Part One NATIONALISM AND WESTERN FREEDOM
- MetaEconGary
- Aug 20
- 27 min read
Updated: Aug 27
I: Two Visions of World Order
The two visions include 1) a supranational government covering the entire spaceship Earth something akin to the United Nations, but with far more power, and 2) many independent states, and using DIT here, perhaps agreeing on some parts of the set of shared other-interest that works for every Nation, but with each Nation forming the shared other-interest within National boundaries that works for that Nation. And, more DIT here: The especially old idea from pre-Enlightenment of building an empire operating on a Rule of Men in a vertical power system across the Spaceship Earth was replaced after about 1648 with the idea of the Rule of Law within Nation States.
In what would eventually be Nations influenced by Christian thinking, the old Catholic Church with the Pope in charge across the entirety of the Spaceship comes to mind as said pre-Enlightenment idea, with an Emperor or King for the Spaceship working in consort. It was the goal of the Christian Frame in the pre-reformation period, and it was changed dramatically by Martin Luther in 1517. Such a goal for a supranational authority was also sourced in China… and the Third Reich in Germany that led to WWII --- and remains a frame among Islamic Thinkers in the notion of the Caliph to this time.
Protestant Construction Gets Underway After 1648
Hazony points out the Western democracies took a different path, starting especially in about 1648 after the Thirty Years War, the roots of which had been sown at the start of the 1517 Reformation. Actually, Hazony claims the roots go back at least to the Hebrew Bible, with main parts remaining in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, one of the earliest points to it. The idea was from the time of Moses that a moral order --- DIT would say an empathy-based moral and ethical shared other-interest, to include moral community voluntarily agreed to --- would be at the core of a Nation State. Said State would then work to find and then represent the common shared other-interest beyond the ethic but also arising among the families, clans, and tribes in other economic and social matters. It would be the Ethic and the Incentives at play, working to compose the Nation, within the boundaries of said Nation. It was about forming a shared other-interest within the Nation --- the notion of soil, the boundaries on a map --- but not that of blood. It was not about race (blood), but it was about soil and shared other-interest in said boundaries.
Nation is Defined by the Shared (Other) Interest Among the Tribes
Hazony says it in the following manner: “By nation, I mean a number of tribes with a common language or religion, and a past history of acting as a body for the common defense and other large-scale enterprises,” all living within the boundaries (the soil) of the Nation. So, again, the shared other-interest represented in part by the religion and language, in effect the core of the Ethic on path 0M, is at the core of the Nation. The self-interest related to the Incentives in economy and society are on path 0G. The Nation is represented on path 0M, and leads to operating on path 0Z. Hazony gives it Biblical roots: “Throughout the Bible, we find that the political aspiration of the prophets of Israel is not empire but a free and unified nation living in justice and peace amid other free nations (p. 19).” Justice(and all the other virtues like Temperance, Courage, Faith, Hope, and Love) is represented on path 0M, working to give context the virtue of Prudence on path 0G (see Lynne 2025).
DIT Sees the Nation as Resting on a Kind of Homeostatic Balance Between the Individual and the Community Interest
Said somewhat differently, a kind of homeostatic peace, with good balance in self & other (shared with the other)-interest leading to prosperity of a healthy, viable, Nation arises on path 0Z. Many such Nations, each with their own path 0Z, also seek to strike balance with other independent Nations on the Spaceship. Some overlap arises in a shared other-interest, a path 0M (e.g., a shared other-interest in sustaining Spaceship systems, like the carbon cycle) across all Nations also comes into play.
II: The Roman Church and Its Vision of Empire
It was not always that way --- the focus was on building Spaceship-wide empire, not about the notion of building independent Nations --- even in Nations who were influenced by what came to be the Christian Bible. The whole idea of a Roman Catholic (i.e., Universal) Church played heavily in attempts of Kings working in consort with the Pope to spread the Church and the Empire of the King to rule the Spaceship, a jointly integrated State & Church. Hazony claims it went on for week over a thousand years, the effort to build an empire with a universal commitment to the integrated State & Church.
Hazony frames it: “… the Roman church was allied, in theory and often in practice as well, with the German Holy Roman emperors, who were entrusted with establishing the universal Christian empire. In this, Roman Catholic political thought paralleled that of the Muslim caliphs and the Chinese emperors, who likewise believed they had been charged with bringing peace and prosperity to the world under the rule of a universal empire of their own (pp. 21- 22).” Hazony also claims that after World War II the US also clung to some version of that frame, with American Power spread across the Spaceship.
