Religion: Good for the Country?
Response to Michael Gershon’s article in the April 2018 issue of The Atlantic about evangelicals seeking political protection.
Gerson may be right that many evangelicals lost their interest in decency by supporting Trump and that their religious tradition is now defined by resentment. But he is wrong in perpetuating the myth that this is bad for the country because religion “is essential to the country’s public life.” Religion might be essential to some people’s life, but not to everyone’s. Although religion has indeed motivated social justice and the common good throughout this country’s history, it has also motivated injustice, division, and harm. It is clear today that religion is required for neither the moral high ground nor high office. Any rescue from their leaders that evangelicals need, therefore, should be seen primarily as a private concern. What the American public might need rescue from, however, is a religious tradition that has an outsize voice in government.
Nationalism redux
Nationalism has since been associated with both liberation and oppression. In many parts of the world today, however, nationalism has taken on a markedly populist tone. This Economist article makes for timely reading.
Many history classes will usually cover the topic of nationalism at some point. A byproduct of the Enlightenment, nationalism got a boost from European statesmen Metternich, Talleyrand, and Castlereagh in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. The relative peace their nations held lasted for about a hundred years until the outbreak of World War I, which was triggered quite literally in part, by a Serbian nationalist. The spread of nations accelerated around the world and Woodrow Wilson’s ideals of national self-determination sought to replace empires and the countries under their dominion. The post-World War II period saw the rise of even more nations, not fewer, along with the creation of the United Nations. In this international system, the West championed democracy, rule of law, and open markets, even when these values were not universally shared. That system seems to be steadily wilting and the United States of late no longer champions such values.
Nationalism has since been associated with both liberation and oppression. In many parts of the world today, however, nationalism has taken on a markedly populist tone. As this gripping Economist article points out, the “new nationalism does not just insist on the differences between countries, it also thrives on the anger within them.” The article aptly quotes the late historian and essayist, Tony Judt: “’We have entered an age of insecurity: economic insecurity, physical insecurity, political insecurity.’ Populist politicians—almost always nationalist—exploit those insecurities. Claiming a special connection to ‘the people,’ they tell and retell their narratives of corrupt elites, crooked immigrants, misleading media and sinister conspiracies. Social media, which amplify outrage, are the ideal vehicle to spread the word.”
These are sobering words for history students, as well as a timely reminder of why we study history. No system has managed to replace nations, be it Marxism of 20th century or the European Union of the 21st. Where human civilization and nations head is yet to be determined. In the meantime, we should heed the lessons learned from the successes and failures of nations while putting its related -ism in context. Nations are one of the most imaginative of human creations the earth has witnessed. We will need our best imaginations yet to protect that earth and its many inhabitants.