4 ms·

> Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative ... I disagree strongly with this point: The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic

> Being nationalistic has nothing to do with being conservative ... I disagree strongly with this point: The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK, the Republicans and National Front in France, the LDP in Japan, Likud in Israel, etc. Internationalists, international cooperation, and international organizations are the province of the left and of moderates. In the U.S., a common conservative criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America'. > Intense nationalism does cause conflicts ... often fabricated for pure political gain by controlling/power individuals. / Very few individuals look at the core of an issue, but instead follow the example set forth by people in authority positions Agreed. That's what I was referring to when pointing out the lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent?

Alupis 11y ago
> criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America' Being patriotic has nothing to do with being nationalistic. It's one thing to love your country, support it, etc... but it's another thing entirely to believe your country is so great, all others fail in comparison, everyone's out to get you (because you're so great), your nation must always be "top dog" and set all global policies, etc... Being ultra-nationalistic could be paralleled with a phobia of sorts. > lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent? They aren't silent. The US Executive Branch is currently liberal (as is the State Department, and Secretary of Defense... all foreign policy makers), and certainly has aided the growing sense of extreme nationalism with all the anti-non-european-countries rhetoric. The general message often conveyed is, if you aren't part of North America or Europe, then you're out to get us. This instead of saying "We may have our differences, but we have worked together in the past and achieved great things, and we can work together now to achieve great things." > The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK This is extreme partyism, and just as wrong as extreme nationalism. All parties are guilty. As are all ideologies. They just have different ways of showing it.
- chiaro 11y ago
  In many countries other than the US, patriotism is seen to be crass at best and dangerously close to nationalism at worst. The dearth of national flags adorning houses in Australia, England and Germany are part of this.
avar 11y ago
> Anti-immigrant policies, are always conservative. I'm less familiar with this in the US, but in many other countries unions, which have traditionally been leftist-leaning organizations, are a major force against liberal immigration policies.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Good point, though I think that's for economic reasons and not for nationalistic reasons. Unions in the U.S., for example, long supported (and organized) immigrant workers who already were in the country and were early supporters of civil rights for blacks.
  - avar 11y ago
    I think you're falling for the fallacy of assigning political opinions to a one-dimensional spectrum of liberal v.s. conservative, and doubly so by asserting that your opinion on a given issue can only be caused by being on one end of that spectrum. Even if you assume a one-dimensional political spectrum there's plenty of reasons for why someone might by for or against immigration for any number of reasons. For simplicity's sake let's use the stereotypical US definitions of conservative and liberal, even then you can find plenty of reasons on both sides to be for and against immigration. You could be conservative and be for it because you're a business owner and it implies cheap labor, or against it because you're also a xenophobe and just don't like people from other countries. You could be for it as a liberal because you believe in some pan-nationalistic idea of humanity without borders, or against it because you think the influx of cheap labor will ultimately create a lower class within society which interferes with the project of a socialist state. You mentioned Scotland as an example among the rise of the rise of right-wing ideals in Europe. I think it's entirely unrealistic to mention that in the same paragraph as nationalism leading to "massacres, and other oppression". If anything bad things might happen because Scotland is being denied national autonomy, just look at what's been happening in Ireland. Sometimes people just want to do their own thing in their own little piece of the planet. I myself am from Iceland which has a long history of a nationalist movement that has nothing to do with any of that stuff. Sometimes people just want a bit of self-determinism without negatively impacting others. Ascribing that desire to left or right or conservative or liberal is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification.
cmurf 11y ago
Nationalism has a strong component of devotion, an emotional attachment, to the state. Its a derivative of statism, which itself is a derivative of tribalism. You can have either liberals or conservatives subject to such an emotional appeal to the state. Due to the strong emotional appeal in nationalism, the political ideology is more nuanced. In classic liberalism, power comes from the individual who then grants a revocable delegation of that power to form a state (government). In conservatism, power comes more broadly from society, culture, and affinity for stability. The Bolshevik revolution is an example of a left of center revolution, it certainly was nativist, nationalist, and was not conservative. The Cultural Revolution, likewise a left of center revolution, its ideology was very centered on empowering the individual, it was nationalistic, nativist (the purging of "impure elements" of Chinese society), and certainly not conservative. There are many examples of liberal and conservative nationalist movements. I think it requires some research to demonstrate if one or the other is more inclined to nationalism, or jingoism.
- mirimir 11y ago
  > The Bolshevik revolution is an example of a left of center revolution, it certainly was nativist, nationalist, and was not conservative. Actually, it was a fascist coup pretending to be a "left of center revolution".
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Untrue. Difficult to have fascism when the state isn't strongly supporting businesses. For the simple version, Mussolini's description is good: fascism is better called corporatism. Revise your understanding of fascism.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Fair enough. It's better to say authoritarian. Lenin was a dictator, and spawned generations of them. Also, he was supported by the Kaiser, to keep Russia out of WWI. Fascism is much closer to corporatism. But I'd call it authoritarian corporatism.
- 11y ago
woodman 11y ago
> Internationalists, international cooperation ... are the province of the left and of moderates. This is the first time I've heard this charge. Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences. Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Hmmm ... interesting points. On one hand, conservatives in the US have rejected multilateralism. For example, the latter Bush administration openly denigrated and ignored the UN and our European allies. Conservatives criticize even attempting to follow international law or legitimizing US military action through multilateral support, calling it weakness. They say they don't want to be tied down and see the US going it alone. Also, they tend to be more isolationist. Fringe conservatives (a small group) talk about UN black helicopters and world government conspiracies. On the other, you bring up some good points: > Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences Just some ideas: * Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action - it's seen as the US imposing itself on other nations. The economic equivalent of military action. * Maybe the WTO is an exception to that, or maybe it's the US creating a legal and bureaucratic tool to further it's power. * You're mostly talking about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They are substantial, but the moderate wing rules and the progressives also criticize Bill Clinton and Obama for globalization. > Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists. This I strongly disagree with. Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. That's more than any GOP administration since ... I don't know when. There are protectionist elements in both parties, including unions and progressives among the Dems and businesses in the GOP; I don't think it favors one or the other (but that's just my impression). > This is the first time I've heard this charge. I assure you it is nothing new. I will point out that you are talking about economic issues, which is perfectly valid; I was thinking of political issues such as immigration, conflict, etc.
  - woodman 11y ago
    > Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. > Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. NAFTA was Bush Sr. The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. > I will point out that you are talking about economic issues... All politics are local, and nothing weighs move heavily on the minds of voters than an empty stomach.

