11-02-2018, 07:07 PM
(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.
