Question for posters who'd self-describe as nationalists

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What's the appeal?

Sincere question. I don't think of myself as somebody who suffers from cultural cringe, and I think more highly of my country's role in the world than most leftists these days do, but I've always thought of nationalism as something that can be one of someone's key political principles as a relic of recently-past centuries--arguably a morally neutral relic like Bakelite or hoop skirts rather than a depraved and evil relic like child labor or Jim Crow, but a relic nonetheless. Clearly, though, it's still an incredibly potent idea, indeed seemingly even more potent the more "global" most people's day-to-day lives get.

Why is this? What's with the "now more than ever" attitude towards nationalism that a lot of people have now suddenly after decades of relative consensus that national differences aren't as important as they once were? What makes this a stronger locus of identity than more universal ones like class or religion or more local ones like hometown or regional pride? I genuinely would like to understand.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Nationalist is another meaningless buzzword which you would get many different meanings of depending on who you asked. Like there is an argument to be made that George W Bush was more of a nationalist than Trump and same is true the other way around as well


This is why I found it hilarious that the media freaked out when Trump called himself a nationalist like literally even if you asked the most anti trump people I know they literally didnt care. Instead the media should have said ok Trump is you call your self a nationalist how can you keep defending the Saudis after they murdered a US Permanent Resident , cited foreign intelligence as more accurate than American.


 

[Former President tack50]

I do not self-describe myself as a nationalist, though I will probably be voting for a (left wing) nationalist party this weekend for at least a couple of local offices.

In my particular case, it's simply because said party has done a great job in my island council, and will also do a good one for mayor and in the regional assembly (undecided on these 2 though). It's simply just another left wing party, just like I could vote PSOE or Podemos (both of which I'm also considering depending on office)

On a larger note, I do like the nationalists the best of the 3 because of "special interests" and "what about mine" politics. At least here in Spain, if your regional party ends up being the kingmaker vote, that means your region will end up getting more spending and goodies. Back when Rajoy was PM, the nationalist parties of my region were the kingmakers and they ended up getting a lot of investment and perks for the region; the most visible of them being an increase to the flights subsidy from 50% to 75%.

Of course, the nationalists here are a lot more reasonable than say, the Catalan or even Basque nationalists, though even there there's a significant amount of people who vote for them for similar reasons, particularly in PNV's case (or back in the old days, for CiU in Catalonia)

[afleitch]

I'm a Scottish Nationalist and being part of a left-green, internationalist, working class movement pretty much has shaped me politically. If you are in the UK your two nationalisms; home nation v Britain are synchronistic. Scottish nationalism is 'ascendent' for me. I want independence in order to be global.

[Senator Incitatus]

What's the appeal?

Sincere question. I don't think of myself as somebody who suffers from cultural cringe, and I think more highly of my country's role in the world than most leftists these days do, but I've always thought of nationalism as something that can be one of someone's key political principles as a relic of recently-past centuries--arguably a morally neutral relic like Bakelite or hoop skirts rather than a depraved and evil relic like child labor or Jim Crow, but a relic nonetheless. Clearly, though, it's still an incredibly potent idea, indeed seemingly even more potent the more "global" most people's day-to-day lives get...

I see you've been reading some good posts lately.

Anyway, it depends on the nationalism.

I'm a nationalist in the same sense that (I believe) Abraham Lincoln and other early Republicans were – I believe that Americans are tied together by a shared history, language, and culture. Breaking apart the nation or attempting to deny that shared identity is repugnant and usually done in the name of some great evil. But I admit that this nationalism is both less potent and less coherent than purely ethnic or in-born national identities, which I reject as harmful or antithetical to an inclusive American nationalism.

I think American nationalism also gets to the more fundamental question of how power is distributed. I generally believe that society functions when the more able are superior and thrives when they are benevolent. Attempts to force the powerful to an equal or inferior position go against both nature and reason. The same logic applies to the nation-state. Since America is a strong nation, it should continue to be dominant to preserve a natural international order.

Not sure I can speak to the current rise in nationalism as an ideology, but I think I probably became interested by reading a lot more European history, especially nationalism's role the French Revolution. I also got hit with a lot of propaganda as a kid growing up in the shadow of Ground Zero, so I've always been pretty reflexively patriotic.

TL;DR It's not a logical-rational position, but it's refreshing and invigorating to do something illogical in the name of radical self-love.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

What's the appeal?

Sincere question. I don't think of myself as somebody who suffers from cultural cringe, and I think more highly of my country's role in the world than most leftists these days do, but I've always thought of nationalism as something that can be one of someone's key political principles as a relic of recently-past centuries--arguably a morally neutral relic like Bakelite or hoop skirts rather than a depraved and evil relic like child labor or Jim Crow, but a relic nonetheless. Clearly, though, it's still an incredibly potent idea, indeed seemingly even more potent the more "global" most people's day-to-day lives get...

I see you've been reading some good posts lately.

Yeah, this thread is in direct response to yours; the question you asked was a very good one, and it got me wondering about this one.

Thanks for your answer. I hope you'd at least concede that if nothing else there has to be some sort of clear mechanism for socially enforcing benevolence on the part of the powerful, otherwise calling for them to be benevolent is just so much wishful thinking in the face of their natural interest in getting what they can while the getting is good and leaving the rest of us to go screw ourselves.

[Senator Incitatus]

What's the appeal?

Sincere question. I don't think of myself as somebody who suffers from cultural cringe, and I think more highly of my country's role in the world than most leftists these days do, but I've always thought of nationalism as something that can be one of someone's key political principles as a relic of recently-past centuries--arguably a morally neutral relic like Bakelite or hoop skirts rather than a depraved and evil relic like child labor or Jim Crow, but a relic nonetheless. Clearly, though, it's still an incredibly potent idea, indeed seemingly even more potent the more "global" most people's day-to-day lives get...

I see you've been reading some good posts lately.

Yeah, this thread is in direct response to yours; the question you asked was a very good one, and it got me wondering about this one.

Thanks for your answer. I hope you'd at least concede that if nothing else there has to be some sort of clear mechanism for socially enforcing benevolence on the part of the powerful, otherwise calling for them to be benevolent is just so much wishful thinking in the face of their natural interest in getting what they can while the getting is good and leaving the rest of us to go screw ourselves.

Don't worry; I'm not a libertarian.

My critical-but-not-dismissive response would be that any such temporal mechanism (e.g. the state) will inevitably be controlled by the same powerful interests. It's best to provide some sort of trans-class structure, like loyalty to the nation-state, to entrench a sense of responsibility or noblesse oblige.

I think nationalism is a strong counter to the "Davos man" phenomenon. I also think part of why America has such a rampant and disturbing class problem is that our national identity is weak and tied up in radical Enlightenment liberalism and Randian objectivism, which are explicitly counter-national.