Most Nationalist movements are reactionary by nature. Nationalism is precipitated by a perceived sense of threat (mostly external) by which the forces of nationalism is engaged to regain control and defeat political/social/economic pressures exerted on the group.

Only through a system of international recognition and respect (the UN is a baby step but far from perfect) whereby each nation state's existence is witnessed and guaranteed by all other states, where there is dialogue and relationships between states treated and recognized as equals can nationalism be subsided.

But this still doesn't guarantee that nationalism will disappear since not all nationalism is based on the survival of the group's identities but can still manifest itself in arrogant jingoism.

Nationalism also begets nationalism in that it is like a pissing contest whereby competing states react to the rising nationalism of other states by increasing their own nationalism leading to an orgy of nationalist fever.

Stephen Walt goes back two centuries for the rise of ideology of ‘nationalism’ but he needs to go back three centuries - The rise of ‘nationalism’ started with the establishment of these ‘United States of America’.

Success of thirteen states to band together and throw out mighty British empire through violent war showed the world what can be accomplished if people unite under the banner of ‘nationalism’.

It is ‘nationalism’ that keeps diverse Texas and California united and led Lincoln to fight a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans - far more than Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or 9/11 attacks.

Europeans have NOT been able to truly unite precisely because its member states were different ‘nations’ before they tried to unite. Germans still remained Germans and French still remained French while agreeing unite under the banner of illusionary EU.

China will be able to unite because Communists know precisely that the conditioning of human brain about ‘nationalism’ and ‘religion’ starts from the education in the first grade or even kinder garden. Hence they force Buddhist Lamas and Muslim Mullahs to teach ’patriotic - nationalism’ courses in their monasteries and mosques.

India is divided by ’democracy’ precisely because India does not force the religious institutions to teach ‘nationalism - patriotism’.

I'd say nationalism can loosely be classified as a mental illness or a psychological problem...

But I thought Multiculturalism and diversity just made us stronger.

Nationalism works for me.

Now if we could only get rid of the Banksters. Seems silly we sent martha stewart to prison and AIG and Goldman sachs just got....bonuses.

Outside of the East Asian core of the global economy, nationalism is not that big of a deal -- especially in the newly peripheral countries of the West.

Western oligarchs are dependent on the East Asian core and so have dutifully thrown nationalism overboard -- not useful anymore for keeping the rabble in line. Instead, the Western oligarchs have adopted the ideology of globalism: we don't care if trade destroys our neighbors down the street - so long as it benefits hundreds of millions someplace else in the world, then it is morally just and wonderful.

Of course, per Stolper-Samuelson, this is really just a mask for the American and European oligarchs' self interest: free trade with the East Asian Core makes the owners of land in the US & European global periphery wealthier (more soybean and lumber exports, yeah!). AND the financial sector grows rich and bloated by skimming off the cream of massive Asian capital inflows -- they provide the Asian core with the service of locating gullible Americans to take on massive debt. First among equals in this regard is the federal government, also the shrunken middle and lower class, and most tragically -- the bright-eyed and foolish American 18 and 19-year-old's who can be saddled with $100,000 college loans and a life of indentured servitude. Of course people who own assets in the US (especially CEO's of companies for example) can monetize these assets by selling them off to PRC/Korean/Japanese/Taiwanese "investors". This is a much easier way to cash in and collect hundreds of millions of dollars than actually working as a CEO and trying to make your company succeed. Just make sure you take some of your millions of dollars and exchange them for RMB at the current bloated dollar value...

Nationalism exists -- but in a Chinese hegemonic world there will only be one form of legitimate "nationalism". "Nationalism" will come to seem very old-fashioned; there really will only be those who support the harmonious and wise leadership of Beijing, and those "anti-harmonious terrorists and demagogues" who do not support "peace and cultural development." The barbarians on the periphery may have their "perverse fanaticisms", and this may lead to paroxysms of violence, but the chances of successful American or European national liberation movements are diminishing as politicians dither and remain ideologically committed to bizarre trade policies -- Atlantic world liberation is not yet a complete impossibility - as are, for example, the emergence of East Turkestan or Tibetan independence, but we are moving in that direction.

Probably the key question is: will Chinese treat Mandarin-speaking upper class Americans like trash? If they do - nationalism may recover. If they (wisely) embrace the upper classes of foreign countries who are culturally Chinese then the middle and lower classes outside China are doomed to lives as slaves in Chinese owned coal mines and farms. The key question is: how strong is Chinese chauvinism? How insufferable will Chinese seem to white and black American rich kids in the 2020's and 2030's. It's hard to tell.... The fate of the world hinges on this question: will Joe Shmo son of US soybean farmer be able to integrate into the Chinese world? If he is not allowed to: America may re-emerge (although re-birth may be more bloody and painful than even 1776-1783 and may not come for a very very long time)....

"Nation: a people with a common confusion as to their origin, and a common antipathy toward their neighbors."
Ambrose Biers, The Devil's Dictionary

The only force that can rival the force of nationalism is consumerism, which, if natural scientists are to be believed (is there any reason not to believe them?) is busily destroying the web of life on which we all depend. And, in our own American case, nationalism and consumerism go hand-in-hand, merrily leading us into one disaster after another.

What the article describes is really a tension between two trends, to preserve identity and to forge common national identity. "[M]odern states also have a powerful incentive to promote national unity. . . . a nation-state is a self-reinforcing phenomenon."

