by Yael Tamir
change can happen if the haves are not ready to level- down their
power, wealth, and expectations. Some of the very wealthy members
of society, individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, already
declared their intention to contribute most of their fortune to
promote social well- being. This is not enough—charity is an
honorable act, yet it leaves the haves in control of the have-
nots. What is needed is building social safety nets grounded in
rights rather than empathy.
The present social task is looking inwardly, shifting the social
and economic balance in ways that will allow a more even
This Is the Time • 171
distribution of risks and opportunities. Such moves are likely
to make a difference, yet the most important tool is a moral one.
Making globalism the selfish choice and nationalism the moral
one, moving the weight of justice from defending free trade and
free movement to fighting poverty and closing social and eco-
nomic gaps can change the basic perceptions of public morality.
Most people wish to legitimize their actions and feel uneasy
about supporting immoral, antisocial policies; pulling the moral
and ideological rug from under hyperglobalism, forcing people
to think twice before they turn their backs on their own fellow
nationals, may be the beginning of a significant social and po-
litical change.
21
A Race to the Bottom
Th e Ne w Soci a l Contr act
Making a difference, countering feelings of hostility and fear
while reducing felt injustice by offering a fairer and more just po-
litical order, requires trusting the state, supporting social plan-
ning, and cementing the basis of a new social contract that sets
out innovative ways of redistributing risks and opportunities.
No wonder Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s name is up in the air.
He had, Mark Lil a asserts, a vision of “what we were as citizens,
what was owed to us, what we owed to each other. It was a politi-
cal vision that legitimized the use of government to construct
social solidarity and defend equal rights.”1 Roosevelt believed
that the war had put class envy on the back burner “but had not
solved the problem of creating emotional solidarity around eco-
nomic issues.”2 Hence, he devoted a great deal of time and
thought to the emotional underpinnings of social solidarity. The
programs of the New Deal demanded sacrifices, and Roosevelt
was out there convincing the public that they must shoulder the
burden. He inspired people to adopt a political discourse that
would reduce the role of hostile envy. He managed to ignite “a
spirit of civic friendship and common work, convincing the
disadvantaged that the nation wil support their aspirations and
attempting to convince the advantaged that narrow self-
interest is un- American.”3 This last sentence defines the present
A Race to the Bottom • 173
task in the clearest possible way: asking the haves to look be-
yond their immediate interests must be justified not only in
universal utilitarian terms but also as the national (American,
Israeli, French) thing to do.
Nurturing “committed nationalism”— the nationalism of mu-
tual responsibility that places fellow nationals at the top of one’s
social priorities— may help to rebuild social solidarity. Basing
such responsibilities on things we have in common— norms, tra-
ditions, ways of life and habits of the heart, a common past, and
a desire for a better future— will tighten the social fabric and
make it more resilient. And though there would certainly be dis-
agreements about how to define the American, French, or
Israeli thing to do, turning our eyes inwardly is, in and of itself,
a massive step forward as it will allow us to see things that for
decades have been veiled.
If such changes happen, the state will become more trustwor-
thy. Presently we are caught in a vicious circle: trust eludes us
when we need it the most. “The extent to which citizens perceive
themselves and their families to be economically insecure has a
statistically significant and substantial negative effect on politi-
cal trust.”4 Hence, the deeper the economic crisis gets: felt injus-
tice exacerbates, political trust declines, and public satisfaction
with the way democracy functions is lessened.5 It is therefore not
surprising that among millennials, support for democracy is
plummeting; a growing percentage believe it is not the best way to
govern and would prefer a strong leader free of constraints. There
is no easy way out of this circle, yet convincing citizens that they
can do no better than trust the state they fear is necessary for
moving ahead and changing the rules of the game.
