A Reply to Henry George: “The Virtue of Nationalism”

A Reply to Henry George: “The Virtue of Nationalism”
Image via Providence

“Unless there are certain universal mores, then a preference for the national values of the United Kingdom over those of Iran seem purely aesthetic, not moral.”

Image via Providence
“Unless there are certain universal mores, then a preference for the national values of the United Kingdom over those of Iran seem purely aesthetic, not moral.”

Introduction

I read Henry George’s recent review of Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism with interest and admiration. He and I are in agreement that the book is a seminal intellectual contribution to the current debates surrounding nationalism and liberal internationalism. As I indicated in my own recent review of the book for Quillette, the book deserves and appears to have found a large audience. Nonetheless, in that review, I highlighted several problems with the book that I do not think Professor Hazony adequately addresses. While I enjoyed George’s review, I noted that he also did not engage these issues in his positive appraisal of the book. His appraisal appears at the end of George’s review, which is mostly a good summation of the book’s central points. I will quote George at length here:

“Nationalism is not a force to be taken lightly. But then, tribalism and imperialism can be far worse. Nationalism, if disciplined, could provide the best way to organize society by giving people the feeling that they are part of the story, that their voices matter. That is one of the major reasons why people voted the way they did in the Brexit referendum and the 2016 U.S. election. When these voices are ignored by those who presume to govern according to some divine plan, frustrations, and feelings of powerlessness grow. As Yoram Hazony argues in his book, a system of national states provides the midpoint between tribal conflict and imperial conquest or indifference.”

This sentiment, that the people’s voice can most directly be heard through the medium of the nation-state, is at the heart of Hazony’s book and seems to be the locus of George’s admiration. Unfortunately, I think there are problems with this sentiment that need to be addressed. I also believe that liberal internationalism needn’t be as alienating and undemocratic as both Hazony and George believe. In this brief Reply, I will try to explain my reasoning on both points.

The rest is for members.

All proceeds go toward publishing more writers and poets.

Free for 30 days, then $3 a month

Become a member

Already a member? Sign in.
Can’t pay? Ask us.

Publisher's Note:

This work is preserved in Merion West’s archive of articles and poems published from 2016 through early 2025. Explore the archive