Conor here: Richard Murphy offers up a defense of nationalism based on a politics of care. He deals with the UK in the following piece, but mentions how the Left—or at least what passes as the Left—has long struggled with questions of nationalism. Stateside, this was evident recently when Bernie reiterated his long-standing position on borders, for which he has been getting beat up by online liberals. Here’s the comment:
BERNIE: “If you don’t have any borders, you don’t have a nation.”
“Trump did a better job. I don’t like Trump, but we should have a secure border. It ain’t that hard to do. Biden didn’t do it.”
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 23, 2025
There’s plenty to criticize Bernie about, but if you’re trying to build a political coalition around national class (as opposed to identity) it’s common sense that you can’t have an endless stream of immigrants for capital exploit. There are other ways to do that rather than building walls and unleashing masked agents to abduct and terrorize people. As has been pointed out frequently here at NC the easiest would be to simply ensure that businesses aren’t hiring undocumented. And the US could stop the decades of destabilizing governments south of the border, too. That’s obviously not the route the Trump administration is taking while it tries to build its brand of nationalism with little in the way of politics of care. Bernie’s comments on the Tim Dillon Show beyond the 20-second clip circulating online get to these points. From the transcript:
…none of those people should be faulted for coming here, okay. It should be we should start faulting people like Steve Wynn who run a billion dollar hotel on and exploit them right on illegal labor. And why aren’t we enforcing e-verify?… So you got these folks who came to this country the same reason my dad came to this country. He was grew up poor in Poland came for a better life and that’s why they dragged their kids you know from Mexico, Guatemala, thousands of miles …you know they have a better life they escape the violence and the poverty that they’re in. They’re here now. The truth of the matters and one of the things that i really, really dislike about Trump and what demagogues always do is this country, as we’ve discussed, has enormous problems. And what demagogues always do, instead of trying to deal with why we have those problems, what are the causes of the problem, what are the solutions? You blame a powerless minority.
Onto Murphy’s defense of nationalism.
By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future.
RobertJ asked a question on this blog yesterday that goes to the heart of how I believe that we should think about belonging, identity, and the politics of care. He asked whether nationalism is good or bad, or whether it all depends.
That is not an abstract question. In the UK and Ireland, nationalism has been a defining political force for centuries. From conquest and colonialism to Home Rule, devolution, and independence movements, nationalism has shaped who we are, who we think we are, and who we think others are not. In that case, the question deserves serious reflection, and I have given it a lot of thought, most especially as I write for The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper.
First, I do not view nationalism as a negative sentiment because I think its roots lie in care, whether that be for a people, a place, a language, or a culture. So, when Welsh speakers defend their language, or when Scots argue for self-government, or when Irish people remember centuries of suppression and demand dignity, that nationalism is not rooted in hate; it is rooted in love for a community and its identity, and care for its survival. It is about wanting the right to govern one’s own life and community. That form of nationalism is inclusive: it does not require an enemy. It is not built on exclusion, but on belonging.
Second, nationalism can also be a response to powerlessness. In that sense, it can be a progressive impulse. When Westminster dismisses Scottish votes or when London drains wealth from English regions, it is unsurprising that people turn to national identity to reclaim agency. Nationalism, then, can become a language of resistance and a way of saying ‘we matter too’.
Third, however, nationalism can curdle. When identity turns inward and begins to define itself by who is not included, it becomes toxic. When English nationalism defines “real” English people as white, or when Union Jacks become symbols of exclusion rather than community, nationalism becomes a politics of fear. The flags remain the same, but their meaning changes. The St. George’s Cross that decorates a local football ground in celebration of a win by a national team is not the same as the one wielded by a mob chanting about migrants.
So perhaps the question is not whether nationalism is good or bad, but what it is for, and that brings me to what I call the politics of care.
The politics of care, about which I have often written a lot of late, begins with recognising that all people have equal worth, wherever they are born and whoever they are now. Care in this context is inherently relational precisely because it ignores who a person is and affirms their worth, wherever and whatever they might be, or think they are. As such, it will always connect across boundaries. That means nationalism must always be held in tension with something larger, whether that be humanity, decency, or empathy.
A nationalism consistent with a politics of care would:
- defend self-determination but reject superiority;
- protect culture, but refuse exclusion;
- celebrate belonging but resist the myth of purity.
It would see nationhood not as a fortress but as a framework for democracy, solidarity, and mutual care.
In that sense, there is an ethical distinction to be made between what might be described as differing forms of nationalism. The nationalism of the oppressed, who are the colonised, the ignored, and the disrespected, can be emancipatory. The nationalism of the powerful, which is used to dominate or exclude, is reactionary.
