Patriotism or Nationalism?

Sobran's ^ | 10/16/2001 | Joseph Sobran

[sheltonmac]

Bump

[First_Salute]

Which is why the liberals, "liberal media," Clintons, Clintonistas, and unfortunately too many Democrats are more accurately, nationalizing socialists: their focus or reason d'etre is rivalry, the pitting of people against each other, most typically by employing fear and state excesses, out of which adversity or anarchy, such politicos locate themselves to be seen, to appear to be, the solutions ( ... to the very problems they created).

They are government supremacists, nationalists.

[Marianne]

BTTT

[DeaconBenjamin]

Which view would embody Decatur's toast? "My country, may she always be right, but she is my country, right or wrong."

[Migraine]

We're not really trying to force-feed our ideals hither and yon; but we do insist that, in the interest of liberty and pursuit of prosperity, other nations leave other nations (including us) alone, in peace, to pursue our own goals. We do this because when we don't, tyrants arise and will always come back to haunt us.

[First_Salute]

"...and he is quick to compromise with an enemy."

Nope.

And my apologies, about my previous reply; it was meant in the context of where I had first, in my error of reading too fast, thought the article was headed.

Very sorry.

[ouroboros]

OUTSTANDING COLUMN BUMP. Sorry if many of you are getting double bumped, I'm sure Shelton's list and mine have a lot of overlap.

[sendtoscott]

what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — “national greatness,” or something like that.

BTT

[A.J.Armitage]

Ties in with a thread I posted last night, Notes on Nationalism. I think I actually was born in the greatest country on Earth, America, but I still think I'm a patriot in the sense he means because if I had been born Danish I would love Denmark, military might or no. But then, it's doubtful that "greatest" necessarily has anything to do with the military. I'd say the greatest country is the one with the most freedom (which, I suppose, is a very American thing to say). In that case, America is still at or near the top(it's a little more subjective than who can kill more people and break more stuff). He's right that confusion between nationalism and patriotism are easy, but he passes one of the reasons over. An American patriot must love America partly because of abstract ideals, because those ideals form an important part of our particular identity and history.

[A.J.Armitage]

I don't mind being bumped twice. This article deserves it.

[annalex]

Any country that refuses to Americanize is "anti-American" - or a "rogue nation."

This is fine in theory, but written as it is, in the middle of the War on Terror becomes demagoguery. That is because what is currently termed "rogue nation" has a precise connotation: a nation that would assist terrorists is a rogue nation; a nation could be as unamerican as a fig pie, if it cooperates with us, it is a legitimate nation.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

A thanks-for-the-ping BTTT

[shuckmaster]

Aw, Shucks!

[IronJack]

Of Kipling: "He loves England because England is strong, not because it's English."

I love America because she is strong AND because she is America. In fact, an America that isn't strong, isn't America.

[UnBlinkingEye]

This is fine in theory, but written as it is, in the middle of the War on Terror becomes demagoguery.

A War on Terror is a demagog definition of war.

That is because what is currently termed "rogue nation" has a precise connotation: a nation that would assist terrorists is a rogue nation;

We assisted and trained the Taliban and Bin Laden not to mention the KLA.

a nation could be as unamerican as a fig pie, if it cooperates with us, it is a legitimate nation.

What a ridiculous assertion. You should be ashamed of yourself. Think about your statements I quoted and apply them to other points of view.

[ouroboros]

I love America because she is strong AND because she is America. In fact, an America that isn't strong, isn't America.

That would depend entirely on how you define the word "strong". Before America became an Empire, she was "strong" in the sense that her people and her "small r" republican virtues gave her strength. Being a huge "superpower" with a "place in the world" second to none, might be things that one would point to as evidence of America's strength. I wouldn't.

I would submit that the events surrounding September 11, show us that this "strong" Empire that we still call America is very, very weak. The true strength of America resides in the American people and that strength will be here regardless of how "important" we are in the world or how grandiose our military-industrial complex is.

America was a good country long before it was a "great" country. One should not confuse the trappings of State and Empire with "greatness" as I believe far too many conservatives -- from Kristolites to Keyesters -- do far too often.

[annalex]

I don't like the term "war on terror" myself, but I am not in a position to give it a different name. Whether we traned some of the thugs that now pester us is not very relevant. We trained the mujaheddeen for a concrete and legitimate purpose to facilitate their fighting the USSR. We owe them nothing and they have not earned a right to murder our civilians. As to the unamerican nations' ability to behave themselves and consequently not be characterized as "rogue nations", contrary to Sobran's assertions, I just don't understand what your trepidation is, exactly.

[Aerial]

Good article.

[mafree]

Thanks for the bump. It is a good article and the distinction needs to be drawn, though I will admit I'm not as negative towards nationalism as the author but I do see his point nonetheless.