The Necessity of Nationalism | George Friedman at Brain Bar

how many of you are Hungarian how many of you are Turkish back there most important how many of you're American anybody from Texas well it can't be all good now what's interesting about this is everybody who raised their hands knew they were Hungarians the Turks knew they were Turks the Americans knew they're Americans and so all of you are in trouble according to those who feel that nationalism is the problem because what is the root of nationalism drawing distinctions between human beings and everyone who didn't raise their hands when I asked if you were Hungarian you were drawing distinctions you knew you weren't Hungarian now there's a tension between the idea that nationalism is bad and the fact that you all know exactly what nation you belong to so it's either bad that you know what nation you belong to or something is missing let's talk about why nationalism is necessary inevitable and I want to talk about an idea called love of one's own the interesting thing about the human race is you can't be born without a mother and father they may have moved to Alabama but they're still your mother and father and if you don't have one of these you'll die because until about the age of four or five at least you can't exist without this person so you become a human being after you were born and without that nurturing you won't become that and what do you get from your nurturers if you want these days I can't say mother and father because that's wrong what do you get you get to learn your language you get to learn your history your culture you'll get the learn the things you should like you should learn you'll get to learn the things you mustn't do you may do them anyway but you'll know what you mustn't do you will receive your identity your identity is not somehow something you invent it at the moment when you learn your language Hungarian Turkish English whatever it is you receive the map of the world and that map of the world is different from each language you know it's interesting to consider how some words in one language have a completely different meaning in another but the important thing is you learned your culture and when you leave your culture when you say I am no longer a Hungarian you do it in a very Hungarian way go to a bar in Shanghai you will know who is an American you will know who's a Russian one right there I knew that better the point is this gives you identity to say you're human yeah we're all human but that's not enough to know you must know that she's Russian and proud of it she must know that I'm from Texas which is far better than Russia and that I was born in Hungary which is not as good as Texas but still better than Russia we laugh but having been born in Hungary and having my first language Hungarian and then growing up in the Bronx in New York and then doing all the things I've done has defined me and is because of the place where I did it the people I did it with and that makes us different we are not all the same okay and that's important to know now this is what creates nations or villages or tribes or whatever and we've always had them and it's not only that we celebrate them from the right but this was the foundation of liberalism liberalism begins with one fundamental principle the right of national self-determination it is not simply democracy it is democracy of a nation so liberalism invented two concepts one concept was the concept of democracy you get to select your leaders and the other was the concept of the nation leaders of watts of Nations this is a fundamental thing that happened if you go out on by the river and walk up river a bit you'll see a statue to man called Paita fish on door now pay attention though remember in Hungarian names are completely reversed and confused his name is Shawn door it doesn't matter the guy was a poet he wrote superb poetry he wrote music he was profoundly liberal he believed in the universal rights of men and he died to make Hungary free in 1848 because in 1848 there was a massive political rising a massive political rising in Europe and the demand was I want my nation back in most cases had never had the nation but now they wanted us and the poles rose and the Hungarians rose and the Germans rose and all through Europe there was a rising and the rising was for civil liberties and the recognition was that unless there was a nation in which you could exercise civil liberties you couldn't have them the right to self-determination is utterly impractical say we humans will all have an election because we don't even speak the same language nobody who's not Hungarian speech Hungarian we don't know what it even says the idea was that you had to create instead of empires vast conglomerations nations you had to extract the Czechs the Slovaks the poles the Hungarians the Serbs you had to take them out and let them have their own way why because the direction in which the English go may not be the same as the direction that Hungarians go why because they're different they're born to a different language they have a different history they have a different relationship to religion a dozen things that make them different so if you're going to really practice the principle of national self-determination the right of a nation to decide for itself what is going to be you have to have a nation and there was a natural basis for the nation that was the language what do they all have in common they each have their own language and in Eastern Europe none can understand the other that's why you all speak English but the point is love of one's own means that in a certain way you love this language love the language not in the sense you chose it or the way you love your spouse you love the language because it is the most natural thing you have it's what you dream in and if that's taken away from you then what language do dreamin so your nation and petrol fish under understood this completely well this was a nation we had to celebrate no opposed this to the ideology of technocracy which we now have I want experts in charge who went to Georgetown University and has a degree and he will tell us what to do because he knows this is the idea of expertise this was also the foundation of the great empires I know what I'm doing you peasants don't it is incompatible with the notion of national self-determination countries pick the people they want that is the basis of liberalism ideally the minority will respect that I lost the election now every election that my party lost obviously was stolen from me because I know that I couldn't have been lost I know I'm a popular guy but that's not the point the opéra around it isn't the point the point is that we live by the principle of majority rule and the majority respecting the rights of those who lost - try again - try again - try again and it is the nation that decides the course at wants not the experts experts or people you hire usually you fire or should experts are those that you bring in they are not your rulers the rulers are the people the italians had an election it did not end the way the people in brussels wanted therefore it was wrong but the italians chose and