Nationalism in an American (or Western Hem in general) context is a pretty damn broad and vague concept, since it doesn't tie back to a specific "nation" of people. So I'm curious what the article actually says…
But the critics also had this reaction because the address had a theme — nationalism — that has itself long been assumed in many quarters to be dark, divisive, and dangerous. That assumption has never been justified
Fucking lollll.
Not even "But hey it has good qualities too depending on circumstances", just full throated NO ITS TOTALLY GOOD AND NEVER EVER WAS BAD ONCE. About…fucking nationalism.
He wrote that the academic Left’s “focus on marginalized groups will, in the long run, help to make our country much more decent, more tolerant and more civilized.” He then added, “But there is a problem with this left: it is unpatriotic. In the name of ‘the politics of difference,’ it refuses to rejoice in the country it inhabits. It repudiates the idea of a national identity, and the emotion of national pride.
Aside from the whole multi-cultural melting pot thing you mean?
The outlines of a benign nationalism are not hard to discern. It includes loyalty to one’s country: a sense of belonging, allegiance, and gratitude to it. And this sense attaches to the country’s people and culture, not just to its political institutions and laws.
Indeed, and in the hands of a far-right person, like the current administration, that definition of "people and culture" narrows and narrows and POP, out comes some of the population from counting! But no big deal or anything.
It is worth noting, as well, that none of these expressions of love of country and anger at its opposite reflects ethnocentrism, either.
Reminder that this was written about how it wasn't creepy that Trump was talking about nationalism in his inaugural speech.
This is from some "conservative philosopher" they quote.
A nation-state is a form of customary order, the byproduct of human neighborliness, shaped by an “invisible hand” from the countless agreements between people who speak the same language and live side by side.
Nationalism is super modern (last couple centuries) and involves/involved a shitload of very very visible hands. And that "neighborliness" isn't so damn neighborly when the person living side by side with you doesn't speak the same language. He's making a very subtle argument that its natural and right for similar people to rally, and we all know the other side of that.
Still the philosopher.
It results from compromises established after many conflicts,
What is left out of this is that nationalism is an ethnic sense has a beauty to it when a community is under siege, generally a victim of a larger stronger nationalism. The ideal situation would not lead to these compromises in the first place. Ideally ethnic nationalism wouldn't be important.
“Cosmopolitanism gives us one country, and it is good,” G. K. Chesterton wrote. “Nationalism gives us a hundred countries, and every one of them is the best.
Cosmopolitanism does not mean individual differences between this or that culture have to go away.
The nation also makes democracy possible. Without the nation, and people bound together by a common home, language, and sense of shared identity and interests, there is no real polity
So the United States does not have, and never did have, a real polity?? Common language and (very debatebly) common home sure. Shared identity and interests…lolll.
There is a reason that the European Union, a collection of disparate nations with disparate interests and traditions, has a democracy deficit and always will.
The United States was created exactly as a collection of disparate nations with disparate interests and traditions. Right from day one.
What are you trying to be nationalistic about again? This country?
Nationalist sentiments are natural and can’t be beaten out of people if you try.
There is a shitload that is artificial about them. And its highly subject to change over time.
Domestically, since the 1960s and 1970s, what the late social scientist Samuel Huntington called a “denationalized” elite in this country has waged war on the nation and its common culture.
And finally the article instead of just being mealy mouthed apologism, becomes creepy! Took ya long enough!
Still on the whole a very short time to go from "Nationalism is puppies and rainbows!" to "THESE PEOPLE DO NOT COUNT AS THE TRIBE, THEY ARE OTHERS, THEY ARE ENEMY". Samuel Huntington is I think the dipshit who did that awful clash of civilizations map too.
Conservatives have fought back on issues such as bilingual education,
Bilingual education helps English language learners learn English, while also being able to get their fucking work done in school and not be held back for years. You fucking morons. What does this even have to do with American nationalism? Language in America is not a nationalist matter. I don't care how you define the US, its never been a part of things. It has always been a functional useful tool. It is good and useful that we have one very dominant language. Cool. But it has not romantic cultural connotations, not the least because its not our fucking language to do that with.
The idea of anything supplanting it is yet another xenophobic conservative boogieman that doesn't exist. But the fact they get so fired up on it is the very definition of stupid ass nationalism. There is no threat, bilingual education is a functional reality that actually helps advance English. But its attacked anyway because….? NOT OUR LANGUAGE.
the downgrading of traditional U.S. history in curricula
Oh yeah, here's a definite straight up negative about nationalism. That it loves insisting on the field of History bending to its will and accepting myths and whitewashing regardless of established reality or facts. Not because of an interest in History, but because of an interest in nationalism. Which is not the fucking point of History.
