One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
The difference between patriotism and nationalism
Page: 1 2 next>>
Jan 14, 2020 02:41:55   #
PeterS
 
...



| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 03:11:17   #
Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas
 
PeterS wrote:
...


This is proof that the media controls your feeble mind.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 03:31:39   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
PeterS wrote:
...


That may have been true in the 18th and first half of the 19th century. To the anti-nationalists, the alternative is a one-world government run by elitists while the masses become enslaved. We've already tried that and it doesn't work.


Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism.

Britain votes to leave the European Union. The United States elects a president who says he’ll put “America First.”

Around the world, nationalism is winning elections. Many see this nationalist revival as the great danger of our time, fearing that nationalism will take us back to a more primitive and racist past.

But it wasn’t long ago that great political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, David Ben-Gurion and Mahatma Gandhi, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher recognized what I call the virtue of nationalism.

So, what is this virtue?

A nationalist believes that the world is governed best when nations are free to chart their own independent course, cultivating their traditions and pursuing their interests without interference. Nationalism is not about racism. All nations are internally diverse. And it isn’t about isolationism.

Of course, nations can also pursue a variety of different policies in diplomacy and trade. Nationalism is the opposite of imperialism—or globalism or transnationalism—which are all names for the attempt to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind under a single political authority.

The debate between nationalists and globalists, then, is over whether we should aspire to a world of many independent nations—or to be one unified super-state, like the enlightened “Federation” of the Star Trek movies. A case can be made for both sides of the argument. But for the last 30 years—really, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Soviet Union—the “one world“ side has been dominant.

Today, this is changing. Maybe not among elites, but among ordinary citizens—or, as they are known in America, “the deplorables.” It turns out that a lot of people still think good borders make good neighbors.

It’s hardly surprising that people want to preserve the way of life they and their ancestors built up over centuries, the way of life they believe is best. It’s human nature. Our strongest loyalties are to those who are closest to us: to our family; then the larger community or “tribe”, and finally, to the nation.

Long ago, it was discovered that the key to human freedom is to build political life out of this natural loyalty. By putting decision-making in the hands of the family, the community, and the independent nation, you could get people to cooperate with one another, join in the common defense and willingly obey laws. The only alternative to this kind of community and nation-based politics is to use force—to coerce obedience. In the 20th century, communism and Nazism both sought to impose a universal vision at gunpoint. Both the communists and the Nazis were imperialists: They wanted to eliminate the independent nations of the world.

Nationalism holds that borders are crucial: The border is where each nation’s ambitions should stop. This idea first appears in the Bible, where Moses gives borders to Israel and tells the Jews they’ll be punished if they trouble their neighbors.

True to its biblical roots, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century made the independent nation-state the political cornerstone of the modern world. When Henry VIII declared that England would no longer obey dictates from Rome, he became Europe’s first true nationalist.

Soon, additional nations declared their independence: the Dutch from Spain, and America from Britain, to cite just two examples. The competition among these newly independent peoples led to an explosion of innovation, bringing unprecedented progress in science, industry and government.

For nearly four hundred years, the principle of national independence served as the foundation for a better, freer world. But World War I and World War II changed everything. Traumatized by these catastrophic conflicts, many now seek comfort in a simplistic narrative, ceaselessly repeated: that “nationalism caused two world wars and the Holocaust.” But this is one of the great untruths of our time. Adolph Hitler was no nationalist. He was an imperialist. If his ambitions had been limited to ruling Germans, it would have been terrible for Germany, but the French, the British, the Russians, and everyone else would have been spared a world war.

Sadly, European elites learned the wrong lesson, believing that independent nations are inherently dangerous. Better, they reasoned, that all countries should live under one government.

In 1992, this vision gave birth to the European Union. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher hated the idea. She didn’t want the bureaucrats in Brussels making decisions for Brits in Birmingham. But in the utopian 1990s, Britain thought it was better to dump Thatcher and go with Brussels. It’s the spirit of Margaret Thatcher and, indeed, of Henry VIII, that reasserted itself in Britain’s vote for independence from Europe in June 2016. Donald Trump tapped into the same spirit of nationalism five months later, in November 2016.

