When Marx wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses, his intended analogy was to opium as a medical treatment for pain - something that would not cure the underlying disease, but that could ease suffering. He saw religion as a pacifying substitute for economic and political change. He did not fully flesh out the political harms we see in religion today, but did see it as both a useful tool for leaders and as an understandable balm for the people.

In that same line of thinking, can we say that nationalism is the methamphetamine of the people? It does not turn its users into passive people willing to accept their fate in hopes of a better world, but rather amps them up and redirects the energy that could be used for demanding change.

Like meth, nationalism offers a temporary escape. Like meth, it makes people feel exhilarated, aroused, paranoid, confused, and disinhibited. Like meth, it is cheap and easy to distribute, and it can be highly addictive.

I’m trying to see how far this analogy runs. In the US today, nationalism and religion have become fused and intertwined to the point that some religious leaders are bemoaning their communities following Trump and conservatism and thinking Jesus was a wimp. I think it was Bobo who said that if Jesus had an AR he wouldn’t have been crucified, but it goes beyond that. There’s an increasing objection to meekness and humility and an embrace of wealth and power and a violent rejection of the Other.

I suspect similar dynamics are prevalent in other nationalist movements, such as what we are seeing in India today. I’m wondering if the expansion of Marx’s analogy gives us any insight into what is happening or what can be done about it.