Cosmopolitanism or Chaos — Defending Atlanticism in the Age of Nationalism

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

The conclusion of the Second World War opened a truly revolutionary possibility that had only been philosophically alluded to since the French Revolution: an authentic cosmopolitanism. Even in the rarefied air of postwar realignment, cosmopolitan ethos—prioritizing human rights, democratic global governance, and the free movement of people and goods—remained geographically and culturally bounded to the West. Nonetheless, the next six decades saw this philosophy realized through the creation of the United Nations, NATO, and the crown jewel of integration, the European Union, with its common currency, single market, and freedom of movement for its citizens. As flawed as some of these institutions may be, they have ensured rising levels of freedom and peace in the West unprecedented in modern history.

Perhaps the most important cosmopolitan value to develop in this period was transnational solidarity, designed to force prejudicial and corrosive nationalism—the ideology that led to two world wars—back into its premodern box. Nowhere was this ethic more evident than in the transatlantic relationship between the United States, Canada, and their democratic European counterparts. Atlanticism, as this relationship became known, has suffered a crisis of confidence after decades of corporate-driven globalization, where profits were distributed in radically uneven fashion, often diminishing middle classes on both sides of the Atlantic. Outside the West, the “rise of the rest” has been indefinitely delayed in some regions through ill-conceived military interventions and crime syndicates waging bloody wars in Latin America, fueled by firearms from the U.S. What is most shocking is not the waves of migrants fleeing failed Western policies, nor rising populism as a reaction to unresponsive democracies and social pain. It is the misnomer that immigrants, culture, and democratic allies are the root causes of this pain. What is truly baffling is the delusional rejection of Atlanticism.

Courtesy of the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs: "The U.S. post-9/11 wars have displaced at least 38 million people in and from eight countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya, and Syria"

Faced with the interlocking crises thrashing the West, the response has been the self-defeating cry of “My nation first!” The return of nationalism is so historically divorced from its origins that nationalists fail to realize they are actually yelling, “My country alone!”—a position of weakness. The nation-state, born out of the ashes of the Thirty Years’ War, was conceptualized by monarchs and political elites seeking a stable balance of power and the principle of non-interference, resulting in the Peace of Westphalia. This shift enabled them to expand taxation, build bureaucratic institutions, and consolidate authority over increasingly centralized territorial domains. It also allowed monarchs to get back to the serious business of socially and culturally dominating their own subjects instead of warring with their neighbors. In short, the nation-state constructed the very institutions that authoritarian populists now seek to destroy in the name of “saving the nation”—a contradiction seemingly lost on its advocates. Nowhere is this failure more evident than in Britain’s exit from the EU, which has only intensified the very problems “Brexit” was designed to resolve. While the UK’s decline may be enough to dissuade most calls for secession from the EU, transnational solidarity between democracies faces a much greater challenge: questioning whether Atlanticism is a friend or foe.

As the United States retreats from the world it in no small part created, attacking its allies with greater verve than the world’s cruelest despotisms, the time for a revaluation of Atlanticism has never been more critical to the survival of the West. Atlanticism and the cosmopolitanism it embodies are necessary cornerstones of a free Western world—if the West is to remain a viable political concept at all. Large portions of Europe now view the U.S. transactionally, as a necessary ally reluctantly joined to balance against a bellicose Russia and a rising China. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the rest of the free world is smeared as free-riders—or worse, quiet adversaries posing as friends. To lay blame purely at the feet of the U.S. and its current nationalist administration would be to ignore the fact that Europe and Canada have fallen behind in defense and economic stability, other pillars of a free West. However, the current cracks in the transatlantic relationship have largely been widened by an American administration that exists in an alternative reality where neither history, economics, nor solidarity exist. They find common cause only with fellow nationalists seeking to manufacture national “greatness” that will undoubtedly result in Brexit-style failures; American and European nationalists have betrayed the West.

The reality of "America First"

This space is a response to the breakdown of the transatlantic relationship in general and the challenge it presents to cosmopolitan ethos in particular. The political myth of the national “golden age” has produced nostalgia for eras that never existed—before Atlanticism, before globalization, before transnational democracy. Although such times exist largely in the political imagination of populist movements, the failures of the present cannot be ignored. This is a space dedicated to the unapologetic defense of cosmopolitan ethos, for citizens of the world—or as one nationalist sardonically phrased it, “citizens of nowhere.” The explosion of nationalism has been widely observed, while responses to it have often been tepid and uninspiring. This is a space for revolutionary global citizenship. Cosmopolitans must remember the Stoic adage, “The obstacle is the way,” using this moment of democratic backsliding to turn “citizen” into a stronger identity than “nationalist.”

Citizen, as the heir to the monarchical “subject,” has never been well formulated. The former has often been reduced to a mere legal status, while the latter connoted everything from one’s state-imposed religion and culture to one’s exact place in a rigidly stratified society. The freedom to define one’s own identity has been one of the greatest hallmarks of this shift, but it has also left many feeling interpersonally insecure and politically marginalized, leaving the concept of citizenship wanting. What better time to reopen the discussion on citizenship, as authoritarians on both sides of the Atlantic attempt to return people to their place as subjects?

While the current situation feels—and often is—dire, the promise of global citizenship and the endurance of the transatlantic relationship beyond its current turmoil should fuel a new democratic upheaval. Calls for Canada to join the European Union, while far-fetched at the moment, signal a growing desire for greater international togetherness. Perhaps the European Union was merely a necessary step toward a Democratic Union of the Free World—a political formation where nationality, race, and religion are truly emptied of political significance, and the only requirement for membership is an unflinching commitment to democratic ideals and institutions. Liberal democracy has long promised that such an outcome could be achieved within nations, yet this proposition has reached its limits, as large shares of national residents would rather leave their own countries than live under their current governments. Perhaps nationalism is not so powerful after all.

In the 21st century, Atlanticism must emphasize participation in democratic governance, solidarity in human rights, and new political formations beyond the nation-state. Let the future be inherited by those who choose their world over their flag.