Centrist neo-Liberals do not oppose the nation-state. They oppose market interventions -- whether trade restrictions, immigration restrictions or NIMBYism -- that reduce national welfare. The are happy that these policies are also good tor other countries and even more so if those countries adopted them for themselves.
Lind was pretty strong and accurate about nation-states:
"most post-imperial successor states are less ethnically diverse than the former empires as a whole, and many fit a broad definition of a nation-state, in which a majority, though not necessarily all, of the citizens belong to a common linguistic and cultural community whose members may but do not necessarily share a common ancestry."
As Czecho-Slovakia (the spelling unacceptable to the majority Czechs, one reason for the velvet divorce) broke up into Slovakia and the Czech Republic (recently named Czechia), both became ethnically less diverse. Yet the 400-500,000 Hungarian Czechoslovaks were just 3% of 15 million CSSR, but are now about 10% of the 5 million Slovak Republic (a party needs 5% of the vote to get into Parliament).
In stating "the repudiation of the very idea of the nation-state by most prominent Western intellectuals", Lind is certainly accurate about many, if not most, intellectuals highly critical of the nation-state. Especially those EU folk in Brussels, whom many central European leaders oppose on cultural grounds, as well as the power to punish. Lind notes:
"liberals hope that the sovereignty of nation-states can gradually be eroded by supranational institutions like the European Union and by doctrines like the “responsibility to protect” which, by allowing outside powers to invade countries with illiberal or undemocratic regimes, weakens the post-1945 prohibition against aggressive war."
But Slovakia, thanks partly to the Christian Democrats, has put into their constitution that marriage is between a man and women, tho not quite defining it scientifically by chromosomes. Czech Vaclav Klaus, a free market hero, was also against excessive EU regulation on economics. Today the Poles and Hungarians are led by nationalists.
One of my fav intellectuals, Rod Dreher, has long been supporting Hungarian Orban, who recently won another very democratic re-election as Prime Minister. Rod has long been promoting Orban's focus on Hungary first, family friendly, Christian friendly, pro-birth policies as a model for US Republicans. Maybe DeSantis is looking at that:
Orban's party is kind of corrupt, which Rod disapproves of but Orban & critics of conservatives emphasize. Orban's group has gained dominant influence in the media, but there is plenty of liberal criticism against him, which remains completely legal.
Rod has also noted that Hungarians, today, still remember and oppose the WW I ending Trianon Treaty, which hugely reduced the size of the Hungarian empire. About a third of Slovakia was taken by Hungary in WW II while they were allied with the Germans. Under the commies after WW II, Hungarians in Slovakia got some special benefits, which were not huge but enough to entice many Roma (Gypsies) to register as Hungarian - which makes it tough to know how many registered Hungarians are actually mis-registered Roma.
Lind doesn't talk explicitly about Hungary, tho it provides a good example - there are large Hungarian minorities also in Romania (Transylvania was more Hungarian), and Serbia / late Yugoslavia. Orban has offered citizenship in Hungary to all such Hungarian minorities, and this is quite unpopular with the majority in these neighboring countries.
Lind does mention the Russian minorities in the surrounding states which are now majority non-Russian. Only one language can be the primary first language learned in any area - or the main one taught in gov't schools. Even multi-lingual Switzerland has cantons teaching German, or French, or Italian, and even Romansh. [Swissinfo: "In the 1920s, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini believed Romansh to be an Italian dialect and declared that the south-eastern Swiss canton of Graubünden therefore rightly belonged to Italy. " ]
For myself, I wish the world would be evolving towards a more tolerant Swiss model of Confederacy, of cantons or smaller admin areas, with less central power and more local power.
“In the neoliberal-libertarian utopia, countries would have no more moral or political significance than zip codes.”
One of my econ professors once lamented that the Olympics awarded medals by nation rather than on a purely individual basis. While the students’ blank stares were a telling response on their own, I would have paid to see Michael Lind’s reaction.
Re: "Paradoxically, the global triumph of the more culturally homogeneous nation-state over the polyethnic empire as the dominant form of territorial organization in the world has been matched by the repudiation of the very idea of the nation-state by most prominent Western intellectuals." - Michael Lind
I call straw man.
