Nationalism Is ALWAYS Dangerous

[Said1]

Not at all. It makes total sense. regarding your quibbling about nation-states, I'm just not interested.

That's cause you're wrong. It's fact. You can't even name a nation-state to illustrate you opinion of "good nationalism". It doesn't exsit.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Regarding your quibbling about nation-states, I'm just not interested.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's cause you're wrong. It's fact. You can't even name a nation-state to illustrate you opinion of "good nationalism". It doesn't exsit.

What's fact?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

That's cause you're wrong. It's fact. You can't even name a nation-state to illustrate you opinion of "good nationalism". It doesn't exsit.

Bounce on it.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=267




Good and Bad Nationalism

By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 11.29.99

Print Friendly | Email Article

The Boston Globe

With Congress's recent rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty and an upcoming World Trade Organization meeting that's already causing a storm, it's useful to remind ourselves that there are two faces of nationalism. The negative face turns away from global responsiblities. The positive one embraces domestic ones.

Both give priority to "us" inside the borders over "them" out there. Both believe that America should come first. Both depend for their force on a nation's sense of common purpose. But negative nationalism uses that commonality to exclude those who don't share it. Positive nationalism uses it to expand opportunities for those who do.

Negative nationalism assumes that the world is a zero-sum game where our gains come at another nation's expense, and theirs come at our's. Positive nationalism assumes that when our people are better off they're more willing and better able to add to the world's well being.

These are America's two real political parties. You'll find both positive and negative nationalists among Republicans as well as among Democrats. George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, still conveniently undefined, at least urges Americans to be generous toward other Americans. The Republican right, meanwhile, is determined to turn America's back on the rest of the world. Democratic primary challengers Bill Bradley and Al Gore are engaged in a long overdue debate about how best to meet the needs of America's poor and near-poor, even as some in the Democratic Party are putting priority on fighting a new round of world trade agreements. There may even be positive nationalists in the Reform Party unless Pat Buchanan - an unreconstructed negative nationalist - takes control.

History teaches that one of the two faces of nationalism almost always predominates. A society with a lot of positive nationalism is more likely to be tolerant and open toward the rest of the world because its people have learned the habits of good citizenship and social justice. Dictators and demagogues, on the other hand, flourish where social capital is in short supply. People who feel little responsibility toward one another will turn against minorities in their midst and outsiders across their borders, in return for promises of glory or comforting fictions of superiority.

Negative nationalists prey most directly on people who are losing ground economically and socially. The recent resurgence of negative nationalism in Austria, France, and Switzerland is especially evident among blue-collar manufacturing workers and young men who feel the economic ground shifting from under them. The ugly violence against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia during the currency crisis there was also rooted in economic fears. People whoe livelihoods are at risk find it reassuring to be given specific targets for their frustrations.

Among economic insecurity's first scapegoats are always immigrants, foreigners, and ethnic minorities.

A healthy dose of positive nationalism can ease these anxieties by softening the burdens of economic change. When they feel especially connected to their compatriots, citizens who gain from change are more willing to support strong safety nets, employment programs, and educational systems that help ease the burden on those who otherwise would fall far behind. And the generosity of the winners in turn allows the nation as a whole to better accept the consequences of free trade, open capital markets, and more liberal immigration. But failure to choose positive nationalism almost surely promotes its negative twin, because the losers are left vulnerable.

Nations now busily shredding their safety nets and slashing their social spending may believe they're moving toward free markets, and in a narrow economic sense, they are. But in the process they risk breaking the bonds of positive nationalism and exposing their people to the very fears and uncertainties upon which negative nationalism feeds. The inadvertent consequence may be a backlash against not only free markets but also political freedom.

In short, those who believe that membership in a society obligates the successful to help those who are falling behind should not recoil from appeals to nationalism. The moral force of social benevolence rests, after all, on the preexistence of strong bonds among a people who share common values and aspirations. Nationalism is not the danger. The real danger comes in allowing the negative nationalists to claim the mantle of patriotism for their own ends.

 

[Annie]

While I will admit Robert B. Reich, was one of the saner members of Clinton administration, I wonder exactly who it is here going PC?

"Good nationalism" gives away 'nation's surplus'.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

While I will admit Robert B. Reich, was one of the saner members of Clinton administration, I wonder exactly who it is here going PC?

"Good nationalism" gives away 'nation's surplus'.

Yeah. Well. A broken clock is right twice a day. I doubt we would define "good nationalism" as the same. Well, I know we don't. But the concept of good nationalism is a sound one.

 

[Said1]

Bounce on it.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=267




Good and Bad Nationalism

By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 11.29.99

Print Friendly | Email Article

The Boston Globe

With Congress's recent rejection of the nuclear test ban treaty and an upcoming World Trade Organization meeting that's already causing a storm, it's useful to remind ourselves that there are two faces of nationalism. The negative face turns away from global responsiblities. The positive one embraces domestic ones.

Both give priority to "us" inside the borders over "them" out there. Both believe that America should come first. Both depend for their force on a nation's sense of common purpose. But negative nationalism uses that commonality to exclude those who don't share it. Positive nationalism uses it to expand opportunities for those who do.

Negative nationalism assumes that the world is a zero-sum game where our gains come at another nation's expense, and theirs come at our's. Positive nationalism assumes that when our people are better off they're more willing and better able to add to the world's well being.

