What’s a Nation Anyway?

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

Insights expresses deepest condolences to the family of Charlie Kirk, who was shockingly assassinated at Utah Valley University on September 10. The conservative political activist leaves behind his wife and two young children. At the time of writing, police had not identified a suspect or motive for the murder. Sadly, this case follows the June murder of Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, and her husband, depriving two children of their parents. Political violence is unacceptable and unjustifiable. We must all resist it.

Reading international headlines these days, I can’t help but notice that much of the nationalism we see around the world shunts aside values and ideas, elevating a version of history and identity in their place. This is not to say that history and identity don’t matter. As a history major, I celebrate history. Of course, I also have a national identity, among other identities. But the idolatry of history and identity is deeply problematic and interferes with how we understand nationhood.

It almost feels foolish to address a question that is the subject of many book-length answers. The limitations of this space don’t provide room for necessary nuance, but it’s important enough and at the core of so many contemporary questions that it’s worth a try.

Of course, we need to define our terms. The Oxford Dictionary defines a nation as “a country considered as a group of people with the same language, culture, and history, who live in a particular area under one government.” The definition includes three concepts which, while largely similar and often used as synonyms, are each distinct.

• A Government, or the state, relies on legal definitions with geographic boundaries. The state has jurisdiction over some but not others. While ordinarily there is significant overlap between what is thought of as a nation and the government of that nation, they are not synonyms. When thinking about “nation” in state terms, we focus on the political sphere, which is an important part, but not the whole of the story.
  
  
• A country combines geography with government and the people who live within it. It has a name that is acknowledged by others. As a Canadian, not only do I recognize the legitimacy of the Canadian government over me, but the rest of the world also acknowledges that. Someone who lives in Gaza, on the other hand, may live in a geographically defined territory and consider Hamas as the government, but that claim is contested internationally. 
  
  
• A nation is not narrowly defined by geography or government but rather by the shared identity that binds a group of people together. Often, that is geography or government, but typically, it is more than that, with culture, history, values, and language also playing roles. While the example may be trivial, “Rider Nation” is understood to reference fans of the Saskatchewan Roughrider football team (similar to “Packer Nation” for Green Bay in the NFL). These fans, wherever they live, identify with icons (wearing watermelon helmets or cheese-shaped hats) and feel a sense of solidarity with each other. This captures something of what nationhood can be.

In addition to what the Oxford Dictionary raises, we should also consider the concept of Empire. The term is more historic than contemporary, evoking images of Rome, Britain, or Russia. Empires typically link multiple countries (and even nations) into something of a grand entity that combines features of government and nationhood into something identifiable that may or may not engender loyalty. While the character of empires has differed substantially in different eras of history, those belonging to them know which empire they are part of and (perhaps equally significantly), how that distinguishes them from those who are part of a different empire.

These distinctions are not commonly found in current news coverage, where many of these words are used as practical synonyms. But the distinctive concepts are in play.

• On September 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Chinese President Xi Jinping met and made a show of publicly displaying unity. Despite the long and complicated history of disputes between these countries, it appears the intention was to show a coordinated stand as an alternative to the restructured economic and geopolitical order that US President Donald Trump is advocating. Mr. Trump’s response didn’t use the word “empire,” but he heavily implied it when he said, “We’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China.” He set up a choice of allegiance to one or the other empire. The United States seems to be dealing with these matters primarily in economic transactional terms, with less emphasis on values like freedom and equality (or even security issues), while keeping open doors for trade agreements that Mr. Trump believes will advance American economic interests.
  
  
• Jeffrey Kopstein, co-author of The Assault on the State, was on the Paikin Podcast last week. While I disagreed with much of his perspective, he helped distinguish Mr. Trump’s “family business” approach to international affairs from the approach of Mr. Putin, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu who are following more of a “historical entitlement” and “strongman” approach to international affairs. There are essential differences between these approaches, but what they have in common is an appeal to identity and self-interest rather than any articulate sense of values or beliefs. What struck me was Kopstein’s observation that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin seem to presume that their presuppositions are more important than legally recognized boundaries and warrant imposing redrawn boundaries even over objections of others.
  
  
• The broader relevance of this became evident as I read Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt’s September 2 speech to the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C. It was titled “What is an American?” and critically quoted US President Bill Clinton as saying in 1988, “America is not so much a place as a promise.” Schmitt was surprisingly candid in rejecting both the “old conservatism and old liberalism alike” celebrating President Trump’s approach of viewing the United States as “not just an abstract ‘proposition,’ but a nation and a people, with its own distinct history and heritage and interests.” His speech celebrated the European settlers of America fulfilling their “manifest destiny,” knowing that “America is not a universal nation” but “a home, belonging to a people bound together by a common past and a shared destiny.” 

