Is Nationalism Progressive?

[einsteins stein]

A lot of people I have spoken to equate nationalism with that old "America-Love it or LEAVE it!" kind of stupidity--as if nationalism were the dark, evil side of patriotism. Well, I'm tired of letting freepers and morans define the terms of every discussion

Yeah, nationalism could be defined as a sort of nationwide conceit, but why should we let it be so? Let's define nationalism as "pursuing the interests of your own country." Isn't that what Kennedy did when he reminded us all to "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" ?

There are so many ways that Dems/progressives can reclaim the position of the nationalist or the patriot, without simply assuming the role of the blind, reactionary, isolationist, racist, or cultural elitist.

Wouldn't removing the US (quickly, or incrementally) from the WTO and NAFTA be considered a nationalistic stance? Is this not an issue for progressives?

We should embrace nationalism. Internationalism is not cure for every ill, despite your feelings about the UN's future role in Iraq. We have problems at home, and we need to solve them at home.

Arguments? Agreements?

[einsteins stein]

1. ok, so I changed the title

am I whacked out, or is this too dumb to discuss?

[usregimechange]

2. well

nationalism is typically not progressive in the US.

[JohnKleeb]

3. or most of the world

I dont like the idea of nationalism. Nationalism to me at least and pardon me if I am wrong its a we are so and so and we are better than all of you.

[einsteins stein]

5. If Nationalism is NOT progressive...

then why do progressives support Kucinich's stance to remove the US from the WTO and NAFTA. That is a nationalistic stand!

I mean, I don't want to appear snippy, but did you read what I asked in the original post or just respond to the title?

If nationalism is not typically progressive, let's MAKE it progressive! Let's take it away from the freeps and redefine it for our own ends.

IMO, progressive nationalism would be attractive to the middle class, and the middle class voters are generally the swing voters that decide elections.

[JohnKleeb]

7. I dunno

I told you I think of nationalism of being "we are the best" attiude. On Kucinich's view, I think its an appeal to the working class. We have to take patriotism away from them not nationalism but nationalism I guess isnt all bad. Dont worry, your rhetoric doesnt bother me.

[no name no slogan]

8. It's more "Internationalistic" than "Nationalistic"

then why do progressives support Kucinich's stance to remove the US from the WTO and NAFTA. That is a nationalistic stand!

On the contrary, removing the US from the WTO and NAFTA may end up hurting the US in the short-term-- it's impossible to know for sure until it happens.

OTOH, NAFTA has hurt the working people of Mexico, Canada AND the US. The transnational corporations, however, are making out like bandits. Sure we can get cheap goods from Mexico, but at what cost? Real wages for workers continue to fall, more people lose their jobs, living standards are in a race to the bottom-- not just in the US, but in Mexico too!

I'd say it's more an "Internationalist" stance to ditch NAFTA and the WTO. The effects of both of them cross borders, and do more to divide working people from the global elite. Sure, we'd be helping out the working people of the US, but we'd help out the working people in other countries, too.

[cprise]

11. That's not nationalism

...that's national sovereignity. Big difference.

Nationalists stigmatize foreigners as inherently bad. No other reason, just the "we don't want strange people telling us what to do or living near us". "We want what's ours and we're better than them." It's xenophobic.

WTO and NAFTA give corporations a bevy of international rights that citizens and laborers do not have. So they become tools for corporations to game the legal systems of countries, strike-down their laws, privatize public services, etc. Also, these bodies take the assumption that anything that exists at the perceived expense of 'trade' (private profits) then it it bad and must be removed.

Kucinich is against these because they have no real public accountability or concern for labor, health, environment, etc. except to exploit them. They have governing powers, without actually being governments.

Contrast this with the EU as a trade zone: It is emerging as an actual governing body, and along with trade law comes civic, labor and environmental conditions. i.e. it is not designed to give corporations power over national governments.

If you asked the anti-NAFTA types if the U.N. should have more authority to promote human rights and resolve conflicts, I'm sure you would see a very clear pattern that is the furthest thing from nationalism.

[fla nocount]

12. We all live on a tiny blue marble

speeding through space and we are but chemical stains upon it's surface. Nationalism is nazism. Same shit, different ass*hole.

Look at the inhabitants of other countries, two arms, two legs(if they haven't been blown off) oxygen dependent carbon constructs, each and everyone. All divisions are ego and huperbole.

[Kamika]

14. nationalism isnt opposite wto

Leaving wto is hardly nationalism, its pure economics to save jobs.

Nationalism is typicly conservative, it has always been defined as conservative. Because mostly the conservatives has been nationalists.


Leaving wto does in no way equate nationalism.

