PROGRESSIVE NATIONALISM: BUILDING CONSENSUS FROM THE GROUND UP

What is progress and what is progressive nationalism? The very idea suggests moving forward. In a post-modern sense, it’s a kind of backward forward thinking; revisionist, in the sense of querying texts or theories or ideas, whatever indulgence modernity left behind and post-modernism interrogated.

Nationalism, for political realists, is the most powerful ideology on earth. It encapsulates the idea of a sovereign power, a nation-state that owes no allegiance to anything else outside of its geographic scope. Coupled with national socialism it has a bad reputation, bringing up dark memories of fascism. Fundamentally, nationalism could be seen as totalitarian, at least in its admission that the state has supreme authority over and above its constituents as individuals each with their own inalienable rights in a liberal democratic sense.

So, the idea of progressive nationalism brings together a need for an ideology and nation state that is ideally progressive from the point of view of the citizenship. You may well ask is there such a thing as progressive nationalism?

The problem with nationalism, as I see it, from a liberal standpoint is what, in philosophy, is called the paradox of freedom; how we reconcile, if at all, individual liberties and freedoms with the existence of an overarching sovereign power or national authority that is both legitimate and legitimizing in achieving an acceptable degree of consensus within a diverse constituency. Fundamentally, this paradox is manifest in the democratic electoral cycle, where the legitimacy of elected leaders is now called into question in terms of how representative they are on specific issues. One could argue that the emergence of the welfare state, or social liberalism, simply covered over the fundamental contradiction between capitalism, as a profit-making exercise, and the states responsibility to ensure the redistribution of wealth and policies designed for the common good. Nationalism, as an ideology, is powerful because it is contested and contradictory, in that it can be the basis for social liberalism and exclusion, including a tendency to co-opt the deep state or other non-elected people and organisations in its hegemonic aims. The defense of egalitarianism, or a desire to redistribute wealth to achieve a more equitable share of income and resources, is an essential part of social liberalism and progressive nationalism. The fundamental crux of the paradox are the twin ideas of political and social representation: that a leader is elected to represent the aspirations and interests of citizens within a given political system, but they may not act in ways that reflect how socially connected and representative they are in relation to specific people, identity groups and cultures.

Nationalism, even of a progressive and liberal nature, can foster ethnocentrism, a mindset that prioritizes the interests of a presumed and archetypal citizen from a particular cultural or ethnic perspective. This can lead to the marginalization or erasure of minority cultures or the denial of equal rights and opportunities to minority communities. It also can lead to authoritarianism if populist leaders use their power to quash descent and infringe civil liberties. Progressive nationalism may be a powerful concept and ideology but it also a risky venture in balancing competing interests and contested ideas from a policy and political standpoint.

So, let’s be honest. Progressive nationalism stands or falls depending on the legitimacy of leaders who purport to represent the aspirations and interests of those that elect them in the first place. From a purely rational standpoint, participatory democracy ought to be founded on a system of representation that brings more people into policymaking and statecraft. But most people are content to vote once every three or four years and gamble their life away by electing candidates who purport to represent their interests, and because of the nature of government, lose sight of that interest in the national interest. Hence the subordination of particular interest to the national interest is part of the inverted totalitarian nature of nationalism in a liberal democratic state. The more we judge a system based on simplifications or dualism, the more we reduce the beautiful complexity of participatory democracy to a farce. Harmonising many voices is not easy. A certain literacy and articulate leadership is required to communicate new possibilities, while aligning our values with our passionate embrace of politics. There is no substitute for the discerning observer or the interested participant in progressive nationalism. It requires a commitment to a conversation that is cross-cultural and respectful, founded on respect for our country as a nation state and the simple logic of what it means to progress. I see the Yes Vote in the 2023 Referendum as a case in point.

The Socialists sometimes reduce their ideologies to the simple idea that everybody deserves a fair go, or the intent that everybody is looked after. Capitalism, at its end stage, achieves the concentration of wealth and a growing divide between the rich and poor, which will be exploited by Trump-like figures that appeal to the disenfranchised, much as all authoritarian leaders do. The irony of course is there is nothing wrong with appealing to the disenfranchised. The point about progressive nationalism is that it only works through compassionate reasoning and participatory democracy. Social harmony is important, as are our civil liberties. The simplicity of the construction lies in the idea that the nation is always progressing towards something better, a vision of the future that could, if the story were told with integrity, help unite and harmonize the disparate interests that exist today. For sure, the echo chamber of social media reinforces the specific and narrow view of sectional interests, but it can also become a platform for sharing ideas around what progressive nationalism means today.

One does not need to be a socialist to be concerned about the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The perennial question has been how this increasing gap between the rich and the poor is sustained; popular leaders do their bit through spin, gas bagging and gas lighting, a serious distraction from the underlying fundamentals of inequality and political economy. In the modern world, social and economic inequality emerge as a ‘habitus’, or enduring disposition as Bourdieu would say, that simply buys low and sells high. The transactional logic here is simple. Everything every person can be is reduced to its utilitarian value; in a monetary sense, cash and materialism is king. Money buys favours; corruption in politics starts with a lack of rules around corporate donations and sponsorship for leaders that have in themselves become cynical about conflicts of interest or the exercise of power to sustain inequality. Charismatic leaders get around this problem by avoiding the issue altogether. The force of their personality in speech overrides other considerations, often without regard for checks and balances.

