Noam Chomsky: Trump isn't really a nationalist

You idiot, In Germany it was National-Socialists.

You can tell a lot about somebody by how they respond to comments.

(Non-socialist) German nationalists also supported Hitler because he promised to do things for the country and because they were nationalists above all else. A far-sighted lover of his or her country (a patriot) who saw what was happening would have opposed those nationalists and the Nazis they supported.

I'm not as insistent on the distinction between patriot and nationalist as some people but I do recognize that their can be a difference. Nationalists who believe that whatever their country does is right and whatever enriches or empowers their country is good, regardless of morality, may not be real patriots. Go back into your hole and read a little more. Say "Hi" to standwatie if he's in the burrow with you.

Nationalists who believe that whatever their country does is right and whatever enriches or empowers their country is good, regardless of morality, may not be real patriots.

What BS. It seems you are implying that I am fascist because I am nationalist? I have a suggestion; X quit projecting, you are liberal and we all know it. And do you have to be so cliche? Because you are small minded and cannot understand the meaning of words doesn't mean every one is like that.

So I ask do we have to invent a new word because some evil fascist bastard with a cheesy mustache ruined it 70 year ago?

Speaking of NAZI's, post WWI misplaced nationalism in Germany may have helped fuel Hilter's rise but nationalism in the USA and elsewhere also destroyed that threat. IT WORKS BOTH WAYS.

It seems you are implying that I am fascist because I am nationalist?

Not everything in the world is about you. You made a general statement, and I gave an example of a situation where your generalization may not have been valid. Why assume it's about you personally?

I have a suggestion; X quit projecting, you are liberal and we all know it.

Who's projecting? And what's really going on here? Half the stuff you post is about how wonderful it would be to tear the country apart and all of a sudden you're a nationalist and a patriot? Get real! Who do you think you're fooling?

We have leader that is giving us a chance, called Trump. He is putting America first and standing up to the globalists. If this attempt at restoring the republic fails then it is secession time. And it just isn't me it will be a huge wave. If 3 or 4 new nations were to form as a result then I will be a nationalist in my new country as long as it puts the interest of that new nation first.

BTW, can someone hate the federal government (union)and have loyalty to his home state and be considered a patriot?

central_va: "All patriots are nationalists by definition."

stirner: "I am 71 years old, and long before Chomsky, in the 1950’s we were taught at grade-school that what had caused World War II was Nationalism, and that the only hope we had of avoiding an even more destructive future war was to 'mature' beyond being nationalists."

For once I agree with central_va, meaning, by my definitions "patriotism" and "nationalism" are the same things.
Yes, I also heard as a boy that "nationalism" was a bad thing, because it drove Hitler, among others, but I was never taught that in school, and only heard it from a source I did not then consider reliable.

Even as a boy I knew there were perfectly good words for types of extreme nationalism -- chauvinism, jingoism, xenophobia, fanaticism, expansionism, zealotry, imperialist, colonialist and on the other end: isolationism.

I never imagined that nationalism itself implied anything other than patriotism, that it was anything less than absolutely necessary for a functioning country, or that the word itself implied any of those more pathological emotions.

You gave a lot of “bad” words for nationalism, thanks. “Imperialism” is now considered obviously awful. I’ve been wondering for years when New York will get rid of “the Empire State” and what more politically correct nickname they will choose. I still think we need a “good” word for nationalism. Maybe “love of country” is something that most people would get on board with.

After WWII people judged that Germany had taken nationalism too far, or taken it in the wrong direction and that this had led to disaster. They thought the same of Italy and Japan. They also thought that American isolationism and protectionism had made it harder to stop Hitler, so people turned towards a more internationalist point of view, an approach that was more engaged with the rest of the world, and downplayed nationalism.

Arguably they took it too far. I think they did. A reaction back in the direction of nationalism is a valid response. But I wouldn't take that too far either and don't think we should forget the lessons learned earlier: that nationalism can be taken too far. Call it chauvinism or jingoism or xenophobia if you like, but it's still a valid lesson from history.

