The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from
those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also
with societal security, which involves the sustainability--within acceptable conditions
for evolution--of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and
national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening
international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority
identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is
not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism.

...

Nationalism has proven wrong Karl Marx's concept of a unified international
proletariat. Globalization is proving right Adam Smith's observation that while "the
proprietor of land is necessarily a citizen of the particular country in which his estate
lies . . . the proprietor of stock is properly a citizen of the world, and is not necessarily attached to any particular country." Smith's 1776 words describe the way contemporary transnational businessmen see themselves. Summarizing their interviews with
executives of 23 American multinational corporations and nonprofit organizations,
James Davison Hunter and Joshua Yates conclude:

Surely these elites are cosmopolitans: they travel the world and their field of
responsibility is the world. Indeed, they see themselves as 'global citizens.' Again and
again, we heard them say that they thought of themselves more as 'citizens of the world'
who happen to carry an American passport than as U.S. citizens who happen to work in
a global organization. They possess all that is implied in the notion of the cosmopolitan.
They are sophisticated, urbane and universalistic in their perspective and ethical
commitments.

Together with the "globalizing elites" of other countries, these American executives
inhabit a "socio-cultural bubble" apart from the cultures of individual nations and
communicate with each other in a social science-y version of English, which Hunter and
Yates label "global speak."

...

Contemporary intellectuals have reinforced these trends. They abandon their
commitment to their nation and their fellow citizens and argue the moral superiority of
identifying with humanity at large. This proclivity florished in the academic world in
the 1990s. The University of Chicago's Martha Nussbaum denounced emphasis on
"patriotic pride" as "morally dangerous", urged the ethical superiority of
cosmopolitanism over patriotism, and argued that people should direct their "allegiance"
to the "worldwide community of human beings." Amy Gutmann of Princeton argues
that it was "repugnant" for American students to learn that they are, "above all, citizens
of the United States." The "primary allegiance" of Americans, she wrote, "should not be
to the United States or to some other politically soverign community", but to
"democratic humanism." George Lipsitz of the University of California, San Diego,
argued that "in recent years refuge in patriotism has been the first resort of scoundrels of all sorts." Richard Sennett of NYU denounced "the evil of a shared national identity"
and judged the erosion of national sovereignty "basically a positive phenomenon." Peter
Spiro of Hofstra University approvingly concluded that it is "increasingly difficult to
use the word 'we' in the context of international affairs." In the past people used the word "we" with reference to the nation-state, but now affiliation with the nation-state "no longer necessarily defines the interests or even allegiances of the individual at the international level."

Moralist transnationals reject or are highly critical of the concept of national
sovereignty. They agree with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that national
sovereignty ought to give way to "individual sovereignty" so that the international
community can act to prevent or stop gross violations by governments of the rights of
their citizens. This principle provides a basis for the United Nations to intervene
militarily or otherwise in the domestic affairs of states, a practice explicitly prohibited by the UN Charter. More generally, the moralists advocate the supremacy of
international law over national law, the greater legitimacy of decisions made through
international rather than national processes, and the expansion of the powers of
international institutions compared to those of national governments. Moralist
international lawyers have developed the concept of "customary international law",
which holds that norms and practices that have wide acceptance can be a basis for
invalidating national laws.

...

The prevalence of anti-patriotic attitudes among liberal intellectuals led some of them to
warn their fellow liberals of the consequences of such attitudes for the future not of
America but of American liberalism. Most Americans, as the American public
philosopher Richard Rorty has written, take pride in their country, but "many of the
exceptions to this rule are found in colleges and universities, in the academic
departments that have become sanctuaries for left-wing political views." These leftists
have done "a great deal of good for . . . women, African-Americans, gay men and
lesbians. . . . But there is a problem with this Left: it is unpatriotic." It "repudiates the idea of a national identity and the emotion of national pride." If the Left is to retain influence, it must recognize that a "sense of shared national identity . . . is an absolutely essential component of citizenship." Without patriotism, the Left will be unable to achieve its goals for America. Liberals, in short, must use patriotism as a means to achieve liberal goals.


...

Cosmopolitanism and imperialism attempt to reduce or to eliminate the social, political
and cultural differences between America and other societies. A national approach
would recognize and accept what distinguishes America from those societies. America
cannot become the world and still be America. Other peoples cannot become American
and still be themselves. America is different, and that difference is defined in large part by its religious commitment and Anglo-Protestant culture. The alternative to
cosmopolitanism and imperialism is nationalism devoted to the preservation and
enhancement of those qualities that have defined America from its inception.

...

Significant elements of American elites are favorably disposed to America becoming a
cosmopolitan society. Other elites wish it to assume an imperial role. The
overwhelming bulk of the American people are committed to a national alternative and
to preserving and strengthening the American identity of centuries.