this is the essence of liberalism so the point I am making for you is this nationalism is not the opposition of liberalism it is the essence of liberalism if you do not believe in the nation and the right of national self-determination you are not a liberal and all the blood that was shed in 1848 was for nothing now certainly it sometimes leads to catastrophe it was a nationalism that created Hitler it was a madness of one country and without that madness without nationalism there would have been no the madness you cannot say that because of that nationalism failed because if you say that then you say liberalism failed because you cannot have liberalism without national self-determination because it rests on majority rule and if you take away majority rule if you take away the right of the consent of the governed you've taken away liberalism it has problems it has issues and I know that every time my candidate lost I had severe doubts whether democracy could survive and vice versa but that's not the issue the issue is what is liberalism and the attempt to hijack the nation-state and turn it into something illegitimate this is a direct assault on liberal democracy when the newspapers print what are we going to do with the rise of the nationalism the answer is live with it because it is us nationalism is liberal democracy it is not a tension between the two it is the same and if you understand that then you can solve the problem of the European Union it is a collection of nations and the collection of nations are in NATO and if a nation wants to leave it leaves and that's what it is but whether it leaves or doesn't is up to you the voters the citizens of your state the country you love because you can't find it any other way which is can never be subordinate to any Emperor's or bureaucrats will it is your country and that is liberalism and that's why you should celebrate it and that's fear it thank you thank you very much the stage now momentarily and as I mentioned before this is a turning point so I'd ask the first person to come up on stage is that you wonderful please take your place okay you will talk about the good nationalism but we are surrounded by the bad one so how do you conceal these two ideas without making the bad one take over the good one may the answer that is the alien the different is always from your point of view threatening one of the things we talk about when we talk about racism is that he is threatening because he thinks differently speaks differently Islam is threatening because the way they treat women the way they do things they are different what I am saying is that if you respect the right and demand the right to determine the way you are you have to respect it mothers because you also have to remember that someone might regard you as profoundly oppressive in the way you do things in the way you think so yes there are bad regimes there is no question about that but you have to be very cautious of doing two things one saying yes there are bad people in the world but that's not the result of nationalism they're taking it and secondly the reason we have so many nations is that people can live so many different ways in which you find the press's may not be a process to someone else do you support the idea of sovereign independent Kurdish state in the Middle East so the answer to the Kurds is if this is what you want now you must understand the other side of nationalism which I didn't speak about national power to have your nation like every other it is not going to be given to you you will have to take it and if you're not strong enough to take it not because you're too small but your people are divided and they don't agree and everything else then you haven't earned it so nation but is not something giving you it is something that you take for yourself so my opinion is meaningless I will not fight and die for Kurds I will not do that you I don't know if you're Kurdish but you will have to do that and if you are not willing to pay the price for nationhood well that's your decision I can understand that so people come around and say don't you believe in the independent Scotland doesn't matter what I believe it's what the Scots believe described I think we can see that it's changing a lot so instead of my for example myself identifying as a German many people are identifying themselves as a European or even a global citizen so the idea of nationalism the good kind of nationalism is actually kind of changing due to a closer political integration of the European Union or more globalization so I want to ask what kind of nationalism are you more like national identity do you think will prevail in the end global citizens what language they speak different kinds of languages so I'm a global citizen but most of the globe doesn't understand what I have to say what religion do they have well so what I mean is there is a fantasy about a transnational liberalism a place where I owe loyalty to everyone and to no one which is a nice idea but when the tanks come they eventually do what are you loyal to what matters it is easy in a time of absolute peace and prosperity and the US Army deploying around you it is very easy to say I came in though citizen of a nation when someone becomes a soldier in the United States he makes a pledge I pledge to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies common and domestic and when you serve you now have a moral obligation that you have freely undertaken what are your obligations so when I hear about global citizens I always ask I understand what you have what do you owe and who do you owe it to and from my point of view alive without Duty a life without a willingness to sacrifice is defective and the framework of the nation pretty mature you don't have to be a soldier you can give in many ways but you can't be loyal to everything because then I have to ask you what does this loyalty mean and the problem with the notion citizen of the nation as it works out is a claim I am NOT responsible for anyone I am living in Germany and the tanks come running in I'm not a German I don't have to fight so in other words we have to understand citizenship is obligation and one of the things that bothers me is old dual citizens if two countries go to war which one of us ah but your position is you don't want war and therefore there won't be war and the point is that history doesn't work that way there are decisions to be made and the concept of this sort of non militant nationalism is a way to avoid those obligations yet someone else where do you draw the line between quotient both good nationalism what I would rather call constitutional patriotism and bad discriminatory exclusionary and often as we see in history murderous nationalism for example if people are escaping war and want to come to countries like Hungary and would like to become useful members of our society if we tell them that sorry about that or we tell without sorry we want to keep it as a homogeneous society is that part of good and good good nationalism also in light of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or not so here's my answer ask the Hungarians it's not my business one of the essential things