Natalist Nationalist Policies

I have staked out a position as a limited-government nationalist, but haven't delineated how that differs from standard conservatism or from more right-wing proposals from the alt-right.  Here are two natalist policies consonant with the desire to keep America great into future generations.

A key issue for nationalists is the high levels of immigration, illegal and otherwise.  Much of the apologia for allowing the immigration centers around low U.S. birth rates the need for more workers.  But importing people who lack the intellectual or cultural wherewithal to successfully integrate into our European (and more specifically Anglo-Saxon) society is a death sentence for the Bill of Rights in the long term. (To be clear, I am calling for an end to all immigration immediately with an emphasis on building a wall at the southern border.)   What should be done to ensure the future of our people and a future work force?  Increase the birth rate of the native born.  I know that natalist policies have been a mixed bag; but I ultimately believe that incentives matter and can work in this area.  For example, the high rates of illegal immigration have kept down wages for nannies, and at least one study linked this to higher birth rates of native-born Americans when compared to Europeans. 

Tax policy can provide huge incentives for couples to have children.  But we want couples who are already successful to have children because they have already demonstrated genetic fitness, and because they have the financial resources to provide for children.  I propose a massive increase in the child tax credit that is a percentage of adjusted gross income. The total value of the credit should be in the range of 5% of AGI per child capped at $1 million in income.  That means a couple earning $200,000 per year would get a $20,000 credit for two children.  That might be too generous, I would need expert help to get the incentive just right.  Basing the credit on a percentage of AGI would also encourage couples who already have children to earn more money, which can only help the economy and their kids.

Another key issue is that college bound women waste their peak fertile years in college.  However, for the benefit of our society, it is best to educate women to eventually join the work force.  In order to increase the birth rate, we need some way to encourage college-aspiring women to have babies starting at 18 but still retain the opportunity for college. This might be remedied by a policy that provides scholarship money to woman who delay the start of college to have children.  This policy is intended to have "unintended" consequences.  First, I know that many such women who have a child will not want to return to work or college soon.  My gut instinct, based on some reading, is that removing more women from the work force and returning them to traditional roles will result in a more traditional and conservative society.  Fat young women who have no business being in college, as evidenced by their selection of critical dance theory as a major, are a ready source of "troops" for leftist causes.  Further, pregnancy alters the brains of women; I would bet that it does so in ways that make women more amenable to supporting traditional societal norms.  

I intend to write more about both natalist and nationalist polices.  If you are reading this column by way of twitter, I wrote this for John Rivers, whom I follow.  He makes great points, but I keep thinking that more detail is needed to implement national policy that will achieve the results we mutually desire.  Just hating the left isn't going to change the trajectory of the nation.  Since we are descendants of the people who invented Western civilization and modern industrial society; there's no reason to believe we can't start to figure out how to reverse the current trends in America that put us on a trajectory towards third world dictatorship.

From Libertarian to Conservative to Nationalist

Some of my friends stopped talking to me about politics as I have made a journey from libertarian to right-wing nationalist.  I owe my friends an explanation.  Everyone else is welcome to read of course, but if I don't know you, I may not publish your comments.

First, I want the same things that I always wanted for this country; limited government, liberty, the rule of law, entrepreneurial culture, and an expanding economy.  I came to realize that although libertarians and even conservatives claim to want those things as well, the way they pursue those ends undermines their goals.  It's a little like happiness, if you want to be happy, you don't pursue material possessions and partying, which might seem like the road to happiness. Instead, you pursue worthwhile goals, you find your place within your community and in relation to God.  Then you find joy, a much deeper emotion, and more happiness.

The key break with conservatives is the realization that all men are not created equal.  They may be equal in the eyes of God, or we may value equal treatment before the law for the citizens within our borders.  But not all peoples are equally adept at thriving in a society of limited government and advanced technology.  But this equalist fantasy pervades conservative thinking. They fantasize that majorities of mestizos, arabs, and blacks can become conservative voters; so they refuse to address a key way that the left defeats conservatives, by importing peoples whose children and great-grandchildren will vote for socialism and less freedom.  You can call me racist, but that wouldn't address the truth of my argument.  The left lies and says that by increasing the diversity of America, it makes America stronger.  In fact, racial diversity harms social cohesion, as many studies have shown.  But conservatives eschew truthful arguments for fear of being called racist.  In fact, their fear of being called bad names and not receiving approval from their leftist colleagues, acquaintances, and neighbors always puts them on the defensive, so THEY ALWAYS LOSE the culture war.  As Andrew Breitbart famously said, politics is downstream of culture.  This is why I have abandoned the niceties of policy discussions of tax codes and other mainstream conservative topics.  Until we build a social consensus about acceptable norms that are based on the traditions of our European forebears, we are doomed to extinction by a combination of immigration and being out-bred by an imported permanent underclass.

