Forsaking All Others
A meditation on the vocabulary of international relationships
It has become Gospel that the world is flat. All for one and one for all must be the
mantra for mankind. How else can we achieve political, economic, or environmental
stability?
Enter stage right, Trump, Brexit, rampant nationalism bubbling up around the globe. The
cry from globalist acolytes is deafening. Disaster will surely ensue from this isolationist
tide.
To understand this debate we should first define our terminology. Prior to World War II
we relished our giant moat. Hitler was Europe’s problem. The rape of Nanking was
China’s problem. Communism was not a global danger. We had our own problems to
solve. Isolationists preached tending to our own knitting. Isolationism then suffered a
violent death in World War II.
Postwar, the antithesis of Isolationism expressed itself via the Marshall Plan, United
Nations, reinventing Japan and the Middle East, NATO, OAS, The Manila Pact, OPEC,
the European Union, opening China, and the domino theory. America led the first
American Century by defending the world and bringing it together. We embraced the
idea that if we became more interdependent, others would recognize the value of
democracy, free trade and peaceful relationships. Reagan and Thatcher were perhaps at
the apex. We won the cold war. Globalization and Democracy were inexorably on the
march. We pushed Globalization to its limits … and beyond.
There are still acolytes of Globalization but they are now challenged by reality. China has
not followed the script. Their democracy is a thin veneer over repression, colonialism,
and disregard for international norms. Islam has not followed the script. “Death to
infidels” and “Death to America” are antithetical to Globalization. Russia has not
followed the script. They respect only raw power and undermine a unified West at every
opportunity. The UN, NATO, and the European Union have not followed the script.
They have abandoned responsibility and accountability to huge unelected bureaucracies.
The US fell short when we tried to press our values in Vietnam, Afghanistan and the
Middle East.
Nationalism is the new synthesis that recognizes the obsolescence of Globalist
assumptions. Nationalism is not a return to Isolationism, but rather adoption of the
strategy most families use to cope with a world of rising complexity.
Think about your own family. The marriage vow includes a promise “Forsaking all
others.” Every decision made in the family considers first the needs and welfare of the
family. Every family tries to teach and practice a common set of values, and family
decisions are tempered by ethics demanded by these values. Every family surrounds
itself with other families that share these core values. They confer more trust on other
families who honor the same codes of ethics. They are more comfortable associating
with others with the same views about life and the world. Call this tribalism if you
choose, but it is not. The typical family does business with many people outside of their
inner circle. At the grocery, they have no idea who made or packaged the products they
buy. They buy cars made across the world. They buy energy from oil companies
regardless of their concerns about climate change. They go to the most skilled doctor
rather than the one they like best. Nearly every family finds ways to be uncompromising
about its ideals, loyal to its friends and at the same time respect and do business with
countless people with other ideals or vocabularies, so long as promises are kept. And
when promises are not kept, nearly every family understands they must call the offender
to account or find a way to disengage.
You might call this familyism. You make the big decisions for the family, forsaking all
others. You expect everyone else, even your closest and most trusted friends to do the
same for their family. You associate with and communicate civilly with many that you do
not respect or like. You expect integrity and especially require it from your friends. You
do not expect anyone to be perfect, which keeps you alert to danger from any direction.
You compromise on material things but never on ethical principles.
If this is the way we behave as families, why is it so difficult to embrace American
Nationalism as we enter the second American Century?
Michael Moffitt
February 13, 2020