For the orator,
Ed Miliband, the nationalist hints sewed into his speech at last Tuesday's
Labour Party Conference were very well done. For the Politician, Ed Miliband,
the rusty trick, i.e, emphasising Britons' ability to "do better" for
ourselves and each other to encourage support for welfare, seemed rather
futile. Would a sudden affection for your nation and its citizens persuade you
to contribute to welfare? If so, is your attitude likely to last long? I doubt
both for one reason: basing your welfare decisions on whether someone is part
of a nation or not, like a member in a club, does not help people appreciate
and develop the ethical tools necessary to sustain the welfare state, such as
the capacity to recognise and respond to the needs of others beyond ourselves
and our community. Once the immediate warmth of nationalism simmers down and austerity
hits, I argue citizens will wonder why they should care about each other and
find very few reasons.
The nation, like any other community with unique
influences, offers its members a firm foundation for building their personal
identity. In it, they learn moral and social values, develop ideas, and feel a
sense of unity with fellow citizens. No wonder some communities often adopt the
nationalist principle of aiding each other before the rest of the globe, for
this reassures the continuation of the nation on which their identities rely. This
special affection for your compatriots therefore appears to mask selfish
motives. Ironically then, nationalist ideology seems to indirectly feed
individualism. It therefore may not compel people to look beyond their own
needs as required by the welfare state.
Of course, many
contend nationalism often teaches one to sacrifice self-interest for strangers:
a crucial aspect of the welfare state. Nevertheless, by emphasising citizens'
common identity, nationalism risks making a nation like an extended family. This
family-like representation could cause a partiality towards
one's nation, which seems only a few doors down from individualism. Yet again,
what is essential to the welfare state, the ability to empathise with those not
very similar to yourself is not cultivated.
Progressive nationalism,
a concept explored by David Goodhart et al in a pamphlet of that name, suggests
that today's multi-ethnic Britain can still have a shared, national identity and
solidarity that can yield more support for welfare. The revised form replaces
the ethnic ties between people with political ones, namely one's legal
citizenship, which apparently indicates they follow the nation's laws and
perhaps pay tax. This national identity is also created by multiple cultures to
suggest a truly integrated, cohesive society, which should urge a greater willingness
to help. However, this not only assumes all citizens fulfill these
conditions, but also fails to acknowledge subtle differences between
individuals and so seems rather insensitive to people's varying needs. Overlooking
such differences amongst welfare recipients, for example, risks creating such
generalisations as "scroungers" and so, indirectly, leads to reducing
support for welfare.
In conclusion,
the support for welfare caused by nationalism, despite being occasionally
strong like in post-war Britain, can, in the long run, decline. Simply, this
seems because becoming used to a common identity and an absolutist duty to
compatriots does not nurture the empathy and consequentialist decision-making
skills required by a redistributive process like the welfare state.