[Blue_Chill]

4. Nationalism = bad x-x Hate America = bad x--x Patriotism = good

Engaging in the games of my country is shit while ignoring the realities of other nations. Is the nation hate voters despise. It is should be shunned.

Nationalism is excusing your nation for all it's wrongs. This is not just stupid but it's dangerous. Nationalism gives rise to evil.

Partiotism in which one attempts to make ones nation better becuase you actually care about it. This is what progressives, liberals, and democrats alike should be pushing.

[einsteins stein]

6. Nationalism does NOT have to be negative

Why should we let it be defined as such?

IMO, Kucinich uses nationalism, as did JFK. What about either of these men (or their nationalistic approaches) is not acceptable to progressives?

[Blue_Chill]

17. Because nationalism *IS* negative in practice

Patriotism is what you seem to be thinking.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Nationalism is never progressive

It is inherently racist and xenophobic, and it is the root cause of all wars and ethnic cleansings.

Nationalism is closely intertwined with patriotism:

Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty
by Emma Goldman, 1911

Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others.

The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose that America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars. Just think of it, four hundred million dollars taken from the produce of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not squandor with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the Russian revolutionists.

It is a patriotism that will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in destroying thousands of lives in Mexico, or that will even aid in arresting Mexican revolutionists on American soil and keep them incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest cause or reason.

But, then, patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and power. It is good enough for the people. It reminds one of the historic wisdom of Frederick the Great, the bosom friend of Voltaire, who said: "Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses."

http://www.connix.com/~harry/emma.htm

[einsteins stein]

15. It was also patriotism that brought the American Revolution

Goldmans very first sentance, an ill definition of patriotism, is at best, insufficient. At worst, it is faulted to the core.

Patriotism does NOT deman others. Can you be proud of your family without demeaning other families? Can one be proud of anything without simultaneously belittling others?

Of course one can. I'm proud of my son, who scored the highest in his school on his science exams. But that does njot mean I think him better than other people's sons, or that the children of other parents are in some way less noble, grand, or intelligent. My pride in my son is based solely on his acheivement.

Pride in country can be the same. There is much to be proud of in America, when we set partisan political maneuvering aside. I don't have to feel more noble than a Canadian citizen, or more intelligent than a Mexican citizen, to be patriotic.

That's just posturing nonsense, and I reject Goldman's thesis in its entirety.

[gottaB]

18. That's a definition of militant nationalism, not American patriotism

Patriotism should not be defined as a matter of land of origin or birth rights--it's about citizenship. Many of the greatest American patriots have been immigrants, still are, and they still have to fight for their rights as citizens--that's the most patriotic battle there is.

It's a terrible mistake to cede all the important symbols and ideals of this country to the far right. Liberals are in a far better position to speak to the aspirations of new and newly awakened citizens, and to do so convincingly the language of patriotism needs to be in their lexicon.

[bvar22]

10. Economic Protectionism not necessarily Nationalism.

Case 1:
"If you raise your farm subsidy, we'll be forced to impose a tariff"... could be called economic protectionism.

Case 2:
"If you impose a tariff on our widgets, we'll have to bomb your cites and kill your children because you are a threat to our way of life"...would be Nationalism.


Case3:
"If you make us obey your environmental laws or human rights laws, we will move our assembly plant to a country that accepts our bribes and doesn't give a shit about their people."

NAFTA, IMF, WTO, FTAA, exist to facilitate International Corporate Predation. These organizations exist outside the frameworks of nations and are accountable only to themselves. They exist only to protect investors, privatize natural resources, and make a PROFIT.

Every American not in the privileged top 1 PerCent (working Americans) should oppose Corpora-Globalism. Nationalistic, progressive, democratic, regressive, conservative, republican, patriot.....doesn't matter.

[einsteins stein]

13. Nationalism is NOT Nazism, Fascism, or Xenophobia

Unless it is used that way. Its like looking at GW Bush's version of America, and saying that this is evidence that Democracy is vile.

Revolution is nationalistic. Are you all saying that the French and American revolutions are born of xenophobia?

Nationalism can be seen as a tool, which can be used appropriately or not. Nazi Germany is a negative example of nationalism, true enough, but it is not the only example, or even the best example. It is the very worst example of nationalism!

Read Robert Reich's concept of good and bad nationalism at:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/2/reich-r.html

There is an opportunity for progressives to remake the world in our own image, but it won't be done by veiwing the world through the vision of neoconservatives, or by wearing stinking-rose colored glasses.

Take what we have-even if it currently exists only in its negative state-and work it into something new and useful, something that brings people together instead of tearing people apart.

It's a form of martial politics, using your oponents supposed strengths against him. Taking nationalism, which is obviously perceived here as a tool of evil, and turning it into a tool of progressiveness, is such a symbolic action, but not an action that is held to mere symbolism!

