Edmund Burke did do.
In Hazony's notes he says that Rousseau springs from Locke. But I don't see that at all. I think if Rousseau can in any way bee seen as springing from Locke it can only be in that Rousseau copied Locke's terms. Beyond those Locke cannot be considered responsible for Rousseau. Rousseau thought that civilization was evil, that property was evil, and one can draw the obvious conclusions that he would have thought that any set of individuals who came together to decide how they would protect their property—such as those in a city or a nation state—would be evil as well; being rebels against the propertyless fact of how nature and its creatures come into being.
For Rousseau nature is pure, and civilization is impure; but Man is never going to give up his property except by force. So what is needed is an all powerful, world-pervading, state to impose pure nature (ideally) on all of the world. But Locke did not see things this way.
Locke is so loyal to human freedom as an innate and inalienable fact that he would never walk down the road to Rousseau's Platonic totalitarian Utopia. Indeed, Locke sees the state of nature not as pure and peaceable but as a place in a constant state of war; a place to be subdued by the walls of civility that only true freedom can erect.
At one point in Hazony's book he attempts to knock Locke by mentioning an occasion when Burke had spoken ill of the Treatises. I forget the quote as I've already handed off the book to a friend. But I think that if Burke did disparage the Treatises it surely wasn’t because of Locke’s property arguments—which Burke’s “Reflections On The Revolution In France” surely agree with—but because of Burke’s allegiance to monarchy; a monarchy which Locke showed was bereft of any so called 'divine right' in his first Treatise.
As an aside, some writers note that Burke supported the American Revolution but not the French one. Both revolutions considered, I agree with Burke’s positions. However, agreeing with the American Revolution betrays his true thoughts on government, politics, and monarchy. Thus Burke’s comments against Locke seem to me to be not more than political posturing of the self-preservation kind.
In the end I think that Hazony does a fine job of showing why Nationalism is superior to Imperialism, and for our day Globalism. But I think he does a poor job of locating the roots of our present day hyper-atomization in society. The bad vine isn’t Locke. And Hazony does a disservice to readers who maybe have not yet read Locke—they may go into his books with an unnecessary prejudice that bars them from appreciating all of the good that he has to offer. Indeed it seems to me that Hazony faults Locke’s Philosophy of Government for not being a Philosophy of Politics. Yet I think Locke's derivation of Social Contract theory from the account of Gideon in Judges shows where his true allegiance to the relevance of tradition lies. There is no more traditional document to appeal to than the Bible, and indeed that is the main text for the entirety of Locke's first Treatise.
Lastly, Hazony seems to argue in a kind of underhanded way for a family model of government all the way to the top: from the family, to the clan, to the tribe, to the state. I don't think this is a good approach, it seems too akin to Communism. Perhaps the multiple levels on which we arrange our political interactions could be more nuanced. Things don't need to be either Capitalist or Communist; Right or Left; ‘Conservatism’ or ‘Progressivism’.
Maybe we can consider the ideal arrangement in a State to be something like the following:
Libertarian at the Federal level;
Republican at the State level;
Democrat at the County level;
Socialist within the Commune;
Communist at the Family level.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4xsT2FWw...
Taking the first in this review, it seems that not a day goes by where nationalism isn’t thrown up in headlines as a byword, conjugated with "White" or "Black" or "Nazi" to scare away the easily offended. The ad hominem nature of the attacks on the concept of Nationalism—and all that without even considering it for its merits—lead many, if not most, people to the immediate conclusion that whatever Nationalism is it must be bad. For indeed much of the media are sure to always place Nationalism in bad company.
But is it really evil or racist or phobic of all things exotic? What are the actual merits of Nationalism, if any?
Yoram Hazony takes up these questions in this timely book. The main of Hazony's argument is that among the chief culprits of evil and destruction on the earth are those who seek to establish "peace on earth" by conquering the peoples around them; and forcing them to abide by their better or more just laws and ways of life. He takes as examples the Babylonians and the Syrians, the Romans, the Ottomans, the English. Each a civilization which thought that if they spread their rule over all the earth, or as much of it as would comply, that peace and prosperity would be established.
Against the above mode of Empire, Hazony places the biblical nation of Israel. In the Hebrew Bible God gives Abraham a promise of a land that he will show Abraham. And when Abraham comes into the land God shows him its borders and commands him and his descendants to be content with the land within the borders that he has given them and to not think that they need to extend their rule beyond it, for that is not the will of God.
From the example of the Hebrews and ancient Israel Hazony says the West derived its ideas of the nation state. And in any of the cases of history where atrocities were committed in the name of Nationalism, such as in Hitler's Germany, the atrocities were not the fault of Nationalism as Nationalism but of Nationalism trying to establish itself beyond its own borders, reneging into the oppressive realm of Empire.
If, says Hazony, in an increasingly transient world we—especially in the West—have come to call our own national and cultural identities into question, the answers we are seeking to the most pressing problems of our time are not to be found in the anti-sovereign ideas globalist empire, but in the self-determination of free nation states; nation states who can check and compliment each other for a more harmonious world.
While I agree with Hazony's thesis, I do, however, take issue with the place in which he locates the roots of our present hyper-liberal world order. Instead of locating the totalitarian, anti-property, anti-individual, state-of-nature loving, antithesis in the usual philosophical villains—Plato, and Rousseau—Hazony locates the bad actor father of our time in John Locke. This is surprising to me. Any person familiar with the birth of the United States and its founding documents will know—as I'm sure Hazony does—that the U.S.A. owes much of its greatness to the ideas espoused by John Locke and Montesquieu. Both philosophers of government who established as fundamental to free societies: the individual freedom of conscience, the rights and logic of property, representative government, and the separation of powers.
Locke and Monstesquieu were not political philosophers á la Edmund Burke, describing the cultural elements of a society, traditions and their value, and how they were passed on; apposite to these things, which it seems they assumed, their main object was to describe how people in a given area can most reasonably govern themselves in fairness and truth. Noble objects that have payed immense dividends for the West especially over these past five hundred years. (Niall Ferguson makes a solid case for these things in his book "Civilization".)
Chief among Locke's contributions to the West, though, are his ideas about individual reason and the primacy of the individual. And these things, according to Hazony, are the root of our current Western governmental and political regression. He seems to argue, if I'm not mistaken, that it is precisely a hyper-version of individualism that has called the nation state into question and landed a our present prospect of globalist empire on the table.
While I can see the logic of this, I think that Hazony is committing a careless mistake in faulting Locke for only arguing toward a government of philosophy when what Hazony wishes is that Locke had argued for a philosophy of politics as well—a thing which his favored Edmund Burke did do.
In Hazony's notes he says that Rousseau springs from Locke. But I don't see that at all. I think if Rousseau can in any way bee seen as springing from Locke it can only be in that Rousseau copied Locke's terms. Beyond those Locke cannot be considered responsible for Rousseau. Rousseau thought that civilization was evil, that property was evil, and one can draw the obvious conclusions that he would have thought that any set of individuals who came together to decide how they would protect their property—such as those in a city or a nation state—would be evil as well; being rebels against the propertyless fact of how nature and its creatures come into being.
For Rousseau nature is pure, and civilization is impure; but Man is never going to give up his property except by force. So what is needed is an all powerful, world-pervading, state to impose pure nature (ideally) on all of the world. But Locke did not see things this way.
Locke is so loyal to human freedom as an innate and inalienable fact that he would never walk down the road to Rousseau's Platonic totalitarian Utopia. Indeed, Locke sees the state of nature not as pure and peaceable but as a place in a constant state of war; a place to be subdued by the walls of civility that only true freedom can erect.
At one point in Hazony's book he attempts to knock Locke by mentioning an occasion when Burke had spoken ill of the Treatises. I forget the quote as I've already handed off the book to a friend. But I think that if Burke did disparage the Treatises it surely wasn’t because of Locke’s property arguments—which Burke’s “Reflections On The Revolution In France” surely agree with—but because of Burke’s allegiance to monarchy; a monarchy which Locke showed was bereft of any so called 'divine right' in his first Treatise.
As an aside, some writers note that Burke supported the American Revolution but not the French one. Both revolutions considered, I agree with Burke’s positions. However, agreeing with the American Revolution betrays his true thoughts on government, politics, and monarchy. Thus Burke’s comments against Locke seem to me to be not more than political posturing of the self-preservation kind.
In the end I think that Hazony does a fine job of showing why Nationalism is superior to Imperialism, and for our day Globalism. But I think he does a poor job of locating the roots of our present day hyper-atomization in society. The bad vine isn’t Locke. And Hazony does a disservice to readers who maybe have not yet read Locke—they may go into his books with an unnecessary prejudice that bars them from appreciating all of the good that he has to offer. Indeed it seems to me that Hazony faults Locke’s Philosophy of Government for not being a Philosophy of Politics. Yet I think Locke's derivation of Social Contract theory from the account of Gideon in Judges shows where his true allegiance to the relevance of tradition lies. There is no more traditional document to appeal to than the Bible, and indeed that is the main text for the entirety of Locke's first Treatise.
Lastly, Hazony seems to argue in a kind of underhanded way for a family model of government all the way to the top: from the family, to the clan, to the tribe, to the state. I don't think this is a good approach, it seems too akin to Communism. Perhaps the multiple levels on which we arrange our political interactions could be more nuanced. Things don't need to be either Capitalist or Communist; Right or Left; ‘Conservatism’ or ‘Progressivism’.
Maybe we can consider the ideal arrangement in a State to be something like the following:
Libertarian at the Federal level;
Republican at the State level;
Democrat at the County level;
Socialist within the Commune;
Communist at the Family level.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4xsT2FWw...
August 5, 2019
This book is an attempt to intellectually sanitize the trend in conservative politics towards anti-pluralism and ultra-partisanship. The book was extremely unpersuasive. It relies primarily on historical revisionism, reductive pseudo-anthropology, and political exegesis based on the Old Testament.
In The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony does not try to vindicate the nationalist movements in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. (In fact, he mentions very little about this era at all aside from a preposterous assertion that the Nazis were not German nationalists.). Hazony’s main argument is that a state cannot properly assert its authority and function without the established dominance of a particular group whose main mission is to advocate for itself. He does not think that trust between authorities and the governed can be achieved through the rule of law and the diffusion of power through pluralistic political institutions. Rather, cohesion and trust can only exist in a state through shared membership in a dominant group with cultural affinities. Rights are not secured by the neutral application of law, but rather by those in power voluntarily ceding rights to less powerful members of their own tribe as an act of solidarity. Individual rights must therefore be limited to what supports the dominance of the group. For Hazony, this limitation of individual rights does not curtail freedom because he believes that individuals only experience freedom when they live in a state that exists to advocate for their tribe. How this is supposed to create social cohesion in anything other than a homogeneous state (or even in one) is beyond my comprehension. The Bill of Rights? Civil Rights? Free and fair elections? Universal human rights? Hazony rejects civic or “neutral” exercises of state authority as as more performative than substantive. Under his thinking, we are nothing more than members of some tribe and we need to find our tribe and and help it compete against other tribes. There is no other kind of freedom or progress. Thus, the only functioning state is the "national state", in which the basis of legitimacy and rights is the dominance of a particular cultural group.
Hazony’s theory of state authority is bleak, reductive and ridiculous but his thinking on international relations is incoherent. While he acknowledges that mutual respect for sovereignty is critical to the functioning of a system of nation states, he dismisses international law and multilateral institutions as means of preventing the inter-state competition he seeks from turning into interference and violence. To make matters more confusing, he argues that a state’s sovereignty can be curtailed when that state engages in domestic behaviors that transgress universal norms of state conduct (such as genocide for example). He argues that these principles are “natural” and don’t require international law or multilateral institutions. This makes absolutely no sense. Law is where the limitations on sovereignty are developed for mutual understanding. There is nothing “natural” about when a state’s exercise of power is illegitimate. Law is required to know where the line is drawn. Institutions are required to develop and apply the law.
Hazony does not address the obvious implications of his theories of state authority and international law. How can members of a historically oppressed or non-dominant group in the national state prevent their rights from being limited by the dominant group? To promote the dominant group, should the state engage in racial and religious discrimination? If freedom can only be realized as a member of a dominant group in a national state but not every group can control a state, doesn’t this mean the world will be full of people with no claim to full citizenship? Hazony’s silence on these key questions speaks volumes. Discrimination of all sorts is not only permissible but is likely necessary in Hazony’s national state system. Otherwise, you wind up recognizing the equality and dignity of social groups regardless of what the dominant group thinks of them. In the last chapter of the book, Hazony characterizes advocates of the Palestinian cause as promoters of a European neo-imperialist project whose goal is negate the legitimacy of the State of Israel. He does not offer any defense of Israel’s treatment of Arabs or other minorities under its authority.
Hazony believes that the virtue of nationalism is that it combines respect for other nation states with loyalty to one’s own people. This sounds nice but power needs to be constrained by something more concrete than a theoretical tribal loyalty. That’s why there are legal rights, pluralistic participatory institutions, and equal justice under law. Hazony has essentially no theory for how power is constrained at the international level or how disputes about the limits of sovereignty can be determined short of the coercive means he claims to abhor.
It is true that the concept of national identity is changing as a result of global communications, migration, and rules against discrimination. To confront the challenges this poses, we need to affirm individual rights, democratic accountability, and international engagement. We do not need an idealization of a mythical tribal past grafted onto simplistic concept of international peace and security. I don’t think that this book will be remembered as articulating a theory that was ahead of its time. Rather, it will be a footnote in studies about an effort to create an ethical and intellectual framework for intolerance, discrimination, and selfishness.
