Conclusion THE VIRTUE OF NATIONALISM
- MetaEconGary
- Aug 20
- 30 min read
Updated: Aug 28
Reminder: In the new preface to Hazony (2025) it is proclaimed: “In the American election of 2024, voters found themselves having to choose between a Democratic Party whose political agenda was neo-Marxist in all but name and a Republican Party whose leading figures were unapologetically identified with the rising nationalist-conservative camp on the right (loc 147).” Two points: First, Democrats are not neo-Marxist, and to make said claim is just to use a political slur. It is loaded rhetoric, not a careful description. Second, the nationalist-conservative camp on the US right, and people who voted with same whether intended or not, are in effect pushing a move to neutralize the rule of law constitutional democracy system that has served the US well for 249-years. It is pushing toward an old styled 1500s era patrimonialism, which is a vertical power rule of men system with “the Pater” and loyalists running the country. Said systems tend to be incompetent (run by loyalists where competence is optional) and inherently corrupt.
Said somewhat differently, on the matter of the rule of law vs rule of men system of government: By the time I had finished the review of Hazony (2018), it was clear Hazony was onto something, namely the need to include the shared other-interest --- Hazony tradition with some core moral and ethical principles perhaps drawn from religion --- into the framing, like DIT does so do. INT and DIT were on the same page. After finishing the review of Hazony (2025), the disconnect of INT and DIT became clear. DIT is all about a rule of law system, with the shared other-interest holding the shared interest of people in concordance with that horizontal power system. The US Constitution frames the shared other-interest represented in DIT, which also means separating church and state.
In stark contrast, INT apparently sees the shared other-interest is in a traditional pre-Reformation vertical power system in an integrated church & state, which works to neutralize if not eliminate the frame of the US Constitution. DIT and INT are on totally different pages on said front. So, while labeling Democrats --- in effect, all Progressives as neo-Marxist --- and, then, in effect touting the return to the old 1500s era styled Patrimony, well, get real Yarom Hazony. Neither idea stands the test of serious and systematic inquiry using science & humanities, but rather fall in the realm of unfounded, untested claims of ideology and theology.
People --- Not Only Democrats --- Raising Issues About INT Based Nationalism are Not Inherently Neo-Marxists
1. Democrats are not Marxist: The Democratic Party platform does not call for abolishing private property or capitalism. In fact, Democratic policies operate within a market economy framework (tempered capitalism, reining in the excesses), not socialism or Marxism.
2. Democrats also support Nationalism, as long as it has a core of empathy-with based propositions. And, sure, the Ten Precepts of Sinai are a starting point, but it is naïve to believe that said Precepts are the only set of empathy-with propositions that a modern Nation-State needs in order to be viable. Empathy-with all people in an inclusive democracy is about far more than Ten Precepts and mutual loyalty only among the people buying into same. Empathy-with the Spaceship Earth system leading to essential environmental regulation --- yes, even at the Spaceship, supra-national level --- is one said arena, and, many more can be listed.
3. Purposely Claiming Social Democracy is a Form of Marxism: Proposals like universal healthcare, stronger labor protections, or climate regulation are social-democratic, not Marxist. Western Europe as well as the United States --- such as in The New Deal Order 1930-1980, an Order that actually worked for ordinary people --- had such policies for decades without being “neo-Marxist.”
4. Identity Politics is not the same as Marxism: While some progressives use “oppressor/oppressed” language, that’s an extension of civil rights discourse, not Marxist economic theory. To call it “neo-Marxist” is a polemical stretch.
5. Neo-Marxism is a real school: In academia, “neo-Marxism” refers to mid-20th century thinkers (Frankfurt School, Gramsci, critical theory). They analyzed culture, ideology, and power—not policy programs like Medicare expansion. Hazony is using the term in a very different, politicized sense.
So, with that backdrop, now what is the useful take-away from Hazony (2018, 2025)? The notion the issue revolves around competition between MAGA Republican Nationalists and Supposed Neo-Marxist Democrats is not it, and, in fact is counter-productive.
Best Order is 100s of Independent Nation-States
Hazony concludes the best order on the Spaceship Earth is one with hundreds of independent Nations as supposedly made clear with Independent Nations Theory (INT). Reasoned people of all political stripes could go along, as long as said Nations would work to learn from one another, and perhaps work together on shared interests, while each would keep the core on which said Nation was formed intact. The core includes the precepts of the religion, but also all the common ground, the shared other-interest among the clans and tribes, and represented in the common ground among all said entities in the shared other-interest of the Nation. Said Nation must also be capable of forming and applying a military in the defense of the core ideas, protecting the land space, of that Nation. If not, it has to form alliances with other Nations having similar shared other-interest. Hazony sees no need for supra-National organizations like the European Union, the United Nations, and, one wonders after reading the books, perhaps even the United States should be disassembled (like the Confederacy tried to do once before) --- making each State instead a Nation by itself. Conservatives seem to favor States Rights which taken to the extreme makes each a Nation-State.