If you believe in the principle of "Anyone But Bush," then why not try "Anyway But Bush's" in the process? Don't let prior assholes dictate what nationalism should be, decide for yourself what nationalism could be, because it could be a powerful tool to do good.

[einsteins stein]

16. Defining the Term

Thinking that I may have been incorrectly defining nationalism, I went to Dictionary.Com, and typed in the word. Here are the results:

nationalism

1)Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.

2)The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

3)Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed.)


nationalism

1. The state of being national; national attachment; nationality.

2. An idiom, trait, or character peculiar to any nation.

3. National independence; the principles of the Nationalists.

(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary)


nationalism

1: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.

2: the conviction that the culture and interests of your nation are superior to those of any other nation

(WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University)

Eight different definitions from three authoritative sources. Of the eight, only one comes close to the xenophobic type definition that seems so prevalent here.

WHY is that?

[friendofbenn]

21. wrong

)The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

[einsteins stein]

25. And how is that xenophobic, or jingoistic?

It isn't.

There are times when a nation must act as a member of the international community, and there are times when that nation must stand on it's own values.

The WTO is an international collective. True, or untrue?

It is not in the ecological interest of the US to work within that collective (nor for any nation,IMO). This is an excellent example of how nationalism can be used for good.

Another is in empire building. It is can be argued (poorly, perhaps) that it is in the best interest of the international community to be governed by a strong military power or empire, enforcing peace around the globe.

But is it in the best interest of the US to BE that power? To be subservient to another nation or empire that would assume that role?

Never, on both counts.

Internationalism can be either good or bad.

Nationalism is the same. Good or bad.

[einsteins stein]

19. Still Not Refuted

I have yet to see anyone make the case that nationalism can not be progressive. The naysayers seem to operate under the impression that there is only one way (the negative way) to define nationalism, and just ignore the several positive ways to define the term, or utilize the political philosophy.

Again, Robert Reich, Clinton's one time Secretary of Labor, wrote an essay on the subject here:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/2/reich-r.html

Read it, search Google on the terms "positive nationalism" and "progressive nationalism" and then tell me nationalism is only negative.

[LoZoccolo]

20. Amway soap.

"It's more expensive, but you /use less/!"

[LoZoccolo]

22. On second thought...

...it seems like you're obsessed with us using your term "nationalism" to describe the policies of Dennis Kucinich. We're like, no, because it has all these connotations - whether or not they are in the dictionary - that we don't want associated with those policies.

I mean look at the website for the group that calls itself "nationalist": http://www.nationalist.org

We don't want that connotation. So we don't like to use that word.

Next thing you know, someone on Free Republic will be like "see? They are nationalists, and socialists! National socialists! I told you the Nazi party was left-wing!" as they sometimes try to do (doesn't explain why all these left-wing groups protest against skinhead rallies, but hey, there's that word "socialist" in there so let's use it!) I actually had someone try to make that argument at me the other day.

[einsteins stein]

23. Well, "obsessed" is such a heavy word

And the Kucinich thing was just one example. You don't like it - alrighty then. I toss the Kucinich obsession.

Still, folks here seem stuck on anti-nationalism, stubbornly opposed to nationalism, I guess. Certainly not obsessed with their negative views. I mean, obsessed with the negative view of nationalism would imply that they pursue that view beyond sensible reasons, that they refuse to open their understanding to new information.

If I seem obsessed with this topic in any way, it is as a reaction to the brick wall of dissent that I have hit. When I run into this kind of dead end, my instinct is to dig in my heels and fight it out. The more I am sophistically rebuked, the more I assert myself.

Yes, the word has connotations - but so does the word "queer." Does that stop it from being used? Not in my experience - just the opposite.

The word may not be PC, and straight folk don't use it commonly, but I heard the word used quite often when I lived in San Francisco, and not derogatorily, and not by any of my straight friends.

The word Yank started as an insult, but was co-opted and thrown back at the Brittish. Afterwards, it was carried and sung with pride "The Yanks are comming!"

Just because a word carries a negative energy, doesn't mean that it should, especially when that word describes something that can be quite positive and progressive.

[knight_of_the_star]

24. What JFK was talking about

Was not nationalism. Nationalism is an extreme faith in one's nation (hence the name) that has cause more than a few wars, the most famous of which was WWI. What JFK was talking about was more along the lines of patriotism, which ism ore like loving your country than worshipping it. What I've noticed is that nationalism is along the lines of worshipping your country. Patriotism is loving your country and its values, which probably makes us patriots and Free Republic nationalists.

[einsteins stein]

26. What you're talking about is NOT nationalism, but jingoism.

Where did nationalism get such a bed rep, anyway?