That distinction is what allows us to celebrate Plaid Cymru’s recent victory in Caerphilly but fear a Reform UK government. The former seeks dignity within diversity; the latter demands obedience through division. The distinction is both real and essential.
That said, the left has often struggled with this. Internationalism, which is the belief in solidarity across borders, was heavily associated with early socialist and social democratic thinking, in particular, and can be made to sound as if it denies the importance of national identity. It can be used to argue that class matters more than any other identity, and that there is a reach beyond borders on that basis, and of course, that can be true: it is entirely possible to have more than one identity, and I have always found it hard to work out why some have so much difficulty with that idea.
Having empathy for others in different communities on the basis of similar social circumstances does not, and should not, however, prevent anyone from appreciating the culture, customs, community, and patterns of communication (often represented by language) closely associated with the place where they come from, live, or have moved to. Holding both these things in mind simultaneously is, I suggest, vital. If we all have material, emotional and intellectual needs which lead us on a quest for meaning in life which may (and might not) lead us to spiritual exploration, then to appreciate both where we are and what matters to others is a sign not of abandoning principles, traditions and differing identities, but of upholding them, whilst reserving the right to criticise if they are abusive of those in any community. A healthy internationalism does, then, depend on self-confident nations that can cooperate, and not on loyalty to a single homogenised global state or ideal.
The same might be said of faith traditions. These might have their own visions, but the challenge is to reconcile those visions with the moral value of belonging somewhere in particular, and respecting that the person of one faith is exploring just as much as the adherent of any other faith, and none might be.
Why does this matter? It does because nationalism is again shaping the political landscape, whether that be in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, perhaps most dangerously, in England. How each form of nationalism expresses itself will tell us a great deal about the kind of political and moral imagination that exists in the UK. The vital thing will be to understand the key point I am making, which is that not all nationalisms are alike. Nationalism can be used to unite or divide, to justify exclusion or to promote justice. It can be used to express love and care or for all in a community, or to induce fear and the ostracisation of some within it. Those approaches could not be more different.
My own answer to whether nationalism is good or bad is that it is good when it is an act of care, and bad when it is an act of domination, whilst it is only necessary when it gives voice to those who might otherwise be ignored. The test of any nationalism should be simple and is does it expand empathy, or does it shrink it? That is the ethical line that separates the politics of care from the politics of hate.
If we remember that, nationalism can be embraced as something of value, whilst being aware that if we forget it, nationalism can destroy us. But perhaps what is most important is to understand that, at its empathetic best, nationalism might help us rediscover who we are together.
Great piece with lots to ponder!
I have a small American flag displayed in the living room. Bought it during the height of the Iraq War from a homeless veteran selling them in Grand Central Station. That kinda sums up my mixed feelings on my country and why I don’t consider myself a nationalist – or even patriotic. Yet, I’m very much a product of this place, have enjoyed many opportunities and the vast beauty of its nature, its menagerie of cultures, and the rich life I’ve been afforded here. So, maybe I’m a hypocrite? I appreciate what I’ve been given being a citizen but loath the cost others have paid for me to have this life.
Brings to mind two of my favorite quotes I’ve often pondered when grappling with these mixed feelings. One is from one of those old socialists you referred to, Erich Fromm, who said, “Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ‘Patriotism’ is its cult…Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one’s country which is not part of one’s love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”
Too often nationalism (and patriotism) are gawdy displays of blind worship but I see your point that it can also be a way of showing pride for the people in our wide national community and all we are able to experience in this place. Which brings me to the other quote from the amazing author Jeanette Winterson:
“In a system that generates masses, individualism is the only way out. But then what happens to community — to society?”
That’s the quandary. I want to think of myself as an individual clean of the negatives associated with my nation but without it I’d not have the society I get to be a part of and community I so enjoy. Tough dilemma for my stubborn ego.
Thanks for the Jeanette Winterson tip; I hadn’t heard of her but am very intrigued. Was the quote you provided from “Why be happy when you could be normal?”
Words have actual meanings, and here a discussion on the origins of nationalism, and the distinction between nationalism and patriotism, would have been helpful.
Nationalism is an ideology that ultimately rests on the concept of superiority:
“: an ideology that elevates one nation or nationality above all others and that places primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations, nationalities, or supranational groups.”
Whereas patriotism rests on the love of a place, or a people.
Napoleon was the first to use nationalism to great effect, after all, how could the French have had such a glorious revolution unless they were better than other Humans. The Germanic nations, after watching successive empire building French armies criss-cross their lands, were soon to follow.
Removing the idea of superiority from nationalism is a confusing redefinition of the term, made worse because of the already poor understanding of what nationalism represents as an ideology and its origins.