Protestant Reformation Reduced the Role of Hierarchy Essential in an Empire
The earlier frame of empire with a Christian flavor came apart with the Protestant Reformation. The hierarchy under the Pope in the notion of a Universal Church --- the vertical power structure, with “the Pater” in charge --- was set aside. Power in Christianity went horizontal, assigned to the ordinary people. The same change started to reform Government, moving away from the Patrimonialism, vertical power form of the State that had dominated for centuries.
Again, Hazony claims it all turned toward eliminating hierarchical, integrated Church & State around the end of the Thirty Years war in 1648. The change laid the groundwork for the independent Nation, as favored in framing of the Enlightenment. Such a Nation evolved in several places, really taking hold by the late-1700 in the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and, yes, in the United States.
Enlightened Forms of Both Church and State Meant Horizontal Power for Ordinary People
The Enlightened form of more horizontal, representing ordinary people form of Government was especially represented in what became the United States in 1776. Also, the US Constitution in 1787 not only went toward a more horizontal, Rule of Law power structure but also clearly separated Church and State. It was about building of an independent Nation that inclusively represented and served everyone --- representing ordinary people not just the elite in the hierarchy --- within the boundary of it. Also, while a moral order, the ethical dimension was influenced by religion (in the case of the West, Christian values resting on Jewish, Hebrew framing) at the core, it was not to be controlling. As DIT clarifies, it was about moral community arrived at through interaction with the other was the story of the Enlightenment, not a moral order imposed through a vertical power system of the patrimony of old. Hazony claims it was a Protestant re-construction that worked at changing the thousands of years old, hierarchical (a Patrimonial system, a Patrimonialism as German Sociologist Max Weber labeled it --- See Hanson and Kopstein 2024, p. 14).
III: The Protestant Construction of the West
The Protestant Construction rested on two principles: 1) the moral minimum required for legitimate government, and 2) the right of national self-determination. It was also a horizontal power system, with ordinary people inclusively represented. Hazony wants that moral minimum to come from the moral order of the Hebrew Bible, the Ten Precepts at Sinai. Hazony seems prone to want control over the moral minimums, as in a moral order dictated by something like the Ten Precepts at Sinai.
In contrast, a more Enlightened view would be to build moral community. The frame of DIT points to the key role of the play of empathy-with, on the way to being in sympathy-with, finding concord with the moral and ethical minimum. It seems said form of the Construction as framed in Enlightenment thinking had no room for an emperor, king, or pope that ruled as “the Pater” (after Hanson and Kopstein 2024) at the top of vertical power system. It is not clear Hazony would agree, as the notion of “the Pater” seems more acceptable to Hazony .
DIT also clarifies the Construction consistent with the Enlightenment would not facilitate any kind of integrated Church & State, especially not a joint effort of a Church Pater & State Pater, like the old time often almost joint rule of Pope & King. An Enlightened Construction clearly keeps Church and State separate.
So, while downplayed by Hazony, DIT clarifies that while religion and the church perhaps plays an important and sometimes essential role in influencing the moral minimum in the moral community, the Construction it is really about an empathy-based ethic in play at the core of the Nation. It is not about control, but about influence. Notice, too, that said government in order to be legitimate has to temper any urges to self-interest not only within said Government, but also in the Market.
It is about bringing the ethic into view and into play. An empathy-based ethic would also come to be represented in the rule of law, a law that applied to everyone. The empathy-ethic based law would also work to ensure the ethic is at play in the Market. As DIT makes clear, the Construction is not only about Incentive, but also about the Ethic to temper it, in a joint effort in Market & Government.
Protestant Construction Builds on Much Older Ideas
Hazony claims the two principles were formulated thousands of years ago, and especially came into play in early Christendom. The first principle pointed to how a legitimate ruler, operating on an ethic that worked for everyone, was to ensure peace and prosperity … and ensure protection for all the people, ordinary and otherwise. Hazony takes it further, however, and puts a religious tone to it, referring to the moral minimum --- again, the moral order of the Ten (Commandments) Precepts at Sinai, and public recognition of one-God. Hazony claims that even Luther --- the driver of the Reformation that framed the Protestant Construction --- saw the Ten Precepts as natural law. Perhaps, although Luther clearly saw the need for a horizontal community of shared interest being evolved among ordinary people in the church rather than a hierarchy power system dictating it.