When one considers what the "good life" consists of, it cannot be a life devoted to mere material possession or self-interest.  Taking one's place in a community of shared values is a key to long-life happiness.  Intact families that produce new generations to carry on our work are the linchpin of this joy.  Our shared values based on shared religious conviction that allow us to agree on how to raise children and set their moral compass.  By definition, multiculturalism is a direct threat to these shared values.  Conservatives have no answer as to how to combat this, because they are unwilling to risk approbation by saying political incorrect things.  They are unwilling to say that Islamic belief is incompatible with freedom and democracy; that a mestizo underclass will always vote for socialism; or that blacks are dependent on the good-will of whites in our society.

Further, our lack of cultural cohesion leads to an atomization that also helps the left; atomized people, disconnected from their communities, are susceptible to believing in anything.  Further, they can be intimidated and made compliant without the intervening structures of church, community, and strong social organizations to protect them.  The belief in unrestricted individualism that underlies contemporary conservative and libertarian thought actually works against their own goals by disconnecting people from community.  In my nationalist view, we seek to take our place in our community and do the work that God grants us; we are willing to enforce our community norms, passing down the religion and traditions of our forefathers.  Because we also want limited government, we are not asking for government enforcement of our norms; merely non-interference in our right to discriminate and censure those who violate our values. Further, we seek a government that doesn't enshrine in law practices inimical to our religious and cultural convictions; so we oppose gay marriage, and marijuana legalization, as two examples.  We recognize that it is a tightrope to walk with respect to government overreach, especially concerning drug use.  But the recent spate of legalizations of marijuana just shows that politics is indeed downstream of culture.

The other key reason for my break with conservatives is that conservative politics only "wins" when it benefits globalists, never when they protect average Americans.  NAFTA was passed with Republican votes, and without unrestricted immigration, might have been good for America.  But conservatives did squat to control the border when Republicans held Congress.  The truck driver from Scranton may not follow politics much, but he knows when he is getting screwed.  He may not vote for the Democrat because they voted for regulations that make his job harder and more expensive; but he knows that Republicans won't ever roll it back. I'm tired of voting for people who say their policies will help Americans in some abstract way, but whose only victories come when big business is helped.  (By the way, the Democrats are even worse about this, but they don't claim to be a conservative party.)

As a practical matter, limited government nationalism mostly will agree with conservatives on many policy matters, and I seek an anti-Marxist alliance with libertarians and conservatives.  The difference is emphasis, the willingness to use so called hate-facts, and brave cries of racism from the left.  Ending immigration, illegal and otherwise is made the top priority.  Allowing Middle Eastern strongmen to enforce the peace to prevent chaos that results in migration crises is another goal.  The policies of the nation will be judged on the impact to the nation as a whole.  As Trump said, "America First."  But ultimately, politics and policy is no longer the goal; I want to change the tone of the culture.  The only policy that really matters is immigration, because your culture is highly dependent upon your ancestry.

Why Nationalism Trumps Conservatism

The conservative critique of Donald Trump is that he is not a conservative.  This tautology begs the question of why it is necessary to be a conservative to secure the Republican nomination and the Presidency.  Americans care little for ideology but care a great deal about putting the interests of all Americans first, so conservatism isn't a winning electoral strategy.  The people are looking for a system to ensure that they are provided a level playing field and the opportunity to better their lives.  The unexpected popularity of Trump and Sanders suggests that Americans think that neither conservatism nor liberalism achieves those ends.  In theory, both philosophies claim to do so, but in practice, not so much.  When a nationalist candidate comes along and tells Americans they are getting a raw deal from their government; it resonates, and for the socialist as well.

Both parties talk to a tough line about helping the average American, but the selective application of their principles results in benefits redounding to special interests which destroys trust in the system.  For example, Republicans had the opportunity, with big majorities under George W. Bush and a reasonable excuse, the war on terror, to put an end to illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration puts downward pressure on the salaries of the lower middle class.  Later, when Obama, supposedly the champion of these same folks, made the problem worse; conservatives beat their chests but did nothing practical to stop his extra-legal executive orders.  There could have been hard-nosed negotiations that put money for extending a wall or other effective measures to deter illegal immigration, but the conservative party just resigned itself to defeat.  Meanwhile, abuse of the H1B visa program by employers such as Disney and big tech firms goes uninvestigated.  Employees, that is average Americans, lack the ability to easily move between jobs, which is well documented.  Allowing foreigners to compete for jobs inside this country, either because of illegal immigration or visa abuse is an unfair tilt of power to employers; but the conservative party cares not.