The real debate is about the structure of nation-states. Here are several key issues, in no particular order of importance:
Constitutionalism
Rights (Individual/Minority group)
Separation of powers/Checks and balances
Federalism
Voice & exit
Trade & migration
Direct democracy, deliberative democracy, representative democracy
State capacity/State effectiveness
Epistocracy (role of experts)
Regulation
PS: I second John Bowman's point, in the comments, about labels: 'Left,' 'Right,' etc = more heat than light.
I think he's glossing over just how many countries have significant, or at least latent, cultural and ethnic minorities that would prefer to be independent if given a chance. The pro-Russian/Russian-ethnic groups (which do exist, despite claims by the blue and yellow pom-pom wavers) in the former Soviet Union are just the latest example. You can look at the mash-up of Belgium, the Catalonians in Spain, or the Quebecois in Canada for other examples. I think he's right that the US and then the USSR were the prime movers in the dominance of the idea starting from the early 1900s. My pet theory, though admittedly spun from slender threads, is that Woodrow Wilson made a somewhat conscious choice to advocate self-determination in 1919. An alternative could have been to press the multi-ethnic empires for guarantees of minority rights and federalism with the US Constitution as a model but as an unrepentant racist Wilson was undoubtedly aware that position could be easily attacked due to his treatment of ethnic minorities in the United States, black Americans especially. He went for the 'might makes right (and a state)' solution instead. The Brits made an attempt at the federal model with the Commonwealth but were undercut by the US position. The post-WWII global order and the Cold War then dramatically lowered the cost of creating an ethno-state due to subsidies provided by the opposed powers. That's sort of a twist on the Zeihan thesis, and I think predicts that empires are going to make a comeback, if you think that they ever really left the scene, but probably on a more mutual aid rather than conquest basis.
Professor Lind, eager to dismiss libertarians, ignores the fact that economic integration and open trade tend to increase the number of nation-states.
See the seminal research by Alberto Alesina and Alberto Spolaore, "On the Number and Size of Nations," NBER (1995): https://www.nber.org/papers/w5050
Here is the abstract:
"This paper studies the equilibrium determination of the number of political jurisdictions in different political regimes, democratic or not, and in different economic environments, with more or less economic integration. We focus on the trade off between the benefits of large jurisdictions in terms of economies of scale and the costs of heterogeneity of large and diverse populations. Our model implies that: i) democratization leads to secessions; ii) without an appropriate redistributive scheme (which we characterize) in equilibrium one observes an inefficiently large number of countries; iii) the equilibrium number of countries is increasing in the amount of economic integration. We also study the welfare effects of economic integration and free trade when the number of countries is endogenous."
There have been many empirical and analytical follow-up studies by top scholars in the past 25 years. See, for example, those listed in Prof. Spolaore's CV:
‘ Another anti-nationalist faction is made up of centrist neoliberals and right-wing libertarians.’
Are there Left-wing libertarians, or is ‘Right-wing’ just the usual pejorative flung to taint the target group of which the writer disapproves?
And ‘neo-liberalism’ is a strange beast because its essence - free market capitalism, and private rather than State control of businesses - is very much Adam Smith, so I can’t see what is ‘neo’.
Well let’s have a look at the EU, certainly anti-nationalist (removal of internal borders), whilst pro goods & services moving freely across borders, only the internal ones, it is highly protectionist when it comes to its external borders, and somewhat autarkical in outlook.
So what political category is the EU in? It has the distinct whiff of Fascism/National Socialism. Not surprising considering its key architects.
"Most Americans take it for granted that there is an American people or nation with its own particular culture and traditions, and that the human race in the world as a whole is divided among culturally distinct peoples or nations, who should be able to choose their leaders rather than be ruled against their wishes by foreigners"
Just about all Americans do. The difference is how easily do we think it is for someone with a "foreign" culture to coming to join us and how much do we benefit (mainly materially) from their coming. I think that higher levels of even low-skill migrants, and even more high-skill has near zero cultural cost (they assimilate easily) and great benefit.
I don't appreciate having my patriotism questioned, Mr. Lind! :)
Re: the last quote, they are at best a little bit right about the shared culture part. This country has been a mixture of different and often conflicting cultures since the colonies and has only grown more culturally diverse since
Centrist neo-Liberals do not oppose the nation-state. They oppose market interventions -- whether trade restrictions, immigration restrictions or NIMBYism -- that reduce national welfare. The are happy that these policies are also good tor other countries and even more so if those countries adopted them for themselves.