The second principle, Hazony argues, brought another whole dimension to the table: It pointed to many independent states plotting the course represented in the shared other-interest (using DIT framing) of each. The idea of an empire in charge over families, clans, and tribes over vast areas was discounted in favor of many independent Nation states finding the shared other-interest that worked in a smaller area bounded by that Nation. No supra-national emperor or king or pope would be involved.
Also, the Protestant Construction being based in just two main principles did not favor some specific forms of government over others, although removing the hierarchy and bringing horizontal power to the people was clearly a part of the Construction. As Hazony would have it, while “ … the existence of a moral minimum is recognized, interpreting how this minimum will be expressed is taken to be a right of every independent nation, each approaching the issue from a perspective rooted in its own historical circumstances, experience, and insight (pp. 26-27).” In DIT terms: The empathy-based other-interest holding the Ethic is essential for giving context to the expression of self-interest by all people interacting in both the Market & Government within the Nation state, with to be expected differences among said independent Nations.
Empire Building Lingered Even After the Protestant Construction Took Hold
Hazony finishes this section with the observation: “… the Protestant principle of national freedom did put an end to Europe’s overseas empires. And in so doing, it brought about the founding of new national states around the world, among them the United States of America and a restored Jewish state of Israel (p. 28).” It does seem, however, that an ongoing assault on said two principles is the latest trend, making clear the Protestant Construction is not as widely and deeply favored as perhaps it deserves. See Hanson and Kopstein 2024 for the Spaceship-wide move back to Patrimony and Empire-building, like the US wanting to claim Greenland, Canada, and Panama and Russia determined to rebuild the Soviet Union. Also, the Israel State is clearly under assault by entities in the area wanting to build an empire devoid of Jews, perhaps even an Islam Caliph.
IV: John Locke and the Liberal Construction
Hazony claims the Atlantic Charter brought into play after the defeat of Germany and Japan in August 1941 represented the two principles undergirding the Protestant Construction. The Atlantic Charter supported the formation and continued operation of independent Nations formed on said principles. The claim is the principles ultimately defeated the Soviet Union, as well. Hazony points to how Franklin Roosevelt even referred to “the old ideals of Christianity” as part of the frame. Yet, Hazony then goes on to claim the principles are no longer in play, and the West is deteriorating, losing ground because of it.
Progressives Supposedly See a Role Only for the Ego-Based Self-Interest
And, just what are said claims? Well, Hazony claims that Progressive framing has taken away from the underlying religious framing, as in the “… abandonment of the view that family, sabbath, and public recognition of God are institutions upheld by legitimate government and minimum requirements of a just society (i.e., the first principle).” Well, that is questionable, as minimum requirements of the Progressives are certainly not counter to the Ten Precepts, which are all in main about empathy-based ethics, and other “old ideals of Christianity.” The latter certainly include empathy-with the other, a frame more common among Progressives than Conservatives.
DIT Suggests the Opposite: Progressives Tend to be More in Empathy-With the Other
It seems Progressives are often if not always more prone to be in empathy-with --- a main Christian virtue associated with love thy neighbor as thyself kind of framing, which starts by mindful framing about being in empathy-with that neighbor. As a case in point, it seems Progressives are better representing the “old Christian ideal” of empathy-with than many if not all contemporary Conservatives in the Christian Nationalist movement which is short on empathy-with anyone other than the small group within. Such Nationalists are more about “blood (genetics, ethnicity) and soil” not just soil tempered by Christian ideals. The notion of the US being somehow a “Christian Nation” demonstrates a lack of consideration for the reality that the US was formed using some claims from Christianity, but that is not all that was involved. The US was formed on Enlightenment principles that had been influenced by the Protestant Construction, but, again, the Enlightenment has more content than just the two principles Hazony claims. And, on religion, the US Founders were in the main Deists, and clearly drew on religion in a more nuanced way than just looking to “old Christian ideals.”
European Union is Claimed to be a Kind of Empire
Hazony makes more unfounded claims about drivers causing a move away from the Protestant Construction in “… the sharp decline of concern for safeguarding the political independence of nations as the most effective barriers to the tyranny of universal empire, culminating in the reconstitution of Europe under a multinational regime, and the increasing tendency to identify American power with a new world order that will supersede the independence of nations (i.e., the second principle) (p. 30.” Wow. So, the European Union which clearly respects the independence of all Nations within the EU is a kind of old styled, patrimonial empire of the 1500s? And, the US bringing human rights and other empathy-based principles from the US Constitution into view in other parts of the Spaceship is empire building? The US and EU NATO partners helping keep Russia out of invading and taking over Ukraine is somehow about empire building? Such framing leads to peculiar claims, without any substantive empirical grounding.