Meanwhile, Republicans seem willing to push for policies that help large corporations and Wall Street while claiming to do so in the name of the free market.  But we end up with a battle to end just one egregious program, the Export-Import Bank, which many Republicans fought with a zeal we wanted applied in opposition to Obama's illegal amnesty programs.  Further, conservatism has resulted in budgets that just continue the status quo, because it suits the big money backers of the GOP just fine.  Name a single program killed by the GOP when they held legislative majority over the last 30 years?  They are happy to talk a good game and collect rents from big business.

On the left, the ACA (Obamacare) was purportedly intended to help the uninsured.  It's only real effect has been to provide a few new customers to insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries, who effectively wrote much of the legislation.  80% of those who were uninsured prior to the ACA's passage remain uninsured; 20% is usually a failing grade on any scale.  It is so bad, that Bernie Sanders can truthfully run a campaign to end the problem of the uninsured.  A second example: The financial crisis of 2008 swept the Democrats into power in D.C. In response, they passed the Dodd-Frank so called financial reform measure.  Rather than addressing the problems causing the crisis, they essentially promise to bail out big financial institutions by enshrining the "too big to fail" doctrine into law.  The bad lending and the perverse incentives will continue to enrich the banking class, while the liberals claim to be fighting Wall Street for the common man.

But enough of the failures of liberalism as practiced by the modern day Democratic party.  The second reason that nationalism wins is identity.  When I am at work, out shopping or watching a football game; I think of myself as an American, a Christian, and a San Diegan.  (Californian? Not so much anymore.)  My identity as an American is much stronger than my merely political identity as a conservative, and I am a very political person.  For the average voter, the national identity is even more dominant.  Identity trumps ideology, always.  I am an American long before I think about being a conservative or Republican.  Further, nationalism serves as a glue that binds us together across classes.  The overlooked story of the last two decades is the extent to which American elites no longer see themselves as Americans per se, but as part of a global elite.  Zuckerberg of Facebook is seen in Germany undermining nationalism there, by suppressing anti-immigrant sentiment.     The average person sees this and sees a political system where the establishment of both parties is in league with internationalists to the detriment of their own interests.  How else to combat the tilted playing field than to embrace that our identity as Americans and the candidate who most explicitly makes the case to work for our interests, not the interests of the elite and not the interests of the poor and oppressed around the globe.   Conservatism is the answer to a situation of low trust across our society; Nationalism is a glue to engender greater trust.

The other reason for nationalism is that we are again at war with a global ideology.  Communism, fascism and Radical Islamism (by which I mean the current Wahabbist strain of Islam) were and are ideologies intent on remaking the world.  Fascism wasn't defeated by democracy, but by nations acting in their own self-interest; intending to maintain their own identities.  Ditto for communism.  The Soviet Empire crumbled from within because its constituent nations successfully achieved autonomy for their own peoples.  That autonomy didn't usually take the form of democracy, but powerfully destroyed a communist empire nevertheless. Right now, Radical Islamism is attractive because the boundaries of the Middle East have not been drawn to align tribes and peoples into true nations.  Nationalism will be needed to eventually defeat this form of Islam and allow Islam to recede to a  religion and shed its identity as a political movement.  Ultimately, we need nationalism to secure the peace, with each tribe to its own country, secure within its own borders.


P.S. Just after I published this, I saw a link to a John Derbyshire article on the meaning of nationalism that highlights and amplifies some of what I have said; alas more eloquently.

Immigration and The National Interest

I have always been a strong proponent of nationalism when it comes to the United States.

The notion of American nationalism is an ideal worth defending. We are a nation of nations, ironically enough, bound together not by the traditional fascist symbols of nationalism, race, ethnicity, or empire; but by ideals embodied in the greatest political documents ever written, the Declaration and the Constitution. The left sees our riches and feels guilt, assuming they are the result of plunder. In fact, they are the result of trade, invention and industry.

So what are to make of the left's desire for unfettered immigration and the business class' desire for working class immigration? How do they accord with the national interest? I submit that they do not.  While some immigration of skilled workers is in the national interest, wholesale immigration that undermines national values, strains our infrastructure and depresses wages does not help the nation.  We have built the most stable wealthy and freest nation in the world. We are under no obligation to allow centuries of work to be undone by unfettered immigration and a generous welfare state.  I am certain that the left looks to mass immigration to change the character of the nation for that very reason, out of their resentment at the success that liberty and a strong constitutional order have wrought.

