Nationalism

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

There's been a lot of uproar over Trump describing himself as a nationalist and what that means. The Mirriam Webster definition of the term is as follows;

Definition of nationalism
1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

Now, those who took the eight values test I posted in a previous thread know that on that spectrum I scored far to the nationalist side of the value chart. Given that I realize I am biased in that direction. However, even given that, and based on the actual definition of the word, would we, as a nation, not want every single POTUS we ever have to be a nationalist? They are the President of the United States, should not the United States be their primary concern at all time?

[fredtoast]

Here is the problem


"Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry." 


If you limit the definition of "nationalism" to just supporting the country then "Yes" ever President should be a nationalist.  But The United States, while a nation built by immigrants from all over the world, is a majority Caucasian Christian.  So some "Nationalist" groups support the belief that we can't be having Mexican or Muslim immigrants destroying the "purity" of our national identity as white Christians.


Since you are a nationalist who supports "placing primary emphasis on promotion of our culture"  how do you define that culture?  Is it a welcoming "melting pot" or is it "white Christian"?

[Vas Deferens]

daddy don't care about you, your family or any of your best interests. daddy's got kids he don't give 2 flying ***** about. daddy's primary concern is daddy's best interests.

do you really believe this guy is capable of prioritizing the US over himself?

[Belsnickel]

Nationalism brings with it an air of cultural superiority that goes a little far. If you look at the Webster's definition you copied, and you scroll down the page it is on, it gets into the differences between patriotism, nationalism, sectionalism, and jingoism. Disregarding sectionalism, because that is an outlier here as a regional thing, patriotism, nationalism, and jingoism are a spectrum. Patriotism is nationalism without the sense of superiority. Nationalism is jingoism without the war mongering. By itself, nationalism when looked at in this way is fine. The issues I have with nationalism come into play when we look at it in context.

My first issue with nationalism is that it can cause someone to not see inadequacies in the current systems. If you feel that you are a superior nation to all others, then it will be difficult for you to be critical of your country in a meaningful way. Nationalism in the US carries with it those red, white, and blue tinted glasses that can hide things in society that would make us uncomfortable to realize exist in our society.

My other major issues with nationalism are in the realm of foreign relations. The nationalist is more likely to approach foreign relations as a zero-sum game. We see this with the Trump foreign policy. Zero-sum foreign policy can damage our alliances, hurt us in trade situations, and embroil us in war. It is an approach to foreign policy that neglects our role in the global community and has some isolationist tendencies as a result. Why do we need them when we are the best?

As I said, all of this is on a spectrum and so there are mild and extreme varieties. What is most concerning, though, is that leaders can easily slide over towards jingoism because nationalism can have a compounding effect. If a zero-sum foreign policy game that was implemented through nationalist intentions results in shattered relations, then war is on the horizon, and with it the next part of the spectrum.

So, nationalism itself, not a big deal. How it plays out with regards to policy can be highly problematic, though.

[fredtoast]

Also have a problem with the degree of "promoting" our beliefs above all others.

If we believe that democracy is the superior value then does that mean we should start wars in foreign countries to "spread democracy"?

And don't get me started on religious identities. The entire reason there is no peace in the middle east is the religious differences between the countries. It is never a good idea to have religious leaders as political leaders.

[treee]

Well for starters, many masses have been manipulated by their sense of patriotism/nationalism. In fact, it is probably the single most effective way to control large numbers of people via their emotions.

Edit: Let me put it this way: Good luck finding an authoritarian regime that does not employ nationalism to repress it's people.

[NATI BENGALS]

As an agnostic utilitarian nationalist. It is the level of embarrassment for my country that i feel when i think of who is my prez that burns my ass more than anything.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the problem


"Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry."

I'd be interested to know where you got that additional definition.  Put simply, source please.

Quote:If you limit the definition of "nationalism" to just supporting the country then "Yes" ever President should be a nationalist.  But The United States, while a nation built by immigrants from all over the world, is a majority Caucasian Christian.  So some "Nationalist" groups support the belief that we can't be having Mexican or Muslim immigrants destroying the "purity" of our national identity as white Christians.

You're simply pointing out that any belief system, pushed to extremes, will be bad or contain undesirable elements.  I have made this point numerous times. Any ideology pushed to extremes becomes toxic.

