The Virtue (or Not) of Nationalism

Review of Hazony, Yoram. 2018. The Virtue of Nationalism. New York: Basic Books, 2018 (and Second Edition, Basic Liberty 2025).

Preface:  The real purpose of Hazony (2018, 2025) comes out loud and clear in the Preface to the 2^nd edition, and explains why the books have become a Conservative Manifesto.  After praising the US for the 2024 election results, Hazony declares it was a choice 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. Thus while the election has been rightly interpreted as a victory for … nationalism … the victory was also due to … skill in bringing anti-Marxist liberals at the center of the political spectrum into (the) coalition (Hazony 2025, loc 147).” Well, such is the cargo-cult (make-believe) framing of the 2024 election by Hazony et al.  The fact is, the 2024 election was a choice between the continuance of the rule of law horizontal power system framed by the 1787 Constitution vs replacing it with a rule of men vertical power system framed by old styled patrimonies from the 1500s. The modern version of same is represented in the already operating neopatrimonies in Putin-Russia and Orban-Hungary, with rule -of-men vertical power systems being installed in Modi-India, Bolsonaro-Brazil, Erdogan-Turkey, Milieu-Argentina, Netanyahu-Israel, even in Johnson-Britain, and ever more in Trump-America.  

The assault on the rule of law systems that were formed on Enlightenment principles has become common place, and the Spaceship wide move to rule of men patrimonies is documented in Hanson and Kopstein (2024) The Assault ... on Modern Government. The 2024 US election brought an assault on the US Government in the DOGE effort, destroying the competence of the agencies, which is an essential part of building a vertical power rule of men patrimonial system: Loyalists only, competence optional.  The assault, and a flood the zone effort to centralize power in the Executive branch, started on January 20, 2025.  The assault has been relentless ever since, with a rule of men patrimonial styled Nation-State being installed. Said assault also has the effect of installing the Conservative favored strict father system, also vertical in power.  Lakoff (2016) pointed out it has always been in  the Conservative playbook. The Conservative Manifesto, along with the strict father vertical power system, both guided by the Independent Nations Theory (INT) proposed by Hazony, is in play.

On Cargo-Cult Framing:  Democratic Party is Not Neo-Marxist

Before proceeding into the Review, the blatant claim by Hazony that somehow the 2024 election was a choice between a “neo-Marxist” and a “nationalist-conservative camp" needs to be unwrapped. And, because I am not a political scientist/theorist/philosopher, I asked my new colleague ChatGPT-5 for some help. I have also been training ChatGPT about Dual Interest Theory (DIT), in Metaeconomics. So, with some editing, as this MetaEcon and ChatGPT interact, here is the true science rather than the cargo-cult scientific framing by Hazony. Here it is:

Dimension	Hazony’s Caricature: “Neo-Marxist Democrats”	Actual Democratic Platform (2024)	DIT Lens (Ego vs. Shared Other-Interest)
Core Identity Framing	Democrats are pursuing “neo-Marxist” ideology—class conflict recast as race, gender, sexuality.	Democrats emphasize pluralism, inclusion, civil rights, equal opportunity.	Caricature: paints empathy policies as ego-driven “power grabs.”Reality: rooted in shared other-interest—extending constitutional protections.
Economic Policy	Redistribution = Marxist wealth seizure; regulation = hostility to free enterprise.	Progressive tax policy, healthcare access, student debt relief, climate investment—all within a market economy.	Caricature: ego-interest grab by “oppressed” classes.Reality: balancing ego-interest markets with empathy-based safety nets—tempering inequality.
Social Policy	DEI, LGBTQ+, and racial justice framed as cultural Marxism dismantling tradition  (the latter often ignores and distorts science & humanities research based knowledge about empirical reality).	Policies based in science --- including empathy science, gender science --- aim at equal protection under law, broader civil rights, inclusion in institutions.	Caricature: empathy-with marginalized = ego-interest weaponizing identity.Reality: rule-of-law empathy—building shared other-interest across groups.
Institutions & Law	Democrats allegedly undermine tradition, religion, national unity.	Democrats defend constitutional order (independent judiciary, checks & balances, voting rights).	Caricature: empathy as erosion of national cohesion.Reality: empathy-with institutions that ensure rule of law—shared stability.
National Identity	Portrayed as globalist, rootless, disloyal to national traditions.	Strongly national in practice—affirming democratic institutions, alliances, and constitutional identity.	Caricature: ego-interest “global elite.”Reality: empathy-with allies and domestic diversity, sustaining nation through shared rules.
Moral Sentiment	“Neo-Marxism” is framed as envy, grievance, resentment.	Democratic agenda appeals to fairness, inclusion, compassion, intergenerational responsibility (climate, healthcare).	Caricature: self/ego-interest disguised as empathy.Reality: empathy-with as moral sentiment tempering ego-interest markets and state power.