Lind was pretty strong and accurate about nation-states:
"most post-imperial successor states are less ethnically diverse than the former empires as a whole, and many fit a broad definition of a nation-state, in which a majority, though not necessarily all, of the citizens belong to a common linguistic and cultural community whose members may but do not necessarily share a common ancestry."
As Czecho-Slovakia (the spelling unacceptable to the majority Czechs, one reason for the velvet divorce) broke up into Slovakia and the Czech Republic (recently named Czechia), both became ethnically less diverse. Yet the 400-500,000 Hungarian Czechoslovaks were just 3% of 15 million CSSR, but are now about 10% of the 5 million Slovak Republic (a party needs 5% of the vote to get into Parliament).
In stating "the repudiation of the very idea of the nation-state by most prominent Western intellectuals", Lind is certainly accurate about many, if not most, intellectuals highly critical of the nation-state. Especially those EU folk in Brussels, whom many central European leaders oppose on cultural grounds, as well as the power to punish. Lind notes:
"liberals hope that the sovereignty of nation-states can gradually be eroded by supranational institutions like the European Union and by doctrines like the “responsibility to protect” which, by allowing outside powers to invade countries with illiberal or undemocratic regimes, weakens the post-1945 prohibition against aggressive war."
But Slovakia, thanks partly to the Christian Democrats, has put into their constitution that marriage is between a man and women, tho not quite defining it scientifically by chromosomes. Czech Vaclav Klaus, a free market hero, was also against excessive EU regulation on economics. Today the Poles and Hungarians are led by nationalists.
One of my fav intellectuals, Rod Dreher, has long been supporting Hungarian Orban, who recently won another very democratic re-election as Prime Minister. Rod has long been promoting Orban's focus on Hungary first, family friendly, Christian friendly, pro-birth policies as a model for US Republicans. Maybe DeSantis is looking at that:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ron-desantis-viktor-orban/
Orban's party is kind of corrupt, which Rod disapproves of but Orban & critics of conservatives emphasize. Orban's group has gained dominant influence in the media, but there is plenty of liberal criticism against him, which remains completely legal.
Rod has also noted that Hungarians, today, still remember and oppose the WW I ending Trianon Treaty, which hugely reduced the size of the Hungarian empire. About a third of Slovakia was taken by Hungary in WW II while they were allied with the Germans. Under the commies after WW II, Hungarians in Slovakia got some special benefits, which were not huge but enough to entice many Roma (Gypsies) to register as Hungarian - which makes it tough to know how many registered Hungarians are actually mis-registered Roma.
Lind doesn't talk explicitly about Hungary, tho it provides a good example - there are large Hungarian minorities also in Romania (Transylvania was more Hungarian), and Serbia / late Yugoslavia. Orban has offered citizenship in Hungary to all such Hungarian minorities, and this is quite unpopular with the majority in these neighboring countries.
Lind does mention the Russian minorities in the surrounding states which are now majority non-Russian. Only one language can be the primary first language learned in any area - or the main one taught in gov't schools. Even multi-lingual Switzerland has cantons teaching German, or French, or Italian, and even Romansh. [Swissinfo: "In the 1920s, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini believed Romansh to be an Italian dialect and declared that the south-eastern Swiss canton of Graubünden therefore rightly belonged to Italy. " ]
For myself, I wish the world would be evolving towards a more tolerant Swiss model of Confederacy, of cantons or smaller admin areas, with less central power and more local power.
“In the neoliberal-libertarian utopia, countries would have no more moral or political significance than zip codes.”
One of my econ professors once lamented that the Olympics awarded medals by nation rather than on a purely individual basis. While the students’ blank stares were a telling response on their own, I would have paid to see Michael Lind’s reaction.
Re: "Paradoxically, the global triumph of the more culturally homogeneous nation-state over the polyethnic empire as the dominant form of territorial organization in the world has been matched by the repudiation of the very idea of the nation-state by most prominent Western intellectuals." - Michael Lind
I call straw man.
The real debate is about the structure of nation-states. Here are several key issues, in no particular order of importance:
Constitutionalism
Rights (Individual/Minority group)
Separation of powers/Checks and balances
Federalism
Voice & exit
Trade & migration
Direct democracy, deliberative democracy, representative democracy
State capacity/State effectiveness
Epistocracy (role of experts)
Regulation
PS: I second John Bowman's point, in the comments, about labels: 'Left,' 'Right,' etc = more heat than light.