Nationalism is making a comeback. If you care about freedom, you should hope it succeeds.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 03:42:15   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
PeterS wrote:
...


You are not a patriot because you have a blind hatred of all things Conservative. The United States is the Constitution. Without it we are just a bunch of rocks and dirt with people and buildings on it. Patriots defend the Constitution. Liberals view this document as an antiquated roadblock to be ignored or misread.
Veterans voted for Trump at 61% to 45%. Active duty military voted for Trump over Clinton at nearly a 3:1 margin.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:28:38   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
PeterS wrote:
...


A Jerk by Sydney J. Harris
I don't know whether history repeats itself, but biography certainly does. The other day, Michael came in and asked me what a "jerk" was--the same question Carolyn put to me a dozen years ago.
At that time, I fluffed her off with some inane answer, such as, "A jerk isn't a very nice person," but both of us knew it was an unsatisfactory reply. When she went to bed, I began trying to work up a suitable definition.It is a marvelously apt word, of course. Until it was coined, there was really no single word in English to describe the kind of person who is a jerk--"boob" and "simp" were too old hat, and besides they really didn’t fit, for they could be lovable, and a jerk never is.Thinking it over, I decided that a jerk is basically a person without insight.He is not necessarily a fool or a dope, because some extremely clever persons can be jerks. In fact, it has little to do with intelligence as we commonly think of it; it is, rather, a kind of subtle but persuasive aroma emanating from the inner part of the personality.
I know a college president who can be described only as a jerk. He is not an unintelligent man, nor unlearned, nor even unschooled in the social amenities. Yet he is a jerk cum laude, because of a fatal flaw in his nature--he is totally incapable of looking into the mirror of his soul and shuddering at what he sees there.A jerk, then, is a man (or woman) who is utterly unable to see himself as he appears to others. He has no grace, he is tactless without meaning to be, he is a bore even to his best friends, he is an egotist without charm. All of us are egotists to some extent, but most of us--unlike the jerk--are perfectly and horribly aware of it when we make asses of ourselves. The jerk never knows.



| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:45:59   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
dtucker300 wrote:
That may have been true in the 18th and first half of the 19th century. To the anti-nationalists, the alternative is a one-world government run by elitists while the masses become enslaved. We've already tried that and it doesn't work.


Yoram Hazony, author of The Virtue of Nationalism.

Britain votes to leave the European Union. The United States elects a president who says he’ll put “America First.”

Around the world, nationalism is winning elections. Many see this nationalist revival as the great danger of our time, fearing that nationalism will take us back to a more primitive and racist past.

But it wasn’t long ago that great political figures such as Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, David Ben-Gurion and Mahatma Gandhi, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher recognized what I call the virtue of nationalism.

So, what is this virtue?

A nationalist believes that the world is governed best when nations are free to chart their own independent course, cultivating their traditions and pursuing their interests without interference. Nationalism is not about racism. All nations are internally diverse. And it isn’t about isolationism.

Of course, nations can also pursue a variety of different policies in diplomacy and trade. Nationalism is the opposite of imperialism—or globalism or transnationalism—which are all names for the attempt to bring peace and prosperity to the world by uniting mankind under a single political authority.

The debate between nationalists and globalists, then, is over whether we should aspire to a world of many independent nations—or to be one unified super-state, like the enlightened “Federation” of the Star Trek movies. A case can be made for both sides of the argument. But for the last 30 years—really, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the end of the Soviet Union—the “one world“ side has been dominant.

Today, this is changing. Maybe not among elites, but among ordinary citizens—or, as they are known in America, “the deplorables.” It turns out that a lot of people still think good borders make good neighbors.

It’s hardly surprising that people want to preserve the way of life they and their ancestors built up over centuries, the way of life they believe is best. It’s human nature. Our strongest loyalties are to those who are closest to us: to our family; then the larger community or “tribe”, and finally, to the nation.

Long ago, it was discovered that the key to human freedom is to build political life out of this natural loyalty. By putting decision-making in the hands of the family, the community, and the independent nation, you could get people to cooperate with one another, join in the common defense and willingly obey laws. The only alternative to this kind of community and nation-based politics is to use force—to coerce obedience. In the 20th century, communism and Nazism both sought to impose a universal vision at gunpoint. Both the communists and the Nazis were imperialists: They wanted to eliminate the independent nations of the world.

Nationalism holds that borders are crucial: The border is where each nation’s ambitions should stop. This idea first appears in the Bible, where Moses gives borders to Israel and tells the Jews they’ll be punished if they trouble their neighbors.

True to its biblical roots, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century made the independent nation-state the political cornerstone of the modern world. When Henry VIII declared that England would no longer obey dictates from Rome, he became Europe’s first true nationalist.

Soon, additional nations declared their independence: the Dutch from Spain, and America from Britain, to cite just two examples. The competition among these newly independent peoples led to an explosion of innovation, bringing unprecedented progress in science, industry and government.

For nearly four hundred years, the principle of national independence served as the foundation for a better, freer world. But World War I and World War II changed everything. Traumatized by these catastrophic conflicts, many now seek comfort in a simplistic narrative, ceaselessly repeated: that “nationalism caused two world wars and the Holocaust.” But this is one of the great untruths of our time. Adolph Hitler was no nationalist. He was an imperialist. If his ambitions had been limited to ruling Germans, it would have been terrible for Germany, but the French, the British, the Russians, and everyone else would have been spared a world war.

Sadly, European elites learned the wrong lesson, believing that independent nations are inherently dangerous. Better, they reasoned, that all countries should live under one government.

In 1992, this vision gave birth to the European Union. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher hated the idea. She didn’t want the bureaucrats in Brussels making decisions for Brits in Birmingham. But in the utopian 1990s, Britain thought it was better to dump Thatcher and go with Brussels. It’s the spirit of Margaret Thatcher and, indeed, of Henry VIII, that reasserted itself in Britain’s vote for independence from Europe in June 2016. Donald Trump tapped into the same spirit of nationalism five months later, in November 2016.

Nationalism is making a comeback. If you care about freedom, you should hope it succeeds.
That may have been true in the 18th and first half... (show quote)


Very True, however consider a key component in your definition of Nationalism"
"Nationalism holds that borders are crucial: The border is where each nation’s ambitions should stop."

Bookmark, Bold Print, and Italicize that thought.

If a border is where each nation's ambition should stop, is it really necessary for the US to have it's special forces deployed in 138 nations, and military bases in 63 countries?*

At what point does Nationalism morph into Imperialism?

Is it not possible to be a Nationalist and a Patriot as the same time?

Is it not possible to love, respect, and honor your country, while also voicing strong disagreement when your country does not act in a moral and respectable manner, and honor the sovereignty of neighboring countries?


*https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564





| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 05:57:26   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
ACP45 wrote:
Very True, however consider a key component in your definition of Nationalism"
"Nationalism holds that borders are crucial: The border is where each nation’s ambitions should stop."

Bookmark, Bold Print, and Italicize that thought.

If a border is where each nation's ambition should stop, is it really necessary for the US to have it's special forces deployed in 138 nations, and military bases in 63 countries?*

At what point does Nationalism morph into Imperialism?

Is it not possible to be a Nationalist and a Patriot as the same time?

Is it not possible to love, respect, and honor your country, while also voicing strong disagreement when your country does not act in a moral and respectable manner, and honor the sovereignty of neighboring countries?


*https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564
Very True, however consider a key component in you... (show quote)


Exactly

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 06:01:02   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
PeterS wrote:
...


Hmmmmm?

Seems like Obama was a nationalist as well...

Y'all just can't win...

I agree Peter...

Americans should focus on their own Nation... Protect their borders... Curtail the drug epidemic.. Stop rioting and hating one another... And leave the rest of the world to its own devices....