In The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony does not try to vindicate the nationalist movements in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. (In fact, he mentions very little about this era at all aside from a preposterous assertion that the Nazis were not German nationalists.). Hazony’s main argument is that a state cannot properly assert its authority and function without the established dominance of a particular group whose main mission is to advocate for itself. He does not think that trust between authorities and the governed can be achieved through the rule of law and the diffusion of power through pluralistic political institutions. Rather, cohesion and trust can only exist in a state through shared membership in a dominant group with cultural affinities. Rights are not secured by the neutral application of law, but rather by those in power voluntarily ceding rights to less powerful members of their own tribe as an act of solidarity. Individual rights must therefore be limited to what supports the dominance of the group. For Hazony, this limitation of individual rights does not curtail freedom because he believes that individuals only experience freedom when they live in a state that exists to advocate for their tribe. How this is supposed to create social cohesion in anything other than a homogeneous state (or even in one) is beyond my comprehension. The Bill of Rights? Civil Rights? Free and fair elections? Universal human rights? Hazony rejects civic or “neutral” exercises of state authority as as more performative than substantive. Under his thinking, we are nothing more than members of some tribe and we need to find our tribe and and help it compete against other tribes. There is no other kind of freedom or progress. Thus, the only functioning state is the "national state", in which the basis of legitimacy and rights is the dominance of a particular cultural group.
Hazony’s theory of state authority is bleak, reductive and ridiculous but his thinking on international relations is incoherent. While he acknowledges that mutual respect for sovereignty is critical to the functioning of a system of nation states, he dismisses international law and multilateral institutions as means of preventing the inter-state competition he seeks from turning into interference and violence. To make matters more confusing, he argues that a state’s sovereignty can be curtailed when that state engages in domestic behaviors that transgress universal norms of state conduct (such as genocide for example). He argues that these principles are “natural” and don’t require international law or multilateral institutions. This makes absolutely no sense. Law is where the limitations on sovereignty are developed for mutual understanding. There is nothing “natural” about when a state’s exercise of power is illegitimate. Law is required to know where the line is drawn. Institutions are required to develop and apply the law.
Hazony does not address the obvious implications of his theories of state authority and international law. How can members of a historically oppressed or non-dominant group in the national state prevent their rights from being limited by the dominant group? To promote the dominant group, should the state engage in racial and religious discrimination? If freedom can only be realized as a member of a dominant group in a national state but not every group can control a state, doesn’t this mean the world will be full of people with no claim to full citizenship? Hazony’s silence on these key questions speaks volumes. Discrimination of all sorts is not only permissible but is likely necessary in Hazony’s national state system. Otherwise, you wind up recognizing the equality and dignity of social groups regardless of what the dominant group thinks of them. In the last chapter of the book, Hazony characterizes advocates of the Palestinian cause as promoters of a European neo-imperialist project whose goal is negate the legitimacy of the State of Israel. He does not offer any defense of Israel’s treatment of Arabs or other minorities under its authority.
Hazony believes that the virtue of nationalism is that it combines respect for other nation states with loyalty to one’s own people. This sounds nice but power needs to be constrained by something more concrete than a theoretical tribal loyalty. That’s why there are legal rights, pluralistic participatory institutions, and equal justice under law. Hazony has essentially no theory for how power is constrained at the international level or how disputes about the limits of sovereignty can be determined short of the coercive means he claims to abhor.
It is true that the concept of national identity is changing as a result of global communications, migration, and rules against discrimination. To confront the challenges this poses, we need to affirm individual rights, democratic accountability, and international engagement. We do not need an idealization of a mythical tribal past grafted onto simplistic concept of international peace and security. I don’t think that this book will be remembered as articulating a theory that was ahead of its time. Rather, it will be a footnote in studies about an effort to create an ethical and intellectual framework for intolerance, discrimination, and selfishness.
September 12, 2018
This is an excellent book. Hazony uses basic anthropology and the Bible to debunk enlightenment thinkers such as Locke who build an entire edifice upon extremely shaky grounds. While Locke comes in for criticism, it is Kant who is the true progenitor of current problems. There is no universal culture. We will not all go through the same stages of development. Finally, someone makes a very clear case against what is so obviously very dystopian with American efforts in the world today.
Hazony contrasts nationalism against the two strands of current imperialism in the world today - the EU (consciously built on Kant's ideas) and the US in its quest for bringing human rights and democracy to places that have no historical basis for either.
Hazony also disembowels the idea the Nazis were nationalists. They were imperialists peddling a utopian dream just as the communists were, the EU is, and the US is (or has been).
Closer to home, Hazony also explains why anti-Israeli attitudes are a development of the new EU and Kantian imperialism while Iran and the Palestinians are let off the hook.
Bravo to Hazony for issuing a truly remarkable book!
Hazony contrasts nationalism against the two strands of current imperialism in the world today - the EU (consciously built on Kant's ideas) and the US in its quest for bringing human rights and democracy to places that have no historical basis for either.
Hazony also disembowels the idea the Nazis were nationalists. They were imperialists peddling a utopian dream just as the communists were, the EU is, and the US is (or has been).
Closer to home, Hazony also explains why anti-Israeli attitudes are a development of the new EU and Kantian imperialism while Iran and the Palestinians are let off the hook.
Bravo to Hazony for issuing a truly remarkable book!
November 21, 2018
The author is a bit slippery with his terminology. He uses nationalism when he seems to really mean "ethnic nationalism", and by "liberalism" he means something close to "globalism".
Here is how I define these terms:
"Ethnic nationalism" - I mainly care about my own ethnic group.
"Globalism" - I mainly care about humanity as a whole, with no preference for my own ethnic group.
The main point of the book is to argue against globalism and to argue for the benefits of ethnic nationalism.
POSITIVES
His main critiques of globalism are as follows:
(1) Globalism is "despotic" because countries which do not agree with the global order have to be forced into it. I think this is true by definition, but he doesn't say why this is so bad. E.g. if countries are forced to be democratic and not jail internal political opposition, why is this a bad thing?
(2) Globalism does NOT work (he cites several examples of secular states or multicultural empires that failed). I don't think this is that convincing since states can fail for many reasons.
(3) Only ethnic nationalism is capable of producing sufficient loyalty. He doesn't give any evidence for this.
(4) True freedom is only possible in an ethnic nationalist state. No real evidence given for this either.
NEGATIVES
I enjoyed the book because but I didn't find it very convincing.
(1) He completely ignores all the successes of the globalist approach. For example:
(i)WesternEurope has enjoyed sustained peace after the adoption of the globalist paradigm post World War II.
(ii)The adoption of the Euro and free movement of labor have made doing business in Europe much easier
(iii) The prospect of joining the EU has proven a great incentive for many countries to improve their human rights records.
Perhaps none of these things would happen if Western European countries were still following a nationalist approach.
(2) Conversely, he completely downplays the dangers of ethnic nationalism:
(i) Incessant territorial disputes, which can easily lead to war.
