There are 11 comments.

  1. JuliaBlaschke Coolidge

    So basically Rich likes Trump’s nationalism and Jonah doesn’t. I’m with Jonah.

    • #1
    • April 22, 2019, at 2:18 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Taras Coolidge

    Stalin and Iran represent (different) doctrines of world domination, diametrically opposed to nationalism.

    Islamic fundamentalism believes there should be no borders within the domain of Islam. Which should cover the entire Earth.

    A recent book about Stalin, a Georgian controlling an empire with a Russian plurality, was titled Stalin, Breaker of Nations. Being a nationalist was a fast ticket to the firing squad, as my mother’s father learned the hard way.

    Without nationalism, what do you do when California votes by popular referendum to secede from the United States?

    As a progressive, AOC is not a nationalist but wants borders broken down. Or gradually erased, as in the European Union.

    • #2
    • April 22, 2019, at 5:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. Charlotte Member

    Rich! Stop yelling!

    • #3
    • April 22, 2019, at 6:19 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. rgbact Member

    Love these rare “Trumper vs. anti-Trumper” debates. Jonah won this one by far. In fairness, Jonah is great and Lowry probably presented his case about as badly as possible, sounding almost Richard Spencer-esque at times, with all that anger and racial identity.

    So besides Lowry, what other Trumper vs. Jonah debates can we have? VDH?

    • #4
    • April 23, 2019, at 11:07 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member

    I’m with Lowry on this one, though I think that to a significant extent, Lowry and Goldberg were talking past each other. Lowry is talking about an American nationalism, which I agree is synonymous with American patriotism, and which I think is good. Goldberg seems to agree, then wonder why we need to use the different term nationalism. The obvious answer is that, in much public debate, it is taboo to question the patriotism of Leftists and Democrats.

    I found Goldberg to be contradicting himself by simultaneously expressing his view that America is awesome, but that nationalism is something that is good according to the dose. I think that the correct answer is that nationalism is good if the character, culture, and ideals of the nation are good. Goldberg seems to miss the point that nationalism is necessary to the existence of nation-states. I know that he conceded it when Lowry pointed it out, but my impression is that this concession does not really penetrate Goldberg’s thinking.

    I think that Lowry has a better view of the founding principles and values of America than Goldberg. Goldberg is principally a libertarian, and I don’t think that he appreciates the importance of underlying, common ideals and values. Liberty does not really work as an underlying idea, as “do whatever you want” is not something around which people can rally. I value liberty, but the American founding was about ordered liberty, and the Founders repeatedly explained that it would not work with an immoral or irreligious people. I think that they were right about this.

    So I actually find myself agreeing with Goldberg’s “salt” analogy, but on the issue of liberty, not the issue of nationalism.

    I agree with rgbact that a debate between Goldberg and VDH would be excellent.

    • #5
    • April 23, 2019, at 1:00 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I’m with Lowry on this one, though I think that to a significant extent, Lowry and Goldberg were talking past each other. Lowry is talking about an American nationalism, which I agree is synonymous with American patriotism, and which I think is good. Goldberg seems to agree, then wonder why we need to use the different term nationalism. The obvious answer is that, in much public debate, it is taboo to question the patriotism of Leftists and Democrats.

    I found Goldberg to be contradicting himself by simultaneously expressing his view that America is awesome, but that nationalism is something that is good according to the dose. I think that the correct answer is that nationalism is good if the character, culture, and ideals of the nation are good. Goldberg seems to miss the point that nationalism is necessary to the existence of nation-states. I know that he conceded it when Lowry pointed it out, but my impression is that this concession does not really penetrate Goldberg’s thinking.

    I think that Lowry has a better view of the founding principles and values of America than Goldberg. Goldberg is principally a libertarian, and I don’t think that he appreciates the importance of underlying, common ideals and values. Liberty does not really work as an underlying idea, as “do whatever you want” is not something around which people can rally. I value liberty, but the American founding was about ordered liberty, and the Founders repeatedly explained that it would not work with an immoral or irreligious people. I think that they were right about this.

    So I actually find myself agreeing with Goldberg’s “salt” analogy, but on the issue of liberty, not the issue of nationalism.

    I agree with rgbact that a debate between Goldberg and VDH would be excellent.

    Boy, I would love a debate/discussion between Jonah and VDH!

    • #6
    • April 23, 2019, at 1:31 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. Gary Robbins Reagan

    If you want to hear more from Jonah Goldberg, he was interviewed today at the Daily Bulwark.

    https://podcast.thebulwark.com/jonah-goldberg-on-politics-as-entertainment

    • #7
    • April 23, 2019, at 3:13 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. kedavis Member

    I think I already covered how a Jonah/VDH discussion/debate on Trump would go. VDH would give rather long lists of Trump’s actual accomplishments and why they’re good for the country and even the world, while Jonah would just say “icky” over and over.

    • #8
    • April 23, 2019, at 6:20 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  9. Taras Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I think I already covered how a Jonah/VDH discussion/debate on Trump would go. VDH would give rather long lists of Trump’s actual accomplishments and why they’re good for the country and even the world, while Jonah would just say “icky” over and over.

    You’re not entirely wrong. The Charles Kesler/Jonah Goldberg “debate” from last year is, perhaps unintentionally, revealing. I put debate in quotes because Kesler’s manner was so deferential and laid back — I wondered if he feared losing Goldberg’s friendship — while Goldberg was emotional, even frantic. 

    The most surprising thing I discovered is that Goldberg has a personal beef with Donald Trump, invalidating any claim he might have to impartiality. According to Goldberg, he ridiculed some of Trump’s tweets, expecting Trump to grin and bear it. Instead, Trump called in air strikes (metaphorically speaking), and Goldberg obviously still resented it. 

    • #9
    • April 23, 2019, at 10:08 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. kedavis Member

    I think Jonah is also wrong when, early in the “debate,” he asserts that nationalism is always necessarily an us-vs-them thing. If he really believes that, it explains a lot about how he basically concludes that nationalism is “always” wrong (when you get right down to it, despite his claims about “dose” etc), but he shouldn’t believe that.

    • #10
    • April 24, 2019, at 2:13 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. Taras Coolidge

    kedavis (View Comment):

    I think Jonah is also wrong when, early in the “debate,” he asserts that nationalism is always necessarily an us-vs-them thing. If he really believes that, it explains a lot about how he basically concludes that nationalism is “always” wrong (when you get right down to it, despite his claims about “dose” etc), but he shouldn’t believe that.

     

    If I’m an individualist, that means I respect the individuality of all other people, as I expect them to respect mine. It doesn’t mean I think I have the right to subdue or enslave other individuals. If I don’t respect the individuality of others, then I may be an egoist or nihilist, but I’m not an individualist. 

    Similarly, if I’m a nationalist, then I respect the nationhood of other peoples in the world, and expect them to respect my nation in return. If I don’t respect other nations, then I may be an imperialist, but not a nationalist. 

    In the Cold War, the Soviet Union acted as an imperialist, creating “captive nations“, while the United States acted as a nationalist, building independent nations — often maddeningly independent — all over the world. 

     

    • #11
    • April 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM PDT
    • Like