Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and the U.S. Foreign Policy: What America Can Learn from Scandinavia

In the current global climate, nationalism is on the rise, with countries like Hungary and India at the forefront, embracing the idea that a nation's interests should come first. However, the blending of nationalism with authoritarianism often raises concerns about the erosion of democratic values and the potential for societal inequality.

Scandinavians have demonstrated a different, more inclusive form of 'nationalism.

Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has clearly placed national sovereignty above EU policies, prioritizing strict immigration controls and asserting its independence in foreign affairs. While Orbán's administration has garnered praise for stabilizing Hungary's economy, the cost has often been the curtailing of democratic freedoms and the suppression of opposition voices.

Critics argue that this form of nationalism, mixed with authoritarianism, tends to undermine human rights and the inclusiveness needed to foster a thriving society. The result is an economically stable but politically stifled nation, where the welfare of the citizens is often overshadowed by the state's control over public discourse.

India presents another example of nationalism with a unique twist. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has capitalized on the country’s cultural pride, particularly emphasizing Hindu nationalism. While India has become one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, the prioritization of national identity has often come at the cost of marginalized groups, particularly religious minorities.

The economic success of India coexists with significant poverty, particularly in rural areas, and systemic oppression of specific communities. This form of nationalism, while successful on a global stage, still struggles to address internal inequalities, particularly when it mixes with authoritarian policies that reduce space for dissent.

Both of these countries, while asserting their national interests, illustrate the dangers of nationalism turning into authoritarianism, where the focus on a strong national identity often leads to reduced political freedoms and inequality.

In contrast, Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have demonstrated a different, more inclusive form of nationalism. These nations prioritize the welfare of their citizens through robust social safety nets—offering universal healthcare, education, and strong labor protections—while still engaging responsibly on the global stage. While not often labeled as "nationalist" in the conventional sense, these countries show that a focus on citizens' welfare and national cohesion can coexist with healthy foreign policy.

Scandinavia's success in creating prosperous, equitable societies stems from their ability to balance national interests with global responsibilities. Their welfare-focused model has allowed them to lift their citizens out of poverty, provide excellent public services, and ensure high standards of living, all while maintaining an international presence in humanitarian aid, environmental policy, and peacekeeping. The Nordic model demonstrates that prioritizing citizens' well-being does not require turning inward or abandoning global engagement.

What Can America Learn from Scandinavia?

For the U.S., embracing some of the principles that have guided Scandinavian countries could help shape a foreign policy that supports both domestic welfare and responsible international participation. While the "America First" rhetoric echoes a nationalist desire to prioritize domestic issues, the U.S. could take lessons from Scandinavia by blending nationalism with inclusivity and fairness in both domestic and foreign affairs.

1. A Strong Domestic Welfare System: While the U.S. spends significant amounts on foreign aid and military operations, there is an argument to be made that more should be invested in public services such as healthcare, education, and affordable housing. Scandinavian countries have proven that prioritizing citizens' welfare doesn't mean neglecting international obligations, but rather strengthening the domestic foundation that enables the country to contribute globally in a meaningful way.

   
   

2. Inclusive Nationalism: Unlike Hungary and India, which have faced criticism for exclusionary practices in their nationalism, Scandinavian countries emphasize civic nationalism—building a national identity based on shared values, rather than ethnicity or religion. The U.S. could benefit from a similar approach, embracing a more inclusive definition of nationalism that brings citizens together while rejecting division and inequality.

   
   

3. Global Cooperation with Ethical Responsibility: Scandinavia’s foreign policy is grounded in ethical considerations, focusing on human rights, climate action, and humanitarian aid. The U.S. could adopt a similar stance in international relations, ensuring that foreign policies reflect core democratic values—such as the defense of human rights, democracy, and international peace—while also safeguarding its own interests. Rather than adopting a purely transactional approach, as seen with some nationalist policies, America could strive for a balance between self-interest and global responsibility.

   
   

4. A Balanced Approach to National Security: Scandinavia’s policies show that national security doesn’t necessarily have to come at the expense of international cooperation. By investing in diplomacy, multilateral institutions, and international partnerships, the U.S. could reduce reliance on military intervention and focus on building long-term stability in regions like Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

   
   

While nationalist movements in Hungary and India have highlighted the importance of national sovereignty, they also show the risks of authoritarianism and inequality when national pride becomes the sole focus. By learning from Scandinavia, the U.S. can prioritize the welfare of its citizens while simultaneously adopting a more thoughtful, inclusive, and responsible approach to global affairs. This blend of domestic strength and global cooperation offers a model for balancing nationalism with a moral foreign policy—a vision that could redefine America’s international role without sacrificing its own citizens' well-being.