Wednesday, January 03, 2018 9:21:28 PM
Trump’s Nationalism Is Arbitrary, Dangerous, Incoherent, and Silly
Nationalism has a new voice. That makes it all the more imperative to take its claims seriously and meet them head on.
By Paul D. Miller | January 3, 2018, 3:03 PM
President Donald Trump delivers a speech in Warsaw, Poland, on July 6, 2017. (Janet Skarzynski/AFP/Getty Images)
Whatever else U.S. President Donald Trump has done, he has spent his first year in office continuing and strengthening his commitment to nationalist rhetoric. For example, back in September 2017, he addressed .. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-72nd-session-united-nations-general-assembly/ .. the United Nations General Assembly. Boilerplate portions aside, the speech was notable for its contributions to the growing corpus of Trump’s governing philosophy. Alongside his speech in Warsaw .. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/10/can-trump-reconcile-nationalism-with-liberalism/ .. in July 2017, his U.N. speech was a powerful exposition of contemporary nationalism — and an excellent illustration of its danger, vacuity, and moral arbitrariness.
Trump sang the praises of “strong, sovereign, and independent nations,” and he claimed strong nations were a vital pillar of international order. Throughout the speech, he preferred the language of “nations” rather than “states.” He made sweeping claims about the goodness of nations, saying, “Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.”
[How seriously questionable is that last bit in today's day and age? Seriously somewhere in that comfort-blanket, authoritarian sentiment there must be an inherent concern.]
What’s notable here is that Trump focused his praise on nations, not states. (I think it is fair to parse Trump’s words carefully because this was a scripted speech, not off-the-cuff remarks. As such, his speechwriters would have chosen the language and themes of this speech deliberately.)
Nations are notoriously hard to define but typically center around shared culture, language, history, or ethnicity (a major theme of the Warsaw speech). Trump is arguing, in language that would be familiar to every nationalist since Napoleon, that people are defined by their membership in a national community, that national communities are the primary political actors on the world stage, and that each nation should correspond to a state that represents and governs it.
Trump summarized his argument: “The nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.” This is probably the most succinct statement of nationalist doctrine. Interestingly, Trump’s formulation was not specifically American. “I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.” Trump is arguing in favor of nationalism on principle, not just because it is a convenient line of argument for his own “America first” preferences.
I appreciate clear statements of nationalism because, as with the Warsaw speech, they reveal their own incoherence and arbitrariness.
Nations are almost impossible to define, and the effort to draw boundaries inevitably sparks more division than unity at home and abroad. Who is a Frenchman? Do the speakers of regional dialects, like Picard, Gascon, Franco-Provençal, and Occitan, count? Absolutist monarchs of the 17th and 18th centuries decided that regional and local diversity was a threat to national unity and implemented brutal forms of oppressive nation building in response. Nationalists who yearn for cultural uniformity face difficult questions today about immigrants who share none of the characteristics — language, history, culture, or religion — that traditionally defined national identity. Nationalism has always been the enemy of true diversity.
That is why there are essentially no nation-states in the world today, and why Trump’s ode to nation-states is oddly timed. If Trump is right that nation-states are “the best vehicle for elevating the human condition” and vital for “individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God,” then none of us are living full human lives because none of us live in nation-states.
-
If Trump is right that nation-states are “the best vehicle for elevating the human condition” and vital for “individuals to flourish
in the fullness of the life intended by God,” then none of us are living full human lives because none of us live in nation-states.
-
Almost every state in the world today larger than a micro-sovereignty is a multiethnic, pluralistic, diverse polity. The United States of America has never come close to being a nation-state.
Perhaps Trump is not referring to nation-states in the strictly academic sense. Maybe what Trump really means is that states, any states, are vital for human flourishing, as opposed to his bête noire, the globalists and their international community. But if that is what Trump means, his claim is even more ridiculous. There are some 193 states in the world, and they vary wildly in their size and character. Is Tuvalu, a democratic micro-sovereignty, equally capable of enabling human flourishing as China, an autocratic continental power that still espouses Marxist-Leninist ideology? Trump doesn’t care, so long as it is a state. Any state — democratic, theocratic, Marxist — will do, apparently.
Not being a nationalist, I’m untroubled by the absence of nation-states and I don’t feel my life impoverished by it, and I do think some states are better than others at fostering human flourishing. Trump’s claim that we are only fulfilled when we live a cohesive national communities is morally arbitrary and frankly silly. To be sure, I wholeheartedly agree with Aristotle that we are by nature social and political animals, and with Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville that a rich associational life is an important part of human flourishing.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/03/trumps-nationalism-is-arbitrary-dangerous-incoherent-and-silly/
At the youngish and definitely (particularly after a reckless 2018 New Year overindulgence which crucified my distressed digestive system and had me barfing all night in more places than one .. heh .. yup, was able to contain the outpourings in suitable places) tender age of 75, and as always still struggling to understand, i appreciate articles as the above one. They vindicate some 64 years of thinking there just feels something worrying in the thinking of those with overly nationalistic thoughts. It never made sense to me.
PS: I still have arguments with pub people here when some one says something like, "I don't like Americans, or the U.S.A." Or, "Oh you're Canadian - that's still after they know i've lived in Australia longer than i lived in Canada - Sorry, i shouldn't have called you American." So many still think that all Canadians hate America. Myth-belief is too often mistaken. And lazy thinking. Fuck it. LOL. Thunking sucks. At least question. Puleeeze.