(ii) Ethnic discrimation against minorities.
(iii) A general lack of human rights as the interests of the "group" are considered more important than those of the individual.
I think that the advantages of "globalism" can be summarized as:
(i) More PEACE - Fewer reasons for war when states are not aggressively pursuing their own interests and there is an accepted international consensus on accepted behavior
(ii) More PROSPERITY - Globalism generally reduces barriers to trade which increases overall economic output compared to more isolated countries.
(iii) More FREEDOM - The emphasis on the individual as opposed to the group leads to a focus on increasing individual freedoms and human rights.
Ethnic nationalism has the advantage that individuals might feel a greater sense of belonging if the vast majority of people in the state are from their own ethnic group but I personally don't feel that advantage is sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages.
Here is how I define these terms:
"Ethnic nationalism" - I mainly care about my own ethnic group.
"Globalism" - I mainly care about humanity as a whole, with no preference for my own ethnic group.
The main point of the book is to argue against globalism and to argue for the benefits of ethnic nationalism.
POSITIVES
His main critiques of globalism are as follows:
(1) Globalism is "despotic" because countries which do not agree with the global order have to be forced into it. I think this is true by definition, but he doesn't say why this is so bad. E.g. if countries are forced to be democratic and not jail internal political opposition, why is this a bad thing?
(2) Globalism does NOT work (he cites several examples of secular states or multicultural empires that failed). I don't think this is that convincing since states can fail for many reasons.
(3) Only ethnic nationalism is capable of producing sufficient loyalty. He doesn't give any evidence for this.
(4) True freedom is only possible in an ethnic nationalist state. No real evidence given for this either.
NEGATIVES
I enjoyed the book because but I didn't find it very convincing.
(1) He completely ignores all the successes of the globalist approach. For example:
(i)WesternEurope has enjoyed sustained peace after the adoption of the globalist paradigm post World War II.
(ii)The adoption of the Euro and free movement of labor have made doing business in Europe much easier
(iii) The prospect of joining the EU has proven a great incentive for many countries to improve their human rights records.
Perhaps none of these things would happen if Western European countries were still following a nationalist approach.
(2) Conversely, he completely downplays the dangers of ethnic nationalism:
(i) Incessant territorial disputes, which can easily lead to war.
(ii) Ethnic discrimation against minorities.
(iii) A general lack of human rights as the interests of the "group" are considered more important than those of the individual.
I think that the advantages of "globalism" can be summarized as:
(i) More PEACE - Fewer reasons for war when states are not aggressively pursuing their own interests and there is an accepted international consensus on accepted behavior
(ii) More PROSPERITY - Globalism generally reduces barriers to trade which increases overall economic output compared to more isolated countries.
(iii) More FREEDOM - The emphasis on the individual as opposed to the group leads to a focus on increasing individual freedoms and human rights.
Ethnic nationalism has the advantage that individuals might feel a greater sense of belonging if the vast majority of people in the state are from their own ethnic group but I personally don't feel that advantage is sufficient to outweigh the disadvantages.
February 23, 2019
Very fascinating look at the current situation in world politics, how we got here, and what the best way forward will be. Some have dismissed this book based on a misunderstanding of the title. However, rightly understood as a defense of the Nation-State and illustrating the damaging effect of Imperialism Yoram Hazony has provided a cogent message for why the Universalists of both the Left and the Right not only ask the wrong questions, but have all the wrong prescriptions. I especially liked the last chapter which delt with the paternalism of so many European and American elites.
April 7, 2023
After spending the last few years moving towards a libertarian world view this has been convincing push back in the other direction.
Several interesting ideas to think about however could have done with being quite a bit shorter!
Several interesting ideas to think about however could have done with being quite a bit shorter!
September 15, 2018
fascinating and full of great insights...all patriotism and nationalism are not negative. While reading this I thought of Orwell's great article NOTES ON NATIONALISM. Well written and reasoned. Worth studying.
October 17, 2020
An excellent book. I should've known that if Doug Wilson and Brad Littlejohn BOTH highly recommend a book, then it must be good.
I have been intellectually struggling with the question of empire vs. independent nation states for a few months. I never liked the idea of empire, but part of me wondered whether it was inevitable in the violent world we live in... and if empire is inevitable, perhaps we just need to focus on building the best one possible? This book addressed my concerns and answered my questions in a satisfying manner. I can now unreservedly be in favor of the nation state as an excellent political structure. Thank you, Hazony.
I have been intellectually struggling with the question of empire vs. independent nation states for a few months. I never liked the idea of empire, but part of me wondered whether it was inevitable in the violent world we live in... and if empire is inevitable, perhaps we just need to focus on building the best one possible? This book addressed my concerns and answered my questions in a satisfying manner. I can now unreservedly be in favor of the nation state as an excellent political structure. Thank you, Hazony.
April 28, 2022
Hazony's book starts slow but builds towards a powerful anti-imperial polemic that shatters paradigms adopted for two generations of Westerners. Whether one agrees with his rendering of nationalism or not seems immaterial to whether the book deserves to be read on its merits, which it does.
February 4, 2020
Yoram Hazony's book is a much-needed book. He presents an account of nationalism in such a way that it avoids the problems of imperialism on the one hand (such as the European Union and United Nations) and tribal anarchy on the other. We see both impulses in the world today, in the form of utopian liberals and libertarians.
Hazony does not argue that nationalism will lead to peace or absence of prejudice or violence. Rather, he positions it as the best path between tribalism, which leads to constant warfare between tribes, and imperialism, which seeks to impose a universal rule on all nations, which leaves no room for error. A nationalist is thus positioned between the particular (family, tribe, clan) and general (nation, other nations). They are, by this means, to remain grounded in the face of rationalist utopian schemes, while at the same time cultivating some detachment from the particular concerns of tribe. The imperial perspective is positioned too high to pay attention to the concerns of particular people, and thus leads to arbitrariness in who receives attention. Also, because it lays claim to a universal political order, it leads to the vilification and hatred of anyone who disagrees with the claim that they have found the solution to all political problems.
A community of nations, each committed to their own path of self-determination, provides the world with a variety of experiments in political governance. It offers the chance to see what works and what doesn't, while minimising the scale of damage that would be maintained at an imperial level.
Hazony is Jewish and deeply committed to the Jewish religion and to the nation of Israel. He draws his support for nationalism from the Hebrew Scriptures, where Israel is a nation of twelve/thirteen united tribes. In addition, he points out that Israel was appointed to be a light for all nations and that this light was to be spread not by conquest, but by example. I would put a Christian twist on this: the New Testament also affirms a world of self-governing nations, each bringing to the Church their unique gifts and offerings. The Church does make universal claims, but it does so in non-political way, recoginising a distinction between temporal power and spiritual power. The former is the domain of nation states, the latter the domain of the Church. Under this arrangement, the Church influences politics by functioning as a prophetic voice who may be consulted or give voice to spiritual or moral concerns, rather than in the direct formulation of legislation and policy, or their interpretation and enforcement. In this context, the Church can thus safely make universal claims, since she is prevented from resorting to forcible coercion on the one hand, and also by the religious assertion that love of God cannot be forced.