Hazony especially points to Mosaic teaching as represented in the Hebrew Bible --- Old Testament of the Christian Bible --- as perhaps one of the first sources for such framing. Moses called for the formation of the Nation based on such things as the Ten Precepts at Sinai. Also, said Nation would reach out to teach other Nations about God’s word, but no empire built on said teaching would prevail. A notion of such a core set of precepts works for most everyone, and certainly cannot be claimed only by conservative-nationalists. Not logical.
DIT Sees the Order of Nations as a Problem in Scale
DIT sees the matter as a problem in scale. Starting with the self & other of the family, the selfish interests of each member of the family & selflessness needed to sacrifice a bit to make the family work --- striking that balance becomes ever more difficult with scale. So, perhaps striking that balance can work for a few clans and tribes on the way to forming a Nation. Thinking of striking said balance across all families, clans and tribes across the entirety of the Spaceship is simply unworkable. So, the Kantian ideal of some Spaceship wide entity eventually holding some moral and ethical order in sway for all Travelers, well, unrealistic and unworkable, and likely quite undesirable. Hazony certainly believes it to be undesirable even if it could be attained.
DIT also clarifies the problem of scale is really a problem in the arena of empathy-with the other. While empathy-with the other is quite workable on a small scale as in within the family, the problem of finding empathy-based agreement on the content of the shared other-interest becomes ever more difficult as the scale increases. Adam Smith fully understood the problem in the hypothetical example of a massive earthquake killing millions in a distant land. A person only hearing about the loss of that many lives, while capable of some empathy-with on a path to join in a concordant sympathy-with, and perhaps even compassion-for is a real challenge in said situation. Therein lies the challenge: Empathy-with is the starting point to finding the common ground within a family, clan, tribe, nation and supra-nation. It becomes virtually impossible to be in mindful empathy that is meaningful at the greater scales.
Some Useful Claims from Hazony
Hazony wraps the matter in some other useful claims as: “First, the order of national states is an ideal that is premised upon a measure of humility with respect to the wisdom and achievements of the nations … (and) Second, the free national state, as we know, comes into being and is maintained through the alliance of diverse tribes and clans, each of which exists thanks to the loyalty of its people to their own tribal leadership and traditions… (but it also opens minds to other frames through) the skepticism and empiricism that result from his awareness of the diversity of traditions, both within the tribes of his own nation and among foreign nations (p. 232).” It is such skepticism and empiricism --- the latter to come from serious and systematic inquiry in science & humanities --- that also helps in finding common ground in an ever evolving shared other-interest that works best through time.
So, hope of finding common ground in a shared other-interet rises eternal, as DIT helps make clear. The focus is shifted to skepticism and empiricism working to find the shared other-interest that works best, understanding it is essential to do so in order to tamp down the arrogance of self-interest within individuals, clans, tribes, and nations. The conversation about just what is a legitimate Nation, and a legitimate kind of interaction among Nations becomes clear, precise, and analytically tractable.
Critiques of The Virtue of Nationalism and of Independent Nations Theory (INT)
Seven critiques of the Independent Nations Theory (INT) as the best political system for the Spaceship Earth are reviewed here. Five are from other Reviewers, to which Hazony (2025) responds. The sixth and seventh come from applying DIT in making sense of INT, perhaps supporting it or not.
1. Nationalism and the Brotherhood of Nations
Hazony notes critics who have questioned the spread of the claims for the need for Independent Nations each with shared other-interest peculiar to same, while doing so in international conferences with other Conservatives. Critiques suggest it implies another kind of the international order, just one that Hazony supports. Hazony explains it is the rejection of internationalization that binds the Conservatives talking about Nationalism: “… the ‘liberal internationalist order’ has sought to subvert traditional institutions—the law and the courts, the media, the universities and the schools, the government bureaucracy and the military, the family and religion—with the aim of achieving a revolutionary transformation of the political order that is usually far removed from what is desired by the broad public. The result of this clash between liberal elites and the more nationalist and conservative public in each country has been persecution and oppression: The media and the universities label people whose views were legitimate and even uncontroversial a few years ago as ‘fascist,’ ‘authoritarian,’ ‘racist,’ ‘a danger to democracy,’ and so on. Then the various organs of government go about prosecuting them for ‘hate speech,’ ‘threatening public order,’ and other concocted crimes. On a simple, human level, each of us draws encouragement and inspiration from meeting others who have succeeded in holding firm in the face of similar abuses in their own countries (p. 224).”
So any Progressive questioning of the apparent plan of the Conservative who wants to move back to a vertical power traditional patrimonial styled system, which is what the Theory seems to support is not to be questioned. The “liberal internationalist order” is put into a box of a controlling heteronomy rather an order nudging empathy-based consideration of such things as gender rights and sustaining the Spaceship Earth system by lowering greenhouse gas emissions, both coming out of serious and systematic science & humanities based inquiry.
The broad public is also presumed to be Conservatives, like mainly represented in the Christian Nationalism movement. Reminder, as a case in point: In the US, more people identify as Liberal-Progressive than Conservative, especially as compared to the Traditional Conservative as represented in Christian Nationalism and Unitary Executive (Vertical) Power framing.
Hazony also claims scientific credentials for the Theory of Independent Nations without any supra-National frame of reference. Apparently Hazony has empirical support coming out of serious and systematic inquiry for the Independent Nation Theory. The empirical evidence seems to be in: “… no contradiction between a love of one’s own country and a desire to see other nations that one admires attain their own independence and well-being. In fact, the opposite is true. Not only in America, but in Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, Israel, and India, I have found that nationalists, in whom the love of their own people burns bright, are also the first to feel the pain of other nations whose independence has been endangered or lost.” Well, good, glad to see that empathy-with other Nations is part of the empirical evidence.
So, why is empathy-with other Nations not part of the theory, which would point to building shared other-interest with said countries, like in empathy-based tariff policy? Hazony is not concerned with such matters, as the empathy-with is reserved only for the Nationalists in the other country, not all people in the other country, not the country writ large. It is only the dominant group of the other country that counts.
2. Nationalism and Natural Law
Apparently several critics have pointed to the political and moral relativism of the Hazony Theory of Independent Nations. Anything goes. It is all relative. Every Nation can develop its own moral and ethical core, and, whatever evolves works, as in relativism. Hazony denies it, claiming the Theory supports and reflects absolutism, claiming empirical credentials for same. One of the absolutes is the Ten Precepts of Sinai, which Hazony sees as essential to the core of every Independent Nation, and, supported by empirical evidence that the Precepts are essential.
Hazony claims natural law is at play in establishing the core of a Nation, coming out of empirical reality, living experiences, out of empirical experience. Hazony claims the critics are rationalists, denying the absolutes of empirical experience, which Hazony attributes to liberal (self-interest only, do your own thing) framing going back to John Locke, which to Hazony was flawed: “… the radical deficiency of Locke’s account has gradually ceased to be recognized as a problem. Western intellectuals have come to delight in it, so that today we are inundated with follow-up works—from Rousseau’s On the Social Contract (1762) and Kant’s Perpetual Peace (1795) to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (1957) and John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1972)—tirelessly elaborating this dream-world, working and reworking the vision of free and equal human beings, pursuing life and property and living under obligations that arise from their own free consent. A theory or program that is committed to this rationalist framework is what I will call a liberal theory or program (p. 34).” It is said liberal program spread internationally about which Hazony is railing.
Economists take note: The Single Interest Theory (SIT) supporting max U is outrightly rejected by Hazony. It seems Hazony might find DIT more palatable, as the Null Hypothesis of no role of the shared other-interest is regularly rejected using empirical evidence. Hazony puts a huge stake in the shared other-interest, the mutual loyalty as it is referred to in Independent Nations Theory (INT).
Hazony goes on, claiming to be an empiricist, so “… we must learn about the natural laws of politics and morals in much the same way we learn about the laws of physics: through a process of observation and experiment, trial and error … (so the theory) of the need for a diversity of nations, each pursuing the truth according to its own understanding, is not intended to deny that there are principles of government and morals that are best. What is denied is that these principles are known to anyone who will but exercise reason to try and get to them.” So, Hazony rejects the rationalism of untested theory. Again, economists, Hazony would reject SIT.
Hazony also points out that “.. although human individuals tend to adopt the scheme of ideas that is accepted within their family, tribe, or nation, over time it is nonetheless possible for competing traditions to converge on certain truths in politics and morals, much as is the case in the physical sciences (p. 224).” So, why are so many Conservatives pointing to Nationalism against doing social science & humanities based research, which could well reveal truths in politics and morals that work better? Hazony states the “… empiricist account of natural law … is the only method by which we can approach the truth in matters of politics and morals (p. 224).” Well, DIT is all in on said claim, as it, too, is based in empirical inquiry.
3. Nationalism and Homogeneity
Hazony points to most of the criticism is in the realm of the Theory pointing to homogeneity, and a kind of majority rule within the Nation. Hazony does point to the need for an “… overwhelming dominance of a single, cohesive nationality, bound together by indissoluble bonds of mutual loyalty, is in fact the only basis for domestic peace within a free state… establishment of a stable and free state is a majority nation whose cultural dominance is plain and unquestioned, and against which resistance appears to be futile. Strong enough not to fear challenges from national minorities, such a majority nation is able to grant them rights and liberties without damaging the internal integrity of the state…”
So, the shared other-interest at play is the majority shared other-interest, and minority groups have to find ways to integrate with same. It is not homogeneity in such things as race and religion, but it is homogeneity in the content of the shared other-interest that prevails. The DIT question is: How etched in stone is said shared other-interest within the majority, and is it amenable to change as conditions change, which is what the US Constitution provides? Am thinking here of such things as the latest science & humanities understanding of gender, and if a majority view banning transgender people from the miliary might be changed as the empirical knowledge changes? Or, is it etched in stone that transgender people really do exist, that gender is decided with visual inspection at birth, with no consideration of the science denying that as fact is to have any influence on who gets to serve in the military?