Alupis 11y ago

> criticism of liberals is that they are unpatroitic and 'don't love America' Being patriotic has nothing to do with being nationalistic. It's one thing to love your country, support it, etc... but it's another thing entirely to believe your country is so great, all others fail in comparison, everyone's out to get you (because you're so great), your nation must always be "top dog" and set all global policies, etc... Being ultra-nationalistic could be paralleled with a phobia of sorts. > lack of response by liberals and moderates in authority positions - why are they silent? They aren't silent. The US Executive Branch is currently liberal (as is the State Department, and Secretary of Defense... all foreign policy makers), and certainly has aided the growing sense of extreme nationalism with all the anti-non-european-countries rhetoric. The general message often conveyed is, if you aren't part of North America or Europe, then you're out to get us. This instead of saying "We may have our differences, but we have worked together in the past and achieved great things, and we can work together now to achieve great things." > The more nationalistic parties, pushing nationalistic and nativistic (e.g., anti-immigrant) plicies, are always conservative: The Republicans in the U.S., the Tories and the right-wing extremists in the UK This is extreme partyism, and just as wrong as extreme nationalism. All parties are guilty. As are all ideologies. They just have different ways of showing it.

chiaro 11y ago
In many countries other than the US, patriotism is seen to be crass at best and dangerously close to nationalism at worst. The dearth of national flags adorning houses in Australia, England and Germany are part of this.

avar 11y ago

> Anti-immigrant policies, are always conservative. I'm less familiar with this in the US, but in many other countries unions, which have traditionally been leftist-leaning organizations, are a major force against liberal immigration policies.

