The virtues of nationalism

Many cosmopolitans pine for a world beyond nationalism, but the nation-state remains the best way to organize disparate humans into a purposeful political unit.

Written by Bo Winegard

Many liberals, progressives, and other cosmopolitans view nationalism as a moral failing—at best an unnecessary concession to human flaws and fallibility and at worse a manifestation of primitive tribal instincts that can lead to barbaric violence. The more radical among these cosmopolitans envisage a world in which the nation-state¹ is replaced by a more inclusive form of social organization, one motivated by a concept of universal humanity that would revolutionize the international order by eliminating the major motivator of modern war. The less radical do not envisage something so revolutionary as the dissolution of the modern nation-state, but they remain skeptical about its value and dislike patriotism, which they believe can easily devolve into jingoism and xenophobia. Like Ambrose Bierce, they sense that patriotism is the first refuge of a scoundrel.

The thesis in this essay is that this widespread disdain for nationalism is misguided. Though not without costs, nation-states are the best and most liberty-promoting sociopolitical arrangement humans have yet discovered. And patriotism, the sense of deep reverence and gratitude for one’s country and the many ancestors, famous and unknown, who bequeathed it, is an elevating and inspiring emotion.