"a steady rise in the number of states" will only happen if this tension is consistently resolved in one direction. Yes, Belgium is blowing apart. But France did not, under the same pressures many times.

Outside threats large enough to threaten the separate elements seem to give extra strength to national unity. Therefore, we can expect to see larger outside threats played up in many places not to separate, but to prevent separatism. There will thus be a tension among threat mongering. That would be a very warlike world.

Nationalism is--or can be--a powerful force in international politics. But a) Mearsheimer's assertion that Realists talk about it and so it must matter; and b) Walt's examples of its mattering, are not necessarily convincing. Any of those examples can be explained in terms that have nothing to do with nationalism. Israel? Sure, the Jews wanted a homeland, and Israel would be the spiritual site of that homeland. But that wasn't nationalism as such--that was self-preservation. Not national self-assertion, but an attempt to avoid having a nation wiped out. Imperial decline? Maybe because of nationalism. Or maybe imperial overreach.

I'm no realist, and I happen to agree that nationalism is important. These arguments for it's importance, however, are unconvincing.

Ignoring the social and economic inequality sapping the strength of any transnational ideology, such as Communism or Capitalism, seems rather a major cause of underestimating the degree to which national identities and interests will eventually be exposed as convenient subterfuge. Communism, of course, has already discovered that social and economic unfairness --not national identities and interests-- have caused its demise.

Nationalism is a very strong force when everyone takes pride in their nationality
last longer in bed

I wonder - if nationalism is as powerful a force as you (and Mearsheimer) suggest, might we expect a breakup (peaceful or otherwise) of sections of the Continental United States...
It's perhaps not as far-fetched as all that. Texas, for example, is spoiling for a tantrum, banks on its differences with the rest of the country rather than its similarities, and frankly is alleged to take more money in Federal support than it pays in Federal tax. South Carolina - who owes its existence to a century of income derived from a system that required the slaves outnumber the beneficiaries of their forced labor somewhere around 6 to 1 - have never really been comfortable with the rest of us..
Perhaps this is simply an idea whose sale has come.

We're still a tribal species. Nationalism is just our modern form of tribalism.

The Nazi party was Nationalist and Socialist.

I dont think its entirely accurate to say that the U.S. and the West exaggerated the strength of transnational communism. I think it would be better to say that the U.S. and the West exaggerated the strength of transnational communism to our own people in order to rally Western populations to fight third world nationalism.

Also I think there has to be some way to differentiate nationalism that is clearly (for now) defensive or just about survival like in South Sudan and Palestine.

I'm surprised no one has yet noted the irony of a self-professed "realist" proclaiming that nationalism is one of the strongest forces in the contemporary world, when the "nation" itself is socially constructed! Now, Walt isn't exactly a traditional realist since he strays pretty far from positivism at times, but to hear him laud the importance of nationalism like this sure makes it look like constructivism won.

It’s always a cause that unites a nation – it could be dictator tyranny, rampant corruption and/or poverty. It is not necessarily a bad thing. When something bothers a country full of people and they hit the roads for a change, it’s good.

Their cause is highlighted, world takes note and change happens as we have seen recently. Only when you diagnose that there is inflammation in the body you can take anti inflammatory foods to control it. The same way, unless one doesn’t highlight the problem how will the issue be solved at all?

I liked this article but the question surely is whether nationalism is a force for good or bad. Nationalism combined with a desire to expand one's borders or nationalism mixed with racism makes pretty toxic music for the wrong sort of people. Perhaps that point could have been made more forcibly in the article.

Its the most powerful political force in the world and ignoring it will come at a price. Nationalism is--or can be--a powerful force in international politics. But a) Mearsheimer's assertion that Realists talk about it and so it must matter; and b) Walt's examples of its mattering, are not necessarily convincing. Any of those examples can be explained in terms that have nothing to do with nationalism. Israel? Sure, the Jews wanted a homeland, and Israel would be the spiritual site of regulation ost , than they moved on to terror and suicide bombings in the second Intifada and lost again, now they realized they cannot beat us through force than they are trying to show Israel in a bad light to the world as if they are up with the standard of the western world. branda branda gsm phone software The law is for the purpose of not giving a hand and funding through the government to organization.

 It would be one thing to use the term “white nationalist” as a pejorative, but it is simply incorrect to suggest Taylor has “re-cast” himself as such. (However, for the sake of argument I will use this term, albeit in scare quotes, for this article). “White nationalists” have no problem with other races promoting their own interests, so long as it does not involve oppressing whites.
But Black and Hispanic nationalists have repeatedly called for the suppression of whites who promote their own interests, and for that matter even non-racial conservatives such as Glenn Beck and jesse jane who happen to oppose their agenda.

Nationalism to a very small degree is ok as it strengthens the nations and make them proud of themselves. But unfortunately, nationalism in most cases goes far beyond that positive role and it really makes for all the worst in people to come out.
A brutal example of a nationalist extremist happened a few weeks ago in Norway. That guy lost his mind (I mean, how sick you have to be to be killing children for almost an hour) in the name of nationalism and protection of your country. He'll be put away for the rest of his life in a room with ceiling fans with lights and the psychologists will have an opportunity to search his mind for the reasons why he did it.
But that's not really the point, the point is we should not take nationalism lightly. Yes, Breivik was a one-man lunatic, but those were known to start world wars.