Here we come to the simple fact; which follows Max Weber’s logic as a sociologist, that change can only come from within an existing system because the system itself is all encompassing. Weber discussed the ethic of social responsibility in his work on social theory and the sociology of religion. As he saw it, an ethic of social responsibility refers to the idea that individuals, or leaders in our case, should pursue their social and professional roles with a sense of duty and responsibility towards society. This Other-centeredness lies at the heart of representation. As Weber pointed out, an ethic of social responsibility transcends individual self-interest. The simple version, in a popular sense, is the relativist view that we should all walk in each other’s shoes. When we look at things through the eyes of others, we might see things differently.

All change, as Marshall Sahlins says, is a mode of cultural reproduction. While this may sound circular, it makes complete sense. We are caught in a language trap, where words have meaning that precedes their use in practice. Political practice simply energises words and meanings, capturing the imagination of the listener, depending on the eloquence and verbal skills of the speaker. Most of us today have abandoned the idea that there is a central controlling authority, in favour of some kind of naïve meritocracy, or the proposition that leaders who can and do articulate a consensus position, the middle ground, and, as a result, are given authority to represent the national interest, whatever that means. But our system of electoral representation creates social distance between leaders and citizens. Leaders are no longer socially representative. They don’t even look like me, to put it in colloquial terms.

So we are back where we started. Any ideology, including progressive nationalism, promotes the idea of a national identity, or national character, that transcends the diversity or reality leaders purport to represent. Culture and identity, combined with an emerging cancel culture and cynicism around politicians, creating a need or desire for the rescue politician; the rescuer, the Messiah; the charismatic leader; the smooth-talking good-looking saviour who can weave an intoxicating brew of ideas and opinions that advocate for social, political, and economic reform to balance principles of social justice and equality with rampant capitalism. The latter, of course, continues to buy low and sell high, until some bright spark calls for regulation, infringing the libertarian view that individuals ought not to be checked by the State in realising their dreams. In this heady mix, accountabilities get lost. Leaders struggle to find the words or create a consensus position around issues that go to the heart of national identity and character.

The circuit breakers for me a simple: love, kindness, and compassion. One does not need to be religious to subscribe to these principles and it is extremely difficult to practice them in ways that don’t run up against other human frailties. Take for example, the deserving and undeserving poor; the forever War that takes sides; the fundamentals of oversimplification, stereotyping, labelling and dislike. Ultimately, the importance of individuals taking responsibility for their actions in considering how the choices they make impact on others is difficult. One would expect some form of alignment between values and habits; perhaps an alignment between our vocational pursuits and the principal of a fair go for all Australians. Guilt alone does not translate into a change in behaviour. One can feel guilty and continue to act selfishly without regard for the welfare of others. Guilt in a sense arises as a response to selfish actions. They constitute the dynamic duo of binary logic that sustains individualism as a self-preoccupation. Navel-gazing as it were.

Herbert Marcuse’s idea of the one-dimensional man refers to a critique of contemporary capitalist societies and the constraints they impose on individual freedom and critical thinking. According to Marcuse, in these societies, individuals are integrated into the existing system of production and consumption, resulting in a homogenization of thought and a suppression of dissenting voices. Marcuse argued that in advanced industrial societies, there is an apparent abundance of material goods and technological advancements. However, this abundance does not translate into true freedom or well-being for individuals. Instead, it leads to a false sense of satisfaction and conformism. The one-dimensional man is a product of this system, unable to see beyond the established norms and values, and unable to critically question or challenge them. One-dimensional man is characterized by a lack of critical consciousness and an acceptance of the status quo. The dominant ideology of the ruling class is effectively disseminated through various social institutions, such as media, education, and advertising, shaping individuals’ desires, aspirations, and worldview. As a result, there is a suppression of alternative perspectives and a conformity to the dominant ideology. Marcuse argued for the need to resist this one-dimensional society and to foster a critical consciousness that challenges the dominant ideology and works towards a more liberated and equitable society. He believed that individuals needed to reject the false satisfaction offered by the system and cultivate a critical awareness that could lead to transformative action and the creation of a more just and free society.

The dominant narrative is not the main game from an historical standpoint. It’s the metanarrative that controls the agenda; what we discuss; what we think; what we feel and more importantly how we behave. According to Chomsky and Herman, manufactured consent occurs through a combination of propaganda, censorship, and other media techniques used by those in power to control the narrative and shape public perception. The mass mainstream media, which is owned and controlled by a handful of corporations or elites, plays a significant role in disseminating information and shaping public opinion. Manufactured consent works by creating a narrow range of acceptable opinions and suppressing alternative viewpoints that challenge the status quo. This is achieved through various mechanisms, such as selective reporting, agenda-setting, framing, and the omission of certain perspectives or voices. By controlling the narrative and limiting the range of acceptable discourse, those in power can manipulate public opinion and generate a false consensus that supports their interests and policies. This manipulation of consent serves to maintain the existing power structures and prevent social and political transformations that may challenge the dominant elite.

Leaders stand and fall on their skills in story making for nation states that constantly need to reinvent themselves to stay ahead of the game. As Russel Marks said of Kevin Rudd, a former Labour Prime Minister in Australia:

“One way of interpreting the failure of Rudd’s prime ministership is that his popularity only began to decline rapidly once he appeared to drop his progressive nationalism, which is to say that he neglected to articulate his political reforms through a national narrative which consistently aimed at the making and re-making of the Australian nation. Moreover, he appeared to walk away from his progressive narrative with a series of self-defeating policy backflips on matters of central importance.”

Whether this opinion about Rudd is true is not the point. The point is about the need to make and re-make the Australia nation through public discourse in a progressive sense to affirm the legitimations that always require consensus to build social cohesion and cultural resilience within a given society.