Hazony does not argue that nationalism will lead to peace or absence of prejudice or violence. Rather, he positions it as the best path between tribalism, which leads to constant warfare between tribes, and imperialism, which seeks to impose a universal rule on all nations, which leaves no room for error. A nationalist is thus positioned between the particular (family, tribe, clan) and general (nation, other nations). They are, by this means, to remain grounded in the face of rationalist utopian schemes, while at the same time cultivating some detachment from the particular concerns of tribe. The imperial perspective is positioned too high to pay attention to the concerns of particular people, and thus leads to arbitrariness in who receives attention. Also, because it lays claim to a universal political order, it leads to the vilification and hatred of anyone who disagrees with the claim that they have found the solution to all political problems.
A community of nations, each committed to their own path of self-determination, provides the world with a variety of experiments in political governance. It offers the chance to see what works and what doesn't, while minimising the scale of damage that would be maintained at an imperial level.
Hazony is Jewish and deeply committed to the Jewish religion and to the nation of Israel. He draws his support for nationalism from the Hebrew Scriptures, where Israel is a nation of twelve/thirteen united tribes. In addition, he points out that Israel was appointed to be a light for all nations and that this light was to be spread not by conquest, but by example. I would put a Christian twist on this: the New Testament also affirms a world of self-governing nations, each bringing to the Church their unique gifts and offerings. The Church does make universal claims, but it does so in non-political way, recoginising a distinction between temporal power and spiritual power. The former is the domain of nation states, the latter the domain of the Church. Under this arrangement, the Church influences politics by functioning as a prophetic voice who may be consulted or give voice to spiritual or moral concerns, rather than in the direct formulation of legislation and policy, or their interpretation and enforcement. In this context, the Church can thus safely make universal claims, since she is prevented from resorting to forcible coercion on the one hand, and also by the religious assertion that love of God cannot be forced.
July 12, 2019
Brilliant defense of nationalism over against the utopian vision of imperialists such as the UN and the EU. Also interesting take on why Israel is so hated by Europeans, and why the Palestinians, Muslims, and much of the Third World gets by with so little censure by the UN and the EU. Carefully argued, carefully documented, Hazony makes a powerful and scholarly case for his contentions. The logic of his argument is painstakingly constructed and easy to follow--he communicates it well as a writer and a thinker. Hazony puts forward a thesis that is difficult to refute; I find myself agreeing with him in his main points.
Criticism: Hazony appears to write as, at most, a deist. God is an uninvolved bystander if He even exists. Hazony treats the OT as if one of its main purposes is establishing the "right" kind of government for Israel. In other words, Hazony treats reality as if the big story is the unending struggle of politics, philosophies, and peoples--a struggle that has neither beginning nor end. He seems to completely miss the big story of the Old Testament (the promised coming of Messiah). He's unable to deal with (or at least, does not deal with) the fundamental reality of the nature of man: that each person is intrinsically morally corrupt, and that this moral corruption becomes part of the fabric--and the explanation--of our actions, politics and philosophies. Consequently, his unrelenting logic and excellent argument about relations among peoples and nations would only be completely true in a world in which God does not exist or is not involved, and in which all men are not morally corrupt. But that is not the world we live in, with the result that his argument is incomplete and at some levels inadequate when he gets to the reasons for the hatred and violence we see in the world.
Good book, well worth reading. The criticisms above do not vitiate his main point of the virtue of nationalism.
Criticism: Hazony appears to write as, at most, a deist. God is an uninvolved bystander if He even exists. Hazony treats the OT as if one of its main purposes is establishing the "right" kind of government for Israel. In other words, Hazony treats reality as if the big story is the unending struggle of politics, philosophies, and peoples--a struggle that has neither beginning nor end. He seems to completely miss the big story of the Old Testament (the promised coming of Messiah). He's unable to deal with (or at least, does not deal with) the fundamental reality of the nature of man: that each person is intrinsically morally corrupt, and that this moral corruption becomes part of the fabric--and the explanation--of our actions, politics and philosophies. Consequently, his unrelenting logic and excellent argument about relations among peoples and nations would only be completely true in a world in which God does not exist or is not involved, and in which all men are not morally corrupt. But that is not the world we live in, with the result that his argument is incomplete and at some levels inadequate when he gets to the reasons for the hatred and violence we see in the world.
Good book, well worth reading. The criticisms above do not vitiate his main point of the virtue of nationalism.
October 1, 2018
tl;dr: Amazing book. Read it.
So, I'll start by mentioning that I've been a fan of Hazony's for a while. I'll also say that for a while I've considered myself something of Libertarian (Radical Hayekian, I think I once said), but while I still do enjoy reading Hayek, Von Mises, etc. I've been slowly moving away from their worldview because of its lack of empiricism. Don't misunderstand me, when it comes to straight economics, they're dead on. It's their ideas on how the world should be ordered that I start running into issues. And I'm grateful for this book for articulating much of what had been bothering me for the last year or two.
Well written, well researched, well spoken.
I was especially taken with some of his conclusions on how his theory relates to the European (and generally left/liberal) view of Israel has gone from generally supportive in the 50s/60s to almost pathological opposition. I'm not sure if I agree but it was, at least for me, an entirely new way of looking at it, which is always a pleasure to run across, even if the topic is personally distressing.
So, I'll start by mentioning that I've been a fan of Hazony's for a while. I'll also say that for a while I've considered myself something of Libertarian (Radical Hayekian, I think I once said), but while I still do enjoy reading Hayek, Von Mises, etc. I've been slowly moving away from their worldview because of its lack of empiricism. Don't misunderstand me, when it comes to straight economics, they're dead on. It's their ideas on how the world should be ordered that I start running into issues. And I'm grateful for this book for articulating much of what had been bothering me for the last year or two.
Well written, well researched, well spoken.
I was especially taken with some of his conclusions on how his theory relates to the European (and generally left/liberal) view of Israel has gone from generally supportive in the 50s/60s to almost pathological opposition. I'm not sure if I agree but it was, at least for me, an entirely new way of looking at it, which is always a pleasure to run across, even if the topic is personally distressing.