[Lexingtonian]

27. In the U.S., nationalism is regressive

As operational definitions I like patriotism = personal willingness to suffer or die for one's people, and nationalism = willingness to have other people suffer or die for one's people.

As a political reality, in our present divisive/divided society when you talk about doing something 'for the country', everyone with any sense will ask you "For which segment of the country?" Nothing is getting done which favors all parts of the population anywhere near equally. Our inner unity, which was based on a now mistaken kind of demands and assimilation for a long time, is presently broken. You wish for it, as do we all, but half of the country is unwilling to alter the prior criteria for full cooperation and the other half is presently unclear or silly on what to make the new set consist of.

Basically, in your examples you are actually trying to squeezed the square peg of nationalism into the round hole of something like 'collective action as a society'. I hate to say this, but at the moment the People of the United States think it's more important to fight it out among themselves than to negotiate with other countries as a unified society. Compared to the shifts in wealth and group status at stake domestically, a few hundred or thousand dead and a few hundred billion dollars and a few million jobs are NOTHING. Your pleading is well intended, but the amount of wealth and power involved domestically is so great that no one whose opinion matters considers what you see as important as more than trifles in the game that actually matters.

The relevant tenet of liberalism you seem to misunderstand is cosmopolitanism; conservatives embrace provincialism/separatism. Yes, liberalism can take to either nationalism or internationalism as operational solutions, but since it doesn't believe people of other nations inherently better or worse than one's own, there is no dogma one way or the other.

We in the U.S. do come from/build mostly on a society that was colonizing/conquering, and thus its tradition in nationalism was created with intentional large moral blind spots and inability to embrace or contain non-European forms of ethnocultural identity. Because no deeply moral or culturally non-European person can sincerely and knowingly fully embrace the thing as it is at the moment, it is the reserve of the reactionaries. For the average person it is on the whole a very hollow notion- no one average quite knows the meaning to assign it except a kind of benignness toward the people you live closest to and support for the people you actually know and like. It's turning into a kind of bitter sports fandom where "U.S.A." is the team we all back- but half of which we consider useless bums and malicious incompetents, and we just can't agree on which half.

Our side has to create a new form of nationalism entirely but the time for that has not yet come. In fifty years, when white people are the ethnic minority and the majority is an admixture of white, Hispanic, Asian, and black, that is when our side coins a new post-Eurocentric nationalism. It will be looser, though morally and spiritually firm, having to contain a wide pluralism of pseudo-tribes. It will be a country that will see itself ever more as culturally red rather than white or black, and irreversibly so by six hundred years after Columbus's first visit.

[einsteins stein]

28. The US is already headed for nationalism

As a political reality, in our present divisive/divided society when you talk about doing something 'for the country', everyone with any sense will ask you "For which segment of the country?" Nothing is getting done which favors all parts of the population anywhere near equally.

I believe you come to this conclusion because you see our society as having been polarized between the left and the right. Actually, IMO, our society has been marginalized by the left and the right, as the vast center sits it out due to apathy, boredom, ignorance, or any combination of reasons.

You seem to be saying that "anyone with any sense" is partisan, or self interested, but how you feel that this is a sensible position is beyond me. It isn't sensible, it's misguided, and it needs to be addressed in order to be rectified.

Which was the reason for my original post.

Yes, I understand that many on the left see nationalism as a problem, not a solution. Just read the above posts in this thread, it's pretty clear.

But that position is wrong, and needs to be changed. Quickly.

Nationalism is a potentially good force that has been impproperly in the past. Germany in the late 1930s comes to mind.

But nationalism is like a gun, sitting on a desk in a room. You are in that room, and so is Charles Manson. At some point, one of you is going to pick up the gun. Would you rather it be you, or the murderous pyscopath?

At certain stages in a country's development, or in a country's decline, nationalism rears it's head. I believe this to be part of the natural order of things. When it happens, nationalism can show a beautiful face, or an ugly face. The gun can be yours, or Manson's.

I believe we are at that point in the decline/development of the US, or nearly at that point. Nationalism will hit the US, it may have already begun to do so. You've read the many Bush/Hitler threads on DU, I don't think I have to rehash all the examples again, here. Just see how Bush is grabbing the gun from the table. What will he do with his version of nationalism? Do you believe it will be a positive experience?

Nationalism is about to be wielded by the neoconservative minority. Something must be done, now, not 50 years from now when we are more racially diverse, and white's are in the minority. The answer is to pick up the gun first, to co-opt the issue, making a nationalism that is attractive to the left--and to the center as well, and more importantly, to create a positive nationalistic movement, feeding those underlying desires, and directing those impulses towards a positive future.

Perhaps we are all primitive in nature, and nationalism is an aspect of that primitivism. Do we acknowledge this, and work with it or around it, or do we deny it, and have it work against us?