Occasionally, I refer to the “ethnic states of Europe”. Which countries do I mean by that? Very nearly all but the very smallest European countries define themselves in ethnic terms. The Baltic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, Greece, etc. Modern France has organized itself around the notion of “Frenchness” but it remains a country overwhelmingly populated by the “ethnic French”. You need to strain the notion of ethnicity a bit to understand “ethnic French” but if you squint you can still see that France remains an ethnic state. So is Germany although similarly you must engage in a willing suspension of disbelief to recognize German ethnicity (Bavarians, Swabians, and Westphalians make more convincing ethnicities than German).
Let’s consider the example of Hungary. Hungary is a country of roughly 10 million people. Its official language is Hungarian which bears only the most distant relationship to any other language and, with the exception of a few provinces of other countries, is spoken only in Hungary. Very few people born in other countries who visit or even emigrate to Hungary speak Hungarian—it’s of little use to them other than in Hungary.
The present prime minister, the head of government in Hungary, is Viktor Orbán. Mr.Orbán has gained the ire of progressive media in the United States, castigated as “far-right”, “right-wing”, “right-wing nationalist”, “far-right nationalist”, authoritarian, etc. largely for the crime of nationalism. Espousing ethnic nationalism and opposing LGBT rights and abortion are heresy if not apostasy among those who believe that every country should ethnically, racially, and culturally diverse not to mention very open sexually with few if any limitations on abortion.
Nationalism and, possibly, the other “far-right” views espoused by Mr. Orbán are gaining strength in the ethnic states of Europe, not just in Hungary but in practically all of them. Sweden has its farthest right government in decades. AfD in Germany and FN in France are actually gaining in power.
I’m in no position to say whether the political parties and positions gaining strength in the ethnic states of Europe are good, bad, or indifferent. I don’t know enough about the political history or context in those countries to make such a judgment. I wish other Americans wouldn’t leap to the (to me) weird conclusion that because a foreign political party is called “right-wing” in the press and they consider themselves “right-wing” that they should support that foreign political party. Or, as should be obvious, “left-wing”, mutatis mutandis.
Right now the America progressive media are running around with their hair on fire because Italy is poised to have its farthest right-wing government in power since Mussolini. It’s not hard to explain why: immigration, largely from the Middle East and Africa, are putting substantial strains on the social and now political fabrics of these ethnic states. How many immigrants are producing this strain? In most countries they constitute 5% or less of the population. In France it’s around 15% but they’re not deemed immigrants—they come from France’s African former possessions. 85% of the French are français de souche, the rest are mostly ethnic Arabs or sub-Saharan Africans.
What about Ukraine (I hear someone ask)? The same thing is true there. The present Ukrainian government is a Ukrainian nationalist government. That’s one of the reasons the Russians invaded. Once again I’m not justifying it but explaining it. In Ukraine as in other countries that were parts of the former Soviet Union, ethnic Russians tend to see themselves as minorities experiencing discrimination. Don’t confuse that with their wanting to return to Russia or be part of Russia. They aren’t the same thing—mostly I think they just don’t want to be discriminated against in the countries in which they were born and which they think of as their homes. Their view of “not being discriminated against” may conflict with the goals of ethnic nationalists in those countries.
I’ve posted my views on how our immigration system should be changed several times but what may not be recognized is its subtext: I don’t want to abolish immigration to the U. S. but to preserve it. The last time our percentage of immigrants in the country was as high as it is now we effectively prohibited immigration for 40 years. I think the strains of the loss of control over our southern border are starting to show. Said another way Trump was a symptom not the disease.
Update
It isn’t just in the EU that nationalism is on the rise. It’s on the rise in Russia—Russian nationalism, too, is one of the factors behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And it’s not just in Europe. President Xi’s policies are broadly nationalist ones. And in India the rise of Hindu nationalism is the most important development there in decades.
Said another way Trump was a symptom not the disease.
