Chlorophyll

In a slight bit of deviation from the typical Green 'globalist' perspective (some might say 'humanist', but I won't get into that debate here), something has struck me quite often lately from a 'nationalist' viewpoint.

I am not a nationalist by any stretch of the imagination. I continue to think that the concept of 'nation-states', separated and defined by borders for the purpose of controlling the bulk of the population in them by those who happen to hold the reins, is about as archaic as the average water closet.

However, one of the few advantages granted by the concept of 'nationalism' (e.g. unifying behind a central ideal or culture that defines the society within the aforementioned borders) is that I believe it tends to control some of the excesses by which principle can be abused for the sake of the interests of power or for the obfuscation of that principle for the sake of forcing a direction.

For example, the 'Terror' of the French Revolution provided an ideal example of what lengths people will go to once released from a condition of servitude to an attachment with which they could not personally identify. In this case, it was difficult to identify with the Bourbons unless you happened to be one and France was only France if it meant that the Bourbons were in control. Once that barrier was removed, the populace went wild (I realize that I am drastically oversimplifying here; don't bombard me with historical corrections, please.) However, what eventually led to the cessation of the 'Terror' was an overriding sense of nationalism, later fueled by Napoleon into vast conquests and the 'advancement' of the French state. Clearly, nationalism existed prior to this point, but the French experience offers a glimpse into the sudden change from detached involvement ('we all happen to be subjects of the Bourbons who speak the same language') to direct involvement ('we are all French people who share a language, a culture, an outlook molded by our collective experience and history.')

A contrary example from around the same time period is the American War of 1812. Despite the attempts by Madison to fuel citizen and Congressional anger by shouting loudly about the impressment of American merchant marine soldiers into the Royal Navy, a significant segment of the young nation (mostly in New England) was drastically opposed to a declaration of war against the English because it would hinder their economic fortunes. Putting aside the cynicism that says that America was created as an economic endeavor and remains one today, regardless of the needs of its populace, one has to be struck by the fact that almost every war in the history of the United States has faced this same issue: one segment (often geographic, often economic) or more are radically opposed to a war or a drastic change in society (e.g. slavery) and it threatens the very fabric that holds the nation together.

The US is not unique in this respect, but I do believe the problem is more prominent in our society precisely because there is no unifying cultural identity among 'Americans'. Despite the attempt by many to define what it is to be 'American', that image, always faulty, is also always based on principles that are only loosely defined because the founding principles of this nation are only loosely defined.

'America' is supposed to be defined by 'freedom.' OK. Freedom to do what? Or freedom from what? Freedom of speech? Well, certainly, but only if you say the right things at the right time or risk being persecuted for speaking at all; and ensure that you don't violate public obscenity standards which differ drastically from one locale to the next and often from one moment to the next; and only if you're sure to include a reference to 'God' in every mass public appeal; and... But, wait, that reminds me: there has to be freedom of religion. But what about freedom from religion? What about genuine freedom of religion, where practices and observances are not hindered by a calendar explicitly guided by one religion that happens to be that of the majority?

New England's interest in 1812 was the prosperity of its shipping industry. The southern states' interest was in preventing the impressment of its seamen. The South's interest in the 1860s was in preserving its economic model. The North's was in breaking the influence of the less populous South on the national government's policies on westward expansion (among other things.) The Red States' interest in 2004 was in fighting the war on terror behind a president who believed firmly in a 'God' and forswore acceptance of cultural change. The Blue States' was in rejecting that model as simply too backward for a modern society (despite the 'Blue' candidate's firm acceptance of same but with a different tablecloth...)

Again, principles. Without an overriding culture (indeed, with a seemingly popular interest in avoiding one or firmly accepting the splintering of one, greatly abetted by our archaic 'independent state' mechanism), the United States depends on principles to define its 'togetherness'. But those principles are either poorly understood, ill defined (intentionally or otherwise), or simply not accepted by one segment of society or another. In the opinion of many (and partially shared by me), those principles included in the founding documents of this nation were vaguely written so as to be as all-encompassing and capable of compromise as possible. But when interpreted as rock-solid 'truths', there is no room for compromise; no room for mutual identity; no room for a cooperative and progressive society. There is no way to define what it is to 'be American' and, in fact, the only interest in same is guided by an effort to exclude the segment of the citizenry that does not think along the same lines as the defining group. 'Unity' is maintained only by adhering to a set of ideas that the other group will doubtlessly find alien, if not genuinely combative or obstructionist. Hence, conflict abounds and little progress is made, making the wealthiest nation in the world also one of its most socially stunted.

By the same token, the Green Party in the US faces the same problem. What exactly does 'grassroots democracy' mean? Where does it begin? Where does it end, if at all? What is the proper exercise of 'decentralization'? How inclusive is 'social justice'? Is it an organization of Gandhis, using simple truths that don't quite broach the question but try to guide the answer for those of common sense (the world's reigning greatest oxymoron)? Or an organization of Robespierres, taking the root meaning of those principles and phrases to their ultimate expression, that of the presumably 'virtuous society'?

Understandably, there is the danger of too easily defining what it is to 'be French', 'be American', 'be Green', leading to the same kind of twisted exclusion as with the looser framework. For my part, I always avoided the arguments voiced by many that certain actions or opinions were 'unGreen'. A little too McCarthyite for my taste and laughable when held up to any serious criticism or examination. By the same token, most often those who use nationalism as a weapon are idiots like LePen who rant and rave about what it means to 'be French' and who is not taken seriously by the bulk of the French populace who are already comfortable within the environs of their national culture. By contrast, the American populace is bombarded daily with examples of what it means to 'be American' or, even more importantly, what it means to 'be unAmerican' and how one should be persecuted for it by the majority (e.g. those the media and the reins-holders order to do so.)

I don't think that we are capable of solving the American problem with 'principled identity' barring a major revolution. But if we are to progress toward that revolution, the Greens will have to come to some solution of their own identity vis-a-vis their 'founding principles' and perhaps that is the best use this website could be put to?