Trump, Johnson, Brexit… Why I believe supporting anything or anyone representing a nationalist agenda is dangerous, irresponsible and immoral.
Would you have voted for Hitler?
People are often criticised for using Hitler and Nazism as examples when comparing with modern-day circumstances. “Its too easy an example to make”, they argue, particularly when you are attempting to demonise. “It misses the context of the period and of the current time and the differences between the two”. Some see it as almost a juvenile thing to do, one that lacks the intellectual capacity to not use Hitler and Nazism as a comparison point. “Surely you have the intelligence to come up with other examples?”
But why should we?
Hitler existed. National Socialists were elected. Nazism came to power. And we all know what happened.
Those who elected them were people. Real, living, breathing people. They weren’t brain-dead lemmings. They were homo sapiens with functioning grey matter, aspirations, desires, concerns, living in one of the most liberal, sophisticated and advanced societies at the time – people who had the free choice to put a cross in a box by the name of a candidate from a political party they believed would do the best for them, their families and/or for their country.
And it wasn’t even that long ago. My parents were born just three years after the end of the Second World War. My grandparents lived through it. Am I seriously meant to believe that human beings that I knew personally and loved who, just because they were born in a different country, but alive during the same period, would necessarily have behaved so very differently if they weren’t also faced with the same circumstances and options if presented to them?
I don’t know.
Because the truth is many Germans didn’t.
Many Germans did not support the Nazis.
The idea of putting a cross next to the name of a National Socialist candidate was so repulsive to them, so alien to their sense of morality, of ethics, of decency. Even back then, when living under the same circumstances, in the same time, in the same country as millions of their fellow countrymen who did think National Socialism was the answer for Germany. Still millions opposed them. Millions saw the evil, the hate and the division that National Socialism represented and the potential misery and problems it could bring – and this was years before the ‘Final Solution’ was even a thought on the most butcherous of minds.
The idea that Germans of the 1930s were such a different species to us Europeans of today feeds into the precise narrative that Nazis were trying to exploit – that, depending on which ethnic or racial group we were born into, we are all inherently different beings in the way we think and behave and therefore incompatible to integrate.
That is a dangerous concept and puts a thickly-drawn circle around the human beings that existed in Germany in the 1930s as if they were something quite apart from the rest of humanity – deeming it almost incapable from existing ever again. But nothing could be further from the truth. It has existed since then and it probably will again.
Of course, even back then, Germany was hardly a unique example – fascist movements were alive and well in Italy, Spain, Croatia, and across the European continent. Even in the UK, the black shirts of Oswald Mosely gained some, if limited, support. And, of course, white supremacist movements have long been a fact of life in the USA.
Therefore, I ask again, would you have voted for Hitler? Would you have put your cross in a box for a candidate for the National Socialist Party of Germany?
It seems a loaded question. But its a simple one.
I’m not asking you, with the knowledge you have now of what National Socialism resulted in; when it became clear by its defeat in 1945 what the sickening result of Hitler’s preachings and actions were.
That is not the question.
There are many people who voted for Trump who look back with regret on the division, violence, hate, death and misery he has caused in the USA.
There are some in the UK who express their regret for supporting Brexit, knowing the complications, confusion and division it has caused.
Hind-sight is a wonderful thing.
I’m not asking you, with the benefit of hind-sight, to reject Nazism – which I hope any human being with any degree of human decency would. I’m asking you to be honest with yourself: would you have been one of those Germans in the 1930s who would have been convinced by the propaganda, by the lies, by the appeal of economic rejuvenation that was on offer, by the idea that your misery was not the fault of your country but inflicted on you by powerful and influential groups with global connections?
Be honest. Would YOU have voted for Hitler?
Let’s not beat about the bush any longer.
I’m going to put it out there. And with my brazen claim, let me make it clear that I do not believe that you necessarily support Nazism (although you could) and I am certainly not implying you supported the genocidal acts of the Nazis (although you could). But, I do believe, that anyone who voted for Donald Trump (particularly if they voted for him in the latest Presidential Election – knowing exactly what kind of President he has been), most people who supported Brexit and enabled, through their votes for the Conservative Party, Boris Johnson to become British Prime Minister, are EXACTLY the kind of people who would have voted for National Socialist candidates in the 1933 German federal election.
