Alberto Mingardi writes,

Chris [Christopher DeMuth] seems to believe that nationalism is sort of a “natural” loyalty of people, which is being jeopardized by international institutions. But is it? Historically nationalism has competed, sometimes ferociously, with other loyalties, beginning with religion and the family (the two main targets of one of the favorite policies of nationalism: a national education system). I won’t argue against the idea that human beings are gregarious and need to belong to something. But that something is more often than not a club, an association, a football team, or a municipality. The nation is quite a remote object: in some countries, it represents a very strong element of identity; in some, it doesn’t. It is more often than not a (political) manufacture, not a spontaneous offspring. In this case, it typically grows by crowding out other loyalties: most notably, indeed, religion.

I have watched several videos from the National Conservatism Conference that was held in DC last month. For me, the most provocative talks were:

Paulina Neuding on how immigration is affecting Sweden.
Mary Eberstadt on social conservatism.
J.D. Vance on libertarianism

Both Eberstadt and Vance scapegoat libertarianism for the opioid crisis. MY thoughts:

1. I would like to see this case made more carefully. Specifically, which libertarian-influenced policies can be shown to have caused the crisis?

2. This reminds me of the way that the left blames the financial crisis of 2008 on “an atmosphere of deregulation” or “neoliberalism,” a narrative that I find unpersuasive. In fact, in the decades prior to 2008, regulations were promulgated with the intention of tightening the safety and soundness of banks. Risk-based capital regulations were a particular tool. The fact that these regulations did not work, and in fact had perverse effects, is an indictment of regulation, not of de-regulation.

And of course, there is also a counter-narrative on the opioid crisis. Jeffrey Miron and others write,

We instead suggest that the opioid epidemic has resulted from too many restrictions on prescribing, not too few. Rather than decreasing opioid overdose deaths, restrictions push users from prescription opioids toward diverted or illicit opioids, which increases the risk of overdose because consumers cannot easily assess drug potency or quality in underground markets. The implication of this “more restrictions, more deaths” explanation is that the United States should scale back restrictions on opioid prescribing, perhaps to the point of legalization.

I am not here to argue for this view. That is not the point of this post.

3. I am surprised to hear that libertarianism has been such a powerful force in American politics and society. I think our record is one of few victories, many defeats. The biggest win was that when the country was fed up with the Vietnam War, we got the draft abolished (but even now there are mumblings about “national service”). We teamed with progressives to legalize marijuana and gay marriage, in the latter case with help from the courts. But when it comes to government spending, unfunded liabilities, the expansion of the Administrative State, and the perversion of the principle of federalism, we have lost big time.

4. Libertarians already were thrown under the bus in the George W. Bush administration. No Child Left Behind. Expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs. Nation-building. The whole “compassionate conservatism” motif.

5. I don’t think that what the Republican Party needs right now is a circular firing squad. Let the Democrats march under the banner of social justice, and Republicans could counter that with the principle of equality under the law. Let the Democrats champion socialism, and Republicans could counter by championing capitalism. Let the Democrats focus on America’s guilt as an oppressor, and Republicans could counter with a focus on the moral progress of America. Let the Democrats attempt to raise the status of non-traditional sexual identity, and let Republicans attempt to raise the status of grandparents.

Levin says that modern conservatism involves

skepticism of arrogant claims to knowledge and power, and makes us protective of those ways of living that have led prior generations not only closer to social peace and economic prosperity but closer to justice and to God. It also leads us to a reverence for community, for history, for culture, and to emphasize the importance of the preconditions for raising children.

On nationalism, Levin says

The nation is not best understood as one whole to be divided into parts but as the sum of various uneven, ancient, loveable elements. This has everything to do with Burke’s concern for national sentiment and love of country, and with his emphasis on national character. We are prepared for love of country by a love of home.

And concerning our current political temper, he says

Those with whom we disagree in our society are not our enemies; they are our neighbors. They are not out to do harm to our country; they differ with us about what would be good for it. To love our country is to love them too—even when they do not show us the same regard, even when they are illiberal and we have to quarrel with them in the public square.