Quote:Since you are a nationalist who supports "placing primary emphasis on promotion of our culture"  how do you define that culture?

 
An interesting statement from you considering I did not make this claim.

Quote:Is it a welcoming "melting pot" or is it "white Christian"?

This is one of the reasons P&R is so toxic.  In no way shape or form did I intimate this.  I think we'd all very much appreciate if debate on this sub-forum excluded loaded questions such as these that clearly attempt to portray the other person as a bigot or extremist.  Put simply, you can do better than this, so please do so.

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2018, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Since you are a nationalist who supports "placing primary emphasis on promotion of our culture"  how do you define that culture? 

(11-02-2018, 06:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting statement from you considering I did not make this claim.

Gee, sorry SSF.  No idea where I got that idea

(11-02-2018, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Definition of nationalism
1 : loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.

Now, those who took the eight values test I posted in a previous thread know that on that spectrum I scored far to the nationalist side of the value chart.  Given that I realize I am biased in that direction. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 02:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nationalism brings with it an air of cultural superiority that goes a little far. If you look at the Webster's definition you copied, and you scroll down the page it is on, it gets into the differences between patriotism, nationalism, sectionalism, and jingoism. Disregarding sectionalism, because that is an outlier here as a regional thing, patriotism, nationalism, and jingoism are a spectrum. Patriotism is nationalism without the sense of superiority. Nationalism is jingoism without the war mongering. By itself, nationalism when looked at in this way is fine. The issues I have with nationalism come into play when we look at it in context.

My first issue with nationalism is that it can cause someone to not see inadequacies in the current systems. If you feel that you are a superior nation to all others, then it will be difficult for you to be critical of your country in a meaningful way. Nationalism in the US carries with it those red, white, and blue tinted glasses that can hide things in society that would make us uncomfortable to realize exist in our society.

These are excellent points and exactly what I hoped hoped to elicit with this thread.  There is always a danger in promoting yourself at the expense of the other.  Equally, there exists the potential to ignore obvious flaws since they belong to "us" 

Quote:My other major issues with nationalism are in the realm of foreign relations. The nationalist is more likely to approach foreign relations as a zero-sum game. We see this with the Trump foreign policy. Zero-sum foreign policy can damage our alliances, hurt us in trade situations, and embroil us in war. It is an approach to foreign policy that neglects our role in the global community and has some isolationist tendencies as a result. Why do we need them when we are the best?

I understand your reasoning, but here I think you are on less solid ground.  US interests should be promoted ahead of other national interests by the US government.  There are obvious areas in which our gain comes at the expense of intense detriment of others.  In these incidents a degree of common sense goes a long way.  Put simply, us gaining "1" at the expense of you losing "1,000" is not a desirable outcome, even from a nationalist point of view.  The Snowden situation is a good example of my stance on this issue.  I had little to no issue with his exposing our espionage against our fellow citizens.  I had major issues with his exposing our espionage against other countries, including allies.  I don't care if we put a camera in every German residence if it advances US interests.

Quote:As I said, all of this is on a spectrum and so there are mild and extreme varieties. What is most concerning, though, is that leaders can easily slide over towards jingoism because nationalism can have a compounding effect. If a zero-sum foreign policy game that was implemented through nationalist intentions results in shattered relations, then war is on the horizon, and with it the next part of the spectrum.

Agreed,  as I have said in the past, extremism in any form is undesirable.  As we both agree, nationalism does not equal jingoism, but it can lead us to it.

Quote:So, nationalism itself, not a big deal. How it plays out with regards to policy can be highly problematic, though.

I completely agree.  Which leads us to this question, why have so many lost their minds when Trump used the word "nationalist"?  Is it because they believe that we have already crossed the line into jingoism?  Or is it that they are attempting to redefine the term to paint him as a bigoted jingoist?  I don't think the answer is clear cut enough for anyone of reason to be comfortable with it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Gee, sorry SSF.  No idea where I got that idea

I believe my issue was with your bolded section as follows;

Quote:"Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry." 

I underlined it for you as you were obviously confused.  That section was clearly not in my original post, so kindly address my actual statement instead of trying to score weak internet points and generally behaving like a child.  If you find yourself unable to do so then kindly remove yourself from the topic at hand and let those able to engage in a mature discussion do so.  I appreciate your compliance in this matter.