July 18, 2022
This book was a bizarre read with strange definitions, enormous blindspots, and a list of rules that were arbitrary. There was no convincing address of why certain nationalities don’t deserve a state of their own (read: no discussion of Palestine at all). His claim that the nazi state was not nationalistic was unconvincing. His repeated claim of India as a Hindu nation was flawed. His ideas hinged on the nation being inherently peaceful, and so any bellicose action means that it’s not really a national state but a hidden imperial one.... yeesh. A lot of it felt like him saying “yeah and?” about Israel’s actions, with a lot of “you guys do just as bad or worse!” The only thing saving from a one star is he made some interesting points (apartheid regime and Serbian wars, what differentiated the reactions to them)
December 23, 2019
While it was hard to read some of what he had to say about Catholicism, and I’m not sure he always blames and credits the right historical figures (though most of the time he does), I think the basic thrust and his basic thesis of the book is on target. The opposite of nationalism is not universal love; its imperialism. This is a book that has given me some new concepts which are useful for thinking about the world in a more true way. I appreciated it very much. The section on Locke is worth the price of the book.
December 28, 2019
Thought-provoking but ultimately disappointing -2.5 stars. While the first two parts of the book are the heart of the book's arguments it's the last part of the book that tells you why the book was written in the first place: as a Zionist defense of the nation state of Israel vis-a-vis the world and international institutions.
The book argues in favor of nationalism as opposed to globalism, with the European Union as today's ultimate bogeyman. It does so by articulating the ideal types of clans/tribes, nations, and imperialism. In the process, however, the author makes ahistorical assertions regarding the origin of nation states (historical studies of nationalism, such as Benedict Anderson's, are relegated to a footnote!), argues in favor of ethnic nationalism without making it too explicit, and labels countries through history "nationalist" and "imperialist" insofar as they favor his argument, including by asserting that Nazi Germany was an imperialist, and not a nationalist, power. The dichotomy between nationalism and empire is simply too stark, and the confluence of such disparate institutions as the Roman Empire, Christianity, Nazi Germany, the European Union, and international institutions as representing "empire" decreases the explanatory power of the category. And in arguing against globalism the author doesn't address counterarguments, much less mention the benefits that globalized trade has brought the world in recent decades.
Ultimately, this book is interesting for understanding the kind of political thought that more intelligent defenders of a nationalist type of conservatism might use (including Israel's right-wing, Trumpism, Tory Brexit, Hungary, Modi's India, etc.). It's a thought provoking account that appears well argued on the surface, but that ultimately lacks substance and a more objective review of the historical evidence. I had hoped for a well argued book that I might disagree with but that would also spark a deeper assessment of the nation state as the political order in the world today. I got that in part, but only just so.
The book argues in favor of nationalism as opposed to globalism, with the European Union as today's ultimate bogeyman. It does so by articulating the ideal types of clans/tribes, nations, and imperialism. In the process, however, the author makes ahistorical assertions regarding the origin of nation states (historical studies of nationalism, such as Benedict Anderson's, are relegated to a footnote!), argues in favor of ethnic nationalism without making it too explicit, and labels countries through history "nationalist" and "imperialist" insofar as they favor his argument, including by asserting that Nazi Germany was an imperialist, and not a nationalist, power. The dichotomy between nationalism and empire is simply too stark, and the confluence of such disparate institutions as the Roman Empire, Christianity, Nazi Germany, the European Union, and international institutions as representing "empire" decreases the explanatory power of the category. And in arguing against globalism the author doesn't address counterarguments, much less mention the benefits that globalized trade has brought the world in recent decades.
Ultimately, this book is interesting for understanding the kind of political thought that more intelligent defenders of a nationalist type of conservatism might use (including Israel's right-wing, Trumpism, Tory Brexit, Hungary, Modi's India, etc.). It's a thought provoking account that appears well argued on the surface, but that ultimately lacks substance and a more objective review of the historical evidence. I had hoped for a well argued book that I might disagree with but that would also spark a deeper assessment of the nation state as the political order in the world today. I got that in part, but only just so.
May 2, 2019
Yoram Hazony opens "The Virtue of Nationalism" by debunking the idea of the social contract. In this, he is walking in the worthy footsteps of Bertrand de Jouvenal, whose "Pure Theory of Politics" similarly establishes the state on more fundamental loyalties. Hazony sees ascending levels of identity and loyalty in family, clan, tribe, and national state. At each of those levels, it is possible to have loyalties and common interests based on shared culture, language, religion, and experience. Beyond that, however, lies the universal state; that is always and merely a manifestation of imperialism. Any supranational authority, Hazony argues, must exert its will against that of inferior levels of organization; beneath the velvet glove is the fist of iron. This is not necessarily so in the case of the national state vis-à-vis its subordinate levels of organization. The supranational organization has usurped the rightful authority of its constituent nations, and acts against the interests of at least some of them. The universal always sets its face against any person or polity which resists its authority. Toward the end of the book, Hazony explores the co-mingled roots of anti-Zionism and ant-Semitism. He sees the source not in any particular policy of the Jewish state, but rather in its very existence, a living and thriving push back against universalism.
The book is deeply insightful. I have previously read two other books by Hazony. They dealt with biblical exegesis from a political point of view. The biblical foundation of his viewpoint is present in this book too, but not essential for the thesis Hazony develops. This book is unsentimental and unblinkered. I recommend it.
The book is deeply insightful. I have previously read two other books by Hazony. They dealt with biblical exegesis from a political point of view. The biblical foundation of his viewpoint is present in this book too, but not essential for the thesis Hazony develops. This book is unsentimental and unblinkered. I recommend it.
October 20, 2020
I enjoyed this book. Before reading it, I would have agreed with the thesis, however, my reasons would have been general. (I hail from a low-population state, so my suspicions of big government and federalism run deep, not to mention broader sorts of imperialism. I am strongly orientated towards states' rights.) This book filled a gap: an analysis of types of government, and in particular the optimal size of government. It's certainly not comprehensive, but provides a lot to think about.
Thesis and summary (page 226): "The institution of the national state, I have suggested, offers a number of advantages over the alternative forms of political order that are known to us: The national state, like empire, drives war to the borders of a large, politically ordered region, establishing a protected space in which peace and prosperity can take hold. But unlike empire, the independent national state inculcates an aversion to adventures of conquest in distant lands. Moreover, an order of national states offers the greatest possibility for the collective self-determination. It establishes a life of productive competition among nations, each striving to attain the maximal development of its abilities and those of its individual members. And it provides the state with the only known basis for the development of free institutions and individual liberties."
Thesis and summary (page 226): "The institution of the national state, I have suggested, offers a number of advantages over the alternative forms of political order that are known to us: The national state, like empire, drives war to the borders of a large, politically ordered region, establishing a protected space in which peace and prosperity can take hold. But unlike empire, the independent national state inculcates an aversion to adventures of conquest in distant lands. Moreover, an order of national states offers the greatest possibility for the collective self-determination. It establishes a life of productive competition among nations, each striving to attain the maximal development of its abilities and those of its individual members. And it provides the state with the only known basis for the development of free institutions and individual liberties."
December 21, 2022
Harzony is a sharp writer who raises important questions. But it's clear that he has formed a conclusion and shunts his data into it.
