Nationalism is Essential to Liberalism

So, Nationalism.... Let us define it as succinctly as possible. According to the University of Stanford's online library of philosophy, Nationalism has two definitions: 1: "the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity," and 2: "the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination".[1] Let us combine them for our purposes here. Nationalism is the attitude members of a nation take when they take pride in their national identity and self-determination. However, my argument is not just to defend Nationalism, but to explain why it is essential to Liberalism. So, we must define Liberalism. Again, I must refer the reader to Stanford's library for more detail (as that it is far superior to Wikipedia).[2] The Liberal has but one interest: to ensure the maximum amount of Liberty for each individual within the possible confines of a Society. So Liberalism is an ideology primarily interested in the freedoms granted to the Individual within the bounds of a given Society. This should not be misconstrued with Libertarianism, which is (as I understand) to be a philosophy both striving for the greatest amount of Liberty (sometimes even outside the boundaries of a given Society) and which places great emphasis on self-reliance. [3] Whereas some Libertarians would argue that the duties of the State (such as defense and law enforcement) would be better left to businesses or even the individuals themselves, the Liberal recognizes the necessity of the State. The Liberal also allows for some dependency within a Society (for example, the concept of Welfare which many Libertarians are against, as that they say some facsimile of "Taxation is Theft"). It should also be understood that Liberalism covers a wide array of philosophies, some of which contradict each other. For example, I am a Liberal who fully support the Right to Bear Arms, and this does include assault rifles and automatic weapons, on the grounds that this is a Natural Right and is even implied in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in Article 2, as "Resistance to Oppression" [4] (I cite the French Rights of Man because throughout this debate I will refer to it quite a bit). There are other Liberals who disagree with me on this, saying that the possession of a firearm allows for the possessor to oppress others and thus infringe upon their rights. I am not going to go into more detail, but this should demonstrate that there are various (and often competing) Liberal ideologies. So, how exactly is Nationalism essential to Liberalism?? As stated above, there are many different philosophies running through the veins of Liberalism. This is true within my country, the United States, and I am sure that it is also true within other countries. If, within a single Nation, there are Liberals competing with each other over what guarantees individual Liberty best, there will surely be even greater contention should Liberals from different Nations meet. For example, an Islamic Liberal from Iran will surely disagree on many points with a Western Secular Liberal. To give an example of this, according to Cracked.com (yes, yes, a comedy site), Iran is quite accepting of transsexuality, even going so far as to have the government help pay for an individual's sex change operation. [5] Although they briefly mention the Iranian prohibition on homosexuality (as that homosexuality is banned by the Quran), they neglect to mention that homosexuals are forced to undergo gender reassignment surgeries.[6] The Islamic Liberal, who may tolerate other religions and freedom of speech, would see nothing amiss with this policy as that it conforms to both guaranteeing Liberty and stays within the confines of an Islamic Society. The Western Secular Liberal would find this practice to be appalling, and it would never gain favor in Nations like the United States, France, or the UK. So, what this means is that if a Liberal is to abandon Nationalism in favor of Globalism, and with it accept a borderless world and the multiculturalism that goes with it. [7] There would naturally be contention between the cultures, both from Nationals and from the migrants, even among the most Liberal elements of the two. This would of course be brought to the State reigning over the Nation which was migrated to. And this brings us to the second point of why Liberalism requires Nationalism. The Corporate Interests, which should very much be considered the businesses which have the capital and ability to influence members of the State's governing body, are very much in favor of Globalization. Those Corporate interests will support whichever side the cheap labor comes from, and thus it follows that the politicians who are under the influence of corporate entities and those who are simply lobbied enough will support the side of cheap labor. So, in countries like the United States, Great Britain, and other European/Western Nations, where laws exist which protect the worker and guarantee rights such as a set minimum wage, the Corporate Interests will lobby the government to support immigration. The United States, for example, has a government that has encouraged illegal immigration with promises of amnesty and the establishment of Sanctuary Cities. Although this is decorated as sympathetic to the plight of people fleeing chaotic or impoverished Nations, it is actually an attempt to supply corporate interests (read: donors) with a source of cheap labor. [8] Even when we do not count for illegal immigration, either ignoring it expecting the government to enforce/legislate immigration laws or write it off as desperate people doing jobs "Americans don't want to do" (a sentiment which is wholly untrue), we can still see corporate interests and Globalism in the form of guest worker programs, otherwise called "insourcing". In the US, this is in the form of work visas, most notoriously the H1B visa program. [9] This practice is staunchly anti-Liberal. This forces a Nation's citizens out of the job market, whether that be through outsourcing or insourcing. Of course there is, in most Western Nations, a Welfare System which is meant to provide aide to the disadvantaged. However, depending on such a system to provide for the multitude of victims of foreign labor will only strain such a system and lead to higher taxes in order to help provide funds for this system. In addition, this prevents individuals from taking control of their own lives. People who are on welfare usually receive a small stipend, enough really to survive (in the United States, this check is about $200 per person).[10] Such a small amount is hardly enough to allow a person to take control of their own life, and thus prevents them from the self-determination necessary for the individual to have in order truly be free. Hence, the rise in Nationalist Populism seen in the Western World is a Liberal event. The idea of a Globalist economy only benefits a select few. A final point is that Globalism still requires some sort of governing body to provide oversight. Such examples include the United Nations or the European Union's Commission. In almost all cases, representatives to these institutions are not elected but appointed, albeit by elected officials. However, these governing bodies often impose their wills and agendas upon individual States; for example, in 2012 Romania held a referendum on impeaching what they saw as a corrupt president, with an approval rating of 17%. The overwhelming majority of voters supported the impeachment, but the EU interfered and forced Romanian courts to annul the referendum. [11] This is an example of Globalist bodies interfering with the affairs of a single state in order to preserve the status quo. This means that unelected officials could (and most certainly would) interfere with the goings on in any given State. Imagine it, entire elections overturned because the results do not benefit the corporate and political interests in foreign countries. Globalist allies would support one another without regard for the well-being of any nation's citizenry. It would be Hapsburg Dynasty all over again! By being Nationalists, Liberals reject the morals of foreign lands which fundamentally run contrary to their own National values. By being Nationalists, Liberals reject the exploitation and outright abandonment of their fellow citizens. By being Nationalists, Liberals force their elected officials to answer to the citizens, and not to foreign or corporate interests.