So, the  claim of “neo-Marxist” Democratic Party is simply an unfounded claim, serving political interest. It is just a catch-all phrase --- in effect a demeaning slur to make the right somehow feel better --- to paint a negative frame around the actual Democratic Platform. It is a cultural Marxian trope, that Democrats are pushing Marx’s conflict framework  (oppressor vs. oppressed) beyond economics into race, gender, sexuality, and identity politics. It is labeling any kind of Government involvement in helping the Market work better, as in regulation, redistribution, universal healthcare, student debt relief, climate action --- doing good and essential things for people  is branded “neo-Marxist.” It is labeling any move to progressive social norms in support of the rights of other people, as in LGBTQ+ rights, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) programs, affirmative action, and racial justice as “neo-Marxist” because it’s seen as dismantling traditional hierarchies and norms (family, religion, national identity).

The use of “neo-Marxist” is just a catch-all slur and certainly has no precise ideological content. It is not helpful. And, the nationalist-conservative camp being so arrogant in self-interest on the way to a vertical power system without any empathy-with ordinary people needs to be made clear.

And, while it is not acknowledged in the Hazony Manifesto, Democrats are also supportive of putting a solid moral and ethical frame into the core of the American Nation-State, as Hazony's INT calls for doing. In fact, the Democratic Platform is far closer to installing that moral and ethical core than is the Republican (especially the MAGA Nationalist) Platform in doing exactly that. The Democratic Platform is framed by the empathy-based rule of law constitutional democracy in place. The Democrats have no intention of replacing the empathy-ethics based rule of law constitutional system with the unethical dual law system --- one law for the ruling pater and loyalists represented in the "us" and another for the "them" who are not loyalists. Historical experience makes clear said rule of men systems tend to corruption. And, with loyalists (competence optional) to the pater running the government, to massive incompetence. Democrats favor ethical and competent systems, and, hopefully Hazony does as well.

So, hang-on. Here we go.

Organization of the Hazony (2018) Book (changes in Hazony 2025 2^nd edition noted in the Review)

I have done a lot of book reviews over the years. Lesson learned: Read the Conclusion first! And, if intriguing, read the rest of the book ... and, perhaps even write a Review for others.

So, I suggest you go to the Conclusion THE VIRTUE OF NATIONALISM first.... and, then, if intrigued go do the rest. Also, the Reference list is in the Conclusion

Also, for the reader not familiar with Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics, the backgrounding in the section below may be intriguing.

The book of 286 pages is organized as follows, the Review separated by each section:

Introduction A RETURN TO NATIONALISM

Part One NATIONALISM AND WESTERN FREEDOM, Chapters I-VII.

Part Two THE CASE FOR THE NATIONAL STATE, Chapters VIII-XVIII. 

Part Three ANTI-NATIONALISM AND HATE, Chapters XIX-XXV

Conclusion THE VIRTUE OF NATIONALISM

Also, before you go… perhaps some Backgrounding Using Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics could be useful… it is up to you ... also see "Hey, Dummies --- "  If you are familiar with Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics.. well, just go directly to the Parts… keeping in mind that references to “Figure 1 and Figure 2” in the Review are to the DIT styled figures at the bottom of this page.

Empathy is Key

Hazony needs to be read and considered with the notion of empathy in mind: Considering what is in the core of a Nation is to ask about the content of the empathy-based shared other-interest not only within each independent Nation but also shared across the boundaries of said Nations. Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics has a placeholder for the shared other-interest within family, clan, tribe. It also then, sees the shared other-interest representing the common ground such entities have found, giving content to the shared interest within each Nation. The many independent Nations, similarly, seek out the common ground represented in the shared other-interest across National boundaries.