Dealing with the border I think Trump offered a remedy to control rampant illegal migration and drug/human trafficking across the border. If you listen to residents living near the border, along with border patrol agents “guarding†the border, they have mostly positive appraisals of how the border was managed during Trump’s presidency. It’s not only those having the most immediate contact with the insurgency at the border who are negatively effected, but also those who are attempting to cross, in mass, and under the terms of the cartels who now control their passage northward. 700 drownings have been reported. Huge numbers of human trafficking and fentanyl are being transported into this country. There is little coverage of all these home grown problems sprouting under the Biden presidency, except when Martha’s Vineyard was being inconvenienced by the sudden appearance of 50 foreign outsiders. Bravo for Ron DeSantis!
It would behoove those commenting from the left to ponder why their favored factions are failing in Europe and for those on the right here to look closer at the their favorites platforms which generally don’t call for major changes in their social welfare programs and taxation.
From my perspective other than the fringe monarchist/bonapartist parties, they are all about 4 notches to the left of the US mainstream (wherever that is today).
Trump is a symptom of success! When the storm comes and He is Reinstated all will witness his Genius. He will Close the Border and Only english will be Spoken!
Well, the right-wing coalition did win in Italy, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the EU Commission, is threatening sanctions against the Italian people. The EU has already sanctioned Hungary and Poland,
So much for democracy in Europe. It will not be tolerated.
PS. The government in Ukraine is a nationalist-socialist party, that is Nazi. And it is the 1930’s/1940’s version of Naziism, complete with all the Nazi paraphernalia and rhetoric. Zelenskii did run on a peace platform, and got a very large majority (73%?), and the Nazi parties (there are several) did lose seats in parliament. But the Nazi militias and those in the military were able to use violence to impose their will.
Ukraine has the only actual fascist/nazi parties in Europe. Urban et al cannot be put into the same category.
For nations to exist, you need nationalism. Like the three bears you need nationalism that isn’t too cold or too hot.
Afghanistan is an example of too-cold nationalism – the lack of nationalism was one big factor in the inability of that “country” to form a coherent government after two decades of western support. Our efforts were specifically intended to breed nationalist sentiment, but they could not and did not succeed – loyalties primarily remain at the sub-national level.
There are many examples of “too hot” nationalism, which I think does eventually lead to authoritarian government. This isn’t just a right-wing phenomenon, but lately, it has been.
Nationalism has to be balanced. In that regard, I think the US has historically done a better job of that than most other countries. I think it helps tremendously that we are not an ethnic nation-state, unlike almost every other country in the world. And the irony is that for all the claims of “white nationalism,” the left wants nationalism too, only on their terms.
Transnational progressives have something in common with Islamists: neither think that nations should exist.
In the US white nationalism is tied in with Christian nationalism. That is worrisome since when it is God who is approving your actions then no action can be too extreme. I cant think of an example of where extreme nationalism did not lead to an authoritarian government.
Please explain US left wing nationalism. Looking at the various definitions of nationalism part of that definition is usually trying to achieve a uniform national character and the left wing can be accused of that but it is also generally tied in with single point of view and glorification of national history. You can make the case that true socialism leads to a kind of nationalism at least it can. Not sure I am seeing this so much in the US.
Steve
“Please explain US left wing nationalism. Looking at the various definitions of nationalism part of that definition is usually trying to achieve a uniform national character and the left wing can be accused of that but it is also generally tied in with single point of view and glorification of national history.”
Right-wing nationalism glorifies parts of national history – left-wing nationalism glorifies different parts. I agree with you that both the left and right-wing are trying to achieve a uniform national character. The culture war takes place under the umbrella of nationalism because the fights are about the national character and power over national institutions.
If you set aside subjective judgments about right vs. left-wing values, what they represent, and whether they are good or bad, the behavior is the same.
Left-wing nationalism has long been a thing, and the US is no exception.