But why does this hypothetical question matter? What is my point?
Let me break it down for you:
Although no-one (not even Hitler himself apparently) could have predicted the despicable, heinous manner in which he approved for the total destruction of European Jewry and other groups who would be annihilated, there are several things that we know, and human beings back then knew, about the nature of the philosophy of nationalism – what it means and what it can potentially lead to.
Nationalism, by definition, is a demonstration of the superiority or ‘betterness’of one group over another or anothers. A superiority or betterment aquired by sheer virtue of either place of birth or, as in some notions of national identity, ethnic/blood/DNA ties. Your only qualification for membership is to be born into it.
On the flip side, its definition also implies the rejection of the ‘other’ or ‘others’ by its / their lack of membership, normally based on a narrow criteria. This rejection can manifest itself in a variety of ways, but nationalism will always lead to the exclusion of one or more groups who do not fit the criteria of its self-ascribed national identity.
Nationalism is therefore a philosophy based on the prinicple of exclusion. Inclusion only for those who fit in with its narrow set of definitions for who is or who is not a member of it. Exclusion for the rest.
For any society that claims to embrace the Christian religion or its values, it is immoral, by any measure, to seek the exclusion of others for not fitting into a man-made and ascribed clan. It is hardly the reflection of Jesus’ teaching of “loving thy neighbour”. And I’m not even a Christian. I’m an atheist. Yet the moral argument could not be clearer to me.
In contrast, while hybrid and warped systems that claimed/claim to be ‘socialist’ in nature, such as that of the Soviet Union, China (although they aspired more to communism than socialism – even that they bastardised and corrupted) and even ‘National Socialism’ of Nazi Germany, did exclude vast groups of people, they were hardly reflections of the true teachings of socialist thinkers. There is nothing in the definition of ‘socialism’ that prescribes for the exclusion of any specific group. In contrary to the principles of nationalism, socialism seeks to create an equal and equitable society that cares for all its citizens.
Equally, the concept of ‘liberalism’, while it focuses on the rights and opportunities of and for the individual to live a life as free from state interference as possible, it, by itself, makes no reference to the exclusion of others.
Nationalism is the explicit intent and effort to prioritise one group over another, often resulting in many unfortunate foreseen, and sometimes unforeseen, consequences.
This is not a secret. This is PRECISELY what nationalism is. This, we have known, for many years. Hitler made no bones about this. His philosophy, his intentions (to this extent) were extremely clear.
Nationalism always excludes. It puts up walls (real and metaphoric). It excludes others from within itself and itself from others.
Nationalism does not seek to create a world that works for all, only one that (at least in the short-term) works for one narrow group and one narrow group only. The irony being that, in doing so, the long-term effect can ultimately lead to its own destruction too.
It may seek to forge alliances. To negotiate deals. But these are always done from the basis of self-interest and not on mutual respect. Often these are conducted from a (sometimes deluded) position of superiority and not on the basis of equality. Countries driven by nationalist agendas can, over time, through the influence of this agenda on its culture, media, education, sports, etc can begin to create a collective mentality of irrational and blind patriotism (sometimes claimed to be bestowed upon it by a god or gods) that unequivocally sees itself as the ‘best country in the world’ – with little informed comparative reference to qualify this. Its qualification normally justified by the believer simply having been born there.
No, nationalism does not and may not always lead to murderous acts of genocide (but it can and it has). But it will always lead to division. It will always lead to the exclusion of some in some manner or another. It will often lead to oppressive philosophies of superiority and hate. It also often leads to violence and unrest.
The reality is that you don’t know where nationalism will lead.
Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are testaments to the unpredicablity and instability of the actions of nationalist leaders, none of us can ever know the extent to which nationalist regimes will go to pursue their divisive agendas.