The author would have been better served by the use of the word Patriotism, whose definition does not necessarily include the concepts of superiority, exclusion, and purity. Loving a people is already conducive to a politics of care, or at least it should be.
Everyone should oppose nationalism, which is premised on the idea that some people are better than others, not muddy the waters with new interpretations.
Let’s just use a different word.
I think I understand your point, but I think Saml Johnson’s definition of patriotism antedates yours.
Johnson’s quip is a comment on scoundrels, not a definition of patriotism. When a scoundrel’s every argument has been refuted, he/she will then appeal to patriotism as a final or ultimate defence. Patriotism is not, by Johnson, the philosophy of scoundrels.
I think you have it backwards, patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Nationalism is an identity, patriotism is a state of mind.
As the author makes clear, “nationalism” can be a force for good or evil, inclusion or exclusion (defining ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is also tricky of course; one person’s “terrorist” being another’s “freedom fighter,” etc.) But in my personal experience, it is “patriotism” that has been misused, over and over, in the US to manipulate citizens into blind support for repression and global domination. We use “patriotic” displays to rally the “people” ’round the troops – and the B-2s flying over football games – as they “defend our country” and our “freedoms” by destroying Afghanistan or Iraq or other nations. After 9/11 there was truly a sense of “national” unity for a brief moment. What we did with it was stoke maximum fear (and use an anthrax attack) to pass The “Patriot” Act and launch our forever wars. In this endeavor your were either with us or “with the terrorists.”
I’m old enough to have witnessed such “patriotism” during the Cold War days of the early 1960s, its weakening during the Vietnam war, and its comeback as we started throwing little countries like Grenada and Panama up against the wall again, “defeated” the USSR, and invaded Iraq and conquered our “Vietnam syndrome” once and for all. We were back, baby! Start waving those flags.
I don’t think all nations are equal, and that’s pretty easy to see using any metric you choose. GDP, food production, freedom, beauty, culture, etc. Of course those rankings depend on how you value those things and change and nations rise and fall.
I’d say that it was nationalism that drove the U.S. race to the moon, and that this was good. It is nationalism that is driving China forward now, and that this is good for them as well.
It is a double-edged sword. The lack of a shared coherent vision for what it is to be an American and the inherent nationalism generated by that is a source of domestic strife in the U.S. But in recreating one, or the attempt at recreating one, will potentially create even more problems at this point.
Hans Kohn between the world wars & A.D. Smith in post modern times saw nationalism in Elizabethan England. Some scholars posit incipient nationalism in the Greek city states, others in the Israel of the kings. For Elie Kedourie, and Hobsbawm, and Perry Anderson nationalism is strictly a European enlightenment philosophy transported to the world at large through conquest and colonisation. This view is criticised by post colonial & feminist scholars as Eurocentric & masculinist.
Here a little more awareness of the history of socialist thought could be in order. Lenin posited an ‘aristrocracy of labor’ in Europe and the US that sold out to capital and sold out its brothers and sisters in the rest of the world. It’s an aristocracy of WHITE labor–the poor white labor that did the bloody work OF the capitalist class in killing natives and disciplining enslaved Africans (reason it clings to its gun rights) and wants those rights to impunity back that we are looking at now. Bernie, who has gone through at least three phases in his fumbling attempts to get immigration right, risks playing into the hands of those nativist elements with his comments. Praising Trump for doing anything right is at best ham-handed, at worst a kind of pandering that gets him nowhere anyway. Yes, the question of how we look at borders and the question of nationalism is critical. But it’s liberals who have no answer on immigration. The traditional left stance is internationalist, and condemns borders. ‘Politics of care’ is a current crap cliche that I see liberals using, not the left. But insistience that ALL workers be paid well, protected. . . not so hard to conjure. If you fail to denounce the ugly, the ethnic cleansing and surgical racism that propels Trump’s politics here, as Bernie did. . . . he deserved the criticism.
Referring to Scottish and Irish nationalism, the article says “That form of nationalism is inclusive: it does not require an enemy”. I’d argue that these are clear examples of nationalisms which require the British in order to construct an identity by schismogenesis. This is a feature of national identity in general. Drawing a line around something, defining it, also defines what it is not, a necessarily exclusive thing.
In an ideal world, we’d all have what William James called “cosmic patriotism”, that is, a species-pride, a collective identity as humanity. I think its understandable and natural that we fall short of that most of the time and instead withdraw to some more manageable in-group.
The sort of laissez faire inter-nationalism the author calls “healthy” we could criticize in two ways: first, that such idealized cooperation doesn’t exist in the world; and second, that in the form that it does exist, it leads to world wars.
The article could use a lot more history, economics, and linguistics, but I’m probably biased as a helpless cosmopolitan.