These are America's two real political parties. You'll find both positive and negative nationalists among Republicans as well as among Democrats. George W. Bush's "compassionate" conservatism, still conveniently undefined, at least urges Americans to be generous toward other Americans. The Republican right, meanwhile, is determined to turn America's back on the rest of the world. Democratic primary challengers Bill Bradley and Al Gore are engaged in a long overdue debate about how best to meet the needs of America's poor and near-poor, even as some in the Democratic Party are putting priority on fighting a new round of world trade agreements. There may even be positive nationalists in the Reform Party unless Pat Buchanan - an unreconstructed negative nationalist - takes control.

History teaches that one of the two faces of nationalism almost always predominates. A society with a lot of positive nationalism is more likely to be tolerant and open toward the rest of the world because its people have learned the habits of good citizenship and social justice. Dictators and demagogues, on the other hand, flourish where social capital is in short supply. People who feel little responsibility toward one another will turn against minorities in their midst and outsiders across their borders, in return for promises of glory or comforting fictions of superiority.

Negative nationalists prey most directly on people who are losing ground economically and socially. The recent resurgence of negative nationalism in Austria, France, and Switzerland is especially evident among blue-collar manufacturing workers and young men who feel the economic ground shifting from under them. The ugly violence against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia during the currency crisis there was also rooted in economic fears. People whoe livelihoods are at risk find it reassuring to be given specific targets for their frustrations.

Among economic insecurity's first scapegoats are always immigrants, foreigners, and ethnic minorities.

A healthy dose of positive nationalism can ease these anxieties by softening the burdens of economic change. When they feel especially connected to their compatriots, citizens who gain from change are more willing to support strong safety nets, employment programs, and educational systems that help ease the burden on those who otherwise would fall far behind. And the generosity of the winners in turn allows the nation as a whole to better accept the consequences of free trade, open capital markets, and more liberal immigration. But failure to choose positive nationalism almost surely promotes its negative twin, because the losers are left vulnerable.

Nations now busily shredding their safety nets and slashing their social spending may believe they're moving toward free markets, and in a narrow economic sense, they are. But in the process they risk breaking the bonds of positive nationalism and exposing their people to the very fears and uncertainties upon which negative nationalism feeds. The inadvertent consequence may be a backlash against not only free markets but also political freedom.

In short, those who believe that membership in a society obligates the successful to help those who are falling behind should not recoil from appeals to nationalism. The moral force of social benevolence rests, after all, on the preexistence of strong bonds among a people who share common values and aspirations. Nationalism is not the danger. The real danger comes in allowing the negative nationalists to claim the mantle of patriotism for their own ends.

I didn't know America was a nationalist minded country, protectionist (of people, borders, buildings) yes, but not nationalist.

And again, give me one positive example of a nation openly and practicing postive nationalism, who call themselves nationalists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I didn't know America was a nationalist minded country, protectionist (of people, borders, buildings) yes, but not nationalist.

And again, give me one positive example of a nation openly and practicing postive nationalism, who call themselves nationalists.

No. You need to disabuse yourself of your own spurious and wrong headed associations.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

No. You need to disabuse yourself of your own spurious and wrong headed associations.

Nice shorts.

 

[Said1]

No. You need to disabuse yourself of your own spurious and wrong headed associations.

What's this? Another one sentence, non-answer. Good one. That's what I would have said. You go boy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What's this? Another one sentence, non-answer. Good one. That's what I would have said. You go boy.

You're half right. It's one sentence for sure, but it is actually a decent reponse.

 

[Said1]

You're half right. It's one sentence for sure, but it is actually a decent reponse.

Sure. Whatever you say. Dictionary-Dependent Wuss.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sure. Whatever you say. Dictionary-Dependent Wuss.

Yes, whatever I say. Thanks for conceding defeat.

 

[archangel]

Nice shorts.

your second attempt to distract the two 'lovers quarrel'...however the 'Marshal Dodge City' is mine, you keep your dudes in pink shorts!.... :shocked:

 

[Said1]

Yes, whatever I say. Thanks for conceding defeat.

And thanks for attempting to answer any number of the questions asked in order to defeat me.

And sorry to expose you for the one-line wonder that you really are. You'll bounce back though, nothing a quick bong hit won't cure.

 

[Said1]

your second attempt to distract the two 'lovers quarrel'...however the 'Marshal Dodge City' is mine, you keep your dudes in pink shorts!.... :shocked:

Ehhh, I thought you were the original Fonz?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

And thanks for attempting to answer any number of the questions asked in order to defeat me.

And sorry to expose you for the one-line wonder that you really are. You'll bounce back though, nothing a quick bong hit won't cure.

All of your questions were irrelevant. And again, conciseness is a virtue. :spank3:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

your second attempt to distract the two 'lovers quarrel'...however the 'Marshal Dodge City' is mine, you keep your dudes in pink shorts!.... :shocked:

I don't expect you to understand, although taking ownership of the dodge city badge is all sorts of funny. And appropriate.

 

[Said1]

All of your questions were irrelevant. And again, conciseness is a virtue. :spank3:

No they weren't. And you would have saved face a bit, but alas - too hard.

 

[archangel]

I don't expect you to understand, although taking ownership of the dodge city badge is all sorts of funny. And appropriate.

my bad...I know nothing...understanding is your perview! Ya just keep on a keeping on wearing the pink shorts though...and I actually have a original(antique)Dodge City Marshal badge...sits next to my Treasury Badge on the shelf....