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2018, 06:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're simply pointing out that any belief system, pushed to extremes, will be bad or contain undesirable elements.  I have made this point numerous times. Any ideology pushed to extremes becomes toxic.

I am sure that everyone agrees with this.  The only question is where do you draw the line called "extreme".

If you just define "nationalism" as liking your own country more than others then I'd say 90% or more of the population are "nationalists".  So not really much to debate. 


Maybe you could give some examples of what you disagree with from US citizens that are not "nationalist".   

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2018, 07:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I underlined it for you as you were obviously confused.  That section was clearly not in my original post, so kindly address my actual statement instead of trying to score weak internet points and generally behaving like a child. 

C'mon man, don't start this.  I posted direct quotes of what you said in your posts and what I said in mine.  The "section" you pulled from a completely different post was no where in the question I asked you.

And do you have to start with the "behaving like a child" already?  I have done nothing but use your own definition to ask you a question.  How is that "behaving like a child"?


.

[fredtoast]

(11-02-2018, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which leads us to this question, why have so many lost their minds when Trump used the word "nationalist"?  Is it because they believe that we have already crossed the line into jingoism?  Or is it that they are attempting to redefine the term to paint him as a bigoted jingoist?  I don't think the answer is clear cut enough for anyone of reason to be comfortable with it.

Because of his rhetoric and lies about Mexicans and Muslims.  It appears that his idea of nationalism incudes preserving a white JudeoChristian identity for the United States.

The term does not need to be "redefined" to cover this belief.  The most racist groups in the world consider themselves "nationalist".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry." 

(11-02-2018, 07:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: C'mon man, don't start this.  I posted direct quotes of what you said in your posts and what I said in mine.  The "section" you pulled from a completely different post was no where in the question I asked you.

Fred, please don't make the first attack and then play the victim.  I have again underlined the section you included, that was not part of my OP, that brought the discussion to this point.  

Quote:And do you have to start with the "behaving like a child" already?  I have done nothing but use your own definition to ask you a question.  How is that "behaving like a child"?.

I'd be happy to return to a reasonable discussion.  Simply either disavow your above statement as an error or explain your reason for making it.  Then we can all move forward.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2018, 07:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because of his rhetoric and lies about Mexicans and Muslims.  It appears that his idea of nationalism incudes preserving a white JudeoChristian identity for the United States.

The term does not need to be "redefined" to cover this belief.  The most racist groups in the world consider themselves "nationalist".

And the NAZI's proclaimed themselves socialists.  North Korea proclaims themselves Democratic.  Does either claim invalidate or alter the actual definition of those words, or render them a negative by association?

[Dill]

(11-02-2018, 06:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Is it a welcoming "melting pot" or is it "white Christian"?

This is one of the reasons P&R is so toxic.  In no way shape or form did I intimate this.  I think we'd all very much appreciate if debate on this sub-forum excluded loaded questions such as these that clearly attempt to portray the other person as a bigot or extremist.  Put simply, you can do better than this, so please do so.

Fred's is a worthwhile question, given the history of the term and the manner in which it has come to the fore in current politics, a time when many are questioning the president's use of the term "nationalism" precisely because it connotes white nationalism for many now.   You allude to this in your very first statement: "There's been a lot of uproar over Trump describing himself as a nationalist." And the uproar is precisely about whether Trump means what so many white nationalists seem to think he means. 

Given this current context, it is certainly worthwhile to raise a discussion of the meaning of "nationalism," as you do, along with related terms like "patriotism." (I assumed when you posed your question, it was about this general situation and not your personal definition or practice of nationalism. And I am still responding on that assumption.)

So what is "culture" and how does one define it if one function of nationalism is to promote it? E.g., is it something the nation is supposed to protect from foreign contamination or is it something that pretty much takes care of itself, though we may offer gov. support for some of its institutions? Is it mainly the property of one demographic? Does it specifically exclude any demographic? I don't expect people to have immediate answers to such questions; your thread offers people a chance to explore them in relation to the question of nationalism.  