4. Nationalism and Catholicism
Hazony points to critics that claim the Theory is hostile to Catholicism. Hazony points out being Jewish, but is closer to the Christians with regard to political and moral matters. Hazony favors the Old Testament part of Christianity, which as DIT makes clear is all about the strict father sending down Precepts and destroying places like Sodom and Gomorrah. It is about heteronomy, as in outside control by a strict father god. Ironically, Hazony claims for the “Christians (who) tend to be nationalists, the love of the Old Testament and the love of national freedom usually going hand in hand (p. 224).” From a DIT perspective, it is an inconsistent claim in that the Old Testament is about a very limited kind of freedom controlled and bounded in a strict father hierarchy. DIT would also point out that the New Testament brings the empathy-based nurturant father/parent into play, and suggest balance in strict & nurturant, not just strict, as the balance needed for true freedom.
Hazony in defending the appreciation for Catholicism also mentions the role of patrimony. And, yes, Catholics have always had a thing for “the Pater”, “the Holy Father” who is a strict father in a strict hierarchy. The Reformation leveled that hierarchy, bringing the Christian church back to the ordinary people, and even allowing people on other parts of the gender continuum to be leaders.
5. Nationalism and Foreign Alliances
Hazony does not support “… the American and European school of foreign policy known as ‘liberal internationalism,’ which I consider to be a euphemism for the pursuit of universal liberal empire (p. 224).” So, just like for the formation of a Nation driven only by self-interest as Libertarian Economics, Hazony also rejects the notion of a self-interest only driven foreign policy. Using DIT, Hazony sees the shared other-interest at the core of, and defining the character of a Nation as key to both market & government.
Hazony points to how the US has become the caretaker of Europe, based on such expression of self-interest. Hazony sees that the independent Nations in Europe have in effect taken advantage of Americans in not playing a larger role in defending the territory of European Nations, relying too much on the military might of America. Hazony chastises European Nations for moralistic claims about what America should be doing, in that said Nations are not paying a fair share of the NATO defense budget.
Hazony goes on to claim that the liberal internationalism frame --- which has led to believing on effect that market trading in the pursuit of self-interest would be good with China, and places like Turkey and Qatar would serve to be beneficial to America has not worked. Said countries take advantage, and do not reciprocate. Hazony notes how China refused to provide any kind of medical support --- like the 3M masks produced in China had to stay in China --- during Covid. Turkey, Qatar have helped the attempt at Islamization of America. Using DIT, the notion that trading with said countries will moderate the views of same, and somehow result in a shared other-interest that works for all countries, is misplaced according to Hazony.
Hazony goes on to argue backing off --- using DIT, not even trying to build shared other-interest as it is futile by said liberal internationalization process --- is not isolationism. Hazony just wants to put attention and effort to align with Nations that hold the possibility it can actually happen, which Hazony believes is impossible with places like China and most Muslim countries. Hazony closes out the section with an intriguing contention: “Liberal internationalists prefer America’s allies to be weak and dependent, whereas isolationists prefer that America have no genuine allies at all. But the two policies are founded on the same mistake (p. 224).” And, what is the mistake? As DIT clarifies, the mistake is not to see the need to focus on the shared other-interest, and presuming only each Nation pursuing self-interest will suffice. Not.
6. Nationalism and Patrimonialism
Hazony puts little attention to the fact that a Nation built with a rule of law in a constitutional and horizontal power democracy, like America built on the US Constitution, is substantively different from a Nation built with a rule of men using a vertical power structure. Hazony also fails to pay enough attention to the key role of a widely shared ethic sourced in both science & humanities (the latter going further than to just religion) in deciding if a Nation is truly viable. Hazony is prone to leaving the challange of building an ethical core in a Nation to dictums from old religious books. As DIT makes clear, a truly viable Nation must evolve the ethic that works best, as conditions change, including consideration of the knowledge coming from continually applying the methods of science & humanities based inquiry in updating the ethical core.
Such deeper analysis based in science & humanities (especially ethics, not just religion) --- to include attention to all of human experience as recorded in history ---- suggests the rule of law nations have always proven to lead to a far better political and moral system than rule of men systems. The latter tend to be unethical and corrupt, with loyalists serving the pater at the top which also means competence is optional. Hazony never really makes said claim, which leaves open the possibility that a Nation would be built with a hierarchical power system, which does not work well.