The understanding that the nation- state in its full political,
cultural, and communal capacity, must be brought back into play
is growing. You know this is the order of the day when political
174 • Chapter
21
leaders from both sides of the isle are calling to place national
affiliations before global ones. Bernie Sanders says to Ameri-
can bil ionaires, “you cannot continue to take advantage of all
the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibili-
ties,”6 while on the other side of the Atlantic and the other pole
of the political spectrum, Theresa May repeats the same line of
argument:
Today, too many people in positions of power behave as though
they have more in common with international elites than with the
people down the road, the people they employ, the people they
pass in the street. But if you believe you’re a citizen of the world,
you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the very
word “citizenship” means. Just listen to the way a lot of politi-
cians and commentators talk about the public. They find your
patriotism distasteful, your concerns about immigration paro-
chial, your views about crime il iberal, your attachment to your job
security inconvenient. They find the fact that more than seventeen
million voters decided to leave the European Union simply
bewildering.7
It is interesting to see how conservatives and social democrats
now rally around the nation- state, looking to bring the elites
back home in the name of both nationalism and social jus-
tice. This alliance isolates liberals who keep preaching to the
people that they have got it wrong, that things are going all right.
Rather than listening and seeking ways to make people feel safer,
liberal elites try to make them feel blameworthy (or simply
stupid). But the vulnerable would like to see action first and
apologies later.
The affinity between right and left is such that it is often dif-
ficult to guess if a text was written by a conservative or a social
democrat. Here is one example:
A Race to the Bottom • 175
I’m in this to stand up for the weak and stand up to the strong, to
&
nbsp; put the power of government squarely at the service of ordinary
working- class people. . . . It’s easy to say that all you want from gov-
ernment is for it to get out of the way. But a change has got to
come. It’s time to remember the good that government can do.
Time for a new approach that says while government does not have
all the answers, government can and should be a force for good; that
the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and
markets cannot; and that we should employ the power of govern-
ment for the good of the people.8
This is Theresa May, but it could have been Bernie Sanders,
Jeremy Corbin (her worst political rival), Elizabeth Warren,
or even the new radical Democratic candidate from New York,
Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez. Ocasio- Cortez identifies herself as
a working- class New Yorker who experienced, along with her
peers, the mounting social challenges of the last twenty years,
when life got harder and less secure. She shatters the optimistic
picture of progress painted by public figures such as President
Obama or Michael Moore. For her this is not the best of times.
She acknowledges that things have gone wrong and that some
of her party’s leaders have crossed the class line and col aborated
with the powerful against the worse off.
Ocasio- Cortez is therefore eager to draw a distance between
herself and other Democrats. “It’s time we acknowledged that
not all Democrats are the same. That a Democrat who takes cor-
porate money, profits off foreclosure, doesn’t live here, doesn’t
send his kids to our schools, doesn’t drink our water or breathe
our air cannot possibly represent us.”9
A more centrist Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, is also eager to
distance herself from corporate Democrats promoting the “ac-
countable capitalism act” meant to address an epidemic of bad
176 • Chapter
21
corporate behavior, “especially the tendency of top executives
to value profits over wider wel - being. It would obligate execu-
tives to consider the interests of all corporate stakeholders—
including employees, customers and communities— not just
shareholders and would require that at least 40 percent of com-
pany board members be elected by employees, an idea known
as co- determination.”10
Social policies likes Medicare for all, a living wage, free tuition
for public colleges, a federal jobs guarantee, greater intervention
and regulations of corporate management, and closure of tax ha-
vens are going to become the order of the day. Right and left,
Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives wil
all try to convince the lower classes to trust them (and the state)
in order to form a new cross- class coalition, rebuilding bridges
among all fellow nationals.
It is no surprise that the emergence of social democratic poli-
cies and national feelings go hand in hand. As I have argued,
one cannot advocate at the same time both open borders and a
generous welfare system. Nevertheless, the close affinity between
welfare policies and political closure was often ignored; conse-
quently, both progressives and conservative are surprised to
find out that while they preach for the one they may end up with
the other. Britain is a poignant example: Leaving the European
Union, a fantasy of Thatcherites who wanted to turn Britain into
a European version of Singapore, has been redefined as a way
of boosting spending on health and limiting immigration—
“taking back control” rather than “letting the market rip.”11 In
Britain the frontiers of the state are rol ing forward as privatized
services are taken over by the state. “Britain’s leftward drift can
be seen in one opinion poll after another. A survey published
by Legatum in 2017 found that 83% of Britons favored public
ownership of water, 77% of electricity and gas, and 76% of
A Race to the Bottom • 177
railways.”12 French president Immanuel Macron now advocates
state patriotism, endorsing policies that include a wide range of
solutions to the weakening safety net from pension reforms to
workers’ training and lifelong learning. Not surprisingly these
coincide with stricter control on foreign investments, protection
of local investors, and new tariffs and taxes, are meant to allow
France to actively defend its citizens.
