First of all, thank you for a far more measured analysis of political matters than is usually the case. As an American, I found it especially informative. Although I fear this will be more than you bargained for, I would like to take your final point as a point of departure, i.e. “Liberal democracy . . . seems to be increasingly threatened by the rising tide of nationalism.”

‘Us vs. them’ has defined human relations from the git-go. In Europe, nationalism replaced religious allegiance in that paradigm.

Liberalism and Marxism have at the same time asserted universalist alternatives, but their theoretical and practical inadequacies have been exposed. Fascism can perhaps be interpreted as universalizing us vs.them, whether based on race, ethnicity, or nationality in one place or another. (In places, gender seems to be emerging as another possible means for achieving the simultaneous unification of ‘us’ and segregation of ‘them’; in some places (the U.S.?) a combination of ostensible religion and nationality could be an especially potent combination.)

Any non-universalist perspective is inherently anti-democratic. Its proponents might be pleased to use democracy to achieve their aim of getting their hands on the reins of power, but they would not allow a democratic process to take that power away from them. After all, the ‘us’ are those who by all rights should be in power, by definition. Inevitably, the ‘us’ gets refined to include only ‘right-thinking’ individuals in the governing elite.

Economically, they must make life better for their ‘us’; to accomplish that they must cut some ‘them’ out of the economic pie. National Socialism was a great economic program for those who were included in it.

I said all that to say this: I have a discovered a universalist alternative to all ideology (and theology). I understand that hearing of it from its author somehow diminishes its credibility, but I can’t do anything about that.

It is an ethic that follows from observation within material existence, not beliefs, intuitions, etc. Those observations are two: (1) humans are social beings who live together in groups and (2) we have no choice but to effect choices (choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring those choices to fruition). [Warren J. Samuels all but defined “social power” as the ability to effect choices in “Welfare Economics, Property, and Power” in Perspectives of Property, edited by Gene Wunderlich and W.L. Gibson (1972).]

The ethic involves mutual respect. It would apply to anyone living and acting in conformity with those observations. Applied to society, it would maximize liberty, reinforce political democracy, and transform the outcomes of the existing economy (providing the means to eliminate unemployment, poverty, taxes, and public debt, while increasing sustainability, among other good things). [It can be noted that a belief in equality implies mutual respect.]

The economic changes it prescribes could be adopted by any nation, whether the ethic itself were recognized or not. To the extent that they were to be adopted by nations that are presently economic ‘basket cases’, that would ameliorate economically driven migration. Those changes could also be adopted by any group of nations in a system that would not compromise the sovereignty of any member nation. On that basis, such a system could be adopted by all nations. That would eliminate utterly the problem of economic migration (though global warming looms as the ultimate material driver of masses of people).

The ethic is summarized comprehensively here on medium.com in “People for Tolerance, Unite!.” Re. the above reference to equality implying mutual respect, there is a much briefer essay, “All We Need Is Equality,” here on Medium. I also have a Web site, www.ajustsolution.com, where the economic implications of the ethic are front and center. (I’ve been informed that the link doesn’t work, so the address would have to be typed.) I acknowledge that I am a better thinker than I am a writer — or a Web site designer.