Nation vs. "Universalist" Tribe

At TCSDaily, Pinkerton's on the job, guarding strong opinion with careful definitions and distinctions. As we have noted before, in trying to help this kind of discussion along, there's a sharp distinction between tribe and nation. A tribe is bound by common beliefs but not by borders. Pinkerton adds something that should be obvious; each tribe thinks that it's Universalist. And he suggests that Universalism is a fiction while a nation is a practical reality. No one idea or belief fits all people. A nation is bound by geography and may contain many tribes. This is to the good of a nation, because a dynamic of ideas permits flexibility, and flexibility is a primary guarantor of survival. To illustrate, Pinkerton draws the distinction between the opinions of four major "universalist" tribes and American citizens:

* Cardinal Mahony may want an open border with Mexico, but most Americans -- even most Catholics -- do not. And in Europe, even traditionally ultra-Catholic Spain is tightening up.

* Various Islamists may wish to see the Caliphate restored, but there will be many wars before it happens. And that's just between Shia and Sunni Muslims, let alone Muslims and everyone else.

* ACLU-ers and left-wing internationalists might have cheered when then-Vice President Al Gore said, with a perfectly straight face, that US troops "died in the service of the United Nations" -- but most Americans hated that thought.

* And as for right-wing internationalists, such as those at the Journal, they've certainly got strong arguments when it comes to Ricardian comparative advantage, but other attempts to implement their political agenda, such as keeping the border open and bringing the blessings of liberty to Iraq, are, shall we say, less viable....Universalism vs. Nationalism, James Pinkerton, TCS Daily, 5/23/2006

It's good this argument is being drawn because too many otherwise smart people have fallen for the romantic fantasy that nation is a hindrance to, not a basis for, liberty. For instance, without nations, there would be no guarantors of political or economic liberties. Historically, without the authority of the U.S. federal government, the primary argument for intervening against grotesque race laws in the old South of the U.S. would have been unavailable. The tribal assumptions of old Southern racism would have triumphed at the local level. But a nation does not, nor can it, tolerate internal tribes that would, in the name of some imagined "universal" law, violate Constitutional guarantees. American jurisprudence today, in falling over itself to protect the "rights" of some over the rights of others, that is, offering selective Constitutional guarantees, is acting as an ally in the efforts of tribal organizations to undercut this nation's protection of liberty for the rest of its citizens.

Conservative corporate executives who think that "friendly governments," Meyer Lansky's term for governments with little or no power, are a good substitute for strong national governments, should study the history of Mexico. The abject failure of Mexico City to confront the loot and plunder philosophy of the mercantilists who've dominated the country since its independence is a major reason why Mexicans are flocking to the United States, which does offer such protections. In free markets, as in political freedom, the application of limits is a primary reason freedom of any kind can exist.

Advocates of local nullification of federal laws, presuming a higher authority based on shared beliefs, ought to remember that if they set this as a precedent, any locality will be able to nullify any national law. Local nullification of federal law pre-1861 was also a primary conflict in the buildup to the American Civil War.

And across the world, who guarantees the rights of different varieties of people? The UN? Have you "Universalists" noticed UN discussion of Jews recently? Or how long it took for the UN to respond to slave trafficking in Africa or the Middle East? Or how little the UN has done about that? Has anyone noticed who's sitting on the UN Human Rights Commission? Who's confronting the hysteric fascist in Teheran? The UN? Who's going to protect us from Islamic fascism's Bomb? The UN? The UN's predecessor did nothing to protect Europe and Russia from the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. The UN itself was founded after the defeat of the Nazis was guaranteed by force of national arms. And the only times the UN has worked to guarantee international peace is when individual nations have negotiated with each other, using the UN's table more for convenience than philosophical underpinnings. This was true through the mid-1950's, and again for a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. More often than not since then, the UN has fomented more for tribal organizations than against them.

Liberals should pay attention to this as well because the whole project of human liberation that they've worked on since the 19th century (the larger part of which is part of conservative doctrine as well) is in danger of being overwhelmed by juridicial and globalist demolition of the very institutions which liberals and conservatives alike have depended upon for their political, economic and religious freedom.

Pinkerton's on the job. Are you?

Luther