The cultural question also teases out different contextual senses of the word nationalism. When a colony is fighting for independence from a mother country, those for independence are often called "nationalists"--until they win. Then they are just Colombians or Arabians or Chinese. The word makes sense in that situation.  When people/governments are trying to consolidate greater control over an already long-constituted nation via "nationalist" identification, then usually something else is up, something related to personal identity under internal as much as external threat. Questions/definitions of culture come to the fore then because of the central role culture plays in constituting identity.

All of which leads back to your question: "would we, as a nation, not want every single POTUS we ever have to be a nationalist? They are the President of the United States, should not the United States be their primary concern at all time?"

I don't think all presidents have been "nationalist" as defined in post #1. At the same time, I cannot think of a POTUS whose primary concern was ever any nation other than the U.S.

But Trump and other Republicans, flying under the anti-globalist banner, speak as if this were not the case--as if spending on foreign aid, respect for the interests and autonomy of allies and for the human rights of non-citizens necessarily placed these others above the U.S. and its citizens. To me, this suggests an implicit definition of nationalism which rejects the prevailing international legal order in favor of something with a more local, ethnic flavor.

I.e., rather than assenting to a nation in an international system predicated on UNIVERSAL human rights (presumed regardless of race, religion or ethnicity) and equality, Trump and Co. would like to see much of that existing order rolled back, with nations acting on the more local and particularist self definitions. Screw equality in favor of hierarchically constructed identities. We see this play out with legal (conceptual) and national borders especially, where Trump policies challenge the universal rights of non-Americans. No universal human rights, would mean no ground for universal right to asylum.

NB: Also, I am having fun thinking of presidents who were "nationalist" in various senses of the term.  Maybe Washington BEFORE he was president, Lincoln DURING the Civil War, in the sense they were pulling a nation together; Jackson certainly, maybe Polk too; and TR Roosevelt and Reagan.

[*michaelsean*]

We’re better. Deal with it world.

Based on SSFs definition I’m cool with it. Although I dont really care about promoting our culture. Not sure I even get that.

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2018, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I understand your reasoning, but here I think you are on less solid ground.  US interests should be promoted ahead of other national interests by the US government.  There are obvious areas in which our gain comes at the expense of intense detriment of others.  In these incidents a degree of common sense goes a long way.  Put simply, us gaining "1" at the expense of you losing "1,000" is not a desirable outcome, even from a nationalist point of view.  The Snowden situation is a good example of my stance on this issue.  I had little to no issue with his exposing our espionage against our fellow citizens.  I had major issues with his exposing our espionage against other countries, including allies.  I don't care if we put a camera in every German residence if it advances US interests.

Since we mostly agreed beyond this one, I am just going to focus here. You seem to be misunderstanding my point. When I refer to the zero-sum approach it isn't saying that promoting our own interests first is a bad idea. What the zero-sum approach is about is that you approach the situation with a desire to win at the expense of others and making them losers. It comes from the idea that there is a finite amount of something and your goal is to have it all. The zero-sum approach is something that anyone with any experience in foreign policy will tell you is harmful to our relationships with other nations. So much of diplomacy is trying to find a win-win scenario. Sure, that isn't always possible and sometimes things are lopsided even when they are, but when you enter the negotiations with the zero-sum approach you aren't even trying to reach that point.

(11-02-2018, 07:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I completely agree. Which leads us to this question, why have so many lost their minds when Trump used the word "nationalist"? Is it because they believe that we have already crossed the line into jingoism? Or is it that they are attempting to redefine the term to paint him as a bigoted jingoist? I don't think the answer is clear cut enough for anyone of reason to be comfortable with it.

I think there is concern over the use of that word because of its historical connotations as well as the groups in modern times that use the word in the US primarily. Nationalism has often been a tool of autocrats in history, and when you look at some of Trump's tendencies, that can cause some people to be concerned. We are talking about someone who said recently that he believes he can unilaterally overturn a constitutional amendment, after all. In modern usage, nationalism is something that isn't embraced much in the US except by certain fringe groups, like white nationalists. These happen to be a major part of Trump's base.

So Trump referring to himself as a nationalist could cause people to be concerned because of either the historical usage or because they see it as a signal of support to the white nationalists that he has referred to as having "good people" among them, already.

[GMDino]

Does anyone here think Trump was referencing the dictionary when he said what he said?

Or that he's ever used a dictionary?