Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

the exclusionary politics

Individuals who believe in liberalism have a responsibility to take responsibility for the control of nationalism because of the importance of shared engagement with each other. It is imperative for members of the society to recognize the importance of investing in the well-being and success of each other. The failure to manage nationalism could result in the resurgence of philosophies similar to those of the Nazi movement. Consequently, the society has a responsibility to demonstrate greater responsibility in managing the threat posed by nationalism.

The military parade that was proposed by President Donald Trump highlights the enduring threats posed by a retreat to nationalism. Military parades are an instrument of totalitarian regimes, which seek to use them to arouse national pride. The reliance on a show of might as a marker of the identity of a people fails to recognize the inherent value in embracing a more robust response to the opportunities provided in the society (Serwer, 2017). It fails to account for the benefits that could be derived from a shared ownership of the tasks facing the nation.

The success of nationalism in the twentieth century was dependent on the instability in the world. However, the modern age is characterized by relative stability in large parts of the world. Consequently, nationalism can be the consequence of the inability of political leaders to take responsible stewardship of modern day challenges. It is evident that the prevailing environment does not favor the long-term survival of nationalism as increased prosperity around the world and the sharing of information increases the desire among the people for immigration and shared experiences (Nairn, 1997). The political leaders across the world have a moral responsibility to meet the modern-day challenges facing their nations with boldness of vision to create an enduring identity for their nations. In contrast, the embrace of nationalism highlights a weak response to the challenges of leadership.

The success of modern day nationalist in the United States lies in the use of economic theory to highlight the willingness of some members of the society to embrace the vision that is offered by isolationists who view the other as a threat to the continued prosperity of their nations. Individuals such as Donald Trump have sought to portray themselves as the savior of the working class who are being left behind by the changing economic and political environment, which fails to provide opportunities for inclusive prosperity. They rely on attacks on the broken system to appeal to the emotions of the common person without proposing tangible solutions.

They also attack foreign aid as an attempt at diverting the resources of the nation to other people. The zero-sum approach to governance employs an insular view of the role of the nation in the world and fails to recognize the responsibility that a nation has to others (Zimmer, 2003). The misadventures of Japan during the Second World War highlight the consequences of unbridled nationalism. The retreat of Japan from nationalism serves as a cautionary tale for any country that would seek to follow the same path.

White nationalists have an effective appeal to a large segment of the American population because they provide a voice to a largely forgotten group in the society. In the fight for civil rights and equality in the society, the needs of the white man have been neglected by the state. The loss of blue-collar jobs that were a source of pride and opportunities for social-economic development for many white men across the rustbelt and the American inland is the straw that broke the camel’s back. A review of the areas where the opioid crisis is most rampant demonstrates that white Americans are the most affected. In effect, in spite of their enduring numerical advantage, it is visible that the white man is quickly becoming a minority whose interests and needs are being neglected. White nationalism has provided a consistent platform for this group to highlight their plight and their needs. The resurgence of the movement in the recent past is a factor of the growing neglect of white men and the impact that it has had on their communities.

Theories of Governance

The evaluation of governance requires a consideration of two leading narratives on the subject. The first narrative is neoliberal and involves a consideration of the role of choice in the decision-making processes of an individual. The other approach involves a consideration of networks associated with institutionalism (Ansell & Torfing, 2016). The decentered theory of governance seeks to address the weaknesses of the two narratives because of the positivism recognition of the inability of persons to make informed rational choices. The agency theory postulates that the goals of an agent may be different from those of the principal. As a result, it is evident that elected leaders may have other incentives to pursue policy outcomes that are inconsistent with the needs of their electorate. For instance, the influence of donors and lobbyists has resulted in a division between the electorate and their elected leaders. Stewardship theories argue that leaders serve as agents of the principal. In addition, it holds that both the principal and the agent have shared goals. Resource-Dependence theories argue that leaders have the responsibility to allocate the limited resources that are provided by agents to enhance the ability of the group to achieve shared outcomes. The theories highlight the role of elected leaders in the governance of a modern society. However, they also recognize the factors that determine the performance of the elected leaders. For instance, it is evident that the resources available to the country and the interests of individual leaders have a consequential impact on their ability to represent the needs of their people. The international “relations” theory captures the increased integration in the modern age (Ansell & Torfing, 2016). As a result, individual countries are increasingly required to implement policies that recognize respect for shared norms and goals among the international community.

Representative democracy versus other systems

In representative democracy, people exercise indirect control in the decision making process by identifying individuals who can represent them. The people vote in regular periodic elections to elect their leaders. Political leaders are expected to share their ideas with the people who determine the ones that they are most comfortable with (Urbinati, 2006). In a representative democracy, the politicians have to continually seek a renewal of their mandate from the voters. In contrast, in a republic the state holds a lot of control over each stage in the decision-making process. Dictatorships prohibit alternate political ideas and contests. As a result, the people are locked out from the decision-making process. In communism, politicians are expected to champion a set of values and ideas that serve to strengthen their country. In a monarchy, the political process is left to the King and his advisors who assist the King to make a wide range of choices.