The political balance thus tilts in the direction of the na-
tionalism of the vulnerable rather than in the direction of the
nationalism of the affluent. This is no coincidence, although the
vulnerable associate themselves all too often with murky part-
ners; they are presenting moral y justified social and political
claims. Fighting extremism and a sense of supremacy on the
one hand, while attending to the real needs of the vulnerable
on the other, will make political systems more caring and just.
A political avalanche has started rol ing down the hil ; on the
way, it will erode soil and shake rocks exposing new groups
where new theories could flourish. It might end very far from
where it started. What started as a conservative rebel ion against
liberal progressive elites ends up restructuring the ideological
map. The new political map will be arranged along two dimen-
sions: the first, as Ocasio- Cortez blatantly defines it, “the People
vs. Money,” the mobile against the immobile, the 99 percent
against the 1 percent. The other is the state against the free mar-
ket. Neoglobalism has forced the people and the state to one
pole and the 1 percent and neoliberalism to the other, and the
democratic outcomes are quite predictable.
The buzzwords of the twentieth century— small governments,
neutral public spheres, free markets, free trade, and free
movement— are in the process of being replaced by national
affiliations, economic patriotism, and social responsibility. Ac-
cording to Robert Reich, the real choice ahead is between
178 • Chapter
21
oligarchy and state patriotism based on what we owe each
other. Bernie Sanders seconds: “The major issue of our time is
the rapid movement toward international oligarchy in which a
handful of bil ionaires own and control a significant part of the
global economy.” This suggests that the globalism- nationalism
continuum is in the process of being replaced with a new one
that stretches between world oligarchy and state patriotism.
These new definitions are very tel ing: globalism is easy to endorse;
world oligarchy is easy to reject. It is not difficult to guess in which
direction the political pendulum is moving.
As we enter the age of a new and caring nationalism, a warn-
ing should be aired. National partnerships that are profitable to
some are dangerous to others. There is no solidarity without in-
group favoritism, stereotyping, and other negative side effects
of group membership. Nationalism can be tamed, but it cannot
be
constructed in ways that run counter to human nature and
social psychology. The hope to have patriotism without flags,
hymns, and symbols and a sense of identity that by its very na-
ture is inclusive contradicts everything we know about the way
groups are formed. Four moves must therefore be taken to tame
the new nationalism and make it more liberal and tolerant.
First, the demand to put one’s country first should not be
grounded in a sense of superiority but in a belief that others have
the same right (and duty) to pursue their goals. This universal
view of national affiliations would allow individuals to defend
their rights while respecting other peoples’ national commit-
ments. This kind of liberal nationalism, grounded in universal
national rights, does not turn its back on the world but uses na-
tional entities as a springboard from which one can leap to a
world better governed.13
This approach demands that nation- states will reengage in na-
tion building, as none could flourish without social, cultural,
A Race to the Bottom • 179
and political investment. Nation- states around the world must
be engaged in defining their collective credo. This is not a call for
political unanimity but an understanding that national affilia-
tions are grounded in culture, language, political principles,
traditions, and history or religion, and they must spell out these
uniting features and make them evident by means of education
and public discourse. This also is not a conservative call to discour-
age change, but a cautious progressive call to plan, manage, and
administrate social changes in order to prevent unintentional
destructive results.
Some may fear that an attempt to form and disseminate a
shared conception of the public good calls for a far too pervasive
state intervention. This indeed could be the case if taken to the
extreme. Yet on the other side of the equation lie the dangers
embedded in cultural destruction, social anarchy, and democratic
downfall. Like every other idea presented in this book, the new
wave of nation building should be balanced against other values,
but states must have a raison d’être. If we want democracies to
survive they must have a meaning that goes beyond utilitarian-
ism; they should therefore seek nationalism’s supportive hand.
