Is the National Interest Worth Pursuing?

It is no secret that several considerable constituencies on the right have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the prevailing liberal order. Instead, several conservative intellectuals have sought to enshrine various forms of alternative political arrangements, including integralism, “postliberalism,” and various forms of nationalism. Earlier this year, Stephen Wolfe’s popular The Case for Christian Nationalism made strides in establishing a nationalism amenable to Presbyterian and Reformed points of view.

In light of these shifts, The Institute for Human Ecology hosted a panel to discuss the nationalist movements in light of their compatibility with the Roman Catholic tradition on December 14.

The panel discussion of “Catholicism and Nationalism: Are They Compatible?” was moderated by Ross Douthat of The New York Times, and included such speakers as Michael Brendan Dougherty, Senior Writer at National Review, V. Bradley Lewis, Associate Professor at Catholic University of America, R. R. Reno, Editor at First Things, and Jennifer Frey, Associate Professor at the University of South Carolina.

Douthat began the discussion by noting the history of the relationship between the two phenomena, stating that “there is a fundamental tension between…Catholicism and nationalist movements,” in part because “nationalism as a force within European politics was often associated with secularization.” Indeed, Douthat continued, “that Catholicism…is fundamentally most comfortable with political institutions that are similar to itself.”

Dougherty challenged the assertion that the Catholic Church was universally predisposed to disparaging nationalist movements. “It would depend on which nationalism to have a relationship with,” he explained, countering that Catholicism has had favorable histories with various nationalisms, including in Poland and Ireland.

Dougherty said that while it is true that nationalists “tend to be preoccupied with certain political topics…nationalism is protean. It adopts other ideologies opportunistically.”

The reason, therefore, “why many conservative Catholics are looking to nationalism,” Dougherty elucidated, “is because international bodies like the EU seem to set themselves up almost deliberately as an enemy to the Church’s cause.”

Lewis agreed with Dougherty’s diagnosis, emphasizing nationalism’s “protean” character. He also believed that some of the appeal of nationalism could be explained with reference to “democratic accountability,” stating that “it only exists at the level of nation states.”

At another level, Lewis also argued that the pull towards nationalism is at some level natural, by emphasizing our particularities. While there is always a bifurcation between our particular and universal aspirations, Lewis said, “those tensions are typically managed in some way.” Lewis looked particularly to Pope Saint John Paul II, the former pontiff of the universal Catholic Church, who also, “in the last book he wrote shortly before his death, Memory and Identity,” gave “quite a moving discussion of the nation.”

Reno went further, emphasizing that the particularity of place and nation has been excessively weakened in the face of a universalizing, globalist movement. “I think people in various countries around the world feel like the pendulum swung too far in the direction of…an American-led global commercial empire, and there is a felt need to recover…the national project so that we actually serve the good of all of the citizens of our country,” he explained.

Frey, meanwhile, was concerned primarily with the negative aspects of nationalism, especially Christian nationalism. “I understand perfectly well why nationalism is appealing to people,” she said, “and I lived through the evacuation of the manufacturing of this country in a very personal way.”

“But I just don’t think that nationalism or Christian nationalism seems to provide any solutions to the problems that those communities are facing,” Frey summarized. Indeed, from a Catholic point of view, she claimed that “Catholic Social Teaching not only does not seem to favor nationalism but seems to somewhat explicitly teach against it.” For this, she appealed to the papal encyclical Pacem in Terris of Pope Saint John XXIII, which explains “that the good of nations ultimately has to be ordered to something higher, a higher common good.”

Frey, as a professor, also took aim at the “National Conservativism: A Statement of Principles” document released earlier this year, which included a clause which reads: “Education policy should serve manifest national needs.” Far from seeing education as a tool of the nation, Frey contended that “the goal of education is human flourishing.”

On the other hand, Dougherty maintained that “Seeking the good of the nation does not necessarily mean” it has “no reference to some outside standard, like the faith or the virtues.” Dougherty also critiqued Frey’s contention that education ought not be conducive to the national interest, saying that such a position “assumes that the national interest is somehow anti-human flourishing.”

Frey responded by noting that the national interest “gets defined variously,” according to the whims of select politicians, which can most certainly be “out of joint with the…demands of virtue and human flourishing.”

Douthat chimed in, noting that even if the national interest is taken to be something more lofty than the diktats of a political figure, it will still necessarily come into conflict with the national interest of other nations. Thus, compared to a country like Mexico, a relatively Catholic nation, Douthat asked whether “American Catholics” should take “interest in such a project” of prioritizing the United States’ national interest.

Reno responded that even though the national interest of Mexico and the United States do diverge, he would still have the responsibility as a United States citizen to support the United States. “It’s like saying that ‘my family is not very Catholic, and the people down the street are very pious and Catholic, therefore I ought not to be concerned about the interests of my family, but rather the family down the street.’”

Dougherty, for his part, saw less conflict between the concepts of the common good and the national interest, saying that “the national interest” would not include “that kind of project” which would “excite God’s wrath on our country.”

Lewis agreed, noting that pursuing a country’s national interest likely means ensuring that other nations also are in accord with their own national interest. “It seems to me it would be very much consistent with the United States’ genuine national interest that Mexico have a flourishing economy that functioned properly and was able to support its citizens in such a way that you wouldn’t have massive immigration over the border.”

While it is clear that there are many forms of nationalisms and national conservatisms which may variously earn the admiration of the Catholic Church, it would be a healthy sign for the American polity if national conservatives in the United States would remember the goods of the local community, and of other international communities, in pursuing a project of national renewal.