Roland Vaubel has analyzed political competition between states (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=romand+vaubel+zwischenstaatlicher+wettbewerb&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) This concept goes along with classical liberal claims to diminish power and empower people with unconventional ideas who have to move just 20 miles to another territory / state more open minded to their ideas - as it was the case in the German Reich before 1871.
I think he's glossing over just how many countries have significant, or at least latent, cultural and ethnic minorities that would prefer to be independent if given a chance. The pro-Russian/Russian-ethnic groups (which do exist, despite claims by the blue and yellow pom-pom wavers) in the former Soviet Union are just the latest example. You can look at the mash-up of Belgium, the Catalonians in Spain, or the Quebecois in Canada for other examples. I think he's right that the US and then the USSR were the prime movers in the dominance of the idea starting from the early 1900s. My pet theory, though admittedly spun from slender threads, is that Woodrow Wilson made a somewhat conscious choice to advocate self-determination in 1919. An alternative could have been to press the multi-ethnic empires for guarantees of minority rights and federalism with the US Constitution as a model but as an unrepentant racist Wilson was undoubtedly aware that position could be easily attacked due to his treatment of ethnic minorities in the United States, black Americans especially. He went for the 'might makes right (and a state)' solution instead. The Brits made an attempt at the federal model with the Commonwealth but were undercut by the US position. The post-WWII global order and the Cold War then dramatically lowered the cost of creating an ethno-state due to subsidies provided by the opposed powers. That's sort of a twist on the Zeihan thesis, and I think predicts that empires are going to make a comeback, if you think that they ever really left the scene, but probably on a more mutual aid rather than conquest basis.
Professor Lind, eager to dismiss libertarians, ignores the fact that economic integration and open trade tend to increase the number of nation-states.
See the seminal research by Alberto Alesina and Alberto Spolaore, "On the Number and Size of Nations," NBER (1995): https://www.nber.org/papers/w5050
Here is the abstract:
"This paper studies the equilibrium determination of the number of political jurisdictions in different political regimes, democratic or not, and in different economic environments, with more or less economic integration. We focus on the trade off between the benefits of large jurisdictions in terms of economies of scale and the costs of heterogeneity of large and diverse populations. Our model implies that: i) democratization leads to secessions; ii) without an appropriate redistributive scheme (which we characterize) in equilibrium one observes an inefficiently large number of countries; iii) the equilibrium number of countries is increasing in the amount of economic integration. We also study the welfare effects of economic integration and free trade when the number of countries is endogenous."
There have been many empirical and analytical follow-up studies by top scholars in the past 25 years. See, for example, those listed in Prof. Spolaore's CV:
https://sites.tufts.edu/enricospolaore/files/2012/08/SpolaoreCVMay2018-1.pdf
‘ Another anti-nationalist faction is made up of centrist neoliberals and right-wing libertarians.’
Are there Left-wing libertarians, or is ‘Right-wing’ just the usual pejorative flung to taint the target group of which the writer disapproves?
And ‘neo-liberalism’ is a strange beast because its essence - free market capitalism, and private rather than State control of businesses - is very much Adam Smith, so I can’t see what is ‘neo’.
Well let’s have a look at the EU, certainly anti-nationalist (removal of internal borders), whilst pro goods & services moving freely across borders, only the internal ones, it is highly protectionist when it comes to its external borders, and somewhat autarkical in outlook.
So what political category is the EU in? It has the distinct whiff of Fascism/National Socialism. Not surprising considering its key architects.
"Most Americans take it for granted that there is an American people or nation with its own particular culture and traditions, and that the human race in the world as a whole is divided among culturally distinct peoples or nations, who should be able to choose their leaders rather than be ruled against their wishes by foreigners"
Just about all Americans do. The difference is how easily do we think it is for someone with a "foreign" culture to coming to join us and how much do we benefit (mainly materially) from their coming. I think that higher levels of even low-skill migrants, and even more high-skill has near zero cultural cost (they assimilate easily) and great benefit.
I don't appreciate having my patriotism questioned, Mr. Lind! :)
Re: the last quote, they are at best a little bit right about the shared culture part. This country has been a mixture of different and often conflicting cultures since the colonies and has only grown more culturally diverse since