Think of many overlapping trajectories. Another way to say it:  DIT sees the essential role of a widely shared Ethic (as in empathy-based ethics), in order to have a stable, viable, humane economy and society both within a Nation and across National boundaries at the Spaceship (Earth) scale.  Again: Empathy is key.

Understanding the Interplay of Autonomy, Homonomy and Heteronomy

Also, an important aside: As explained in Lynne (2020), DIT recognizes the Angyal (1965) frame that each and every Human generally wants ego-based autonomy, but to be viable needs to be mindful of the other --- family, clan, tribe, and Nation --- as in empathy-based homonomy: Me needs a We to Be, but without a Me there is no We. Said frame is about voluntarily, without coercion or force, joining in with the other in shared other-interest, as in autonomy (ego) & homonomy (empathy), individual & community joining in the shared other-interest. And, that works, as along as the individual has adequate self-command and self-discipline to stay that course. In DIT, it arises on path 0Z. Problem is, as Angyal (1965) made clear, individuals often lack in self-command, self-discipline such that heteronomy must come into play, which means the family, clan, tribe, and/or Nation steps in with some essential coercion and force, outside control. In said case, a better path 0Z is coerced, forced but hopefully on ethical ground --- characterized by what comes from engaging in reasoned, mindful empathy on the path to finding concordant sympathy-with, and perhaps compassion-for --- which reasoned people can go along with. Said ground is what Adam Smith's Impartial Spectator found at the Station of the Impartial Spectator, and John Rawls found behind the Veil of Ignorance. Hazony often mixes all three --- autonomy, homonomy, and heteronomy --- into one frame: To make sense of Hazony claims about too much heteronomy (the imperial impositions across Nations), keep in mind that homonomy could in fact be used to make all Nation-States better off, and that empathy-based homonomy does not just inherently turn into heteronomous control. Also, heteronomy (like in strict father, vertical control patrimonies) can be just as much of a problem within a Nation as in going across National boundaries. It is a matter of choice.

Shared Other-Interest Under the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution

Nationalism is fundamentally about what is in the core of a Nation.  As Dual Interest Theory (DIT) makes clear, it is about the content of the shared with the other-interest, which works to counter the primal tendency to arrogant self-interest.  The core of that shared other-interest is the widely shared ethic of everyone living in the boundaries of said Nation. Said core gets form from a starting point of empathy-with the other --- an inclusive other --- as an ethic arises out of empathy,  as in empathy-based ethics.  Hazony wants to form that ethical core with religion sourced moral code and order.  Hazony draws heavily on the Hebrew Bible, and Mosaic Framing, as in the Ten Precepts at Sinai, labeled as moral precepts.  DIT clarifies that a set of moral precepts could well be a key part of the ethical core, but far more is involved in forming the shared other-interest. It is the shared other-interest which holds the ethic that gives context to the Nation, and is essential to the Wealth of a Nation.  As DIT clarifies, it is about striking balance in the wealth & moral sentiment (as Adam Smith made clear), which is about striking balance in the incentive & ethic in both economic & social terms.

With some help from ChatGPT, the following gives an overview about what the US Declaration of Independence says about the shared other-interest of all Americans.  It also points to the arenas of possible overlap with all of the friendly, other independent Nations like the ally France but also including many others like Canada, Australia, Britain, and the rest of the European Union. Hopefully shared other-interest can also be eventually built with all the countries on the Spaceship. The US Declaration and Constitution suggest arenas for common ground in a shared other-interest that works for everyone on the Spaceship.

Declaration: Draws heavily on Enlightenment ideas, especially from John Locke—notably the concepts of:

• Natural rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)

• Government by consent of the governed

• Right of revolution when government becomes destructive

Constitution: While not explicitly philosophical, it embeds many of the Declaration’s ideals by creating:

• A limited government with checks and balances

• A system to secure liberty and justice

• Institutions for popular sovereignty (e.g., elections)

As ChatGPT sums it all up: “The Declaration of Independence sets forth the ideals and justifications for freedom and self-government. The U.S. Constitution builds the practical system to realize and protect those ideals through a durable, rule-based government.”

