Please read Thomas Ross’s post below.
This isn’t a post per se. Back when I wrote this post, Brexit wasn’t even on my radar. I hadn’t heard the term, although it had been around, it seems, since 2007. I said, however, this was an election about globalism versus nationalism. Some are also claiming that British nationalism right now is xenophobic. A whole post could and should be written on just that type of terminology. If you are going to preserve or conserve a nation or a culture, one of the threats are foreign nations and cultures. Anyone at this moment should say, “Duh.” That doesn’t make you xenophobic.
Of great interest to me are the United States bandwagon supporters of Brexit, who don’t get it, absolutely don’t get it. They can’t seem to make the application.
In the post I wrote on May 24, I said this:
Where there is no absolute truth, you can’t be better. If no one is greater than anyone else, then borders don’t matter. You have no culture to protect. It doesn’t make any difference. The future won’t be very bright for a country that doesn’t see a reason for its own existence.
I ended with this question:
If nothing can be better, than why conserve anything anyway?
People, pundits, voters, citizens need to decide where they come down on this. You can parse through every other aspect of this election, but I believe in our present situation, this is how basic this is. It’s not about things more complicated, albeit still simple things. If you don’t understand this, then you will be a participant in turning the country over to globalists.
Kent wrote:
"Of great interest to me are the United States bandwagon supporters of Brexit, who don't get it, absolutely don't get it. They can't seem to make the application."
What is it that US supporters do not get? Is it that Brexit is about having vs surrendering sovereignty?
Farmer,
These supporters, on the one hand, think the British nationalism is great, but on the other hand, the U.S. nationalism is xenophobic and isolationist.
I supported Brexit. I don't support Trump.
He said this in 2013, "My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."
Read the whole article here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/22/business/opinion-donald-trump-europe/
He's been a nationalist for approximately 10 seconds, like most of his other positions.
Kent,
I do continue to think the concept of nation, intertwined as it is with the idea of race/ethnicity, occupies too high of a place in your argument. I find no biblical or historical support for your idea that the nation is the only God instituted and approved geo-political institution. Is there any? Any sustained treatment explaining that this is correct would have much to teach me. Can you point me to one? What of kingdoms or multi-ethnic empires? I've been scratching my head as to where this leaves your position. There is an argument that many of those those who in modern times have argued for organizing people by Nations as opposed to States have been decidedly unchristian if not inhuman. I mean: Who were the leading nationalists of the 20th century? I think it's undeniable that globalism often depends on nationalism and further that we do people a disservice by acting like the only alternative to globalism lies in supporting a nation or in supporting nationalism. Many of us hate globalism without being nationalists.
Stephen H.
John,
Perhaps we could keep Trump out of it and think about it ideologically. I didn't say his name here, because I didn't want to talk about him, but the ideas. Why were you for Brexit? This will probably dovetail with Stephen's comment.
Stephen,
Genesis 12:2, God says, "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing."
Proverbs 14:34, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." Is that true?
Where does the conservation of conservatism take place? I'm not saying that it can't apply to me, to my family, to my church, but when it comes to thoughts behind an election, we're talking about a nation, the United States of America.
Do you think that George Washington was a good president and a great American? Was he a nationalist?
We're a melting pot. Melting into what?
Russell Kirk supported Pat Buchanan when he ran, was his campaign chairman for the state of Michigan, where he lived. Is Buchanan a nationalist?
Stephen wrote:
…we do people a disservice by acting like the only alternative to globalism lies in supporting a nation or in supporting nationalism. Many of us hate globalism without being nationalists.
Maybe I am missing a distinction you are trying to draw, but what other than nationalism would make you hate globalism? Is there a third category? What is your reason for hating globalism?
Trump is all over the link you posted and is he not implied in your last sentence accusation, "If you don't understand this [and vote for Trump], then you will be a participant in turning the country over to globalists"?
I supported Brexit because I support freedom. Brits are more free outside the EU than under it. Government seems to be more in touch, accountable, effective, the closer it it to its constituency.
John,
I'm just saying that I'd rather keep Trump out of the discussion, which is why I didn't include his name in this post. I referenced the one idea, but not his name.
Borders and culture don't have anything to do with it? The British see themselves losing national distinctions. That meant nothing to you? Anti-brexit see a loss of freedom, restrictions in travel and trade and immigration.
Farmer,
The answer is Patriotism – love of country; love of the particular place where I live.
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler wrote, "I was a nationalist, but I was not a patriot." We all need to study what these words mean and how they’ve been used.
The problem historically has come (and it always seems to happen when nationalism is stressed) when people start to feel that the borders of the country where they were born do not correspond to the area that the nation of which they think they are part deserves to hold sovereignty over. Then we get a bloody mess. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Paris (no-go areas), Crimea (which party's nationalism is commendable – if any? The Ukrainians', the Crimeans,' or the Russians'? Whose is bad?) La Raza, Beirut. Let's love our country but not make an idol of our nation (not the same thing).
Four paragraphs at Britannica explain my concern http://www.britannica.com/topic/war#ref511725
Stephen
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen,
It's not keeping the long-time shape of the geography of the U.S. It's having barriers to keep the undesirable out. You lose property rights, that freedom, if someone can walk all over your lawn.
Is there a nationalism of the kind you describe that is also supportive? I'm quite sure there is, but I think it is very wrong to lump it all together, making it the moral equivalent. I don't think it is a convenient argument for you, but it is for the Washington Post and MSNBC.
Kent,
You've given me a lot to respond to. I'm not sure where to begin. I'm not even sure which sentences of mine you've responded to.
At the very least I'm missing what you’re saying: What do those Bible verses have to do with our discussion?
I appreciate the thoughtfulness evident here ::
"Is there a nationalism of the kind you describe that is also supportive? I'm quite sure there is, but I think it is very wrong to lump it all together, making it the moral equivalent. I don't think it is a convenient argument for you, but it is for the Washington Post and MSNBC."
It reassures me that perhaps this discussion will be beneficial to both of us.
Thank you.
Stephen