I wish I had more time to give you a deeper and more comprehensive reply. But speaking about liberal nationalis. Since you promote open borders/free migration, I recommend you to follow and read Clara Sandelind. She is one of my favorite researchers regarding liberalism, migration and nationalism. One of her key points are explanations why liberal nationalists are against free migration and universalism/cosmopolitanism
I think the nationalism question is best answered backwards. Try to imagine a state which has NO shared national feeling holding it together. Assuming that state doesn’t immediately collapse into smaller units which DO have national feeling, how does it have to be governed? And how is that different from how a state WITH such shared national feeling can be governed?
Not all nation states are democracies. But I insist that no non-nation states can be democracies. Why? Because the majoritarian principle requires that the people who lose an election regard the people who win an election as their fellow countrymen (and women), and therefore as people they might persuade to vote differently next time.
In “Notes of Nationalism”, Orwell makes clear he’s using the word to describe any irrational fixed affiliation to any cause at all:
“I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.”
“It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer.”
I wish I had more time to give you a deeper and more comprehensive reply. But speaking about liberal nationalis. Since you promote open borders/free migration, I recommend you to follow and read Clara Sandelind. She is one of my favorite researchers regarding liberalism, migration and nationalism. One of her key points are explanations why liberal nationalists are against free migration and universalism/cosmopolitanism
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=ChrRm0sAAAAJ&hl=en
boundedsolidarity.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/does-liberalism-need-nationalism/?fbclid=IwAR3VL1pKpucvR0ZQxd75Xu4cqbiV76vfsk7uM5ui8kwF5sMq2YuvQieJpsU
I think the nationalism question is best answered backwards. Try to imagine a state which has NO shared national feeling holding it together. Assuming that state doesn’t immediately collapse into smaller units which DO have national feeling, how does it have to be governed? And how is that different from how a state WITH such shared national feeling can be governed?
Not all nation states are democracies. But I insist that no non-nation states can be democracies. Why? Because the majoritarian principle requires that the people who lose an election regard the people who win an election as their fellow countrymen (and women), and therefore as people they might persuade to vote differently next time.
Frisking shoddy scholarship from CIS on one day, shoddy scholarship on Nationalism on another.. not all heroes wear capes :)
The Orwell definition is a great one and should be widely distributed....or read....out there for folks to engage with....
In “Notes of Nationalism”, Orwell makes clear he’s using the word to describe any irrational fixed affiliation to any cause at all:
“I am only using the word ‘nationalism’ for lack of a better. Nationalism, in the extended sense in which I am using the word, includes such movements and tendencies as Communism, political Catholicism, Zionism, Antisemitism, Trotskyism and Pacifism. It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one’s own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.”
“It is also worth emphasising once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer.”
American nationalism would be that Delacroix painting but with Sydney Sweeney