I'm not saying it has anything to do with Trump. I'm talking in more general terms. You don't want to take anything too far, and don't want to go to the point of fanaticism with any idea. Internationalism or globalism or whatever you want to call it, has limits, and one shouldn't take that idea to beyond those limits. It's the same way with nationalism.

I do have to laugh at centralva being the apostle of nationalism and patriotism nowadays. I was wrong to say that half his posts said that breaking up the country would be a wonderful thing. I think it's really more than half. How can anybody be a nationalist or a patriot and want to shatter the country into tiny pieces?

Stirner: "I've been wondering for years when New York will get rid of “the Empire State” and what more politically correct nickname they will choose."

It's said New York's nickname originated with George Washington who called the USA "our empire" and New York "the seat of empire".
I would not expect a heritage so ancient to be tossed out just for the latest political passions.
Indeed, to me the term "empire state" seems more whimsical than descriptive, and so harmless.

Of course we often speak about "financial empires" or "business empires" or "media empires" etc., but those simply reduce the word "empire" to metaphor or hyperbole, yes, maybe a little scary, but then how many commercial "empires" of, say, 100 years ago still dominate today?

X: "...nationalism can be taken too far.
Call it chauvinism or jingoism or xenophobia if you like, but it's still a valid lesson from history."

Sure, but just a moment's thought and I came up with nine negative names for too-extreme nationalism.
How many names do we have for countries whose nationalism was too weak?
Let's see... "failed", "loser", "defeated", "conquered", "enslaved", "colony", "disappeared", "gone", "buried", "ash heap of history", etc., etc.

My point here is just that all of these are pathological conditions resulting from too much or too little of normal nationalism or patriotism.
If we think of it as a vitamin, or medicine, then good health in our body politic requires the correct dosage for the conditions.

They also thought that American isolationism and protectionism had made it harder to stop Hitler,

Those two thing art NOT antithetical to nationalism. Actually, they are the base of today's nationalism and the appeal of Trumps message. You still don't get it. Protectionism and isolationism ( i.e. close the damn borders ) are nationalist. Globalism is "Free trade" and open borders. Your mind ain't right.

I think it's really more than half. How can anybody be a nationalist or a patriot and want to shatter the country into tiny pieces?

By this form of misplaced logic, to you, somehow when General resigned his US Army commission and joined the CSA he was demonstrating his embrace of globalism and he was rejecting patriotism? Again, your mind ain't right. Let me spell out exactly what I mean with with the Gen. Lee example. When Gen. Lee joined the CSA he was demonstrating the upmost patriotism to Virginia which at the time was a state in a country called the CSA. He fought hard for the CSA and he was nationalist and patriot to that cause and country (CSA). Get it? Are you just plain ignorant?

Just so we're clear on this, I agree with central_va that "nationalist" is synonymous with "patriot", and it turns out so does Webster, up to a point.
When you look up "nationalist" the first synonym is "patriot".
When you look up "patriot" the first synonym is "nationalist", so far so good.

So we can easily say, "President Trump is a patriot-nationalist because he wants to put American first by, for example, negotiating better trade deals."
Either term is correct and they both mean the same things.

However, for good measure, Webster also adds in most of those other words which describe excessive or misdirected nationalism/patriotism -- chauvinist, jingoist & xenophobe, thus implying that either word also means all those negative things.
So in that sense, Webster agrees with Stirner & x.
No doubt Stirner is correct to say that many people have been taught "nationalism" is a dirty word not to be used in polite company.
Such people can get queasy when the President says, "I am a nationalist" even though he only means by it he wants better trade deals, or better controlled borders -- put American first.

As for love of state versus country, we might first notice that the last time Virginia voted red was 2004 for George Bush over John Kerry.
Even in 2016 when my fellow Pennsylvanians flipped red for the first time since 1988, Virginians remained, ahem, true blue.
So it's hard to imagine central_va as excessively loyal to Virginia versus the USA in general.