First - he defines a national group as something bigger than a tribe and smaller than an empire. Good enough but what would make a nation a unique unit and what are the specific attachment it creates. Trying to answer this he extrapolates a notion of "collective suffering" which he proves by using the family as an example and dismissing the "no" of the metaphor. There was no talk about how this can lead to unchecked popular passions, or how minority populations may be protected - other than saying that under "Empires" minorities fare worse.
Second - he makes a rather facile move indicting western liberalism as unduly under the influence of "rationalism." By lumping reason under one umbrella category rather than recognizing the contextual life that individual groups use reason he's undercutting the Enlightenment by granting its epistemology.
Third - I find this funny because the contexts that I've seen "Empire" used to describe all that is evil in the realm of political theory has been on the left. Again, Harzony adopts this here as a catch all term for bad and coercive political structures. That there might be a vast difference between an empire built on conquest and exploitation and a liberal commercial empire with free trade and individual rights never gets explored. Harzony uses blanket terms and arranges them to suit his arguments.
Despite all this there are times that Harzony makes interesting points and I don't want to discount his particular cultural perspective. It's an interesting foil to liberal assumptions though rarely an effective one.
First - he defines a national group as something bigger than a tribe and smaller than an empire. Good enough but what would make a nation a unique unit and what are the specific attachment it creates. Trying to answer this he extrapolates a notion of "collective suffering" which he proves by using the family as an example and dismissing the "no" of the metaphor. There was no talk about how this can lead to unchecked popular passions, or how minority populations may be protected - other than saying that under "Empires" minorities fare worse.
Second - he makes a rather facile move indicting western liberalism as unduly under the influence of "rationalism." By lumping reason under one umbrella category rather than recognizing the contextual life that individual groups use reason he's undercutting the Enlightenment by granting its epistemology.
Third - I find this funny because the contexts that I've seen "Empire" used to describe all that is evil in the realm of political theory has been on the left. Again, Harzony adopts this here as a catch all term for bad and coercive political structures. That there might be a vast difference between an empire built on conquest and exploitation and a liberal commercial empire with free trade and individual rights never gets explored. Harzony uses blanket terms and arranges them to suit his arguments.
Despite all this there are times that Harzony makes interesting points and I don't want to discount his particular cultural perspective. It's an interesting foil to liberal assumptions though rarely an effective one.
October 18, 2022
4-
У мору медијског, издавачког, квазиинтелектуалног бомбардовања о срећи, љубави, самопомоћи и "храбром новом свијету" који нам долази, заиста је и освјежење и изненађење наићи на овакво штиво.
Хазонијева теза да либерализам није ништа друго до империјализамне и да не даје мјеста супротном мишлјењу , апсурдно дјелује, али мени звучи поприлично тачно. И као свака друга идеологија о спашавању свијета, вјечном миру и просперитету за послиједицу има ломаче, гиљотине, Аушвиц, ГУЛАГ-е... Дакле, слажем се, нацизам није ствар њемачког национализма, него њемачког империјализма.
Књига има мањкавости и површности, али и довољну дозу неидеализовња национализма, што је за похвалу.
У мору медијског, издавачког, квазиинтелектуалног бомбардовања о срећи, љубави, самопомоћи и "храбром новом свијету" који нам долази, заиста је и освјежење и изненађење наићи на овакво штиво.
Хазонијева теза да либерализам није ништа друго до империјализамне и да не даје мјеста супротном мишлјењу , апсурдно дјелује, али мени звучи поприлично тачно. И као свака друга идеологија о спашавању свијета, вјечном миру и просперитету за послиједицу има ломаче, гиљотине, Аушвиц, ГУЛАГ-е... Дакле, слажем се, нацизам није ствар њемачког национализма, него њемачког империјализма.
Књига има мањкавости и површности, али и довољну дозу неидеализовња национализма, што је за похвалу.
December 10, 2018
A well articulated hot take on the international political order
October 23, 2019
Ignores anti-colonial nationalisms for the most part and glosses its radical undercurrents, whether in the Philippines, China, India and Ireland.
July 20, 2020
Um grande livro com ótimos ideias e explicações do estado atual da política internacional. Hazony explica com muitos exemplos e de forma muito bem fundamentada do que constitui um Estado nacional e os motivos dele ser a melhor forma de organização representativa de famílias, tribos e comunidades. Hazony também consegue tocar no ponto central dos problemas da União Europeia, desde sua concepção.
December 23, 2018
Hazony frames the major geopolitical developments of recent years (Trump, Brexit) as a historical dialectic between nationalism (the belief that an order of independent, sovereign nations is best) and imperialism (the preference for a single, globalist, classically "liberal" world order). Hazony argues that an order of national states with rights to self-determination is preferable to multinational collectives like the European Union.
The book is organized into three parts. The first section offers a brief but comprehensive timeline of different instantiations of nationalism and imperialism in Western history, beginning with the Old Testament tribes of Israel, the universalistic Catholic church, the Protestant response to Catholic imperialism, and finally the liberal paradigm of European unification (which itself begins with Locke and continues to the defeat of Nazism). The second section makes the case for an order of independent national states, arguing that nationalism founded on a sense of cultural inheritance will promote peace and prosperity, push violence to the borders, eliminate expansionist tendencies, and foster greater diversity and innovation in the world. The final section is mostly a discussion of how the Kantian ideal writ in "Perpetual Peace" has influenced modern geopolitics, and particularly how it has manifested in a double standard toward Israel.
One could conceive of Hazony's argument as consisting of positive and negative components. The negative component, in my view, is argued well. He deftly excoriates the intolerance of modern liberalism and its imperial tendencies: politicians who believe that we've reached "the end of history" would surely see no room for political debate. Indeed, a one-world international government may not even be desirable from the perspective of human fallibility. The positive argument, on the other hand, seems lacking. At the root of Hazony's argument for nationalism is an appeal to the feelings of kinship between the different tribes and clans in a nation, and a seemingly axiomatic belief that these feelings can never extend to humanity as a whole. Additionally, he doesn't offer compelling reasons why an order of independent nations would avoid the violence experienced in the "anarchic order" of competing tribes and clans, and seems convinced that such notions of fraternity could never be achieved on an international scale.
The book is organized into three parts. The first section offers a brief but comprehensive timeline of different instantiations of nationalism and imperialism in Western history, beginning with the Old Testament tribes of Israel, the universalistic Catholic church, the Protestant response to Catholic imperialism, and finally the liberal paradigm of European unification (which itself begins with Locke and continues to the defeat of Nazism). The second section makes the case for an order of independent national states, arguing that nationalism founded on a sense of cultural inheritance will promote peace and prosperity, push violence to the borders, eliminate expansionist tendencies, and foster greater diversity and innovation in the world. The final section is mostly a discussion of how the Kantian ideal writ in "Perpetual Peace" has influenced modern geopolitics, and particularly how it has manifested in a double standard toward Israel.