Liberal Construction --- Individual Freedom and Liberty Without Context --- is the Problem
Hazony sees the overall problem as resting in “… the liberal construction of the West.” Said “liberal construction” is flawed, Hazony claims, because it focuses all attention on individual freedom. In DIT terms, Hazony claims the focus is only on path 0G (the Incentive), without enough regard for the ethic represented on path 0M (the Ethic). Hazony explains: Locke himself was a product of the Protestant construction, and his work was intended to strengthen it, not to undermine it. Nevertheless, in fashioning his theory, Locke downplayed or entirely omitted essential aspects of human nature and motivation without which no political philosophy can make sense (pp. 30-31).” Well, not entirely: Locke just left out the key role of some heteronomy, some outside control being essential when self-command, self-discipline to choose the best path 0Z fails.
DIT clarifies that the Hazony claim is that Locke focused almost exclusively on the self-interest only path 0G and ignored the shared other-interest path 0M --- the path with the moral and ethical system embedded within it. As DIT makes clear (see Lynne 2025), modern economics has done the same thing, turning it into a cargo-cult science of make-believe, as Humans have both self and shared other-interest, and search for path 0Z, not the make-believe path 0G. Yet, for Locke, it seems more important to point out that Locke failed to see how self-command, self-discipline can be a real problem, so the Community(family, clan, tribe): Government may have to play a larger role.
Claims Locke Favored the Liberal Construction
Hazony claims Locke saw “… all human individuals are born in ‘perfect freedom’ and ‘perfect equality’ … pursuing life, liberty, and property in a world of transactions based on consent (p. 30).” So, again, path 0G is in view, with no explicit recognition of the moral and ethical dimension on path 0M. Hazony has a point: Locke perhaps did not allow for any religious or other source for bringing the moral and ethical dimension into view.
It comes into view in the next part that Locke actually saw the individual having the freedom to choose to operate on the DIT framed path 0Z, as in homonomy. So, it seems the issue here is that Hazony does not want to acknowledge the possibility that choosing path 0Z is totally up to the person. Hazony wants to impose path 0Z on the person and claims we are born into such positions, as when born into a family, clan, or tribe --- born into a religion, into a community of shared other-interest over which we have little choice: heteronomy seems the description, and, to Hazony, essential. Seems both Locke and Hazony fail to see the key role of self-command, something about which Adam Smith was quite concerned.
Locke is Being Misrepresented
Hazony is in effect misrepresenting Locke who actually does see the moral dimension, the moral and ethical frame of reference. It is just that Locke wants said frame to be freely considered and perhaps joined or not by the individual, who has the complete individual freedom to decide. Locke wants path 0Z voluntarily selected, by voluntary consent, and not imposed by some outside group, such as a church or religion. Locke presumes full self-command, full self-discipline to in effect sacrifice a bit while doing the best thing for both own-self and the community on path 0Z.
Hazony goes too far in deprecating the Locke view, claiming Locke is “… oblivious to the effects of a common adversity, which brings inevitable challenges and hardships to families, tribes, and nations, reinforcing the responsibilities to the collective and turning them into the most acutely felt, and often immovable, features of the moral and political landscape. No intelligent account of politics, or of political obligation, can be devised that does not give great weight to these factors. And Locke’s account … is in effect a far-reaching depreciation of the most basic bonds that hold society together (pp. 31-32).”
Well, DIT suggests otherwise. It is just that Locke wants individuals to decide what it is that holds society together, not something imposed from the outside, perhaps by the magical delivery of the Ten Precepts at Sinai. Locke is not oblivious to the shared other-interest: Locke just wants the individual freedom to help evolve and decide the content of the shared other-interest reasoned people could go along with.
Freely Choosing Individuals Could not Form a Viable Nation
Hazony downplays the possibility that freely choosing individuals could form the Nation. The claim instead is that: “In real life, nations are communities bound together by bonds of mutual loyalty, carrying forward particular traditions from one generation to the next. They possess common historical memories, language and texts, rites and boundaries, imparting to their members a powerful identification with their forefathers and a concern for what will be the fate of future generations (p. 32).” Hazony does not explain the source of said mutual loyalty and traditions. DIT explains it: Humans have the evolved capacity for empathy-with the other, and, it is said evolved capacity for empathy-with that leads to mutual loyalty and tradition, that which the other can go along with.