On the subject of RE Lee's alleged patriotism: it can only be measured in comparison to fellow Virginians like George Thomas and Winfield Scott who remained loyal to the Union they'd sworn to protect, despite Virginia's secession.
Lee's patriotism to the USA was somewhat less.

Appeals to Nationalism have been used for both good and evil throughout history. It is two edged sword. Nationalism played a part in creating the Third Reich and it played a role in defeating the Third Reich. IT WORKS BOTH WAY. All I know is from history that a country ( or empire for that matter) with no sense of nationalism is doomed to extinction ( most of the time overrun 'displaced' by foreign hordes both armed and "peacefully" )or be powerless, if not failed state. The EU compared to the Europe of the past is almost powerless in world affairs and Somalia is a failed state. Two places almost devoid of classic nationalism.

Lee's patriotism to the USA was somewhat less.

That wasn't the point of the Lee example and you know it. Lee, post 1861, was both nationalist and a patriot just not to the union as previously existed. You can say Lee's nationalism ( allegiance to the CSA ) was arguably misplaced but you can't say it didn't exist.

By this form of misplaced logic, to you, somehow when General resigned his US Army commission and joined the CSA he was demonstrating his embrace of globalism and he was rejecting patriotism?

If you listen to your comrade Diogenes, that's exactly what Lee was doing. He was fighting so that British goods could come into the country without having to pay tariffs and British ships could trade in America's coastal waters and the Southern states could tie their economy to Britain's as a supplier of cotton to British mills. That certainly sounds like globalism. The idea was that this would make Dixie an economic superpower but we know it would only make them a poor dependency of Britain.

When Gen. Lee joined the CSA he was demonstrating the upmost patriotism to Virginia which at the time was a state in a country called the CSA. He fought hard for the CSA and he was nationalist and patriot to that cause and country (CSA).

So that's patriotism? So Lee's oath and thirty years of service to the US counted for nothing?

Washington, Hamilton, Marshall, and Lee's own father recognized that if Americans put loyalty to their state above loyalty to their country it would doom the US to living under foreign control.

And Robert E. didn't understand that? Lee's own sister and brother-in-law stayed loyal to the USA. But Lee couldn't see what secession would mean?

For all the warm talk about how much REL loved Virginia, one has to wonder why he had such coldness towards the country he was born in, the country he and his father had fought for.

You are overcomplicating Lee's motives. His motives were to defend his state, because in those days, your State was like your Country.

Lee is not a good choice to rationalize your position, because Virginia seceded to defend the right to secede. Virginia would have remained in the Union had Lincoln not sent his war fleet.

Now if you were referring to a General from South Carolina, you would have more of an argument that he was fighting to protect his state's efforts to secure more European money for their goods.

Yes, the underlying behind the scenes effort was to gain economic freedom from North Eastern/Washington control. I think Lee was several steps removed from these considerations.

For all the warm talk about how much REL loved Virginia, one has to wonder why he had such coldness towards the country he was born in, the country he and his father had fought for.

I think that he believed it ceased to be the country he and his father had fought for when it's leader sought to use force to compel people to remain in a Union of which they no longer wished to be a part.

If Lee's father thought it was acceptable to leave the thousand year old British Union, then why would it not be acceptable to leave one that was only four score and seven?

It is freedom to leave. It is coercion to be forced to remain against your will.

You are overcomplicating Lee's motives.

I was not saying that was Lee's conscious motivation. I was saying that what he was in effect doing - if your theory was right - was advancing globalism over nationalism. He wasn't thinking about that or intending it, but it was the effect of his action in rejecting the US. Nothing you say disputes that.

Other Virginians saw that there was no right to unilateral secession and acted accordingly. Lee made things worse for his state and region when he decided to join the rebel army. If he'd stayed at home, the war would have been far less bloody, and would likely have ended with something considerably short of widespread destruction and unconditional surrender.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.