Nature draws lines around economies. Five hundred (plus!) years of Euro-American colonialism has attempted to erase those lines, and the results, culminating in the WTO, Donald Trump, and his European poodles have been a less than edifying celebration of cosmopolitanism. I’m with Messrs Murphy and Sanders on this one.
Agreed. I’m with Bernie on this too, for both labor and cultural concerns.
I’m of two minds about the arbitrary borders on a map. They were drawn by Western colonizers who thought there ought to be an Italy for Italian speakers, a Germany for German ones, etc. Those lines have done a lot of harm in the ensuing 200 or so years, creating divisions where none existed naturally.
However, if you look at history before national borders, masses of people on the move for whatever reason is going to create problems. Then people don’t gradually assimilate into an existing culture, learning the language and mores, they instead disrupt it. Change that comes too fast causes frictions. National borders can alleviate that somewhat, if done correctly. For that, there needs to be international respect of other nations and a desire to cooperate rather than conquer. We clearly don’t have that in the US. But I think we could. If we did, immigration would be gradual and a boon, keeping society from stagnating.
Maybe it’s inevitable, but I don’t want to live in the kind of homogeneous world that our current crop of globalists aspires to. I want to visit China and have some dim sum, eat some pierogis in Poland, etc. I do not want to travel the world just to eat at Taco Bell bell outlets at Disney- [insert country name here].
Vive la difference!
The most prevalent form of Nationalism is in the idea that we all have separate money named after archaic things such as a Pound of silver, or in Italy a Lira if you will.
I’m not sure why we haven’t gone to a unicurrency aside from losing control over everything in our fee fi fo fiefdoms.
Since I brought it up, I suggest we call the new worldwide currency the ‘Wuk’
This is a useful reminder of both the beautiful and ugly uses towards which the forces of nationalism can be bent.
I get the impression that the historical association between socialism and international solidarity stems primarily from the emergence of the former into a world dominated by jingoistic dynastic empires which misused national feeling for their own purposes on behalf of capital at the expense of working people everywhere. Murphy reminds us that it doesn’t have to be this way.
The question of nationalism is on my mind as someone partaking of Italian culture and as an Italian citizen with the right to vote. I also have U.S. citizenship as a birthright — a defining characteristic of Americans.
The problem of nationalism was recently brought forward in my mind. A Fbook “friend” is a well-established journalist who fancies himself an analyst of events. Recently, he bought an apartment in Umbria (poor Umbria) and has started to apply those journalistic skills to Italy, even though he can’t read Italian. Hmmm. This is part of a phenomenon…
Recently, he posted in a U.S. journal of some importance an article about the Italian right and Giorgia Meloni. He described her party’s slogan as God, Country, Family. In fact, the slogan of Fratelli d’Italia is Dio, Patria, e Famiglia. His mistranslation and misunderstanding point to Murphy’s ideas.
Patria is the Italian word for fatherland. Like fatherland in English, it is somewhat loaded. The Italian right also likes to refer to Italy as La Nazione, which in their view means more a people that one is born into (natio) than a geographically defined state.
Most Italians, and the so-called center-left, call Italy Il Paese. The country.
Murphy points out, and I tend to agree:
A nationalism consistent with a politics of care would: defend self-determination but reject superiority; protect culture, but refuse exclusion; and celebrate belonging but resist the myth of purity.
Use of the word nazione implies some pureblooded race of Italians, which makes Italians start laughing.
Yet “Italianness” (l’italianetà is another stumbl-y word) is recognized as a concept: What shared characteristics set Italians apart.
The central issue of nationalism has to be that all human beings have human rights that must be respected. Contrariwise, the idea that a “nation” (as we see with Israel as well as in the continuing U.S. Monroe Doctrine messes) has a “right” to defend itself is bunk.
Being Italian is about culture. Italian culture is complicated by layers of history, by its artistic and literary and culinary inheritance, and by the play of the Italian language and its dialects with other languages spoken here. There is also the tradition of campanilismo, local boosterism, the local specialties, the local saint, the festivals of the local asparagus or leeks or sweet peppers… Meanwhile, Italianness is an emanation of Rome and Roman Catholicism, just as Roman Catholicism is an emanation of Italian culture.
So I tend to agree with Murphy. What has soured U.S. nationalism is the religiously inspired exceptionalism (the divine right of Manifest Destiny) as well as the structural racism (which has also had religious approval). Two hundred fifty years of slavery followed by more than a hundred years of segregation have damaged the country — and any assertions about the benevolence of U.S. nationalism.
In other countries, nationalism is a different phenomenon. For instance, Scotland and Ireland, as Murphy describes…