The first step to understanding and analysing is giving something a name. I'm tired of describing political movements like Trump's and Sverigedemokraterna's as 'right-wing populism' or 'anti-establisment conservativism'. A real name is needed so I propose Nativism.
After the election in Sweden resulted in the nationalist Sverigedemokraterna becoming the second largest party here I’ve thought a lot about why nationalist political movements have been doing so well across the West since 2015. Many nationalists are branded right-wing populists in the media and by commentators but most share a strong belief in their respective countries main demographic group and are suspicious of individuals and peoples who have different religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to the parties’ in-group. In a previous blog post discussing Boris Johnson leaving Downing Street I used the term ‘anti-establishment conservative’ to describe the international movement right-wing populist politicians like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and Boris Johnson belong to and while that term works I lament not having a catchy -ism to use. After reflecting on the Swedish election I realised that Sverigedemokraterna’s leader Jimmy Åkesson fits well in the company of luminaries of the anti-establishment conservatives, and that I should broaden the horizon to include a wider range of countries where this movement is active. Spain’s Vox, the Netherlands’ Partij voor de Vrijheid, Italy’s Movimento 5 Stelle, and Denmark’s Danske Folkeparti; all are part of the same broad movement. Danske Folkeparti is arguably the first to run on the anti-establishment conservative platform, and certainly the first to achieve parliamentary success with that ideological mix. In order to fully understand something I think it helps to have a specific term for it with a specific definition, and I think that by constantly referring to these politicians and parties with awkward or borrowed terms it can obfuscate the ways in which they are different to historical right wing movements and how they are different to other strands of right wing ideology. Therefore I’ve decided to use ‘Nativism’ to refer to the Danske Folkeparti inspired anti-establishment conservative ideology. Nativism is an already established term and according to Wikipedia means the “political policy of promoting or protecting the interests of native or indigenous inhabitants over those of immigrants, including the support of immigration-restriction measures” but I think it’s an appropriate term for the wider political project of anti-establishment conservatism as it’s core is that very idea of preferring the in- group to the immigrant. If nativism truly is the basis for a trans-national movement what is the ideological core of nativism? And why has this specific blend of social democracy, conservatism, nationalism, and populism proven so successful in 21st century politics?
Naturally every politician and party of a trans-national movement will have a slightly different platform depending on national and local factors, but let’s start by identifying the concepts which form the spine of nativism.
1. The Nation
While the specific term ‘nation’ is not always used anti-establishment conservatives have a strong sense of belonging and loyalty to a group which we’ll call the ‘in-group’ or ‘nation’. The nation is composed of decent, hardworking, and honest people and is found in its most pure form in rural and working class areas, and while the nation is a powerful force for good it’s constantly besieged by enemies from within and without.
2. The Establishment
The dreaded ‘establishment’ is one of the enemies of the nation as the establishment tries to gain power in order to enrich itself at the nation’s expense. The establishment is not the primary cause of the nation’s woes, but it did trick the nation into accepting changes which were beneficial to the establishment and detrimental to the nation, the most important case being taking in immigrants.
3. The Outsiders
The ‘outsiders’ is the group which is outside the in-group and is often characterised as lazy, prone to crime, and eager to leech off the nation’s hard work. Outsiders tend to be immigrants, and while nativists often try to avoid saying it there is usually a racial aspect to the outsiders. That being said, nativists are usually not shy about their opposition to Islam, which is seen to hold values fundamentally incompatible with those of the nation.
4. The Home
Nativism is generally uninterested in the outside world. Whereas other forms of nationalism often see conquest and greater power relative to other states and nations as inherently glorious nativists prefer to disentangle their home countries from the rest of the world both politically and economically (and militarily in countries which have military forces deployed abroad).
A lot of the themes and ideas I’ve outlined as core to nativist ideology are consistent with other forms of nationalism, but I think the conclusions nativists draw from these basic four concepts are different enough from established forms of conservatism and nationalism to warrant a new label. The first conclusion nativists draw is that the nation needs a strong welfare state. The high trust in the nation means that unlike more traditional conservatives nativists are in favour of a strong social security net, and often think that any faults the welfare state experiences is due to outsiders taking advantage of the hard work of the nation. The second conclusion nativists draw is that the current problems the country is facing is caused by mismanagement from the establishment and the leeching of the outsiders. And finally that the outside world is fickle and confusing so it would serve the country and the nation better to simply focus on internal affairs and leave the world to its own devices. I would argue that what makes nativism such a unique and interesting ideology is how it blends traditionally right and left wing ideas to create two sets of enemies for the nation: the outsiders and the establishment. It’s common for nationalist movements to oppose immigrants and it’s common for socialist movements to oppose economic elites; nativism’s innovation is combining the two.
I think the reason why nativism has proven so successful is how it manages to combine aspects of left wing and right wing ideology to maximise its appeal in an uncertain world. After the upheavals of the Great Recession, the Euro Crisis, the Pandemic, and the war in Ukraine it’s easy to feel like the world is a harsh and unpredictable place. Nativism tries to create a stable home for the nation by ignoring the outside world and trying to instill homogeneity. While nativists are often xenophobic I don’t think their voters necessarily are, I think many feel like they’re in an unstable time and desperately want the stability nativism promises.
I want to be clear that I don’t support the nativist political project, I’m a liberal at heart. This post has been an analytical exercise to better understand how nativists think. The fact is that nativist politicians and parties have been popular for years now across the West and we need to better understand the movement to be able to have intelligent discussions about it, and we need to understand why people are drawn to it to be able to counter it. The first step towards intelligent discussion and understanding is giving something a name, and while I doubt my suggestion will be the one that sticks I’m happy to give it a try.
If you liked this post you can read a previous post about the war in Ukraine here or the rest of my writings here. It would mean a lot to me if you recommended the blog to a friend or coworker. Come back next Monday for a new post!
I've always been interested in politics, economics, and the interplay between. The blog is a place for me to explore different ideas and concepts relating to economics or politics, be that national or international. The goal for the blog is to make you think; to provide new perspectives.
Written by Karl Johansson
Sources:
Comments