hackuser 11y ago
Good point, though I think that's for economic reasons and not for nationalistic reasons. Unions in the U.S., for example, long supported (and organized) immigrant workers who already were in the country and were early supporters of civil rights for blacks.
- avar 11y ago
  I think you're falling for the fallacy of assigning political opinions to a one-dimensional spectrum of liberal v.s. conservative, and doubly so by asserting that your opinion on a given issue can only be caused by being on one end of that spectrum. Even if you assume a one-dimensional political spectrum there's plenty of reasons for why someone might by for or against immigration for any number of reasons. For simplicity's sake let's use the stereotypical US definitions of conservative and liberal, even then you can find plenty of reasons on both sides to be for and against immigration. You could be conservative and be for it because you're a business owner and it implies cheap labor, or against it because you're also a xenophobe and just don't like people from other countries. You could be for it as a liberal because you believe in some pan-nationalistic idea of humanity without borders, or against it because you think the influx of cheap labor will ultimately create a lower class within society which interferes with the project of a socialist state. You mentioned Scotland as an example among the rise of the rise of right-wing ideals in Europe. I think it's entirely unrealistic to mention that in the same paragraph as nationalism leading to "massacres, and other oppression". If anything bad things might happen because Scotland is being denied national autonomy, just look at what's been happening in Ireland. Sometimes people just want to do their own thing in their own little piece of the planet. I myself am from Iceland which has a long history of a nationalist movement that has nothing to do with any of that stuff. Sometimes people just want a bit of self-determinism without negatively impacting others. Ascribing that desire to left or right or conservative or liberal is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification.

cmurf 11y ago

Nationalism has a strong component of devotion, an emotional attachment, to the state. Its a derivative of statism, which itself is a derivative of tribalism. You can have either liberals or conservatives subject to such an emotional appeal to the state. Due to the strong emotional appeal in nationalism, the political ideology is more nuanced. In classic liberalism, power comes from the individual who then grants a revocable delegation of that power to form a state (government). In conservatism, power comes more broadly from society, culture, and affinity for stability. The Bolshevik revolution is an example of a left of center revolution, it certainly was nativist, nationalist, and was not conservative. The Cultural Revolution, likewise a left of center revolution, its ideology was very centered on empowering the individual, it was nationalistic, nativist (the purging of "impure elements" of Chinese society), and certainly not conservative. There are many examples of liberal and conservative nationalist movements. I think it requires some research to demonstrate if one or the other is more inclined to nationalism, or jingoism.

mirimir 11y ago
> The Bolshevik revolution is an example of a left of center revolution, it certainly was nativist, nationalist, and was not conservative. Actually, it was a fascist coup pretending to be a "left of center revolution".
- cmurf 11y ago
  Untrue. Difficult to have fascism when the state isn't strongly supporting businesses. For the simple version, Mussolini's description is good: fascism is better called corporatism. Revise your understanding of fascism.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Fair enough. It's better to say authoritarian. Lenin was a dictator, and spawned generations of them. Also, he was supported by the Kaiser, to keep Russia out of WWI. Fascism is much closer to corporatism. But I'd call it authoritarian corporatism.
11y ago

woodman 11y ago

> Internationalists, international cooperation ... are the province of the left and of moderates. This is the first time I've heard this charge. Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences. Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists.

hackuser 11y ago
Hmmm ... interesting points. On one hand, conservatives in the US have rejected multilateralism. For example, the latter Bush administration openly denigrated and ignored the UN and our European allies. Conservatives criticize even attempting to follow international law or legitimizing US military action through multilateral support, calling it weakness. They say they don't want to be tied down and see the US going it alone. Also, they tend to be more isolationist. Fringe conservatives (a small group) talk about UN black helicopters and world government conspiracies. On the other, you bring up some good points: > Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences Just some ideas: * Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action - it's seen as the US imposing itself on other nations. The economic equivalent of military action. * Maybe the WTO is an exception to that, or maybe it's the US creating a legal and bureaucratic tool to further it's power. * You're mostly talking about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They are substantial, but the moderate wing rules and the progressives also criticize Bill Clinton and Obama for globalization. > Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists. This I strongly disagree with. Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. That's more than any GOP administration since ... I don't know when. There are protectionist elements in both parties, including unions and progressives among the Dems and businesses in the GOP; I don't think it favors one or the other (but that's just my impression). > This is the first time I've heard this charge. I assure you it is nothing new. I will point out that you are talking about economic issues, which is perfectly valid; I was thinking of political issues such as immigration, conflict, etc.
- woodman 11y ago
  > Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. > Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. NAFTA was Bush Sr. The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. > I will point out that you are talking about economic issues... All politics are local, and nothing weighs move heavily on the minds of voters than an empty stomach.