I found Sen. Schmidtt’s remarks troubling. I could agree with many of the concerns he raised, including his rejection of an approach that diminished the significant history and contribution of the founders of the United States who were consciously applying beliefs about justice and dignity, national purpose and freedom. Where I part ways with the senator is in the mixing of his celebration of nationalism with government. His account of history seems to directly contradict that of President Lincoln, whose famous Gettysburg address opens, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Lincoln started with equality, on which something new (breaking with history) was built. Schmidt starts with a history he seeks to restore, without giving due consideration to the underlying core principles that gave rise to the history he loves so much. “History, heritage, and interests” can be understood to incorporate some principles (as I am sure the senator would argue). Still, when I read both the framing and policy prescriptions, it seems that the principles are secondary to the identity and history.

There are many complicating factors, but stripped to its essence, doesn’t the debate come down to this: Are our countries based on identities or ideas? I grew up in the Cold War, schooled from my youth that the Western democratic ideals of which Canada was a part were rooted in a Christian anthropology—the idea that every person was a created image-bearer of God and was to be viewed in that capacity irrespective of any other identity. A person’s contributions or merit did not bestow dignity. Indeed, this is why our society took special care of the disabled and disadvantaged; we knew that others would tend to diminish them given their different capacities. That is why we protected the rights of those with whom we disagreed. And that is why my grandfather and his family risked their lives to protect Jews in Holland as part of the resistance in World War II, despite concern about their eternal destiny since “they did not believe in Jesus.” That is why we were patriotic Canadians, thankful for the opportunity this country had given to our immigrant family, and ready to make sacrifices for others to join us as we collected resources to help the Vietnamese refugees our immigrant church sponsored back when I was a kid.

All of that looks pretty different from what is on offer today. I remain critical of former prime minister Justin Trudeau's famous 2015 statement to the New York Times Magazine that Canada is “the first post-national state.” A view of Canada as an ill-defined relativism best expressed through a vague expression of inclusive values that excludes everything definite and good about our past is very problematic. But jumping from one ditch to the opposite ditch doesn’t put us on the road to flourishing.

So, let’s go back to the core distinctions we started with.

If the emerging world is one in which we have to choose between two empires, one symbolized by the United States and the other symbolized by China, there is no question that I will choose the American one. But I will do so with grave concern that the empire being built on economic greatness and narcissistic self-interest at the expense of the humanity and dignity of others is doomed to fail. And I will note that while American nationalism appeals to a surface history and identity, it also undermines the genius of that very history and replaces it with something inferior. I applaud presidents quoting and being inspired by the Bible. I object to them using the Bible as a vehicle to improve their brand and fatten their bank accounts.

The country I live in celebrates (even officially) multiple nations: French, English, and numerous Indigenous nations. If we are to be true to our history, we need to acknowledge that the “peace, order, and good government” of Canada reflects a commitment to live together with difference and to uphold and respect those who differ.

I get very uncomfortable by efforts to equate history to identity, which in practical terms, means dividing our neighbours into insiders or outsiders. I find insidious a project like the Dominion Society of Canada, which sounds like it’s protecting our heritage while actually throwing it overboard. It argues that “the only way to preserve our nation” is to “return foreigners to their respective homelands” and “to make Canada less hospitable for immigrants,” proposing the revocation of 2.2 million people’s permanent residency status, legally obtained, and up to 8 million deportations. Such extremes convey a right-wing wokeness every bit as problematic as the excesses of leftist wokeness. Why do I use the term “wokeness”? I do so because, at its core, the concept elevates “identity” above all else.

I started by noting that these issues require nuance and ordinarily prompt book-length answers. There are many caveats I could not cover. But whether we are talking about Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Gaza, America and China, or Canada and how its constituent parts come together—all of which are very current topics—there is a core principle that comes before any identity I have, be it in the context of empire, nation, or country. Every fellow human being is an image bearer of God. We need to start with the positive premise and not the problem of very challenging situations. If we do that, we can safely navigate our way through our complicated times without falling into the perilous ditches of identity politics, be they on the right or the left, as we walk the road towards a flourishing society.

WHAT I’M READING

Redefining Public Faith

The proposed banning of public prayer in Quebec continues, quite properly, to provoke debate. Frederic Dejean’s La Presse piece points out how the “new secularism” not only seeks to separate the state but all of society from religion. Jean-Christophe Jasmin, Cardus’s Quebec director, summarized the secularism (laïcité) issue well in a private note to me (republished here with permission).