It seems Hazony would connect with DIT as in the claim: “Attachments … move the individual to serve his or her country, not only for the sake of their lives and property, but even at the cost of sacrificing these very things (p. p. 33).” Yes. As DIT makes clear, attachments to country, or to other related shared interests represented on path 0M lead to sacrifices in moving away from the self-interest only path 0G toward path 0Z.
Many of Classical Liberals are Claimed to Be Disconnected from the Need for a Nation
Hazony goes all in on the critique of all who frame the matter in what is generally referred to the liberal (as in supposed classical liberalism, not liberal in the sense of Left-over center politics), with the claim: “Western intellectuals have come to delight in it, until 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).”
Notice that Adam Smith is not in the list, and correctly so: As DIT makes clear, Smith clearly saw the dual nature of Human nature, and the need to temper the arrogance of self-interest focused on Incentive-only with the shared other-interest holding the moral sentiment, the Ethic tempering the Incentive. And, yes, Hazony has a point: Modern mainstream Single Interest Theory (SIT) in Microeconomics makes the same mistake, becoming in effect a cargo-cult science based in smoke and mirrors, based in make believe.
In fact, the only one that deserves to be on the Hazony list is Ayn Rand. Rand saw no role for the shared other-interest, no role for the shared public good, no role for the shared common good on which a Nation runs.
Lockean Framing Saw No Need for National Boundaries
Hazony goes on to argue that Lockean framing points to no real need for National boundaries. Hazony claims that von Mises and Hayek would see it the same way. Modern economics, then, resting so directly on Locke, von Mises, Hayek and the likes of Libertarian Economists like Milton Friedman in effect agrees: The Nation has not placeholder in SIT, so, in effect it is of no analytical relevance. Hazony clearly argues in support of a key role for the Nation, and, DIT can easily be used to make sense of it: The shared other-interest of path 0M, holds the reasoned Ethic, and represents the Nation. It is essential to an economically efficient and socially viable system operating on path 0Z to include the shared other-interest (many of same) represented in a Nation.
Hazony finishes out the section with the claim that “… the Lockean account (is) a utopian view of human nature and motivations, and a radically insufficient basis for understanding political reality (p. 37).” Yes, if we see Locke only in the frame of path 0G, absolutely. If we see Locke as acknowledging some homonomous choice of path 0Z, it is not exactly fair to put Locke into that frame. If we see Locke as denying the relevance of any heteronomy, well, yes, Hazony has a point.
V: Nationalism Discredited
Hazony weaves the story that the tendency to be opposed to nationalism comes out of the World War II era. The idea that Germany --- in particular the Nazis in Germany --- declared war on European countries, and really had in mind even wider control over other countries all over the Spaceship, is what turned people against nationalism. Hazony discounts the story by making the claim that what the Nazis had in mind was to become a German Empire --- The Third Reich, the same frame of the First Reich which had similar objectives --- of the entire world especially of Europe. So, it was more about empire building than it was about nationalism. It was about eliminating Nation states --- each and every said independent state in the Europe for starters --- and place all under the direction of the German Empire, the Third Reich.
Claim of the European Union, and American Providing Military Support in Europe, as Suggesting a Kind of Empire
Hazony points to how the formation of the European Union was pretty much driven by this kind of thinking. The goal was to put all the heretofore independent nations in Europe under one government, which to Hazony is a form of empire building.
Hazony also tries to make the case that the American involvement in bringing peace and ensuring peace in Europe is also a form of empire building. Hazony clearly wants the independent states of Europe to provide for their own defense, for example, and not rely on the United States to keep peace in Europe.
Urbane and Educated Deny the Key Role of the Nation
Hazony claims that the intellectuals, the urbane and educated, also came to downplay what Hazony believes is the key role of the independent Nation state. Hazony argues the Protestant Construction needs be brought back into play, and attention put back into Nation building. Again, a Nation is about having a moral and ethical frame --- a moral and ethical community --- at the core, with a Nation based on soil (not blood, i.e., not race like the Nazis’ claimed, as in blood and soil) surrounding that moral and ethical core. Said Nation works to find common ground among the families, clans, and tribes --- and all races --- living together on that soil, within that National Boundary.
