Universalism vs. Nationalism

Here's a question: Why do Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the American Civil Liberties Union, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page have such similar views on immigration?

The answer is that all four of the above -- Mahony, CAIR, the ACLU, and the Journal -- have chosen universalism over nationalism. The four embrace different visions of universalism, to be sure, but each one of them is similar insofar as it seeks to transcend passports and borders. Each of the four pursues a trans-nationalizing, world-flattening globalism that regards nation-states as, at best, necessary evils -- and at worst, unnecessary evils. Far better, the universalists say, to unite the world, regardless of color and class, according to common belief. In terms of either religion or ideology, many find it inspiring to think that the whole world might be united into one big system, in which all pursue purity or prosperity. It's all pretty heady stuff, these universalisms.

But there's one big catch: Such universalizing is terrible politics -- the folks at home don't like it, and they won't vote for it. Regular people don't seem to like universalism; they like nationalism, particularism, localism. Electorates, each in their own homeland, seem to reject new world orders, preferring to organize themselves into something that many thought was dead and discredited: the nation state.

Let's consider the four universalizers in turn:

First, the Roman Catholic Church. The notion that all, everywhere, are equal in God's eyes is deep in Christianity; in Galatians 3:28, Paul declares, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." More than any other Christian church, the Catholics -- the word itself is derived from the Greek katholikos: "about the whole" -- have embraced the idea of a single unitary world church, and held on to it, for 2000 years. Meanwhile, other great religions, such as Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, have made little attempt to proselytize beyond their traditional group of adherents. And as for Confucianism and Shintoism, they are even more closely linked to their homelands in China and Japan. So the Catholic Church is noteworthy for its commitment to open borders, as befits an organization headquartered in Europe, yet with an ambitious presence in every country in the world. And Mahony, who leads the largest archdiocese in the US, has said that he and his priests will disobey any restrictive new laws that might emerge from Congress; as the Cardinal said to ABC News on May 16, "The law of Christ -- welcome the strangers in your midst -- is a higher law than the law of the House."

The second universalizer is CAIR and, of course, Islam itself. CAIR has been active in pro-immigration protests in the past few months. And why not? Islam has long been an expansionist religion; TCS contributor Stephen Schwartz has written about the latest surge in Islamicization, financed by the Saudi Arabian government. And it's working: the number of Muslims in Europe has tripled in the past three decades; in Great Britain, more people go to Friday prayers than Sunday church. Meanwhile, powered by strong birthrates as well as a strong message, Islam is on the march not only in Europe, but also in Asia, Africa, and the Americas.

The third universalizer is left-wing internationalism, as espoused by the ACLU, which has been staunch in its opposition to any measure that would do anything to restrict the "constitutional rights" of would-be immigrants. It's fair to say that the ACLU combines a little bit of the old ideology, "workers of the world unite!" / , with a newer sensibility that summons believers to higher states of consciousness and loyalty -- "Imagine there's no countries". Inside the ACLU, Leninism, Lennonism, and, of course, legalism, all combine into a worldview that sees nation-states as obstacles to the realization of everyone's rights and potential. Not surprisingly, ACLU-ers find themselves in frequent alliance with other "transnational progressives,", such as those found in the United Nations, the European Union, and the worldwide gaggle of NGOs.

Fourth and finally, we have right-wing internationalism -- or globalism. During the high tide of globalism, The Wall Street Journal routinely editorialized for the following Constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders" . That's it. No mention of any sort of security. The Journal first suggested this exact wording in a 1984 editorial, and kept after it till as late as July 2001 -- it hasn't been heard much since 9-11. But the Journal's view was perfectly in keeping with such prominent pro-business, pro-globalism books from the same era, works with titles such as The Twilight of Sovereignty and The Borderless World. Even now, in May 2006, the Journal dismisses serious efforts at border-restriction as "short-sighted," since everybody knows that immigrants help the economy; indeed, the editorial page has specifically zapped those who insist on "pretending that more border police will solve the problem."

Looking at these four universalisms, we see similarities and differences. Obviously, Christianity and Islam are different religions, but they are similar, too, insofar as they are both evangelistic, world-girdling monotheisms. And if Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same religious coin, so the ACLU and the Journal are two sides of the same globalizing coin.

Whoa! Wait just a second, some might protest: the ACLU and the Journal as two sides of the same globalizing coin? Is that really true? Just as Christianity and Islam are different, but share certain characteristics, so it is with the left-wing and right-wing globalists. Both left and right "globalists" share a secular faith in abstractions: rights, markets, freedom, etc. In the minds of globalists, national differences should recede as the great ideas of history make their advance.

One individual epitomizes the ultimate similarity of the left- and right-globalists: Tom Friedman. The New York Times columnist is pro-globocapitalist; he has never met an Indian outsourcer he didn't like, but at the same time, he admires Karl Marx. Am I smearing him? Decide for yourself; this is page 202 of Friedman's book, The World Is Flat,:

Reading The Communist Manifesto today, I am in awe at how incisively Marx detailed the forces that were flattening the world during the rise of the Industrial Revolution, and how much he foreshadowed the way these same forces would keep flattening the world right up to the present.

Friedman's awe of Marx inspires him to quote the bearded sage for a full page in his book; according to Friedman-reprinting-Marx, the bourgeoisie and capital are flattening: "All fixed, fast, frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned."

Old opinions swept away? Solid things melting into air? Sounds like the gleeful vision either of the Fortune 500, putting forth a new restructuring plan, or of the ACLU preparing a new lawsuit. But there's another voice to be heard here, that of Joseph Schumpeter; the gloomy Austrian-American economist admired capitalism for its power, but put equal emphasis on both halves of his famous phrase, "creative destruction." Schumpeter worried that capitalism would undo itself by undermining the original habits and virtues that made capitalism possible in the first place.

And so we come to the problem with any and all of these isms: they make for unpopular politics. Let's review: