Pierre Manent: Facing The National Question In France


The French have so assiduously cultivated their knack
for glib philosophizing that most Americans less

credulous
than

professors of English literature
have lost all
interest in French intellectual life. They sense that
the French are more interested in expounding novelties
than truths.

This state of affairs is doubly unfortunate. That
handful of contemporary French thinkers who are immune
to the Parisian infatuation with fashion and fads are
heirs to a grand tradition, including

Montesquieu
and

Tocqueville
. Moreover, the French language may be
more conducive to lucid rationality than any other
tongue.

Finally, as irritating as French arrogance can be, it`s
often rooted in a

genuine and admirable national pride
, a

patriotism
seldom found in other European countries
in the 21st Century.

Among the most acute and sagacious French political
philosophers of our era is Pierre Manent.

He began
his career as the assistant to

Raymond Aron
, the liberal intellectual who served
during the 1960s as the tribune of common sense in a

France
in love with

insane ideologies
—epitomized by Aron`s

École nationale d`administration

classmate and life-long rival, the

pro-Communist
existentialist philosopher

Jean-Paul Sartre.

Over the last decade, Manent has turned from the study
of the great thinkers of the past to grappling with new
problems—above all the European grandees` attempt to

suffocate national self-rule
within the

bureaucratic European Union
.

Manent`s forthcoming work from the

Intercollegiate Studies Institute
is a short (103
pp) and highly readable book entitled Democracy Without Nations: The Fate of Self-Government in Europe,
translated by

Paul Seaton
. It`s of particular interest to
VDARE.com readers and to anyone concerned with the
National Question—whether the

nation-state can survive
as the

political expression of a particular people.

Elite

opposition to nations
, and thus to self-government,
is

not confined merely to Europe.
On

September 11, 2001
, the Melbourne Age
reported on former President Bill Clinton`s speech to an
Australian confab:


“`
[Clinton]
discussed the immigration issue in Australia and he took
a position on it,`” said Tom Hogan, president of
Vignette Corporation, host of the exclusive forum. `The
president believes the world will be a better place if
all borders are eliminated—from a trade perspective,
from the viewpoint of economic development and in
welcoming
[the free movement of] people from
other

cultures
and

countries
,` Mr. Hogan said. Mr. Clinton … said he
supported the ultimate wisdom of a

borderless world
for people and for trade.”
[Open
borders to all:” Clinton,
By Garry Barker,
Melbourne Age
, September 11, 2001]

Manent`s reaction to 9/11 was similar to that of
VDARE.com—we

cited
a once-famous

poem
by

Rudyard Kipling
:

The
Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter
return.”

Manent writes:

“In my view, the most deeply troubling information

conveyed by the event
… was this: present-day
humanity is marked by much more profound, much more
intractable separations than we had thought. …
Before that fateful day we spoke so glibly of
`differences` …

[which] could only be light and
superficial, easy to combine, easy to welcome and
accommodate in a reconciled humanity whose dazzling
appearance would be enlivened by these differences. This
was such an aesthetic vision—a tourist`s view of human
things!”

The contrast between Manent`s French clarity and the
intentionally opaque and woozy ideas rationalizing the
growing dominance of the EU can be striking. He
continues:

“Today, all of us—at least in Europe—are moved and even
carried away by … a passion for resemblance. It
is no longer simply a matter of recognizing and
respecting the humanity of each human being. We are
required to see the

other as the same as ourselves
.
And if we cannot
stop ourselves from perceiving what is different about
him, we reproach ourselves for doing so, as if it were a
sin.”

And yet, this requirement to “celebrate diversity”
does not make us more interested in others:

“But what can `same` or even `similar` mean to someone
who refuses to see what is different? … Europeans
immerse themselves in an indifference toward the
world that their humanitarian endeavors hide less and
less well.”

Peace and prosperity in Europe have not unleashed a
cultural golden age:

“Under a flashing neon sign proclaiming `human unity,`
contemporary Europeans would have humanity arrest all
intellectual or spiritual movement in order to conduct a
continual, interminable liturgy of self-adoration.”

Manent offers a clear defense of the nation-state:

“… the city-state and the nation-state are the only two
political forms that have been capable of realizing …
the intimate union of civilization and liberty.”

To Manent, the nation-state is the optimal size, better
than either the city-state or the empire, occupying “the
middle ground between the puny and the immense, the
petty and the limitless…”

Manent notes:

“… one cannot but admire the long duration of the
European nation-state… Most of our nations are
recognizable over the course of at least seven or eight
centuries. … the European nations, during the

course of centuries
, knew how to invent new,
unprecedented political instruments that would allow the
adventure to continue.”

According to Manent:

“The

sovereign state
and

representative government
are the two great
artifices that have allowed us to accommodate huge
masses of human beings within an order of civilization
and liberty.”

Under the EU, however, “This strange contemporary
`depression` of the most inventive peoples in history,
until recently the most capable of renewing themselves”

has led to a new form of government where “the state
is less and less sovereign, and government is less and
less representative. … The time of enlightened despotism
has returned.”

But are the

new little despots
all that enlightened? Or are they
hamstrung by the very

political correctness
that they use to make their
own power seem inevitable?

Consider the ongoing

controversy
over the admission of

Turkey
into the European Union. The EU, which began
as an invitation-only club, is now confronted by

American insistence that to exclude Turkey from the EU

would be—horrors—discrimination!

Alec Russell reported in the

Daily Telegraph
:

“`Including Turkey in the EU would prove that Europe is
not the

exclusive club
of a single religion, and it would
expose the “clash of civilizations” as a passing myth of
history,` Mr. Bush said.” [Bush
says Turkey must be allowed its place in EU

June 30, 2004]

Manent expands upon Bush`s bullying:

“`By what right do you leave us waiting at the door?` …
How could Turkey be refused what has been granted to so
many others? … There is no doubt that the majority of
European citizens and their representatives believe that
the fact that populous and powerful Turkey is a

massively Muslim country
constitutes a major
obstacle to its integration into the Union. But how can
one say that?”

The only weakness of Manent`s Democracy Without
Nations?
is that it never mentions the single word
that has the most powerful future implications for its
thesis:

immigration.

Yet it`s highly relevant. The Eurocrats and their
supporters are clearly beginning to use high immigration
to

undermine nationalism
and entrench their power. One

popular anti-immigration party
, Belgium`s Vlaams
Blok, was actually

banned outright
by

judicial decree.
Similarly, the leader of the

British National Party
, Nick Griffin, was charged
with

“incitement to racial hatred”

on the

eve
of the 2005 General Election. (He was

acquitted
, but only after two trials.)

Of course, mass immigration is relatively a new issue in
Europe. Let`s hope that Manent will take it on in his
next book.

[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website

www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]