One hundred years ago this year, the First World War ground to an end. During the peace-making that followed, much attention focused on the American President, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was highly intelligent, well educated, and very articulate. He was also a fool. Wilson hoped to remake the political system of the world by sponsoring democratic nationalism within the framework of an international organization. In fact, during the “Twenty Years’ Crisis” that followed the war, democratic nationalism clashed with international organization, and nationalism often got the better of democracy. While Wilson sponsored democratic nationalism, he did not create it. That already had been done. The tension between democracy and nationalism ran through the last century and into our own. Like the bulls at Pamplona, often trampling everything in its path.
Now people in search of explanations for current upheavals have rediscovered this history. Take the case of Israel. It was a mistake from the get-go. A colony of Europeans set down in the midst of a territory mostly populated by Arabs and at a time when the Arabs were first beginning to stir with nationalist ambitions of their own. This had tragedy written all over it in John Deere green. Far better if every Jew in Poland and Rumania and all those other benighted places had emigrated to the United States. But the United States had adopted immigration restrictions because many voters felt overwhelmed by strangeness. Democratic nationalism at work. These restrictions continued after the Second World War, so many Jews had no choice but Israel. Wars followed (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973). Israel expanded its territory and captured many Palestinians. The Palestinians hate Israel, all the more so because Israel has held them captive for half a century and Israel is a modern country that can continually slap-down their efforts. In any event, Israel now seems to have jolted toward a position where democracy is for Jews, while non-Jews are excluded. Probably, what has thinking people worried is that the next drawing-of-lines (and there will be one) will be over who is “more Jewish” or “really Jewish” based on ideological purity.
Then, what if Israel is not a circus-freak among the nations, but the wave of the future? At least in the choice that people will have to make. In Israel, that means “Is Israel a Jewish state or is it a non-sectarian democracy?” What if the cosmopolitanism that appeals to many highly-educated, highly successful people collides with the nationalism of many less-qualified people? Does the American left really want to adopt a politics that will lead them toward both anti-capitalism and the authoritarian enforcement of their views? I think not.
JMO, but Harris, Warren, Booker, and Biden are all losers in 2020. Start looking.
 There are obvious parallels to Barack Obama.
 E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis: 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1939).
 Max Fisher, “Israel, Riding Nationalist Tide, Puts Identity First. It Isn’t Alone.” NYT, 23 July 2018. Is it just me, or have the headlines of the NYT become more “literary”?
 What if there were twice as many Jews in the United States today? Think what we might be as a country.
 Well, OK, that’s only partially true. The Arab countries refused to absorb the Palestinian refugees after 1948-1949, and kept them penned-up in squalid refugee camps paid for by Western (i.e. American) generosity. The territories that the Palestinians now claim for their own state—the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem—were in the possession of Jordan and Egypt from 1948 to 1967. If the Arabs had wanted to create a Palestinian state, they had every opportunity to do so.
 See; Venezuela under Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro, or Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega.