“Britain can do Better than this”: A Reason Why Nationalist Fertilisers are not Going to Regrow Support for the Welfare State

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.