It’s always disturbing to discover you share the same side of an issue with someone you generally dislike, but this can be actually an opportunity to learn more about the other side – usually a valuable experience. So when I read in AL Monitor this little bit:
“I don’t think we should be a nation builder,” Trump said in response to a question from columnist Tom Friedman on what he thought should be the US role in the world.
I had to nod and agree. I have no idea what Trump’s reasoning might be, and I don’t really care.
Nation building is defined by Wikipedia as
… constructing or structuring a national identity using the power of the state.
To me, it usually refers to the practice of gifting a country with democracy; that is, imposing a particular governmental type on another country. We’ve seen numerous examples of this, from Afghanistan (both the Soviets and the USA) to Yugoslavia (Marshall Tito’s attempt to unite several disparate societies into a single country). While I’ve made no formal study of the subject, it’s difficult to think of a positive example. Afghanistan continues to be riven by violence and tribal customs, while the countries of Yugoslavia broke away as soon as it was viable for them to do so, and then some fought a war.
The problem lies in the actions behind the word imposition. Societies run on the interactions between their constituents, which is to say the citizens. When they are voluntary, then they reflect and contain the will of those people, and thus are backed – for good or ill – by those people.
But when imposition takes place, now the interactions are forced; the attitudes are fraudulent, leading to the usual human reactions: resentment and contrarianism. The imposition becomes the focus of the society, not the changed state which is the goal. People are independent creatures, from Hong Kong to Croatia, and when they are directed to have such and such an attitude by a faceless state organism, one which may be in some parts corrupt, then it’s natural to distrust the entire exercise.
To my mind, the building of a nation best proceeds when the very citizens who make up the society (possibly plural) involved recognize that certain customs and attitudes are having a negative effect on the general welfare of the citizenry, and resolve to convince their neighbors of the same. Not all the citizens need to realize this, and some may not for generations. For example, while it was written into the US First Amendment that no law would be made with respect to religion, even 200+ years later we still have some citizens who believe their religion should be favored above all others, no matter what history teaches.
But most citizens, even with dark suspicions regarding their co-religionists, accept that part of the general law, and that by voiding all attempts by the theologically driven to gain favor from the government for their particular sect, we are the stronger for it – stronger than any other nation, because we do not dip our toes into that particularly dark, poisonous stream.
But the point is that we realized it, not someone outside entity that imposed the rule; thus, while some resentment existed and exists, it is not crippling.
So when I hear someone call for nation building, I tend to cringe and wonder how badly this will fail. Perhaps we should consult a psychologist next time: how do we convince a citizenry that there is a better way than, say, committing genocide? Perhaps only the best teacher will succeed: experience.