All Muslims are troublemakers, too. How dumb is that? About as dumb as saying "...strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God."
Nationalism has a new voice. That makes it all the more imperative to take its claims seriously and meet them head on.
By Paul D. Miller | January 3, 2018, 3:03 PM
President Donald Trump delivers a speech in Warsaw, Poland, on July 6, 2017. (Janet Skarzynski/AFP/Getty Images)
Whatever else U.S. President Donald Trump has done, he has spent his first year in office continuing and strengthening his commitment to nationalist rhetoric. For example, back in September 2017, he addressed .. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-72nd-session-united-nations-general-assembly/ .. the United Nations General Assembly. Boilerplate portions aside, the speech was notable for its contributions to the growing corpus of Trump’s governing philosophy. Alongside his speech in Warsaw .. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/10/can-trump-reconcile-nationalism-with-liberalism/ .. in July 2017, his U.N. speech was a powerful exposition of contemporary nationalism — and an excellent illustration of its danger, vacuity, and moral arbitrariness.
Trump sang the praises of “strong, sovereign, and independent nations,” and he claimed strong nations were a vital pillar of international order. Throughout the speech, he preferred the language of “nations” rather than “states.” He made sweeping claims about the goodness of nations, saying, “Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.”
[How seriously questionable is that last bit in today's day and age? Seriously somewhere in that comfort-blanket, authoritarian sentiment there must be an inherent concern.]
What’s notable here is that Trump focused his praise on nations, not states. (I think it is fair to parse Trump’s words carefully because this was a scripted speech, not off-the-cuff remarks. As such, his speechwriters would have chosen the language and themes of this speech deliberately.)
Nations are notoriously hard to define but typically center around shared culture, language, history, or ethnicity (a major theme of the Warsaw speech). Trump is arguing, in language that would be familiar to every nationalist since Napoleon, that people are defined by their membership in a national community, that national communities are the primary political actors on the world stage, and that each nation should correspond to a state that represents and governs it.
Trump summarized his argument: “The nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.” This is probably the most succinct statement of nationalist doctrine. Interestingly, Trump’s formulation was not specifically American. “I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.” Trump is arguing in favor of nationalism on principle, not just because it is a convenient line of argument for his own “America first” preferences.
I appreciate clear statements of nationalism because, as with the Warsaw speech, they reveal their own incoherence and arbitrariness.
Nations are almost impossible to define, and the effort to draw boundaries inevitably sparks more division than unity at home and abroad. Who is a Frenchman? Do the speakers of regional dialects, like Picard, Gascon, Franco-Provençal, and Occitan, count? Absolutist monarchs of the 17th and 18th centuries decided that regional and local diversity was a threat to national unity and implemented brutal forms of oppressive nation building in response. Nationalists who yearn for cultural uniformity face difficult questions today about immigrants who share none of the characteristics — language, history, culture, or religion — that traditionally defined national identity. Nationalism has always been the enemy of true diversity.
That is why there are essentially no nation-states in the world today, and why Trump’s ode to nation-states is oddly timed. If Trump is right that nation-states are “the best vehicle for elevating the human condition” and vital for “individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God,” then none of us are living full human lives because none of us live in nation-states.
-
If Trump is right that nation-states are “the best vehicle for elevating the human condition” and vital for “individuals to flourish
in the fullness of the life intended by God,” then none of us are living full human lives because none of us live in nation-states.
-
Almost every state in the world today larger than a micro-sovereignty is a multiethnic, pluralistic, diverse polity. The United States of America has never come close to being a nation-state.
Perhaps Trump is not referring to nation-states in the strictly academic sense. Maybe what Trump really means is that states, any states, are vital for human flourishing, as opposed to his bête noire, the globalists and their international community. But if that is what Trump means, his claim is even more ridiculous. There are some 193 states in the world, and they vary wildly in their size and character. Is Tuvalu, a democratic micro-sovereignty, equally capable of enabling human flourishing as China, an autocratic continental power that still espouses Marxist-Leninist ideology? Trump doesn’t care, so long as it is a state. Any state — democratic, theocratic, Marxist — will do, apparently.
Not being a nationalist, I’m untroubled by the absence of nation-states and I don’t feel my life impoverished by it, and I do think some states are better than others at fostering human flourishing. Trump’s claim that we are only fulfilled when we live a cohesive national communities is morally arbitrary and frankly silly. To be sure, I wholeheartedly agree with Aristotle that we are by nature social and political animals, and with Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville that a rich associational life is an important part of human flourishing.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/03/trumps-nationalism-is-arbitrary-dangerous-incoherent-and-silly/
At the youngish and definitely (particularly after a reckless 2018 New Year overindulgence which crucified my distressed digestive system and had me barfing all night in more places than one .. heh .. yup, was able to contain the outpourings in suitable places) tender age of 75, and as always still struggling to understand, i appreciate articles as the above one. They vindicate some 64 years of thinking there just feels something worrying in the thinking of those with overly nationalistic thoughts. It never made sense to me.
PS: I still have arguments with pub people here when some one says something like, "I don't like Americans, or the U.S.A." Or, "Oh you're Canadian - that's still after they know i've lived in Australia longer than i lived in Canada - Sorry, i shouldn't have called you American." So many still think that all Canadians hate America. Myth-belief is too often mistaken. And lazy thinking. Fuck it. LOL. Thunking sucks. At least question. Puleeeze.
All Muslims are troublemakers, too. How dumb is that? About as dumb as saying "...strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God."
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
