Down, boy! Nationalism and racism are collectivist doctrines, the opposite of individualism. If you're blaming all the major bads of the 20th century on both individualism and various forms of collectivism, well, what have you got left to advocate as the solution?

Oh, I think I can guess: The right flavor of collectivism. Care to offer an opinon on what that is? Just curious.

Nationalism and racism are mere expressions of individualism.

Nothing wrong with nationalism, so long as it's American nationalism.

That's the opposite of nationalism. It's premised on groups of people with shared ideas, not places with similar people in them.

OJ's right, nationalism of vision, not blood or land.

Yes, I'm not saying, "Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer." I am saying, with Jefferson and Lincoln, "One idea, one nation, one people." Now, the idea is universalist and the people are self-selecting, but the nation is not to be ignored.

The ideas precede the nation.

The nation is the idea.

But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy, according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good; but when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the continental congress and all the thirteen State congresses, &c.

-- John Adams (1818)

"Nationalism and racism are mere expressions of individualism."

Freedom is slavery, war is peace...

BTW, the whole Europe thing is the latest Big Idea. Europe needs a time out of at least a century from Big Ideas. Unfortunately, that seems to be the one addiction Europe's "elites" can never kick.

Tom: I've been predicting the utter failure of the European project since the late 80s. I don't see any reason to stop now.

justice and mercy, according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors

...makes of the people one nation, under G-d. Exactly. I appreciate the graceful concession.

David - Yes, it's the horrified fascination of watching a slow motion disaster. If I cared more about spectacle, I'd actually want the EU Constitution to pass so we could watch them try to make a social-dirigiste superstate work. (Hmm, did anyone try that in the 20th century?) That's the slow failure. The fast failure is that the voters simply refuse to approve the idea in the upcoming referenda.

Holland is probably the most free-market oriented society on the Continent, as a matter of about 5 centuries of mercantile history. Even now it is a much freer place to do business than any of its neighbors. It is no surprise that sensible Dutch voters don't want to dispose of that which makes them different and better off.

Yes, any old government that achieves that suffices. Indeed, Adams argument is that Britain had been fulfilling the role. there is no nation other than the one agreed to.

That's what I'm saying, but it's still nationalism (but be careful not to confuse the State with the Nation: I'm the nationalist, you're the statist).

Although, do we really think that the United States of America is possible anywhere other than North America?

It's under God, so the opposite of Statism. No, nationalism is allegiance to the nation itself, based in blood and soil, not to ideas.

The difference is why we are uniquely patriotic, but not very nationalist.

John Lukacs's most recent book puts it this way:

"Since it appeals to tribal and racial bonds, nationalism seems to be deeply and atavistically natural and human. [...] Nationalism is both self-centered and selfish--because human love is not the love of oneself, it is the love of another."

The use of the State to impose the state's conception of G-d's will is still statism, which is how you get to be a statist. Fortunately, it is inconsistent with American nationalism and so won't be allowed.

Look at the definition of Nationalism to which I linked:

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.

I have no problem with any of those, but Number 1 is my preferred definition. Americans should be devoted to the interests and culture of the United States. The essence of the United States -- the idea at our core, so important that we put it on our money -- is that foreigners can come here and become Americans, that we can forge one people out of many. We are not one blood and our land is not a motherland or fatherland (I suppose it could be a step-motherland). We are nothing but a nation.

This is, of course, our same old dispute.

why? That definition has nothing to with nationalism in the pejorative sense we're discussing.

Nor do I really get the "statism" you're referring to, which more typically refers to a command economy and displacement of society and religion by a secular central state.

But then the whole point is that American nationalism is not the nationalism of blood that deserves the pejorative sense you give it, but rather is the nationalism of right ideas that is worthy of support specifically because out of many, it makes one. We can call it American civilization, or American exceptionalism, but it is really American nationalism.

As for statism, what else do you call the desire to use the regulatory and taxing power of the state to shape the nation? Taxes to reduce or eliminate the internal combustion engine. Highways to be shunned. Travel to be made less comfortable, more expensive and more difficult. Industry to be limited by strict pollution controls. Business success to become, by definition, a crime. Sprawl to be discouraged; private vices to be discouraged; diet to be regulated and, if I'm not mistaken, a national nap from 2:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon.

Ah, so the qualifier "American nationalism" becomes the opposite of nationalism? Then why call it nationalism at all?

That's not statism; it's government.

Only if you let the Nazis and the left define nationalism. For the United States, creation of a national identity is the national mission. Also, keeping the focus on American nationalism limits those people who want to use our wealth, power and majesty to reform the world for the world's sake.

But, I see that statism, unlike nationalism, is the philosophy that dare not speak it's name. That's fine, we can call it something else, like "leftism" or "patriarchy" or overweening antidemocratic arrogance. Feel free to pick any of those.

Calling what we have "American nationalism" equates us with nationalism.

Patriarchy is perfect. Statism is matriarchy.

Calling what we have "American nationalism" equates us with nationalism.

Exactly. We should be devoted to the interests and culture of our nation, or don't you mean it when you pledge allegiance to our republic, one nation, under G-d, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?

Yes, that's not nationalism. Nationalism places nation above all else and is not conditional. It's incompatible with God and not dependent on liberty and justice. Wheen we start singing United States Uber Alles we'll have nationalism.

Statism may be matriarchy for the children, but for those who rule, the other gender is usually more appropriate. Tyrants are patriarchs. Remember Lord Acton.

Yes, there's only one nation in the world in which it is not heinous to be a nationalist. Fortunately, we live there. Notice that in America the actual Nazis hate the nation and everything it stands for.

All of which brings me back to where I started: Nothing wrong with nationalism, so long as it's American nationalism. I understand that this undercuts your tranzi, one-world, let us go lift up our brothers program, but there you go. Maybe you can go join these people and take their pledge: I pledge allegiance to the Earth and to the flora, fauna and human life that it supports, one planet, indivisible, with safe air, water and soil, economic justice, equal rights and peace for all.

It seems to make rather little sense to use a word to mean its opposite--what desire can you have to claim such an ugly one?--but as long as you recognize that's what you're doing it's okay by me.

I like our Pledge, which is anti-nationalist, proAmericanationalist.

The pledge of allegiance to the nation is antinationalist? And you think that I'm the one fighting the language...

Under God.

So, before the relatively recent addition of "under God", the Pledge was nationalistic ?

No, it was still to a Republic that guaranteed liberty and justice. Nationalism is antithetical to such concepts except for within the race.

He's not fighting the language so much as making up one of his own.

No, that's "racialism".

What's interesting, Joe, is how much he's objecting to this. He's objecting much more than can be explained by my slight mischeviousness in resurrecting a word tainted -- unfairly, I'm serious about that -- by its Nazi association. This is, after all, a man who doesn't resent being called a coward, or a homophobe, or, so long as the caller doesn't go overboard, a Nazi sympathizer. I call him a statist and a leftist, and although he objects, he doesn't object this strenuously. So obviously there's something else about "nationalism" that bothers him.

joe:

The meaning of the word is rather clear:

"Since it appeals to tribal and racial bonds, nationalism seems to be deeply and atavistically natural and human. [...] Nationalism is both self-centered and selfish--because human love is not the love of oneself, it is the love of another."

It's Darwinist.