It seems to me that much of the contemporary crisis of Western democracy is deeply rooted in the futile attempt to decouple "freedom" from "freedom of movement". Cracking down on the right to migration inevitably precipitates a crisis of domestic democratic institutions.
If we are to take seriously the promise of liberal democracy - as I do - then its conception of human freedom is necessarily universal. It must embrace and elevate the dignity and rights of the individual, even at the expense of certain other constructs (i.e. the "nation").
In short, there is a choice the West must make: its polities can either be based on liberal-democratic universalism or they can be based on ethno-nationalism. Some combinations are possible but, at least in this moment, they seem destined to merely forestall crisis.
That’s also to say that sooner or later we are going to have to contest an election on a genuine debate between liberal-universalism and reactionary nationalism, not technocracy vs nationalism. The latter is merely an option to slow-walk nationalism, not challenge it.
The whole process is bound to be uncomfortable, even frightening, as it already is. But that’s the real “price of liberty”: a turn against blood and soil politics. This may seem like a echo from a simpler time but I think it’s precisely the opposite:
It’s an echo from a time when, despite all its contradictions and hypocrisy, there was a profound appreciation in the West (and elsewhere too) for the inevitable horror of nationalism (see 1914-1945) and the need for a shift twds global politics (the UN, EU, Bretton Woods etc).
One hopes, to be blunt, we can return and reboot that drive for universal rights and dignity without another repeat of the early 20th century. That, surely, is the historic task of liberalism in the 21st century. /xxx
