With the Western world facing political and cultural upheaval of a type not seen in our lifetimes, the word “treason” seems to be experiencing a renaissance of usage. As with many words in the age of social media, this word is in danger of having its potency degraded through overuse. But with some Western societies appearing to be tearing themselves apart over certain issues, it is worth reexamining whether some political opposition is crossing the line into “treason territory”.

The first difficulty in defining what treason is occurs when one asks “treason against what”? Those who would assert that Donald Trump is treasonous for his as yet unproven collusion with the Russians, would not likely have the same feeling had Hillary Clinton done the same thing. Al Gore had some potential trouble on his hands when it was revealed that he might have been involved in taking campaign contributions from the Chinese during the 1996 campaign for President, but yet nobody seriously accused him of treason. In a globalized world, other countries have a vested interest in the results of their neighbor’s (and rivals) elections. In addition, if you think that your policies are best for your country as a whole, are you a traitor for turning to foreign sources for helping you win an election or implement your program?

What about if your policies will disadvantage large swaths of your population for the benefit of a foreign population? For example, some of the arguments going regarding immigration, both here and in Europe, seem to pit those who think that the nation state actually means something vs. those who view national borders as arbitrary lines, similar to those that delineate American states. Those holding this latter view often appear to be asserting that national governments should be responsive to the needs & desires of the world population as a whole (to the extent that it is in their power to do so), and not just those of their actual citizens. To the extent that native citizens are put off by these efforts, their views are no more legitimate in these questions (and often appear to be given less legitimacy) than the views of random people in say, Bangladesh.

It would appear, based on public pronouncements and various initiatives, that some might have lost perspective on why governments exist in the first place. From the time that the first cavemen from various local caves came together to form a political organization, it was with the idea that they would collectively be stronger than they would be alone. One of the primary motivations was to provide collective resources to defend the group from outside threats, be it from human or animal. In exchange for giving up some personal autonomy and committing loyalty to the group, the group would commit itself to defending the individual from threats emanating from outside the group. At the heart of any political organization is the idea that there are some inside the organization and some outside the organization, and that those outside the organization have no claims on the organizations resources.

This appears to be something that some in the American and European political class have forgotten. When Angela Merkel invited over a million ‘refugees’ from Syria and other locations to come to Germany, and then tried to shift many of them to other EU members who did not consent to these refugees and had no part in Merkel’s decision, she was taking a decision that prioritized the refugees needs and desires over native German (and European) citizens. Whatever moral arguments might be made regarding helping those in need, she took a decision without consulting her citizens and by prioritizing the needs of refugees over them, she violated the implicit social contract that underpins any government. Today, many Germans face more crime and less physical security in some places thanks to her action.

In the U.S., the Democrats seems determined to push the idea that America is a place that everyone who wants to has a right to come. Furthermore, according to this view, the citizens and their government have no moral right to place restrictions on immigration. What makes this view potentially treasonous is that the argument is not that we should admit more immigrants for reason A.) B.) and C.). It is rather that U.S. citizens, through their elected government, have no moral right to even decide what level of immigration is appropriate and to take action to limit migration to this level. In this worldview, whether or not a certain level of migration harms a substantial fraction of American citizens (politically, economically, or physically) is an irrelevant and illegitimate consideration.

In both of these cases, the party in question has prioritized the needs/desires of a foreign population over the objections of citizens. In the case of one party, they have declared that their citizens have no moral right to object to this and that the government has no moral right to act on those objections. In so doing, they have effectively stated that their country, as the term has been understood since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, has no moral right to enforce sovereignty on its territory. Stated another way, they are stating that their country has no moral right to exist.

The word ‘treason’ can mean different things to different people. Some people view Donald Trump as a traitor, even if he didn’t actually collude with the Russians. Other people felt the same way about Obama. Unfortunately, declaring political differences to be treasonous cheapens the word and is often simply inaccurate. As much as a one may passionately believe that policy X is the best policy for the country, someone else may just as passionately believe that the opposite of X is the best choice. Neither of these folks is necessarily a traitor to the country. They just disagree. But under the international system that we have had for the last 350 years, prioritizing the needs of a foreign population over your own citizens without a commensurate benefit accruing to the majority (or significant minority) of your citizens and thereby stating that your country has no moral right to exist, IS an act of betrayal.

There really is no other word for it. It is an act of treason against one’s own country. And it seems to be a position held by a not insignificant fraction of the Western political class, to the detriment of their societies.