Take a look at Sweden, where immigrants from war-torn countries in the Middle East are never turned away.  The presence of so many immigrants is leading to a vast increase in crime and especially rape (actual rape, not imaginary frat house rape.) It is also causing the erosion of legitimate political debate as the parties of both right and left have cut a deal to prevent any debate on immigration at all.  CDR Salamander has the story:

As large boats drift throughout the Mediterranean Sea, waiting to come ashore; as open borders to the east and south minimize barriers to entry, and a political elite who are tuning out the concerns of its own people - and more importantly - want to make sure no one calls them a nasty name - well, where does this go?. . .For immigration to work where the people lack education, technical skill, and cultural literacy; if they come to work hard and contribute to society, most of the friction will come only from the indigenous population who are on the lower side of the economic spectrum whose wages are depressed (another reason to keep unskilled immigration at low levels, it impacts most your nation's most economically vulnerable). However - what if they come to only take? 

. . . 

It doesn't have to be this way. Smart, humane, and economically sound policies are out there to keep things manageable without asking a people to commit cultural suicide or to turn to their darker natures to preserve their unique culture.

Sultan Knish argues that both the left and the business class take their cues on immigration from the concept of empire, which is the opposite of nationalism and that only nationalism can beat back the forces of empire.

The argument between the establishments of the right and the left is over two different kinds of empires. The Republican establishment in America and its various center-right counterparts abroad have attached themselves to the liberal vision of a transnational empire of international law so much that they have forgotten that this vision came from the left, rather than from the right.
This Empire of International Law proved to have some uses for global trade and security, particularly during the Cold War. These practical arrangements however are overshadowed by the fact that it, like every empire, sacrifices the interests of its peoples to its own structure. This is true of the structure at every level, from the EU to the Federal structure of the United States. The system has displaced the people. And the system runs on principles that require cheap labor leading to policies like amnesty.

While I agree that immigration of skilled workers will help our economy, we have a right and duty to control who and how many to ensure that the interests of the American people are upheld.  This is why Obama's policies, which have only encouraged a new flood of illegal immigration are so treacherous.  His message to Central America was almost explicitly a call to violate our borders.  He did so in the very best leftist tradition.

Our only hope is that the forces driving immigration from across the borders are subsiding.  For the first time in quite a while, Mexico did not supply the majority of illegal border crossers into America.  I predicted over a year ago that illegal immigration from Mexico would slow.  Now that it has, it makes it easier to secure the border and get on with overall immigration reform.

The Nationalist Ideal

Nationalism has come in for a bad name in the history books. Hitler, Mussolini, and Napoleon are excoriated for the death and destruction wreaked in the name of nationalism. One might understand the left's aversion to all things nationalistic, especially since it is often associated with ethnocentrism and national purity. Indeed, Obama could not bring himself to wholeheartedly endorse the concept of American exceptionalism by saying “I believe in American exceptionalism — just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Hardly a ringing endorsement. He betrays the leftist roots of his intellectual journey in that one remark. E. Thomas McClanahan cites numerous examples of how the left's aversion to identifying with the nation and its fight, indeed, feeling that they somehow operate in a moral plane above that of the nation results in euphemisms, because they can not bear to speak the words that show their heart is in the fight for our nation. Eric Holder can't admit that radical Islam is responsible for recent attacks. Janet Napolitano speaks of man-caused disasters not terrorism. In Obama's recent West Point speech, he trots out notions of collective security, lumping the war on whatever with global warming as a national security concern, except that he omits the word national.

As understandable as the left's instinctive aversion to nationalism might be, it is misplaced in the case of America. The notion of American nationalism is an ideal worth defending. We are a nation of nations, ironically enough, bound together not by the traditional fascist symbols of nationalism, race, ethnicity, or empire; but by ideals embodied in the greatest political documents ever written, the Declaration and the Constitution. The left sees our riches and feels guilt, assuming they are the result of plunder. In fact, they are the result of trade, invention and industry. We see historically that free societies that engage in trade were the richest. The ideals of individual liberty and responsibility, of tolerance for other religions, of democracy, of free markets have made this nation rich. These ideals, along with a belief in the supremacy of our armed forces' will to defend these ideals, form the basis of our nationalism. These are ideals worth defending. It is no coincidence that they are the very ideals for which we are attacked.

Abraham Lincoln laid out the meaning of the nation during the war he fought to save it.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.