Unfortunately, it is exactly what is ongoing in the current restructuring of the American Nation-State, which is being turned back to a modern version --- a Neopatrimony --- of the vertical rule of men styled old Patrimony. The rule of law horizontal power system that has served America well for 249 years is under assault, and many Conservatives claiming to be using the Hazony Independent Nations Theory (INT) --- the Conservative Manifesto, as some have labeled it --- are in fact destroying the American Nation. INT is being used to justify replacing the rule of law with rule of men systems even using authoritarian and neofascist techniques to accomplish it.
Rule of Law Systems are Inherently More Ethical than Rule of Men Systems
Yet, Hazony does have a point on the rule of law sometimes being misused and abused. Hazony denigrating the rule of law, however, lacks in understanding that the bulk of the law, especially the common law, is about the shared other-interest, as in what reasoned people can go along with, which is a moral and ethical law. Now, having framed the rule of law as fundamentally ethical, it is obviously taken advantage at times by people furthering a narrow self-interest, which violates the rule of law about the shared other-interest. So, giving Hazony some space here: Self-interest driven --- especially by libertarians who Hazony does not favor --- law is inherently unethical, and tends to ignore moral and ethical order in the community. If that is the rule of law (i.e., libertarian free to choose without regard for the moral and ethical order) about which Hazony is concerned, DIT helps explain and support the Hazony claim.
Hazony also seems, then, to miss the point that the alternative vertical power rule of men sourced law is inherently unethical, lacking in moral and ethical order. Rule of men systems always devolve into a dual law system, the law for “us” at the top of the vertical power system including the narrow group of loyalists, and the law for “them” who are coerced and forced to be loyal. It is inherently unethical, to the core.
Unholy Alliance of Libertarians, Christian Nationalists, and Unitary Executive Power Theorists at Play
The unholy alliance among Libertarians, Christian Nationalists and Unitary Executive Power Theorists to put America First is in effect doing exactly what is to be avoided, building a vertical power rule of men patrimony styled system. The unholy alliance is taking the 249 year old rule of law based US Constitution apart. How?
First, the Libertarians: Said framing wants nothing to do with forming common ground among families, clans, and tribes in forming an empathy-based concordance among all people living within the boundaries of the American Nation-State. So, Libertarians are in effect against forming a concordant and coherent Nation. Libertarians have only a kind of dark empathy with other libertarians, and, as Extreme Libertarian Elon Musk declared, empathy is destroying Western Democracies. The opposite is true, as empathy is at the core of Western Democracies, as it was empathy-with ordinary people that led to dismantling vertical power structures that shored up the old vertical power patrimonies.
Second: Christian Nationalism is too narrow, as it relies on literal reading of old religious books, and does not deal with just core Precepts. It also uses authoritarianism to impose narrow views on all families, clans, and tribes which also is leading to a reintegration of Church & State, which was wisely set aside by the Founders. It also borders on neofascism in using an “us” vs “them” frame of reference, as in fundamentalists as the “us” and everyone else condemned in the “them.” Christian Nationalism is ironically counter to forming a coherent and unified Nation that works for everyone. It is not at all about building a viable Nation.
Third: Unitary Executive Power will not work as it puts too much credence in the Executive Power of one person, the President, who is reframed as “the Pater” , “the Strict Father or Godfather” in charge. So, it favors the ego-based arrogance of self-interest of one person and a few loyalists. It is also about authoritarianism, which along with egoism is counter to building unity in the shared community of a Nation. It can also lead to neofascism, as “the Pater” favors the “us” over the “them”, often then leading to a dual rule of law, the forgiving law for the favored “us” and strict law for the not favored “them.” Such is the rule of men. For more on how said alliance is working to replace the Enlightened rule of law horizontal power sytems with rule of men systems, see Hanson and Kopstein (2024). The book is reviewed here in the Metaconomics Blog.
America First being driven by the unholy alliance will not produce a Nation for the ages. It works counter to it, as it is working to build a Neopatrimony system, reflecting the failed empires of old. It is exactly such failed, hierarchical power empires of old about which Hazony warns, and ironically the Theory of Independent Nations, the INT, is being used to construct it. In fact, America First also seems to have a kind of bully on the way to meanness frame and tone to it.
How “America First“ and “America Everywhere” Got Mean
The title of this section is a play on The Atlantic piece by Brooks (2023) “How America Got Mean” and “Why Americans Are So Awful to One Another.” And, adding to the latter, why are Americans so awful to other Nations, like using bullying tactics in setting of unprecedented, high tariffs on Canada and the European Union? High tariffs also shift the tax load to low and middle income Americans, which is clearly mean. Also, eliminating foreign aid programs like USAID which cuts off food and medical support for children, is an ultimate in being mean.