DIT Also Sees the Key Role of the Moral and Ethical System in a Moral and Ethical Community of Shared Other-Interest
DIT easily makes sense of the claim: The Ethic at the core of the Nation as represented on the shared other-interest path 0M works to give context to the Incentive for individuals to pursue the self-interest in building a viable economy and community on path 0G. The matter of a kind of homeostatic, peaceful, sustainable economy and community, Market & Community: Government is resolved on a path 0Z within each Nation. Individuals have to sacrifice a bit for the community, for the Nation, in moving to path (homeostatic) 0Z. DIT also clarifies that said Nations would also work to find common ground, the shared other-interest across Nations, such as in reasonable exchanges of people, information, science, sustaining the Spaceship Earth system, and trade. Homeostasis on a Spaceship Earth path 0Z scale starts with homeostasis on a path 0Z within each Nation.
VI: Liberalism as Imperialism
Need to keep in mind that the Hazony use of the word “liberalism” refers to a kind of flawed classical liberalism, the old freedom and liberty in a horizontal power structure vision of the Enlightenment thinkers who clearly saw the shared other-interest --- like the moral sentiments of Adam Smith --- giving context. In the realm of economics, the best example of true classical liberalism is Adam Smith, who clearly saw the duality of interest in the evolved nature of the Human (self & shared with the other-interest), albeit modern SIT in mainstream economics sees only the Econ (self-interest only, about which Hazony is railing). As noted earlier, Smith also saw the key role of the moral and ethical core of shared interest as represented in the notion of the moral sentiment. So truly classical liberalism kind of thinking like demonstrated in Adam Smith was about Incentive (pursuit of wealth by the individual, free to choose like Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman said) & Ethic (temper that pursuit of wealth down to something the reasoned other could go along with).
Hazony Confuses “Being Liberal” With (Classical) Liberalism
As alluded to at the outset of this Review, Hazony’s “liberalism” distorts classical liberalism, and even confounds said liberalism with the notion of “being Liberal (as in having empathy-with the other)” now placed here under the umbrella of imperialism. To clarify, even Locke understood classical liberalism as the best kind --- not just claiming it is only about the liberty and freedom of the individual to do as said individual pleases without regard for the other. Again, Locke was perhaps too optimistic that each individual would seek the ethical, the best path 0Z, but Locke was not dug in only to the notion of liberty and freedom to do as one pleases without some influence form the wider community of shared other-interest.
Hazony Liberalism is a Grand Theory About Individualism Unbounded
Hazony sees classical liberalism --- continuing to misrepresent it --- as a “… grand theory about how … to bring peace and economic prosperity to the world by pulling down all the borders and uniting mankind under … universal rule (p. 44).” In fact Hazony goes so far as to even include Marxism under the banner of liberalism, as if freedom of individual choice is also what makes for Marxist styled liberalism. Confused.
Even George W. Bush is a “liberal imperialist” under the Hazony frame: “Liberal imperialism is not monolithic … President George H. W. Bush declared the arrival of a ‘new world order’ after the demise of the Communist bloc, he had in mind a world in which America supplies the military might necessary to impose a ‘rule of law’ emanating from the Security Council of the United Nations (p. 44).”
Adam Smith as a Classical Liberal Would Agree Unbounded Individualism is Problem
Hazony’s point about the key role of the Nation is well-taken. Adam Smith and other true classical liberals would agree. And, yes, using the word liberalism to mean unfettered, arrogant self-love expressed in self-interest is abhorrent to any true classical liberal. Said view of liberalism is a kind of imperialism, as in the self-interest only Market can do no harm, international trade driven exclusively by self-interest is a good thing, and other liberal imperialism (using the Hazony phrase) framed ideas. Yet, Hazony needs to be more careful in the characterization of what liberalism means, going back to Classical Liberal Adam Smith to give due credit to the key role of a moral and ethical core to not only the economy but also the Nation within which said economy operates.
Hazony Claims von Mises et al Key on Individualism as in Max U
Hazony quotes von Mises, to not only highlight the frame but also to chastise it: “The greatest ideological question that mankind has ever faced… is… whether we shall succeed in creating throughout the world a frame of mind… [of] nothing less than the unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations… (p. 45).” Well, von Mises, the champion of “free markets” is clearly talking about a system that relies heavily on a highly competitive, ordinary people participating in same, Market. The “liberal thinking” that Hazony is opposed to, or at least wants tempered, is the notion of each individual having complete liberty and freedom to do as that person wants to do --- as in the max U of SIT in mainstream Microeconomics which builds on von Mises et al. framing.