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 06:40:03   #
Liberty Tree
 
PeterS wrote:
...


You are neither.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 07:26:11   #
Quakerwidow Loc: Chestertown, MD
 
PeterS wrote:
...



| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 07:52:58   #
billy a Loc: South Florida
 
PeterS wrote:
...


This is one man's stance on a couple of words. It would make a neat poster on some Che Guevarro wannabe's wall, but it doesn't stand up
to the complexities of being a citizen today.
This statement allows no room for middle-ground. I am a voting American, active in my community affairs. If my Country is wrong about something,I can speak out, or run for office to change. If enough patriot/nationalists
agree, then we can change.
It is not so black and white , in or out, as Mr. Harris States. Our Nation is not static ; it is a growing, living thing that is still "Under Construction".
We are too hung-up on labelling people.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 08:48:59   #
amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle
 
PeterS wrote:
...


Your point?

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 12:14:04   #
Sonny Magoo Loc: If you ain't Dutch you ain't much.
 
PeterS wrote:
...


Nothing like a newcomer to decide for me what's up.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 13:48:32   #
dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA
 
ACP45 wrote:
Very True, however consider a key component in your definition of Nationalism"
"Nationalism holds that borders are crucial: The border is where each nation’s ambitions should stop."

Bookmark, Bold Print, and Italicize that thought.

Quote:
If a border is where each nation's ambition should stop, is it really necessary for the US to have it's special forces deployed in 138 nations, and military bases in 63 countries?*
Our overseas bases are subject to SFAs with the host country. We have a Navy with ships on all the world's oceans to keep them free and open for all countries who abide by international laws. We also prevent piracy.

Quote:
At what point does Nationalism morph into Imperialism?
When they try to annex other lands, peoples, and countries. What has America tried to annex lately?

Quote:
Is it not possible to be a Nationalist and a Patriot as the same time?
Agreed!

Quote:
Is it not possible to love, respect, and honor your country, while also voicing strong disagreement when your country does not act in a moral and respectable manner, and honor the sovereignty of neighboring countries?
Agreed!


*https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases-2/5564
Very True, however consider a key component in you... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 16:19:50   #
ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island
 
Quote:
If a border is where each nation's ambition should stop, is it really necessary for the US to have it's special forces deployed in 138 nations, and military bases in 63 countries?*
Your Comment:
Our overseas bases are subject to SFAs with the host country. We have a Navy with ships on all the world's oceans to keep them free and open for all countries who abide by international laws. We also prevent piracy.
My Response:
I don't know what an SFA is, but I suspect that it is an agreement between the US and the host country on our use of a military base in that country. Question for you. What if the host country requests that the US close that base and withdraw it's host troops from that country. Will we honor their request?

"On Thursday Iraqi Prime Minister Mahdi phoned Pompeo to urgently request that Washington enact a US troop “withdrawal mechanism” in Iraq. American troops are in Iraq by invitation of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi government had just voted to revoke that invitation.

The State Department responded with a statement titled “The US Continued Partnership with Iraq,” in which it essentially said that the US would not abide by the request of its Iraqi partners because the US military is a “force for good” in the Middle East and that as such it is “our right” to maintain “appropriate force posture” in the region." https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/01/ron-paul/us-to-iraq-vote-all-you-want-were-not-leaving/

How about the situation in Syria. The US established several military bases without Syria's permission, and against Syria's will. We continue to occupy THEIR oil field, and deny them the use of THEIR oil. How do you reconcile the border argument in these two cases?
========================

Quote:
At what point does Nationalism morph into Imperialism?
Your Comment:
When they try to annex other lands, peoples, and countries. What has America tried to annex lately?

My Response:
I don't disagree with your answer, but I would expand the actions that you listed to include CIA coups against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, etc., destabilization attempts like Syria, numerous false flag events, foreign interference in the elections of other countries, punishing sanctions on other countries in an attempt to force the population into regime change. These are all actions that go outside our border and interfere with another nations sovereignty.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2020 IDF International Technologies, Inc.