So, how did America as represented in America First and America Everywhere get so mean? Brooks (2023) claims it is because Americans are no longer educated in moral and ethical framing, which is about a widely shared other-interest that holds the moral and the ethical. So, the more primal self-interest, the ego-driven arrogance of self-interest dominates American culture. And, as Brooks (2023) says it, “After decades without much in the way of moral (and ethical) formation, America became a place where 74 million people looked at (in both 2016 and 2024 … the favored presidential candidate’s) morality (and ethical frame) and saw presidential timber.” Said candidate was all about the arrogance of ego-based self-interest, and a kind of dark empathy for the “us” and no empathy-with “them”, and about a half ( at most: Ony 36-percent of eligible voters elected said candidate) of the American population seemed, and many remain, all in.
As made clear in Brooks (2023), and in DIT, putting too much effort into ego-based self-interest means the lack of adequate attention to being in empathy-with the other. It is the latter that tamps down the bullying and the meanness, and leads to moral and ethical choice.
So, ironically, in Hazony calling for putting a moral and ethical order at the core of the Nation-State, and the claim leading to INT as framing a kind of Conservative Manifesto favoring morality and ethics, it is not happening. America First and America Everywhere efforts to build some new version of the American Nation-State is instead being implemented with a kind of bully-framed American meanness, and fails the Hazony test of moral and ethical framing.
7. Nationalism and Science
Hazony is prone to draw on sources like the Hebrew Bible and Mosaic Law for making claims about INT. Hazony also, especially in the second edition, goes back to Catholic Theology, which is not surprising as it always had a role for “the Pater” as the strict father in a vertical power structure. In fact, it was the vertical power structure of the Catholic Church which was taken apart after the 1517 Reformation came into play, which Hazony calls what came next the Protestant Construction of the political world “… in which national independence and self-determination came to be regarded as foundational principles (p. 7).” Hazony fails to mention the main outcome of the Protestant Construction, as it is referred to, was the elimination of vertical power rule of men political systems. Said systems were replaced with horizontal power rule of law systems, especially as demonstrated in the 1787 US Constitution which is now under assault by the conservative-nationalists in the US.
INT Sees Vertical Power as Key
INT seems all in on vertical power, especially given the fact Hazony applauds the 2024 election of a vertical power political system in the US. Hazony also applauds other conservative-nationalist systems that have been installed around the Spaceship, all of which have vertical power as the key element. It is as though Hazony is applauding the 1500s era patrimonial system, the pre-Enlightenment system that ruled the Spaceship for all recorded history (and likely all of pre-historical record period) prior to the Reformation.
So, what is the Hazony view on science given the proclivity to go back to tradition and religion, neither of which generally have a strong empirical foundation in the sciences & humanities. And, even more importantly, what is the empirical support for INT coming out of economic, social and political science, as well as biological and evolutionary paleontology science, and the humanities to include political history, and especially ethics?
INT is Light on Science, and Long on Strict Father (Hebrew Bible) Religion
Hazony is light on science and long on ideology and religion. Science is only addressed like a dozen times or so over the almost 300 pages of the book, including essentially no reference to empirical science that supports INT.
Specific references include on p. 26: “The Dutch Republic … offered an exceptional degree of personal freedom of expression, with the result that science, trade, and publishing flowed to Amsterdam from other nations more skeptical of the value of such openness. What made these innovations possible, however, was not a doctrine enumerating a list of ‘universal rights.’ Rather, it was the ‘ancient customs and privileges’ of the English and Dutch nations.”
The claim is highly doubtful. As McCloskey (2006, 2010, 2016) and subsequent books based on deep and extensive research into what drove the wealth of nations (see the Review in Lynne 2025) --- the Great Enrichment 1780-current time --- makes it clear that it was universal rights more than anything. Innovism (coined by McCloskey) was the result --- based in empirical evidence from serious inquiry using science and humanities --- giving liberty and freedom, dignity and opportunity to innovate to ordinary people. It was getting away from the traditional vertical power system coming from ancient customs and privileges, including from religion, that made science-based, and all other kinds of essential changes leading to Innovism. And, what was done in the English and Dutch nations was not to install vertical power systems like was done in the US in the 2024 election.
The next reference to science is the supposed frame given to it by the Protestant Construction as Hazony views same, as in the “… Protestant construction imparted a unique dynamism to the nations of Europe, releasing a storm of dormant energies and fostering a stunning degree of experiment and innovation in government and theology, economics, and science. By permitting a diversity of constitutional and religious arrangements within different countries, the Protestant order also provided national laboratories for developing and testing the institutions and freedoms we now associate with the Western world (p. 27).”
Well, again, the most important thing that happened after the Reformation --- the Protestant Construction as Hazony labels it --- was flattening of the power structures, as in using (DIT) empathy-with was placed in every direction, with mutual respect among all people coming online. It was not about some religious framing from the Hebrew Bible, which had always been hierarchical with the strict father in charge.
On the contrary, it was taking that strict father out of the role of complete control, allowing anyone and everyone the opportunity to practice Innovism. Now, it took some time before it was extended to every race and gender, but it was accomplished in good measure eventually, as in The New Deal Order 1930-1980 in the US.
