Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Glyphs on Globalism
One thing about Donald Trump that everyone on Ricochet agrees on — from the most stubborn #NeverTrump to the most enthused Trump supporter — is that Trump is a nationalist, someone who places the well-being, security, and prosperity of the United States above those of other countries. Trump’s nationalism is often among the top reasons his supporters cite in his favor, and (unsurprisingly) they often accuse anti-Trump voices of being globalists, usually in the same tones that were once reserved for heretics, traitors, and people who drive too slow in the passing lane. More recently, Trump’s rise has been likened to the Brexit vote, not only because both represent successful nationalist movements that had been scoffed at by the political establishment, but because both Trump and Nigel Farage have made the connection explicit (H/T @columbo).
But while the comparison between Trump and Brexit is real and significant, it’s only part of the story. How else, for instance, to explain why Daniel Hannan — Farage’s colleague in both the EU Parliament and the Brexit battle — is among the most vociferous anti-Trump voices on the Right? (If you haven’t, listen to Jay Nordlinger’s recent interview with him). The answer, I think, is that nationalism vs. globalism is only one of several political dimensions that deserve our attention.
For example, lost in the talk of late has been the related-but-discrete topic of whether our society should be engaged vs. closed. Both Hannan and Matt Ridley are nationalists who campaigned for Brexit, but their arguments often hinged on how the EU forced Britain to limit its engagement to the Continent rather than giving it the run of the world to seek allies, or to have its people ply their wares, travel, or find bargains.
Similarly, it’s a mistake to evaluate on nationalistic grounds without also considering the left vs. right spectrum. Senator Bernie Sanders, after all, has a strong nationalistic streak — often criticizing free trade and foreign manufacturing in tones that sound a lot like Trump’s — though with leftism rather than Trump’s populism as the solution.
The question, I think shouldn’t be whether Trump is a nationalist but, rather, what kind of a nationalist he is.
Published in General
Granted, but there’s a mistaken tendency argue that Farage/Trump style nationalism is the only kind… due in no small part to Farage and Trump’s comments.
So other countries are impoverishing themselves to make us better off. You have a problem with this?
I’m always amazed at how Yanks have little understanding of the English art of the jab. Apparently no one here has read Evelyn Waugh. As the article makes clear, he was invited to speak as part of a roster something he’s done at CPAC if you’ll recall, because of Brexit and the common enemy that they’re fighting against.
I doubt very much if Barack “take your bust of Churchill back, Limey” Obama hadn’t thought fit to fly and lecture the brits on Brexit he’d have been invited.
I doubt very much if Barack “take your bust of Churchill back, Limey” Obama hadn’t thought fit to fly and lecture the brits on Brexit he’d have been invited.
But now that he has, Nigel delivered a typical English dart. I thought the anecdote was quite revealing that Rudy was to be the keynote, and Nigel was switched in as a very last minute decision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUzEKrp8rHA
Not a Yank yet, but ok.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuynisuywrU
So why are they “impoverishing themselves to make us better off”? Are the Chinese stupid? Maybe they have caught the progressive disease, have taken pity on the poor Americans, and put them on welfare? Somehow I doubt it.
Why do the Chinese impoverish themselves, and sell their goods at a discount by currency manipulation? Maybe the Chinese in their wisdom or calculation realize their is a greater good involved in this equation. Maybe there is something more important than bulging dollar stores. Maybe we could figure out why the Chinese seem to be “impoverishing themselves to make us better off”? It’s not difficult.
Most likely its because as central planners they think they can centrally plan their economy. That doesn’t mean that we should retaliate by playing their game.
Yeah, I wouldn’t use the world’s only functional fascist state as an example of what we should do.
Robber barons would blush at the CCP’s rapacious disregard for the average Chinese subject/citizen’s wellbeing.
I should prrobably expand on this point so its less dismissive.
I do not believe that China’s economic policies are designed to benefit China – anything they do in that regard is a happy accident.
Chinese economic policies are designed to benefit the ruling party and its members. So we definitely shouldn’t look to them as an example of what we should do.
My problem is that I don’t think Trump generally believes anything. Trump supporters always ascribe beliefs and policies to Trump, but as far as I am concerned he just makes everything up as he goes along.
So … following that … at least some (one?) of the time(s) his belief will fit with the beliefs and policies of conservatives. That’s still better than the Lying Crooked Socialist.