Western Democracies Are Rapidly Becoming One Big University Campus.
Hazony claims a main feature, perhaps even a major cause of the lost legitimacy of the Protestant Construction has been “…the deterioration of free discourse in the universities, where official and unofficial censorship of the professorate’s opinions—including their views about Islam, homosexuality, immigration, and a host of other subjects—has become commonplace. But the universities are hardly the principal locus of rage against views now deemed inappropriate. Much of the public sphere is now regularly visited by the same kinds of campaigns of vilification that were until recently associated with the universities. Indeed (in both universities and the public square) …(the) scope of legitimate disagreement is progressively reduced, and the penalties of dissent grow more and more onerous… (pp. 46-47).” Hazony does not want universal agreement spread across Nations, but wants each Nation to plot the course that works within said Nation. So much for universal human rights, or everyone on the same page about the need to sustain the Spaceship Earth system.
Brexit to Leave the European Union as Key Example of Liberal Construction
Hazony claims that anyone favoring exiting the European Union was chastised. Hazony claims anyone wanting to return Britain to being a completely independent Nation under a Protestant Construction of unique moral and ethical shared other-interest at the center of a configuration of tribes within Britain, decided within Britan, was chastised. On what fronts? Well, Hazon claims it “… was alleged that only the aged supported exiting the European Union, thereby disenfranchising the young; or that only the uneducated had supported it, thereby diluting the say of those who really do know better; or that voters had meant only to cast a protest vote and not actually to leave Europe; and so forth. … (said) angry pronouncements were then followed by the demand that the British public’s preference be repealed—by a second referendum, or by act of Parliament, or by closed-door bargaining with the Europeans (pp. 48-49).” That is, anything and everything was to be done to keep Britain in the European Union, “…the one legitimate opinion (that) should prevail (p. 49).”
Some Americans Also Against the Liberal Construction
Hazony points to how many chastised the Nationalists for the “… refusal to permit the International Criminal Court to try its soldiers, … unwillingness to sign international treaties designed to protect the environment, its war in Iraq—all were met with similar outrage both at home and abroad… (p. 49).” Perhaps. It seems however that most concerns and protests in the United States has been the particular form of Nationalism, as represented in Christian Nationalism which has tones of “us” vs “them” as not only in soil but in blood. Also, an unwillingness to draw on the latest empirical science on matters like gender and sexuality has put the Christian (Fundamentalist in the large) Nationalists under scrutiny. So, even though universal Human rights coming out of the Liberal Construction may be based in serious and systematic, and thus based empirical research coming out of science & humanities, it seems Hazony is all in on resting on magic and myth, instead. Hazony wants each Nation to have the ability to run on magic and myth as long as it suits the powers to be within said Nation.
Christianity and Judaism Also Under Assault
Hazony laments the attempts “… especially in Europe, to ban such Jewish practices as circumcision and kosher slaughter in the name of liberal doctrines of universal rights, or to force liberal teachings on sexuality and the family upon Christians and Jews in the workplace and in schools. It requires no special insight to see that this is only the beginning, and that the teaching and practice of traditional forms of Judaism and Christianity will become ever more untenable as the liberal construction advances (pp. 49-50).” So, any attempt to Reform religious practices are not allowed under the Protestant Construction? Hazony seems to be missing the fact that the Protestant Construction came out of a Reformation by Protestors (Protestants) to moral and ethical framing, and hierarchical control in a joint Church & State, in the first place.
Beliefs No Longer Discussed Openly
Hazony believes it has become difficult to have conversations about controversial topics. Perhaps. It does seem, however, that such conversation needs to include serious and systematic inquiry coming out of science & humanities, and not just old religious book. The moral and ethical core === the moral and ethical community of shared interest --- of the two part Protestant Construction also needs to draw on science, draw on facts and not just draw on myths and magic, which at least some of the Nationalists are prone to do.
VII: Nationalist Alternatives to Liberalism
In DIT framing, the matter of alternatives to liberalism points to alternative ways to define, evolve, and bring the shared other-interest (path 0M) into play. That is, the use of the word liberalism by Hazony is a system that sees only self-interest (path 0G) in play. So, how could the shared other-interest play a larger role? Hazony points to three alternative frames all favoring Nationalism, as represented in 1) the neo-Catholic, 2) the neo-Nationalist, and 3) the traditional Conservative.