Also, in contrast to the Hazony claim that the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are all that is necessary for the moral and ethical core, McCloskey makes clear It is much more. In fact, the Christian Virtues which have some connection to the Hebrew Bible like represented In hope and faith, and, then from the New Testament love (empathy-with) comes into play, Pagan Virtues were also key. The Pagan virtues of Prudence, Temperance, Courage, and, perhaps the most important, Justice also were key --- and, all 7-virtues were to be accessible and applied to all, not just to “us” as the conservative-nationalists of today have in mind. And, perhaps most importantly, the McCloskey claim is based in empirical research in the sciences & humanities, not just conjecture from the content of the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament to which conservative-nationalists point.
Next reference to science: “The tension inherent in maintaining both principles of the Protestant construction imparted a unique dynamism to the nations of Europe, releasing a storm of dormant energies and fostering a stunning degree of experiment and innovation in government and theology, economics, and science (p. 27).” Not. It had nothing to do with tension in the Protestant Construction. It had to do with freedom and liberty given to ordinary people to innovate, and, being unbound from the restrictions of command and control religion coming out of the Old Testament was tamped down so Innovism could proceed. Religion might play a role, as in “thou shalt not” but it was no longer coming from a vertical power pater.
Empiricism Not Universal Claims Give Content to Science
Another reference: “English empirical science was fueled by outrage over the deductive character of the Cartesian method, which the French, in turn, insisted was the only truly “rational” way to advance science. German philosophy likewise thrived on the belief that British empiricism was a grand catastrophe, and that Immanuel Kant’s idealism would save us all (p. 27).” Hazony here seems to be all in on doing serious empirical research, as in English empirical science. Yet, more often than not, Hazony zeros in on old religious books as the source for building the core of a Nation: Is that empirical? Also, Hazony is quite critical of Kantian Universalism, wanting to stay with local traditions coming from old religious books. Hazony favors the empirical, so we are left having to grapple with the proposition that old religious books interpreted locally --- local traditions --- are somehow empirical, which, is certainly a possibility, but test the null hypotheses please.
Next reference: “Modern writers, who have been too much influenced by Darwinian science, tend to look for ways of explaining this as a process driven by biological kinship (p. 69).” Well, that is no longer the case, as modern Evolutionary Biology and Evolutionary Paleontology, drawing on Darwinian claims about the role of the ecosystem and not just the organism, clearly goes beyond just biological kinship. The modern understanding sees both biological and cultural evolution, as in the organism & ecosystem, individual & community, the latter also entailing social relationships.
Science Comes from Competition Among Nation-States
So, to Hazony, science comes from “… competition among independent states explains the fact that those periods of history that we find most admirable in terms of the kinds of individuals they produced, and their fruitfulness in terms of works of science, religion, and art, were periods in which the political order was one of small, independent states in competition with one another, whether national states or tribal city-states (p. 132).” Well, not really. The competition was among ordinary people given the opportunity to test the widget or other innovation in the market of self-interest and the community of shared other-interest, which had no particular National boundary.
Hazony goes on about the competition among independent Nation-States: “This argument for a competitive political order should, as I have suggested, be appealing to economists, who claim, after all, to have developed an empirical science, and who should for this reason welcome the world of experiments that the many independent nations, each with its own policies, can offer. And yet we constantly hear economists (and many who have been schooled in economics) speaking out against the order of independent national states, on the supposition that economic efficiency would be greatest in a single world market in which all national boundaries have been removed (pp. 133-134).”
Hazony has a point: Mainstream economists see only self-interest at play, which is a cargo-cult science of make-believe, a wonderland for the Econ to play within. And, here is where INT and DIT overlap: Both see the shared other-interest within a Nation-State affecting the play of self-interest within that Nation. Where INT and DIT differ is that DIT sees the possibility for Nations to also develop a shared other-interest demonstrated in the pursuit of self-interest by each Nation being tempered by that mutually shared other-interest. INT does not see it that way, as a Nation is only about arrogant self-interest only, as in America First. Bullies are favored, as in demanding the other Nation pay massive tariffs to serve the self-interest of the bully.
Most Scientifically Important Nations are Failing as Nations
The only other reference to science is in the statement: “I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN troubled by the prospect that a nation such as Britain, which has so often been a light to others in politics, philosophy, and science, should some day soon step down from the stage of world history forever. I see Britain, America, the Netherlands, and others as forming part of a family of nations whose continued independent existence is meaningful to me personally. Nevertheless, my first concern is for Israel…” For some reason, Hazony seems to believe places like Britain, America, Netherlands and Israel are somehow in National decline. Well, in the realm of science, it is not clear what Hazony is referring to, as clearly all such Nations play a part in the leading edge of science.
Empirical Content of INT is Lacking
Ok, so, I am not a political scientist/ political philosopher so perhaps I should not be making statements about the scientific content of INT. But, I can say from deep knowledge of behavioral, biological, and neuroscience, and ethics within the humanities, that Human nature is best described as being a dual nature. People need the freedom and liberty to pursue the self-interest as in Innovism, which is made possible through empathy-with the other going in every direction which leads to dignity and opportunity to try and sell that widget or other innovation in the market and the community of shared interest. It is all about the autonomous pursuit of self-interest tempered by the Homonomy of the shared other-interest, freedom and liberty influenced by the share interest in the outcome.
It is all made easy sense in DIT, which would admit to some need for heteronomous control when self-command fails. INT seems see that heteronomous control as the core idea, as in touting a strict father vertical power system like played pre-Reformation. Hazony seems to want the Protestant Construction which facilitated good balance in autonomy & homonomy, but wants to accomplish it with heteronomous vertical power patrimonial control, which is illogical. Also, that vertical power patrimonial control is presumed to be essential within a Nation, but not allowed in inter-Nation interaction. One cannot have it both ways. DIT could help make INT work, and INT fits within the frame of DIT, but empirical reality must play.
A query of ChatGPT-5 led to the same overall conclusion, in contrast to DIT which is based on a solid empirical foundation: “Through the DIT (empirical) lens, INT over-weights ego-based national self-interest while under-weighting empathy-with institutions and interdependence (the shared-other interest). The empirical record suggests that durable peace and prosperity arise when the two interests are balanced: sovereignty matters, but so does shared institutional order. …Hazony’s framework is thus more conjecture and normative philosophy than empirically tested theory. Where data exists, it tends to undercut the stronger INT claims—especially on peace, economic performance, and civic nation stability.”
Bottomline: DIT Gains Empirical Credibility From INT, and DIT Supports INT
DIT is given empirical credence by the Hazony story using INT, and, the Hazony story using INT is given credence by the framing of DIT. Both DIT and INT have a placeholder for, and see the key role of the shared other-interest, which holds the moral and ethical core of a Nation. The drivers in forming a Nation and the relationship among Nations is about far more than self-interest as the Libertarians, and that kind of Liberal Internationalism claim, which is the primary claim of INT. DIT sees it the same way.
The problem is, INT wants to impose a shared other-interest onto the Libertarian, and any other person wanting some freedom to choose. Using the standard DIT styled analytical system, path 0M comes from a strict father vertical power system and imposes some path 0Z very close to path 0M for the “them.” The “us” in turn can operate on path 0G without any kind of restraint or consideration for the other. It cannot be economically and socially efficient to have a path for “us" and another for “them” because it is imposed in the patrimonial system, a rule of men system, which is what INT touts.
In contrast, DIT makes clear the best, efficient economic and social path 0Z comes from a system of freedom and liberty, with dignity and opportunity for all. Path 0Z is chosen without strict father control, albeit must be lawful, as in the rule of law applying to everyone in the system. Path 0Z is freely chosen while influenced by said law, and, control --- horizontal rule of law, applied uniformly across all people --- only when self-command fails. It remains about self-command, not vertical power rule of men command.
So, DIT sees no need to impose a shared other-interest to have a Nation, but rather sees it is voluntary. DIT is also more open to look to sources beyond religion for the content of the shared other-interest, as in serious and systematic inquiry in science & humanities, so, in effect INT fits within DIT. It follows that Nationalism is a Virtue as claimed by INT only if good balance is struck in the joint self & other-interest, the joint individual & community-wide shared interest within the Nation-State. It has to occur, however, in a horizontal rule of law system.
DIT in effect supports INT, and INT supports DIT, as long as the rule of law is in place. No rule of men, no pater, no patrimony, please. Try both INT and DIT: You might like IT.
Go to other parts here:
References
Angyal, Andras. 1965. Neurosis and Treatment: A Holistic Theory. New York: The Viking Press.
Hanson, Stephen E. and Kopstein, Jeffrey S. 2024. The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future. Hoboken, NJ: Polity Press.
Hazony, Yoram. 2018. The Virtue of Nationalism. New York: Basic Books.
———. 2025. The Virtue of Nationalism. Second ed. New York: Basic Liberty.
Hedges, Chris. 2007. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. New York: Free Press.
Jacobson, Gary C. 2023. "The Dimensions, Origins, and Consequences of Belief in Donald Trump's Big Lie." Political Science Quarterly 138, 2: 133–66.
Lakoff, George. 2016. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. 3rd (Kindle) ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lynne, Gary D. 2020. Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed. (Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics). New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Lynne, Gary D. 2025. “Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics: Toward a Humanomics with a Theory.” Review of Behavioral Economics 12, 3 (May): 257-289. Open Access paper is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/105.00000212 See now publishers - Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics: Toward a Humanomics with a Theory
McCloskey, Deirdre N. 2006. The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for An Age of Commerce. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McCloskey, Deidre Nansen. 2010. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
McCloskey, Deidre Nansen. 2016. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, David Sloan. 2015. Does Altruism Exist?: Culture, Genes, and the Welfare of Others (Foundational Questions in Science). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Comments