When we look at our own politicians, we understand that they are wrong-headed for subsidizing green energy, for instance. We know that it is wrong to distort the market and prop up something that is inefficient, just to benefit their friends in the green energy business. We know that many of FDR’s policies regarding agriculture are still in place and we recognize how backward they are. But we have some projected some mystique onto Chinese politicians and assume that they are much wiser than our own. If they subsidize their exports, it’s not a stupid socialist policy, it must be smart.
Its really not that hard to understand. Most of the people that adopt this mode of argument probably work, worked or are somehow connected to industries facing Chinese competition. They want protection. Its the concentrated benefits/dispersed costs problem.
See? This is really confusing. I always thought nationalism meant what Tom uses it for in this piece: a straightforward, and pretty objective, favoring of one’s nation over others. But lately, Jonah Goldberg and others on the right have been maligning nationalism as something pernicious.
What the heck is going on?
Let’s be honest here. We need to deport everyone who drives slowly in the left lane. Make America Great Again.
“I’m as patriotic as anyone from sea to shinning sea, but you won’t find one molecule of nationalism in me.” William F. Buckley.
Conservatives are not nationalist. Nationalism properly understood is the belief in the superiority of the centralized state, over other aspects of society/the culture. Conservatives are defenders of the Republic, which means our view of politics always starts at the same place, how does it effect the individual. Our belief in natural rights makes it so we have no interest in bowing to the federal government, nor do we think bureaucrats and federal officials are somehow above everyone else.
There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Politically speaking.
That is not nationalism, but patriotism.
“We the People” vs “My Country”.
I love me some Uncle Milt, but he did not in fact address that central point. The question *as phrased* is a bit of a dog’s breakfast: How do we convince the 1% who got 100% laid-off that they themselves are better off because 100% have seen a 1% benefit? Well, they are not.
You can say that those flint-chippers become carpenters, candlestick-makers, matchstick salesmen, and purveyors of fine buggy whips, and that limiting the discussion to the flint-chipping mill is inappropriately narrow for a policy discussion. And it is true. But if you want the flint-chippers support, you have to do better than that.
Actually, Friedman concedes your point when he says that politically Free Trade is a fraught prospect. The rest was simply explaining why. The job had and lost is much more relevant to that voter than 2 jobs never created. 100% income lost is more visible to that voter than a 5% increase in the cost of every product he buys.
Not contained in this particular answer, because an answer as complex as this could never be contained in a 2min soundbite, is his solution: unleash dynamism through freedom. This includes Free Trade (yes even unilaterally), low taxes, and regulation. This would create the jobs necessary to offset any losses due to creative destruction all while lowering costs for everyone. Its not an easy concept to explain, although Milt did it better than anyone, not is it an easy sell. It can, however, be demonstrated, take for instance the Irish response to the EU on taxing tech companies like Apple, or hold up Singapore as an example of a free port that thrives.
Patriotism is loyalty to the father land and country.
Nationalism is loyalty to the people who make up that country. In a homogenous country, people who share genetic history as an expansion of family, but not so much as tribalism.
Supremacy is the belief one group is better than another. This says nothing about which one is better for the individual.
Trump’s published positions are centered around the people that make up this country regardless of color.
You can question the efficacy of his positions and if they successfully would do that, but his positions are nationalist first and patriotic second.
Thomas Friedman is so disappointed in you.
I’ll grab a cab on my way home from Cairo to repent.
Distrust but verify ;)
I like the way he reminded us of it when he campaigned for Trump in Mississippi. I sometimes wish he was our candidate.
Yeah, that’s roughly what I gather from the conservative writers I mentioned, but then why do so many others seem to think it’s either neutral or a good thing? Are there two major definitions floating around that are currently vying for the top perch?
Yes.
One is the wikipedia version that claims Nationalism is a relatively new ideology from the 19th century that inspired the German Nazi party and I can only guess is what Buckley was reacting to.
The other is that nationalism is an extension of family and tribe, and is as ancient as both.
While there is some cross over between the two, Buckley is reacting to socialism and the holocaust by swearing off nationalism.
Its been said nationalism starts wars. I have responded Imperialism starts wars. Nationalism is simply loyalty to people who share a genetic history with you. There is nothing in that that starts wars.