Neo-Catholic Wants to Go Back to Biblical Roots
The neo-Catholic wants to go back to biblical roots, like bringing the Ten Precepts at Sinai, the Ten Commandments into view in the core. As Hazony characterizes the frame, it even goes further, with the goal to return to “medieval Catholic political theory (p. 51).” Seems Martin Luther and the Reformation of 1517 is to be set aside. Hazony does not mention the Evangelicals, but it seems that frame, too, wants to go back to some medieval period using old religious books to bring church back into an integration with state.
And, while Hazony does not mention it, the Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestants also want to focus on old biblical proclamations --- drawn literally from the bible --- about morality. The Christian Nationalists in the US are especially so focused, as well as reading selectively to serve narrow causes. The move is to re-integrate Church & State as part of the frame in said realm, claiming without any kind of empirical proof that some how the US is a “Christian Nation.” Not: As Hedges (2007) points out, said claims border on a kind of modern form of fascism, with “us (the Fundamentalist Christians)” vs “them” framing.
Nothing in the US Constitution, nor in practice for 250-years, suggest that frame. Yet, Christian framing represented in notions like admonitions from the Ten Precepts at Sinai and being in empathy-with all people in the US, the latter the frame of the US Constitution, are in play.
Neo-Nationalist as Absolutist and Atheist Demands Loyalty to the State
The neo-Nationalist favors statism, using the power of the state, framed by being an absolutist and atheist. It is about individual loyalty to a state. The neo-Nationalist is “…regarded as conservative in their objections to the dismantling of independent national states by the European Union, to the transfer of the powers of elected governments to the United Nations and other international bodies, to unrestricted immigration, and to coercive international law (p. 52).” Hazony argues the neo-Nationalist also is not informed as to the religious history of the things wanted “… unaware of the biblical sources of their own nationalism, and uninterested in the decisive role that biblical moral standards once played in restraining the excesses of individuals and of the state alike (pp. 53-53).”
The restraining of excesses is the notion of heteronomy in DIT, the path 0M imposed on the individual wanting to be on path 0G, forcing some path 0Z which is preferred by the ruling power. Said ruling power is generally a vertical power system like in the Patrimony of the pre-Enlightenment period. Modern Patrimonies --- the Neopatrimonies --- like Putin-Russia and Orban-Hungary, and ever more Trump-America, bring mandates into play to force individuals onto the preferred path 0Z of “the Pater.”
Neo-Catholic (and Fundamentalist Evangelical) and Neo-Nationalist Authoritarianism
Hazony notes how both neo-Catholic and neo-Nationalist systems generally bring authoritarianism into play. Again, “the Pater” is likely an authoritarian, perhaps even with neofascist tendencies speaking to “us” vs “them.” And, some overlap occurs, like the fundamentalists and other extreme conservatives working to use the State to enforce moral claims drawn from the bible on all people in the US. Hanson and Kopstein (2024) document the move to such systems in many places on the Spaceship, a patrimonial styled system revived by Putin-Russia. Such systems have clear Nationalist framing.
Traditional Conservative Framing for Nationalism
Hazony is one of the Traditional Conservatives who also wants a focus on Nationalism. Said Conservative wants to build and support the Nation framed by the Protestant Construction, as in the Traditional Conservative “… seeks to establish and defend an international order of national states based on the two principles of the Protestant construction: national independence and the biblical moral minimum for legitimate government (p. 53).”
Hazony goes on to explain it is in the main about “… the Anglo-American conservative tradition, descended from the thought of individuals such as John Fortescue, John Selden, and Edmund Burke … a nationalist political tradition that embraces the principles of limited executive power, individual liberties, public religion based on the Bible, and a historical empiricism that has so often served to moderate political life in Britain and America … (pp. 53-54).” The claim is that said tradition has proven the most effective in producing sound Government.
So, in DIT terms, one puts the Anglo-American take on the shared other interest with said biblical roots into path 0M. Individual liberty on path 0G is then framed and tempered by path 0M, and if Hazony has it correct, the best Market & Government system would evolve on the resulting best path 0Z. Intriguingly, any attempt over the last 250-years by the US to export such a system is ruled by Hazony as a form of liberal empire, which Hazony finds undesirable and inconsistent with the Protestant Construction. Independent nations are incompatible with liberal empire.
Go to the other parts here:
Comments