Vladimir Putin is trying to rebuild the former Soviet Union, at least in terms of Russia's power and influence (and the absence of McDonald's). Constantine fought to put the Roman Empire back together again—so did Mussolini. In the United States today, many conservatives long for what they perceive as periods of lost American greatness: the 1950s, the 1980s, and November 2016. Nationalist movements and regimes often gaze backward, toward a golden age when everything was right in the world, at least for those in power. Look into other examples of countries explicitly trying to rekindle the good old days—what some call the politicization of nostalgia—then discuss with your team: when, if ever, should people look toward their past as a model for what to become in the future? Put another way, when is it good for a country to become great again?

• “RETURN OF THE SOVIET UNION”: During the 1990s, Putin rose from a mid-ranking cog on the periphery of the KGB to become the deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, and then in 1996 was called to Moscow to work for President Yeltsin’s Kremlin. He saw close-up how weak the new Russia had become. In 1998, when Bill Clinton called Yeltsin to tell him the United States was considering air strikes in Serbia, Yeltsin was furious. He screamed at Clinton that this was unacceptable and then hung up. The bombing raids went ahead anyway. To achieve this, Putin turned to history. Russia’s recent past had been contradictory, painful, and bloody, but Putin was determined that Russians should take pride in their history. Victory in World War II, still known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, became a kind of national founding myth for the new Russia. Putin’s personal image evolved to reinforce the narrative of a newly resurgent country. He won Russians over with his calm, no-nonsense approach and tough-talking.
• MUSSOLINI’S “THIRD ROME”: Despite Mussolini’s earlier antipathy to the very idea of Rome as Italy’s capital – he notoriously thought the city a squalid metropolis, fit only for ‘shoeshine boys and prostitutes’ – it was later claimed (not least by his mistress and biographer Margherita Sarfatti) that he had idolized ancient Rome since his boyhood. Once Fascism had gained power, the glorification of ancient Rome was rarely absent from Mussolini’s rhetoric – or from his far-reaching plans for the Fascist future. This glorification took many forms – from the declaration of Rome’s ‘birthday’ as a national holiday (replacing the socialist May Day celebrations) to the pronouncement of a resurrection of the Roman Empire on Rome’s ‘fatal hills’ following Italy’s victorious colonial exploits in Ethiopia.
• “50s CONSERVATIVE NOSTALGIA”: Many Americans correctly remember the 1950s as “a time of consensus and stability and respect for authority,” Mr. Frum said. Marriage rates were high, divorce rates were low, and a man with only a high-school diploma could support a wife and family. But these “impermanent” and “unnatural” conditions were the products of “a society formed by war,” Mr. Frum told those attending his presentation in AEI’s Bradley Lecture Series, titled “Where Did the Sixties Come From?”
• POLITICIZATION OF NOSTALGIA: Populist leaders worldwide often exploit nostalgia by referring to the glorious past of their countries that has been lost today. Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” indicates a yearning for a past when gender and racial relations were more “ordered” in the US. In Venezuela, Chavistas refer to Simon Bolivar as El Libertador, in their quest to re-establish an independent Latin America. In Turkey, populist Justice and Development Party governments built their rhetoric on Ottoman nostalgia. In Western Europe, right-wing populists refer to the era before the influx of immigrants and European unification when they had not yet lost their sovereignty. “Let’s Take Back Control”—the slogan of the leave camp during the Brexit referendum—also carries a nostalgic message, which can distill to: things were better before. Home is the key to understanding nostalgia and why populists frequently use nostalgia to rally supporters: because nostalgia is a homecoming, seeking refuge in a shelter that protects the pure and authentic people that stands together from dangerous others. Therefore, we can define nostalgia as a combination of nostos “return home” and algia “a painful condition,” which can be roughly translated as “a painful yearning to return home.” Nostalgia is an effective and cheap tool to generate an enemy image or an antagonistic us versus them identity. When such identities overlap with a deeply felt, cross-cutting cleavage, it can lead to populism. But not all nostalgia is harmful. Nostalgia for a liberal past, that is used to criticize the illiberal politics of populists, can be used to increase support for democracy.