A rule-based, Rule of Law Government was framed by the Enlightenment, which in turn built on ideas that grew especially out of the 1517 Protestant Reformation. The Reformation, in turn, drew on some of the core ideas in the Hebrew Bible --- the Old Testament --- which gave rise to embedding the minimal precepts of a moral order, a moral and ethical order into the core of an Independent Nation. Building on that common core, the Nation would then work to integrate across the many other shared other-interests of families, clans, and tribes to form the Nation-state. In DIT terms, the more widely shared other-interest would reflect a moral and ethical community --- perhaps embedding a moral order, but much more would be involved, e.g., the many claims in the common law, and then later legislative law --- with perhaps some influence from religion, but not the only source of what is in the shared interest.

It is ironic that the current discussion about Nationalism, and especially about Christian Nationalism, instead turns attention to the pre-Enlightenment Patrimonialism styled vertical, hierarchical power Government --- which often was immoral, corrupt, and unethical. The move to impose Christian Fundamentalism, as in  Project 1500 (oops, my mistake, 2025) is of said nature, especially because of the authoritarian on the edge of neofascism frame, the “us” and “them” frame. The Unitary Executive Power frame also brings hierarchy back into play, which when combined with the reintegration of  church & state, the Christian Nationalism, takes the US back to the pre-Reformation, pre-Enlightenment time. Said somewhat differently, such moves take the system back toward the 1500s era Patrimonialism styled, vertical power (again, like Unitary Executive Power touted in Project 2025) government which was anything but moral and ethical.  

Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics is Used to Make Good Sense of Hazony (2018, 2025)

Figures 1 and 2 give a quick overview of DIT. The figures are from Lynne (2025). The notion of Nationalism points to the content of the shared other-interest represented in path 0M, which is a key analytical component in DIT.  The shared other-interest of the Nation, as well as the more narrowly defined shared other-interest of sub-tribal influences within the Nation (think of several overlapping path 0M representations, one for each tribe), work to temper the liberty and freedom of individuals pursuing self-interest on path 0G. As alluded to earlier, think of many path 0M trajectories of shared other-interest, each representing a different family, clan, tribe, and, many Nations. It gets complicated, but, such is reality.

DIT works on two fronts in the Review: 1) the empirical content of the claims in Hazony (2018) are used to test DIT, and 2) DIT is used to help make analytical sense of the Hazony (2018) claims. As a result, DIT serves to integrate economic theory with the theory coming from Hazony who is trained in political philosophy/theory with a heavy dose of religion. DIT also serves to bring serious and systematic inquiry based in both science (especially behavioral and neuroscience) & humanities (especially ethics and religion) into view. Hazony is especially bringing serious inquiry from the humanities, especially history and religion, into view.

Also, before starting, need to make clear how DIT sees the Nation, the State, and the Nation-State.   With some help from ChatGPT-5, some editing but not much, the integration from the AI is quite on-target:

Construct	Ego-based Self-Interest (I)	Empathy-based Other-Interest (We)	DIT I& We Tension/Balance
State	Power, control, elite survival	Rule of law, representation, service to all people	Power checked by law & institutions, the We
Nation	Exclusionary nationalism, superiority	Shared belonging, solidarity, collective meaning	Identity widened or narrowed, rebalancing I & We
Nation-State	State exploits national identity for domination (fascism, ethnocracy, America First)	Fusion of state & nation for inclusive, democratic governance, shared other-interest among all people, and with other Nations	Homeostatic balance in I & We = stability; Imbalance = collapse

Hazony puts almost exclusive attention on the “shared belonging, solidarity, and collective meaning” of the independent Nation, with said content varying substantively across Nations.  So the framework here helps makes sense of the Hazony claims which are about the content of the other (shared with the other)-interest, and makes clear that a great deal more is at stake in just what a Nation is all about. The framework of DIT points to the need to strike an ever evolving balancing and rebalancing in the selfish & selfless, self & other-interest, incentive & ethic, I & We, individual & community, market & government, Nation & Other Nations. It is about a continual search for what works best on some balanced, homeostatic path 0Z (in the typical Figure 1 analytical system of DIT).  DIT also clarifies that the shared other-interest with the Other Nations must also be evolved, cultivated and embraced in order to achieve political (economic & social) stability across the entirety of the Spaceship Earth.