When liberalism is on the march and nationalism is under siege, a nationalist backlash eventually follows. The ensuing competition between these two perspectives is not a fair fight: nationalism wins every time. Not only does liberalism fail to achieve its most ambitious goals, but many of its most important gains are likely to be reversed. Indeed, the great danger is that a resurgent nationalism will not merely restore a workable balance of power between liberalism and nationalism but will instead turn liberal democracies into illiberal democracies or worse.

Nationalism is more powerful than liberalism for three reasons. First, nationalism is more in sync with human nature. Humans are intensely social beings from the beginning, not individuals who start life alone and form social contracts when they are mature. We are all born into social groups that nurture us and protect us. Nations, like other social groups, are primarily survival vehicles that are essential for our well-being. Their common culture allows members to cooperate more easily and effectively, which in turn maximizes their chances of securing the basic necessities of life.

Second, liberalism alone cannot provide the glue that holds disputatious people together in a state, which is a monumental task. The liberal solution for the problem – promoting the norm of tolerance and creating a state that is largely confined to maintaining order and protecting rights – is helpful, but not enough to handle those rancorous differences that invariably arise among individuals and groups in any society. Nationalism is essential for accomplishing that difficult task, because it provides a common culture that helps create bonds between people who often have profound differences over first principles. In brief, liberalism needs nationalism, but nationalism does not need liberalism.

Third, nationalism, unlike liberalism, fulfills important emotional needs. One characteristic of a nation that makes it so special is that it provides its members with an existential narrative. It gives them a strong sense that they are part of an exclusive and exceptional community whose history is filled with important traditions as well as remarkable individuals and events. Furthermore, nationalism promises people that the nation will be there for future generations the way it was there for past generations. In this sense, nationalism is much like religion, which is also adept at weaving the past, present, and future into a seamless web that gives members a sense they are part of a long and rich tradition. This formidable bonding force is absent from liberalism, which has no equivalent story to tell.

Russia planned coup in Moldova, its pro-West president says

Barton Gellman, a staff writer for the Washington Post, writing
soon after the 1991 conflict, observed that: “Some targets, especially
later in the war, were bombed primarily to create postwar leverage over
Iraq, not to influence the course of the conflict itself.” Gellman
quoted Colonel John A Warden, deputy director of Air Force strategy,
doctrine and plans: “One purpose of destroying Iraq’s electrical grid
was that you have imposed a long-term problem on the leadership that it
has to deal with sometime.” Gellman added: “It gives us long-term
leverage.”

For a history of US Air Force (USAF) strategy in attacking electric
generation and distribution grids, read this USAF University thesis,
entitled “Strategic Attack of National Electrical Systems”, dated 1994:
“The USAF has long favoured attacking electrical power systems.
Electric power has been considered a critical target in every war since
World War II, and will likely be nominated in the future… The evidence
shows that the only sound reason for attacking electrical power is to
affect the production of war materiel in a war of attrition against a
self-supporting nation-state without outside assistance.”