I am writing this essay after watching Ezra Kelin interview Yoram Hazony, a growing figure on the right and a key proponent of so-called National Conservatism (which henceforth I will call NatCon as he does). You can find the lengthy interview here:
As always, Mr. Klein conducts an excellent and respectful interview during which many inconsistencies with this movement are exposed. I want to focus on one important issue (ok, two) that was not.
First, what exactly is NatCon? As Hazony explains it, individuals have primary allegiance to their families. Families that have enough in common come together to form tribes, and tribes, when they have enough in common, come together to form nations. Nations must have enough in common to succeed. Hazony call this “internal cohesion”. National cohesion is weakened when too many new immigrants enter a country; Hazony specifically states the acceptable level is a 15%. When this level is exceeded, as has recently occurred in the US, all sorts of problems ensue.
What are the things that must be shared by tribes in order for them to form a nation with sufficient “cohesion” to succeed? Hazony, who identifies as modern orthodox (as do I) gives the game away right from the start when he refers to the tribes of Israel as described in the Hebrew Bible. Religion is important for cohesion. Later on he states explicitly “usually it’s a language, often it’s a religion”. What is not allowed, according to Hazony is cohesion based on “racialist” ideas. (Note: to differentiate between “racist” and racialist” is to split hairs.)
For none of this does Hazony offer any research, or data. He simply states his belief in how humans come to associate in different groups and what holds these groups together and what, in his view, is unacceptable, namely race-based groupings. There is much research that tribalism is prevalent in all social mammals and primates, and certainly in our closest relatives the Great Apes. No research supports Hazony’s contentions about how they form.
Also a matter of Hazony’s faith are the dangers of multiculturalism, presumably because it inhibits the formation of “cohesive” tribes.
Like many conservatives before him, Hazony falls prey to the myth of the “past perfect”. In his view, unlike today, nobody in 1975 doubted that the US was “a nation”. Today, by contrast, many people feel little affinity to Americans who belong to different “tribes”. What has changed since then? According to Hazony it is the proportion of the population that is foreign born. It is true that this proportion has been growing. In 1975 it was 4.7%, today it is estimated to be 18.5%. Hazony refers to this immigration, which many of us would call moral and compassionate, “abusive”. So this must be the problem, n’est ce pas?
Anybody with a good grasp of logic will tell you that association is not proof of causation. What else might have changed since 1975?
In 1975, no homes in America had internet access because the internet did not exist. Today, 93% of US households have internet access. Could the growth of the internet be a cause of the lack of cohesion?
In 1975 only about 16% of the US population had a credit card. Today, that number is around 75%. Could holding a credit card be a cause for lower cohesion?
In 1975 approximately 24% of the US population had flown on an airplane. Today that number is approximately 60%. Could flying on an airplane, or travelling in general, be a cause for lower cohesion?
In 1975 around 15% of the US population was considered obese by today’s standards. Today, that number is 42%. Could rising obesity be a cause of lower national cohesion?
OK, I hear you, “enough already”! Let’s discuss things that might actually be linked to national cohesion.
Actually, all of the things I mentioned above could conceivably be linked, in one way or another, to national cohesion. Let’s explore.
All new forms of information technology, including the printing press, radio, and television, have been associated with societal tremors. Many studies suggest that the internet, especially with its attendant disintegration of our information ecology might be playing an important role in increasing anger and alienation in society.
Possession of a credit card is associated with a degree of spending freedom and a measure of the enormous changes that have taken place in our economy and how we spend money. Yes, possession of a credit card might be associated with changes in society that lowered cohesion.
Flying on an airplane, a surrogate for travel in general, certainly exposes people to other cultures. Some people respond favorably to diversity while others need much more “oneness and sameness” to be secure and happy. So yes, increased travel might certainly have contributed to our lower sense of cohesion. (For background I highly recommend this interview with Karen Stenner in which she discusses the Authoritarian Dynamic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000y7sq)
Could rising obesity be related in some way to national cohesion? While there are many causes for the rise of obesity in the US, one is worth thinking about in this context. Obesity is more prevalent in both people who are struggling financially and people who are depressed (these are not unlinked). As we will now see, the US economy has not been working well for most people in America, starting with Hazony’s magical 1975 (or so). Obesity may not be a cause but a symptom of what is actually causing a decline in the sense of cohesion in our country.
In 1980 the highest tier of income in the US was subject to a 70% marginal tax rate. In 1981 Ronald Reagan lowered the highest tax rate first to 50% and then to 28%. Today, it sits at 37%. This was the beginning of the rigging of the US economy in favor of the rich at the expense of everybody else. In 1975 about 38% of all US households had two earners. Today, 60% of households do. In 1975 In 1975 25% of US workers belonged to a union. Today, that number is only 10%. Sorry buddy, you are on your own.
We can summarize what has happened to the US economy with one measure. The Gini Coefficient is a measure of the income disparity in countries. Gini is measured from 0, at which all incomes in the country are the same, to 1, at which only one person has all the income in the country. In 1970, the US Gini was 0.394. In the year 2000, the Gini was 0.408 and today the estimated Gini in the US is 0.485. In fact, rising Gini and rising income disparity have been associated with an increase in deaths of despair (e.g. suicide and drug addiction) and even to a lower life expectancy. Most Americans are aware that our country has a high degree of income disparity but their conception of how much income is skewed is way short of the actual. Have a look at the following short video if you want to find out for yourself:
I would argue that income disparity is the primarily responsible for our social ills. Hazony has chosen to blame a different change. Of course, being wrong is not dangerous so I still owe you an explanation of why I believe NatCon is not only wrong, but dangerous.
It is perfectly understandable that Hazony would put racism off limits. After all, he is Jewish and the dangers of the race-focused Nazi experiment are well known. Hazony, who is demonizing immigration knew he had to distance himself from racism. By saying that racism is off limits but religion is fair game Hazony displays an acute misunderstanding of history and the human drive for tribalism. Religion is one of the principle means by which people sort themselves into tribes and it is not one that lends itself to easy compromise between tribes. There is little room for accommodation when you believe that you, but not they, are following the word of god.
Religious-based violence is likely responsible for more violence since the beginning of the common era, and more human death than any cause other than infectious disease. To give but one example, the Thirty Years War, which involved much of Western and parts of Eastern Europe famously resulted in the deaths of nearly 30% of the populations of the involved nations. Religious violence is still common today.
Hazony’s attempt to insulate himself from accusations of racism and thereby from the stench of Nazism fares even worse when examined more closely. Antisemitism was indeed central to Nazi thinking. Of course, antisemitism in Germany preceded the Nazis but it alone would likely not have been sufficient for the Nazi party to come to power. Hazony mistakenly states that the slogan “blood and soil’ was Nazi in origin. Indeed, the Nazis made wide use of this slogan but its origins trace back to 19th Century Germany. Blood and soil was an expression of the Volkisch movement which involved ideas of agrarian romanticism, populism, and romantic nationalism, a s well as Arian superiority. This tie to the land is not surprising as most (all?) nations become attached to their lands. It is not accidental that “fatherland” and “motherland” are frequent expressions of nationalism. When JD Vance refers to his ties to the land in which his ancestors are buried, he is simply expressing a variation of the Volkisch ideology as described by Theodore Fritsch, a German publisher and inspiration for many among the Nazi leadership.
Despite Hazony’s great pains to distance himself from explicit racism, his formulation provides only a veneer of separation. His lack of understanding that it isn’t strictly racism but any form of strong tribalism, be it religious, culture, skin color, appearance, economic class, or belonging to the mythic Volk that predisposes humans to commit mass violence. Hazony claims that forms of violence must be done now in order to secure a more perfect future. Sound familiar?
Hazony’s new NatCon political theory is simply intolerance in a new form.