One could conceive of Hazony's argument as consisting of positive and negative components. The negative component, in my view, is argued well. He deftly excoriates the intolerance of modern liberalism and its imperial tendencies: politicians who believe that we've reached "the end of history" would surely see no room for political debate. Indeed, a one-world international government may not even be desirable from the perspective of human fallibility. The positive argument, on the other hand, seems lacking. At the root of Hazony's argument for nationalism is an appeal to the feelings of kinship between the different tribes and clans in a nation, and a seemingly axiomatic belief that these feelings can never extend to humanity as a whole. Additionally, he doesn't offer compelling reasons why an order of independent nations would avoid the violence experienced in the "anarchic order" of competing tribes and clans, and seems convinced that such notions of fraternity could never be achieved on an international scale.
January 9, 2020
Hazony makes a credible argument for the persistence of the nation-state model, but not without some issues.
His better points include the importance of national states and the associated principles of such states, the importance of mutual loyalty, and the discussion of why Israel faces a double standard, which I found particularly illuminating. I also really enjoyed the discussion of the linkage between national liberty and personal liberty. I definitely came away with a stronger defense of the nation-state model than I had previously thought about, so in that sense, the book fulfilled its mission.
That aid, it was imperfect in many ways. Hazony's biggest issue is that he plays with the definitions of words to suit his answers. Nationalism is used in a context rather different from the one we tend to encounter, which allows Hazony to dodge objections to it. It represents a clever use of terminology to craft a decent argument, but it also limits the way these arguments can be easily transferred to other discussions.
He's also prone to hyperbole at times. The implication that the UN is somehow a coercive body, as one example, strikes me as misleading. Hazony draws these extreme contrasts between the national state on one side and imperialism on the other, ascribing "imperialism" to movements that may be nuanced than anything. This book would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of what coercion means because Hazony's argument for nationalism is predicated on a natural learning process through experimentation. Some of the examples he calls coercion seem to instead be examples of his national learning process at work.
Overall, a good book and a principled defense of the national state. It's just hard to take in all of the arguments when some of them look like just moving the goalposts and some seem to rely too much on hyperbole.
His better points include the importance of national states and the associated principles of such states, the importance of mutual loyalty, and the discussion of why Israel faces a double standard, which I found particularly illuminating. I also really enjoyed the discussion of the linkage between national liberty and personal liberty. I definitely came away with a stronger defense of the nation-state model than I had previously thought about, so in that sense, the book fulfilled its mission.
That aid, it was imperfect in many ways. Hazony's biggest issue is that he plays with the definitions of words to suit his answers. Nationalism is used in a context rather different from the one we tend to encounter, which allows Hazony to dodge objections to it. It represents a clever use of terminology to craft a decent argument, but it also limits the way these arguments can be easily transferred to other discussions.
He's also prone to hyperbole at times. The implication that the UN is somehow a coercive body, as one example, strikes me as misleading. Hazony draws these extreme contrasts between the national state on one side and imperialism on the other, ascribing "imperialism" to movements that may be nuanced than anything. This book would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of what coercion means because Hazony's argument for nationalism is predicated on a natural learning process through experimentation. Some of the examples he calls coercion seem to instead be examples of his national learning process at work.
Overall, a good book and a principled defense of the national state. It's just hard to take in all of the arguments when some of them look like just moving the goalposts and some seem to rely too much on hyperbole.
October 24, 2023
The central thesis is that the historical opposite of nationalism is imperialism, a world governed by a single order imposed on others versus one of independent sovereign states defined by common particular cultural ethnic and religious ties. The biblical Israel is invoked as the original nation state, arguably formed by covenant, but became widespread in the west after the reformation and went worldwide after the Napoleonic wars to the first world war.
Hazony is critical of liberalism even of the classical sort but civic nationalism is a form of liberalism. Against the social compact theory is a discussion of society beginning with families and tribes which unite into nations vis a vie others, but the social compact was a theory of justice and law is distinct from mere association and Hazony admits tribal structures do not resemble a state which is what the classical thinkers were writing about. Kant’s proposed federation was not a world state but more a voluntary federation of nation-states while a world state would be superfluous where there are states and the goal of such federation was to renounce aggressive war and interference with other countries’ internal affairs. Mises did advocate a world state in his book Liberalism but also paradoxically a right to peaceful secession. Hazony is actually critical of a right of self-determination for every nation as this can undermine states and invite foreign intervention. The United Nations declaration of human rights both acknowledges a right to a nationality but not to a state and stops short of open borders by only mentioning free movement within a state and to leave and return to their country.
Hazony is critical of liberalism even of the classical sort but civic nationalism is a form of liberalism. Against the social compact theory is a discussion of society beginning with families and tribes which unite into nations vis a vie others, but the social compact was a theory of justice and law is distinct from mere association and Hazony admits tribal structures do not resemble a state which is what the classical thinkers were writing about. Kant’s proposed federation was not a world state but more a voluntary federation of nation-states while a world state would be superfluous where there are states and the goal of such federation was to renounce aggressive war and interference with other countries’ internal affairs. Mises did advocate a world state in his book Liberalism but also paradoxically a right to peaceful secession. Hazony is actually critical of a right of self-determination for every nation as this can undermine states and invite foreign intervention. The United Nations declaration of human rights both acknowledges a right to a nationality but not to a state and stops short of open borders by only mentioning free movement within a state and to leave and return to their country.
October 1, 2018
Nationalism has got itself a bad name, as it has been mistakenly aligned to the kind of nationalism that is thought to be amongst the causes of WW1 and WW2. Hazony answers both of these charges. These wars were clashesnof empire, not nations. Hence they were world wars.
Hazony has made a strong argument for nationalism from the Old Testament (God formed Israel as a nation) and political philosophy after Selden and Edmund Burke. The legacy of Rome through the Middle Ages and papacy was a form of empire. But with the Reformation the break-up came and individual nations emerged with their own sovereignty, kings and rulers and the rule of law.
Nations are aggregations of tribes and clans, which are in turn conglomerations of families . Nations don’t have grand aspirations, expansionist agendas or global objectives. That is the sphere of globalism and empire-building. Nations mean to service the freedoms of their people through their institutions (principally the family) and the defense of their tradition, legacy and loyalties. Thus the EU and other transnational powers attempt to gather nations, but draw away accountability and centralise power in an abstract and personal way.
Hazony has made a strong argument for nationalism from the Old Testament (God formed Israel as a nation) and political philosophy after Selden and Edmund Burke. The legacy of Rome through the Middle Ages and papacy was a form of empire. But with the Reformation the break-up came and individual nations emerged with their own sovereignty, kings and rulers and the rule of law.
Nations are aggregations of tribes and clans, which are in turn conglomerations of families . Nations don’t have grand aspirations, expansionist agendas or global objectives. That is the sphere of globalism and empire-building. Nations mean to service the freedoms of their people through their institutions (principally the family) and the defense of their tradition, legacy and loyalties. Thus the EU and other transnational powers attempt to gather nations, but draw away accountability and centralise power in an abstract and personal way.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 100 reviews