People, especially people who work in politics and the government, should look toward the past as a model when creating and passing laws; they should look towards the past as a warning of what not to do and to make better political decisions for the future. Of course, the most notable example of this would be laws surrounding human rights and climate change. Firstly, you have to consider whether or not the country has ever been great in the first place. In my opinion, the term “great again” is reminiscent of going back to the past and enacting the same actions that were once normalized and encouraged. A country should only become “great again” if they are experiencing immense poverty in present times or face difficulties that affect the nation as a whole.

Sometimes a particular population within a country tries to return to an older lifestyle. The British Luddites destroyed their mechanical looms; New York teenagers are setting aside their smartphones. Consider the Mennonites in Belize—like the Amish, for whom they're often mistaken, they prefer horses and buggies over Limes and Teslas—and then discuss with your team: to what extent should people have the freedom to opt out of the modern world? If a community wants to teach their children history only up to a certain year, or to maintain starkly delineated gender roles, should they have that right? Is there a difference between a group of people that imposes these restrictions only on its own members and one that seeks to implement its preferences more broadly?

• LUDDITES: The word “Luddite,” handed down from a British industrial protest that began 200 years ago this month, turns up in our daily language in ways that suggest we’re confused not just about technology, but also about who the original Luddites were and what being a modern one actually means. Despite their modern reputation, the original Luddites were neither opposed to technology nor inept at using it. Many were highly skilled machine operators in the textile industry. Nor was the technology they attacked particularly new. Moreover, the idea of smashing machines as a form of industrial protest did not begin or end with them. In truth, the secret of their enduring reputation depends less on what they did than on the name under which they did it. The Luddite disturbances started in circumstances at least superficially similar to our own. British working families at the start of the 19th century were enduring economic upheaval and widespread unemployment. A seemingly endless war against Napoleon’s France had brought “the hard pinch of poverty,” wrote Yorkshire historian Frank Peel, to homes “where it had hitherto been a stranger.” Food was scarce and rapidly becoming more costly. Then, on March 11, 1811, in Nottingham, a textile manufacturing center, British troops broke up a crowd of protesters demanding more work and better wages.
• “ANTI-SOCIAL NETWORK”: Now 17, Logan Lane is the founding member of the Luddite Club—a group of teenagers who feel technology is consuming too much of their lives. They took their name from the 19th-century English textile workers who destroyed the machines they saw as threatening their livelihoods. TLDR; some teenagers in New York quit using their phones.
• MENNONITES IN BELIZE: The tiny Central American country is home to around 12,000 of the world's most conservative Mennonites, a group of Christians that live in closed communities and shun modern technology including, in some cases, electricity. Dating back to 16th-century Europe, the Protestant sect's members have since moved around the world in search of isolated farmland, and to escape persecution or attempts to integrate them into wider society. Belize's colonies date back to the late 1950s, when a group of over 3,000 Canadian Mennonites immigrated there from Mexico. Their arrival followed an agreement with the Belizean government, which offered them land, religious freedom and exemption from certain taxes (and, as committed pacifists, from military service). In return, the country has enjoyed the fruits of its agriculture. Today, Mennonites dominate Belize's domestic poultry and dairy markets, despite representing less 4% of the population.

Every person has every right to opt out of the modern world, however, it is also important to consider that they may face certain difficulties and challenges since the world relies so much on modern technology to function. Although a community shouldn’t teach their children history only up to a certain year or maintain starkly delineated gender roles, they still, unfortunately, have the right to do so. However, the elders in the community also shouldn’t get angry once the children grow up wanting to be educated and to know the truth, because they also have the right to do so. Yes, there is a difference between a group of people that imposes these restrictions only on its own members and one that seeks to implement its preferences more broadly. Those who impose these restrictions only on their own members understand that the members agree with their beliefs and are there voluntarily; while people who seek to implement their preferences more broadly can be described as “forcing their beliefs onto others.”