is I don't want you to judge my country America you can I can't stop you but I'm not going to respect you for it the whole problem here is we have introduced this idea of good nationalism bad nationalism on the face of national self-determination the United States has limited immigration to the United States for over a hundred years I was an immigrant to the United States I was very happy to be an immigrant to the United States but it was the decision of the United States of whether it wanted to do that's part of the price you pay for national self-determination now there are as an idea that I completely support the idea of national self-determination so long did you vote for these policies but in fact most of the world our countries I don't want live in they don't do what I want them to do but they have chosen their path there are as a certain point when what is needed is an uprising when the United States reached a point when they could not tolerate the British in their oppression they rose and fought the problem we have in the world is we want somebody else to do it some other interventions some organization so from my point of view there's a vast array of possible regimes that remain decent that other people would know how to live in I'll give you an example here in Hungary there's a question of whether or not the judiciary is being changed okay we had a very similar situation in the United States in the United States the Republicans had held the white house for a very long time and none of the judges wanted to leave and all they were blocking Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal so Roosevelt had a wonderful idea I will increase the size the Supreme Court to be 15 people all Democrats it'll work not he was stopped at everything else hard to say that he was a fascist he was facing a political problem and well within the framework of the American concepts he tried an end run as we say on the Constitution I think he was not a fascist we are tooth quick in condemning even our own country natural political processes or more precisely assuming that the processes that are carried out in other countries are the only reasonable ones I had I want to say one thing I have as my standard because my family came very Hitler you have to go a long way before you get there and short of that I would in very happy having Germany as it was we have to understand and this is the hardest thing of all in philosophy that if you really have moral principles the highest must be toleration and that means you are sometimes appalled by the government there's a limit but that Linda leads you the war and you're willing to fight it if you're not ready to do that let's just talk so the question is some might say that it is fair or just for nations to self-determined their existence but when they do that in the one in the boundaries or in their borders of countries that are constitutionally are trying to protect that then usually that results in conflict so how do you see this in European context not other context well in Western or Eastern the United States have deep constitutional crisis over the question of slavery and the question of tariffs 600,000 Americans died fighting over this issue we didn't want it settled by the English we didn't have it settled by the French by the Spanish the Chinese this is ours to settle if you feel so strongly that the Constitution must be preserved rise up so my point is that we can have a wonderful discussion of what is just and unjust but the message of a method the measure of injustice is what those who feel is unjust are prepared to do if they're prepared to make speeches that's one thing if they're prepared to go to coffee houses in the plane that's another perhaps you'd stop dating a girl that had different views these are all possibilities but I will hold up the United States an example of how you settle deep moral issues based on a constitutional issue and one of my issues of the EU is how many people do you know who will die for the EU yeah 600,000 dials to determine the moral state of the American we are saying that the world is getting centralized more and more whether less technological or political or regulatory do you think the world may be heading towards a one-world government on totalitarian world government I don't see the world getting more centralized I hear a lot of people talking about the world to get even more centralized but you've never been to Hayes County Texas in other words the Internet has decentralized us in a massive way the government of Europe is less and less capable of managing the situation when we look around the world there is a massive decentralization and yet we constantly believe it's becoming more centralized interesting in general however it's not and more importantly than that all of the technology that's being developed a political philosophy that's emerging is undermining existing unity institutions here in Europe you can see what ten years has done to the European Union in undermining its authority its legitimacy and everything else so your basic premise I think is wrong based on your statements that national nations needs to protect themselves and rise up your fun of var you believe in the force so people need masks and to die just to protect the nation that is the only solution I don't believe in war edge there so the problem of war is nobody gets to vote the other one side can start it is that the only solution wells for the Americans for the British for the Germans for the Hungarians yeah it was so when the Hungarians faced the Russian oppression in 1956 they did something not perhaps the wisest thing they rose up and they fought and they died and they did because Hungary meant something to them and it was linked to their lives this was not a terrible thing in the sense of yes it was terrible for the lives lost but it was also a beautiful thing a willingness to stand the problem that I see in much of the intellectual world is a willingness and deep commitment to talk but when it comes time to act well who will act war has not been abolished it is a constant present in human life it has always been the constant presence in human life it is as along with the family and the economy is the most ubiquitous event of your life so this we have to understand why this is so it is easy to say that families are bad I my family wasn't that great but why do we fight these wars one of the many reasons is that in these wars we actually take responsibility and go beyond the comfortable cliches now that's not enough of a reason to go to war but I have not noticed any major lack of reason war is here as Leon Trotsky said you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you all right thank you so much a big round of applause mr. George Freeman thank you so much for joining us today good preciate your time very well done [Applause]

Channel: Brain Bar

Views: 94,333

Rating: 4.5617614 out of 5

Keywords: Brain Bar, future, geopolitics, china, eu, george friedman, geopolitical futures, liberalism, nationalism, future of states, politics, political history

Id: eovIYNFopgw

Length: 30min 43sec (1843 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 06 2018