Liberty Expose: Fed. Nationalism Can Unite Millennials, Left And Right
Thomas Barwick
Millennials: A Generation Of Lost Citizens (For Now)
Millennials are liberal cosmopolitans, economic pragmatists, and political idealists. Their predominantly liberal social views grant a profound openness towards the increasingly diverse landscape of American society, as well as a deeper sense of responsibility to care for those at the margins. They are more apt, for instance, to acknowledge the persistence of racial disparities, and to see the reconciliation of historical traumas as essential to the maturation of American politics. They dream of a future where they can feel pride in the moral advancements that the country has achieved, viewing any purely amoral conception of national power as an affront to the nation’s promise.
At the same time, the experiences of two economic recessions, narrowing job prospects, and high student debt have inculcated a pragmatic approach to economic questions. Less wedded to the view that government and freedom need stand in antagonistic opposition, Millennials are eager to see real solutions to their economic malaises, and want more proactive measures to be taken by the national government to spearhead them. They instinctively know that the realities of today’s political economy cannot be solved by a mere diminution of government agency—granting them ideological flexibility and an appreciation for political movements grounded in bold ideas of national gravity.
Granting the uniqueness of every generation’s experience, the profile of Millennials seems to mirror that of the post-Civil War generation in some respects. Both entered the formative periods of adulthood during periods of intense factional division, but crucially, in the afterglow of intense bipolar conflict of deep symbolic significance (the Civil and Cold Wars). Thus the psychological consequences of a bipolar political experience (heightened self-righteousness, resentment and suspicion towards the perceived other, paranoid hysteria) were received subliminally from their elders and only partially activated during momentary crises (e.g. 9/11) and the chronic fatigue of distant wars.
In consequence, Millennials have, like the post-Civil War generation, inherited the charged idealisms that emerged out of the cataclysmic trials of their predecessors, only without the benefit of a proper field ready to receive them. The period of Reconstruction led to a partial confirmation of the moral cause of national Union, but instead of achieving atonement through reparation and an uplifting of working people of all races, ended up giving way to an era of fierce individualism, materialism, and political corruption. Likewise, while the post-Cold War era seemed to vindicate American democracy and capitalism as exemplars of freedom on the world stage, this period has been marked by a continuation of oligarchic gridlock, political polarization, growing wealth inequality, and cynical power politics.
The upshot of this argument is as follows: Millennials, much like the generation of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, are patriots of high moral fiber waiting for a movement worthy of their generation’s vocation. Though their political experience has largely been one of unfulfilled promises and abandonment by the inaction of a government that cares little for their values or long-term wellbeing, they feel within themselves a latent calling to affirm a national promise.
Fed. Nationalism: The Cause That Can Bring Millennials Together, Left And Right
If this profile of Millennial imagination holds, then the cause of federal nationalism could energize a base that transcends party lines, provided leaders on both sides make some essential adjustments on the level of principle.
Right-leaning folks tend to indict their political opponents for what they perceive as reverse nationalism: a proclivity to deny the legitimacy and exceptionalism of the American system. Like many inter-group suspicions, this one is partially true, but also at times misguided. It goes too far when it attempts to subvert the legitimate efforts of liberals and progressives to acknowledge the human catastrophes and moral ambiguities that have characterized American history (e.g. The 1619 Project). These efforts should be embraced as necessary to the maturation of American political culture and indicative of the kind of courageous, democratic citizenship that this country should always encourage.
Conservatives are not entirely off the mark though. What they tacitly perceive on the Left is not so much reverse nationalism, but a flat nationalism that oscillates between what Michael Lind calls a multicultural view and a creedal view of the American nation. The multicultural view denies the reality of a singular nation, opting for a narrative of diverse cultural groups that only share common jurisdiction and proximity within America’s geographical limits. At its most extreme, multiculturalism can devolve into identity politics, which should be resisted by conservatives and federal nationalists of all stripes.
Others, or the same people simultaneously, hold a creedal view of the nation that equally denies the unity of a single cultural fabric, but affirms a set of abstract ideals that should bring folks together nonetheless. According to this view, America is not really a nation at all, but a set of ideals that we should aspire to. While it succeeds in affirming the transgenerational aspirations of the country, it, like the multicultural view, lacks the cultural density to direct the energies of the people in a direction that can actually redeem the nation’s promise. Therefore, leaders on the Left should move away from both of these views and begin embracing the notion of a single American nation that is both prophetic in power and embodied in cultural practices held across the continent.
The Right also needs to make adjustments if it is to prove capable of galvanizing a viable base on a federal nationalist platform. First, it has to ditch its anti-statism and recognize that the cause of freedom cannot be redeemed in the 21st century without vigorous government agency of a bold, proactive register. Second, it must cease to instigate nativism and chauvinism in its electorate, for these sentiments obscure the real interests of working people across differences of race and geography, and make it all too easy for deviant nationalisms and elitist oligarchy, which thrive off of government inaction, to attain predominance.