“Last December, Premier Legault announced that he wanted to do something about street prayers and mandated Jean-François Roberge, minister for laïcité, to prepare something about it. Right now, two bills have been written and are ready to be presented: On public prayer, and on expanding the religious signs ban to daycare workers.

But behind the melody, the bass tone is the upcoming expansion of laïcité, following the report of the special committee on laïcité, but nothing concrete has been presented yet. This report basically takes the Mouvement Laïc Québécois, an atheist humanist movement's most radical positions: banning tax exemptions, banning advancement of religion as a public good, cutting funding to private religious schools, taking measures for the state to take possession of patrimonial Catholic Churches, etc. Also, this report gives clear recommendations for Quebec to adopt its own constitution, and amend the 1867 BNA Act, bringing the laïcité question once again to Ottawa's gates.

To most political analysts, this is clearly thought through the prism of the upcoming elections which will be a battle between nationalists: Parti Québécois (PQ) vs Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ). Right now, CAQ is polling at 15 percent, with zero expected provincial MPs. Their electoral base has mostly moved to the PQ. CAQ wants to make laïcité the question of the poll.”

Build, Baby, Build

Prime Minister Carney has made the building of infrastructure the centrepiece of his strategy for improving Canada’s economic competitiveness. Minerals and energy projects are prominent among the top projects that the government is considering fast-tracking. Energy economist Peter Tertzakian outlines four categories of ambition that Canada might consider in leveraging its natural resource advantage, while Globe and Mail investment reporter Tim Shufelt considers how the oil sands “could be the ultimate ATM for Canada—and investors.”

Auditing MAiD

The Ontario MAiD Death Review Committee issued its first 2025 report and committee member Dr. Ramona Coelho reflected on the report’s findings in an op-ed published on nationalnewswatch.com. She notes that various cases reviewed by the committee conflict with the “irreversible decline” guidelines for MAiD issued by Health Canada, noting that in reality, “many MAiD deaths are driven by untreated suffering: isolation, feelings of being a burden, and lack of care. Ableism and ageism play a role, with some assessors judging certain lives as less worthy of living.” She raises the concern that “Canadian oversight is sorely lacking, failing to implement enforceable standards and raise public awareness of human rights transgressions. In British Columbia, internal government documents recently included a briefing note with a recommendation against strict MAiD oversight to avoid discouraging providers amid ‘high demand.’”

The Banned Wagon

Peter Stockland provides a helpful update on two kerfuffles: the Alberta government’s effort to determine what sort of sexual content should be included in the books in school libraries, as well as the case coming to the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding public signage that some deem offensive. He makes some helpful observations about the media’s role in both joining the bandwagon for culturally endorsed positions and the so-called “bannedwagon” for cases that might not be so culturally comfortable but involve essential democratic freedoms. “In a secular state, in an increasingly secularized society, reporters, commentators, editors must play a key role in preventing monopoly ideological expression,” he writes.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

The Politics of Babies

Angela Duckworth’s 2016 book, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, made its mark in arguing that grit, or tenacity, was more crucial than talent and opportunity in predicting success. Paul Bennett’s commentary this week on data that suggests the younger generation has less grit than previous generations highlights some vital nuance. Bennett argues that while the data may appear stark and can easily be interpreted as part of “the usual generational blame game” that focuses on increased social media and COVID among other factors, there are longer-term factors to consider. Bennett points to a school system that for decades has “emphasized self-esteem over effort, rewarded participation more than performance, and fostered a culture of entitlement” as helping to explain the data. That explanation also provides hope, suggests Bennett, as “attitudes and values can change” and that a “social transformation…and a new rewards system” can “help ensure that the truly conscientious do inherit the earth in the 21st century.”

TAKE IT TO-GO

The Right Names

There’s a joke circulating on social media about the time Melanie Noelle ordered her coffee at Starbucks and got her drink in a cup labelled Meanie. (Melanie with no L.) It did not scare the Dickens out of her, but I understand how you might spin a tale of two interpretations from this incident: an intentional insult or an expression of naïve nomenclature. It all reminds me of the parents who could not agree on what to name their firstborn, so they ended up naming him Justin Case. Bill Board tells me that this is small potatoes compared to what he’s had to put up with, but our mutual friend Chip says if we are counting potatoes, his name comes with enough wordplay that few can ketchup. Then again, I bet Chip is just thankful his last name isn’t Monk.

Well, my name is Ray and I hope this weekly missive shines some light on what is going on in the world around us. Wishing you a good week and looking forward to returning to your inbox next Saturday.