The Problem of Nationalism

The Daily Signal ^ | December 15, 2019 | Kim Holmes

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

At first glance, the new nationalism of conservatives will seem benign and even uncontroversial.

In his book “The Case for Nationalism,” Rich Lowry defines nationalism as flowing from a people’s “natural devotion to their home and to their country.” Yoram Hazony, in his book “The Virtue of Nationalism,” also has a rather anodyne definition of nationalism. It means “that the world is governed best when nations agree to cultivate their own traditions, free from interference by other nations.”

There is nothing particularly controversial at all about these statements. Defined in these terms, it sounds like little more than simply defending nationality or national sovereignty, which is why Lowry, Hazony, and others insist their definition of nationalism has nothing to do with the most virulent forms involving ethnicity, race, militarism, or fascism.

Here’s the problem. I suppose any of us can take any tradition that has a definite history and simply redefine it to our liking. We could then give ourselves permission to castigate anyone who doesn’t agree with us as “misunderstanding” or even libeling us.

But who actually is responsible for the misunderstanding here? The people who are trying to redefine the term, or the people who remind us of nationalism’s real history and what nationalism actually has been in history? Which raises an even bigger question: Why go down this road at all?

If you have to spend half of your time explaining, “Oh, I don’t mean that kind of nationalism,” why would you want to associate a venerable tradition of American civic patriotism, national pride, and American exceptionalism at all with the various nationalisms that have occurred in the world?

[Taxman]

thiufgband?

[Hulka]

I refuse to let the left define vocabulary, I do not let the left change definitions. You control language, you control the populace/argument and we are to change our vocabulary to accommodate the left. Don’t think so.

Example: “Migrants/immigrants.” They now call illegal aliens “immigrants” thereby they misrepresent our position as being against “immigrants” when in fact we are against illegal aliens.

[Hulka]

“It’s not to say one culture is necessarily better than the other,”. . .actually, I’d say our American culture is world’s ahead of other cultures.

[Hulka]

Agree.

[gogeo]

I disagree. Waste of time.

[Jim W N]

Lowry, Hazony, and others insist their definition of nationalism has nothing to do with the most virulent forms involving ethnicity, race, militarism, or fascism. Here’s the problem. I suppose any of us can take any tradition that has a definite history and simply redefine it to our liking. We could then give ourselves permission to castigate anyone who doesn’t agree with us as “misunderstanding” or even libeling us.

The BEST defense against fascism IS nationalism, or better put, "National Sovereignty" because true fascism is aggressive and wants to conquer other nations and, ultimately, national sovereignty is the best defense against the Delusional Leftist Dream of World Totalitarian Government.

National sovereignty doesn't have to be perfect or according to our way of doing things. America has been an influence for freedom among nations. Nations may go their own route, however, and have a right to. If they fall into Hitleresque fascism, and aggressively start threatening other sovereign nations, those nations have a right to defend themselves and if and when necessary, conquer the aggressor nation.

A few bad apples do not refute the importance of national sovereignty. The alternative is unimaginable really. I don't think there should be a “misunderstanding” here.

[rmlew]

Holmes’s argument is that of atheists calling all religion human sacrifice and abusing children.
It’s not an argument. It’s prejudice.