Very few people could have predicted the Holocaust back in 1933. I am sure that the majority of those who voted for the Nazis in 1933 will have been as shocked as you to have learnt about the brutal and sickening realities of what went on in such places as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and Sobibor. But they happened.
Many of us, maybe you as a Trump supporter, were disgusted to see the images of Hispanic children being locked up in cages, separated from their parents, some of whom have still not been reunited as the locations of the parents is now unknown.
Some of us are even shocked by the affront to democracy that Boris Johnson shows in his total disrespect for international law not to mention his support of lying to a monarch he cynically claims to adore.
Nationalism is entirely immoral.
Nationalism always involves division.
Nationalism always excludes.
And it frequently never ends well. Either economically or societally.
It may not end in pits and gas chambers.
But if that is really the extent it really has to go before you finally admit that maybe its gone too far and yet you tolerate the many steps that could potentially lead to it, your morality is one that, I would suggest, hangs very loosely indeed.
If the demonising of foreigners, of people of other colours and ethnicities is ok to you.
If the shaming of those of other sexual and gender identities is acceptable.
If the spreading of mis-information, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and the belief in and support of blatant lies is fine in your mind. Or maybe, indeed, you lack the ability to decipher the difference.
If you’d rather pull up the drawbridge, erect barriers and not work as closely as possible with your closest allies and neighbours because they are ‘not like you’ or because doing so contravenes your rather extreme and un-realstic interpretation of what constitutes a ‘sovereign country’.
If you think your country and your ‘people’ are the best. Just because.
Just because you popped out of a vagina there too. Or out of a woman who popped out of a vagina there too.
If your patriotism is so uncontrollably viscious and destructive as a result of merely watching a group of men kicking a leather sphere backwards, forwards and sideways.
If you thing whenever you hear someone speaking in a language you don’t understand (i.e. any language apart from English – which you can’t always understand either), you become paranoid and believe that they are speaking badly about you.
If the inability of a national leader to respond fairly, informatively and openly to the questions of journalists is tolerable, attacking the press in response instead.
If you support national leaders behaving in manners which can only be described as juvenile and immature on social media.
If… the list could go on.
If…
Would YOU have voted for Hitler?
Where would it have ended? Where did it end? Where will it end?
Of course, claiming Mexicans are rapists does not automatically lead to pits full of burning hispanic corpses. But it could. And it wouldn’t be the first time, and probably won’t be the last, that the spreading of harmful lies, damaging stereotypes and blatant myths will lead to people being injured and possibly killed, sometimes en masse.
So, where will it end?
I don’t know. Which is why I do all I can do to not allow it to begin.
If you’re happy to put a cross in a box to allow it to begin, even when we all know in what direction (even if not how far) it will probably lead, maybe it will be too late when it gets to the point that you think it should all end.
If you don’t let it start in the first place, it doesn’t need to end.
So, tell me, would YOU have voted for Hitler?
P.S. Before anyone attempts to claim my support for Scottish independence (something I am happy to cover in more length in a future blog) renders me a hypocrite, let me briefly explain how this is different to nationalism. Firstly, even though the Conservatives (who have rapidly become an English nationalism movement) frequently (and intentionally) refer to the SNP as the “Scottish NATIONALIST Party”, this is not their name. They are the ‘Scottish NATIONAL Party’ because they exclusively operate within the nation of Scotland and none of the other nations of the UK and speak up for the interests of that nation. They are focused on creating a CIVIC Scottish identity and not one focused on ethnicity. Secondly, Scottish Independence, as outlined by the SNP, is based on a membership of the EU (hardly the desire of nationalist regimes). The EU is based on the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ which states that decisions should be made as near to the people as possible – that only decisions that affect all Europeans should be taken at the European level. If it can be made at a lower (national, state, local) level, then it should be. Thirdly, the United Kingdom is not a country of equals. It is not a federal country and Scotland, just like Wales and Northern Ireland, are not treated as equals alongside England. The aspirations of the Scottish people, as outlined by the SNP is explicitly not based on a nationalist agenda but an inclusive and internationalist one – total anathemas to nationalists the world over.
Benedict 