My point Isn’t to denigrate localism but a pedantic one, to mention at least one example of localism playing into evil hands. This does not delegitimize the localist impulse but serves as a warning of what can happen.

On the other hand, the argument that localism equates with anti-semitism can only be somewhat true. The experience of Jews in the antibellum South is not one of repression but of tolerance. There was a Jewish Confederate cabinet member after all. Southern Jews of my acquaintance report that, at least until the 1960′s Jews living in southern communities were integrated into society as a community. Shelby Foote the late Historian of the Civil War was both a southerner and a Jew.

The nexus between German localism and antisemitism is far deeper and more complex. While American localists feel rootedness in a particular locale, German localists had long standing identifications with actual kingdoms and even tribes. To be a Kentuckian is a matter of at most two hundred years of history. To be a Saxon or a Thurigian is a matter of blood and millenia. With the collapse of the Prussian led Second Reich, these ancient attachments were all German citizens had to fall back on. As to antisemitism, ordinary Germans lived through a period of civil war after the WWI that attempted to replicate the Bolshevik Revolution, with all the attendant blood and dispossession. They also witnessed at close hand a similar revolution in Hungary. Jewish names and personalities were at the forefront of these fearful events. A great many Germans lived rural lives with poor access to multiple points of view. So it’s no surprise that in a deeply divided collection of former duchies, electorships, free cities etc. people would coalesce into multiple parochial parties and movements. Obvioiusly, America is nothing like this.

The fear of antisemitism it seems to me flows from the belief that Jews are seen as the rootless cosmopolitans and so have no place in local polities. An interesting assumption emerges from this. Does Bottum assume that Jews are automatically disloyal to their localities? And if this is so, wouldn’t this be their problem rather than the localities? The example of the Confederate Jews would seem to argue against this. Many have pointed out that if the Jews were the original rootless cosmopolitans they are far from alone now. The entire upper strata of our society can be said to be advancing in this direction, with globalization, adoption of international legal models, disdain for traditional American cultural norms, etc. It’s also a bit bizarre to speak of the menace of localism as antisemitism when Jews have their own localist, blood and soil experiment going on in the Middle East.

1. Obviously slavery wasn’t a product of localism; indeed, it’s probably best viewed as a product of globalistic tendencies, depending as it did on international trade and with an eye toward greater productivity.

2. Inasmuch as racism became a defining characteristic of Southern culture, the localism that drove that was pretty degenerate, and took on many of its more angry and ideological characteristics in response to the perceived threat of Yankee hegemony.

3. It’s not like non-localist sentiments have a perfect record when it comes to things like racism and anti-Semitism, either.

But perhaps we’re not really in disagreement, since I’m not going to deny the reality of the dangers you describe.

Also, cf. this post by H.C. Johns on the non-prejudicial character of Minnesotan localism.

Maybe I’m being unfair, but many of the characteristics we think of as necessary for decentralized self-government – reverence for local institutions, suspicion of outside interference etc. etc. – are also things that tend to make people very resistant to reform. So while localism may not cause bad things to happen, it frequently contributes to a social and political arrangement that makes effective reform very difficult.

Maybe this is only relevant if some bad preexisting tendency becomes institutionalized. I’m very sympathetic to your defense of local patriotism, but the United States’ unique experience with states’ rights and all the rest has left us with some very uncomfortable baggage.

I think often (not always) our gut will choose the more local person to help / support / pal around with. I remember in high school seeing classmates that I thought were complete jerks get into squabbles with kids from other schools after football games and feeling compelled to stand next to them just because we wore the same school name on our jackets.

I guess the point I am clumsily trying to convey is that I agree localism is hard to ignore and often artificial. I also agree that it can be terribly destructive at times. But I don’t know if ‘over-articulated’ is the correct phrase. Perhaps ‘elusive and fleeting’ are better?

Moreover, it seems to me that the localism of the American South is very much “over-articulated”, and that the attendant racism is certainly an expression of that. Obviously the question of how to keep localist sentiments from becoming excessively articulated in such ways is a challenging one.

And TM: The Nazi Germany analogy is actually what Deneen was discussing in the post I linked; his point was that Nazism was a nationalistic phenomenon, not a properly localist one.

… or will it narrow our horizons to such an extent that parochial close-mindedness becomes the order of the day?

I suppose I don’t think that parochial closed-mindedness is universally a bad thing; it all depends on its specific character. But yes, the question is a practical one, as almost ever.

… the historical record of decentralization is pretty ambiguous.

Can you elaborate? (Though by the way, I didn’t really mean this post to be on the question of political decentralization, but rather just about the virtues of a decentralized patriotism.)