Like we all grimaced at the idea of Trump's people insisting on political messaging control on federal oriented science groups? This is basically the same exact sort of thinking.
Like here, when they say "traditional history" the word they actually care about is "traditional".
racial preferences,
Wait…what the fuck does that have to do...regardless of how you feel about them.... ...with nationalism??
Like the only answer I can think of here is US nationalism is being defined racially. If you catch my drift.
the elevation of subnational groups
Oh ok, yeah there's nothing subtle about it at this point. If emphasis and care being paid to minorities is being considering an attack on nationalism, then nationalism is being defined as a nationalism of the majority. This is the ugly side of nationalism in the flesh.
Though I'll never not be amused that black people, whose ancestors in the majority of cases have been around the US way longer than a ton of white people's (like half of mine), and certainly co-author Remesh Ponnuru's folks….are somehow even possible to exclude from any definition of American nationalism.
and mass immigration
Ah yes, the 1960's and 70's. Where mass immigration to America is from. The dry spell before that was certainly not caused by openly racist strict limitations from the 1920's or anything! I wonder what was before that?
anything that has been part of the multiculturalist onslaught on national solidarity.
And article straight up says that multi-culturalism is the opposite of American nationalism.
The article would be veering into straight up white supremacism if it spelled these sort of things out any further than this.
The appeal to national pride has also been important to conservative politics, and has tended to be most pronounced precisely when conservatism has been politically successful, as during the Reagan years.
And not for instance the Roosevelt years lol. Also boy howdy, when I think national pride I think the Nixon/Ford era.
Conservatism became less nationalist in a kind of response to declining national cohesion.
I'm trying to actually think of what material ….anything they're indicating has declined regarding national cohesion (well we're SUPER partisan recently but that's not nationalism related). Like really, what thing indicates a decline in national cohesion in the post-Cold War compared to the Cold War.
Also being idiot conservatives they're super duper uninterested in what the evolution of American cohesion looked like prior to the Cold War. But hey, they already told us they don't like when History gets in the way of a nationalist myth.
If anything we're more nationally homogenous than ever. Like when my parents were born the differences between say the South and Northeast were even more pronounced. Like the South didn't even really have major urban centers until the dreaded 60's and 70's booms. Atlanta used to be tiny not so long ago.
But yeah a more generalized "America" is available most places at the expense of regional sub-cultures. Like my grandparents generation have more pronounced accents (yes including the WASPs), the grandchildren almost to the individual speak in nearly nonexistent accents. Closer to Ohio News Anchor and all that.
Guess the Mexicans are to blame....for....uh....a slightly more generalized cohesive America??
This same decline in cohesion made many Americans yearn for a politics that provided a sense of solidarity. This was particularly the case for many white voters without college degrees,
So we've established minorities are outside this solidarity, and have mentioned "denationalized" elites and used cosmopolitan as a negative so yeah we got our "coastal elites". So the dogwhistle here is yes these people desired some method of harming and smothering the presence of people who aren't white middle America.
So you're saying yeah, racism, xenophobia, and so on elected Donald Trump.
who have seen their relative social and economic standing decline and their patriotism devalued.
Maybe because their patriotism is apparently largely defined by harming and smothering people who aren't like them.
Nationalism is good when it helps unite. It is flaming trash when it starts to do well….this. Exactly this.
Also their social and economic standing has what to do with this?
Trump’s view of immigration is of a piece with this nationalism — we have the sovereign right to decide who comes here and who doesn’t, and policy should be crafted to serve the interests of U.S. citizens.
Its already like this. Dipshits. Hey Rammesh, ask your parents you Uncle Tom motherfucker. Immigrating to the US is a hard process with a shitload of limitations, that is impossible for random people who don't qualify for some sort of special category or circumstance, and requires that the immigrant or even permanent resident can be prove that they will not have to rely on public social services.
The only conclusion I can come to here is that…
1. You don't know this, and therefore never looked into it, and therefore probably shouldn't be running your mouths about anything related to fucking policy.
2. You know this, and are complaining about it like those things you know don't exist, so to push a narrative that whatever draconian shit Trump wants to enact is needed and an improvement. And as we established, we damn sure control who comes and doesn't, and craft the service to not burden US taxpayers...so those can't be your motives here. And your motives are some crazy xenophobic crap.
To the extent that Trump’s nationalism does not include Americans of all races and religions, it betrays the goal of true national unity.
Y'know boys. Given you communicated the same thought in dogwhistle form earlier, and are now talking about how the open form is bad. It seems like your real gripe is Trump not using dogwhistles.