Nationalism

Against the New Nationalism

Individual autonomy is not the cause of our problems and state autonomy is not the solution

|

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism," George Orwell wrote in 1945. "Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved."

In The Case for Nationalism (Broadside Books), Rich Lowry has decided, rather boldly, to go up against Orwell and stake out the inverse position: To be a nationalist, he says, is merely to feel a glow of pride in one's country, to recognize it as possessing a particular cultural character that differentiates its citizens from all others, and to insist on its sovereignty in the face of crusading outside forces. Nationalism and patriotism, in other words, are essentially interchangeable.

The exemplar for Lowry is thus Joan of Arc, the legendary French teenager who, in the 15th century, helped drive the British army from her country before being captured and burned at the stake. "Joan both expressed the national identity of France—a chosen people ruled by 'the most Christian' king and inhabiting their own distinct land—and came to represent it," the National Review editor writes in his new book.

The United States is not, of course, at risk of invasion by England or any other country on Earth. But in Lowry's view, our national unity is under attack from both without and within. The rise of "neo-imperial" governing institutions such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court threatens to usurp Americans' right to self-determination. Meanwhile, a bevy of leftist scholars—the late Howard Zinn figures prominently—employ revisionist history and identity politics to seed discord and disdain among the people.

Lowry's post atop the National Review masthead, and his pedigree as the hand-picked inheritor of William F. Buckley Jr.'s job, have long made him an avatar of respectable, mainstream conservatism. So his choice of Joan—a literal saint in the eyes of much of the world—is no accident. It's strategic, meant to reinforce the notion that his is a righteous nationalism, in contrast with the more noxious forms so often seen in history. Indeed, Lowry is one of a handful of influential conservatives who have begun working to rehabilitate the nationalist brand by arguing that it need not, after all, be associated with racism, fascism, or military conquest.

"There is such a thing as a benign—even a salutary—nationalism," explained Gabriel Schoenfeld in the September/October 2019 issue of The American Interest. "A nationalist politics that seeks to shore up [our fraying common] identity would not be illiberal in any meaningful sense of the word," averred W. James Antle III in the January/February 2019 issue of The American Conservative. "I am persuaded that there are perverse forms of nationalism," declared F.H. Buckley in the Fall 2019 issue of Modern Age, "but as an American nationalist I needn't take any interest in them."

Clearly, these thinkers seek to polish nationalism's image, rubbing away the negative connotations that have tarnished it over time to reveal the valuable material underneath. ("The allergy to nationalism and the belief that it should be dismissed and resisted are based on widespread misperceptions," Lowry writes. "It isn't based on hatred, instead on love: our affection for home and our own people.") Yet it's worth asking whether a revived nationalism can, in actual practice, resist corrosion.

There is little in history to instill optimism on that count and nothing to suggest that those who would take hold of a newly burnished nationalist ideology plan to use it for liberal purposes. Whether or not they intend as much, Lowry et al. are empowering a dangerous anti-individualism. National sentiment may be necessary and good, but nationalist policy is coercive by definition—a rejection of the very cultural values that make America worth loving in the first place.

Not a Beneficent Force

Conflict and repression predate the emergence of the modern nation-state, Lowry points out early in his book. Just look at the Mongols!

This is obviously true—but on its own, it does not come close to proving that nationalism "is not inherently militaristic, undemocratic, or racist," as he claims, let alone that "nationalism has done more to promote peace than war."

Lowry's own historical survey undermines the case he wants to make. In France, he concedes, nationalism gave way to an orgy of violence in the French Revolution and then the Napoleonic Wars. Previously, Oliver Cromwell's England had "descended into military dictatorship," resulting in that country's "early forays into overseas empire." In the 20th century, Italian nationalism gave rise to the Fascists while German nationalism led to two world wars and the Holocaust.

Lowry acknowledges that "an extreme or authoritarian nationalism (usually the same thing), as well as a nationalism of unquenchable grievance (also often associated with authoritarianism), is dangerous." Still, he thinks a world of proud and independent nation-states is better than what came before. "Tribalism tends to be red in tooth and claw," he writes.

He doesn't appear to consider that nationalism is a species of tribalism, which is why it so often itself turns bloody.

This is in keeping with the habit of today's nationalists to define away one of the most widespread fears inspired by the word. By insisting that authentic nationalism respects the right of other peoples to rule themselves, they're able to tidily conclude, as Lowry does, that the "constant source of war throughout history isn't nationalism but its opposite: the quest for dominion." If nationalism does go wrong, it must be because it was "tainted with malign influences."

A simpler explanation is that nationalism is unstable: It easily decays into something hazardous, marked by military aggression abroad, an obsession with purity at home, or—as with the Third Reich—a toxic combination of the two. Even if such a transmutation doesn't happen in 100 percent of cases, the history as Lowry himself presents it should hardly assure readers that a nationalist revival would be a beneficent force in the world.

Imposing Unity on the Country

In fairness to America's new conservative nationalism, there's every reason to assume its proponents are mercantilists, not Nazis. Nonetheless, in both general outlook and specific policy prescriptions, it is decidedly not a simple synonym for patriotic pride.

The new nationalism is implicitly illiberal. It doesn't stop at resisting the push, regrettably fashionable on many college campuses, to divide society into mutually antagonistic identity subgroups or to rewrite history to cast the United States as an unredeemable villain in every tale. Instead, it spills over into efforts to preserve our cultural homogeneity (such as it exists) from the diluting influence of foreigners. And it doesn't stop at opposing what The American Conservative's Antle calls "sovereignty-shredding supranational organizations" (the European Union, for instance) but spills over into an anti-cosmopolitanism that seeks to throw up barriers to free markets and free trade.

This predilection was on display at last summer's National Conservatism Conference, an event at which Beltway journalists, professors from prestigious educational institutions, and at least one U.S. senator gathered at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., to discuss how coastal elitism is ruining America. The lineup featured a parade of right-of-center intellectuals explaining what, practically speaking, nationalism means to them: higher tariffs ("economic nationalists must be willing to pay higher prices to protect our fellow citizens," said Christian activist David Brog), larger expenditures to support the American industrial sector ("we should have a National Institutes of Manufacturing just as we have a National Institutes of Health," said former Mitt Romney adviser Oren Cass), stricter immigration laws ("it doesn't make a darn bit of difference what the economic arguments are if our cohesion is shot," said Israeli political philosopher Yoram Hazony), and more aggressive efforts to legislate morality ("we should care about a whole host of public goods and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish those goods," said Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance).

There can be no doubting that the nationalist project—not just in my telling but in the minds of the people undertaking it—involves a coercive imposition of national unity on the country. Consider the difference between encouraging people to "buy American" out of a sense of solidarity and enacting protectionist policies that raise prices for everyone, whether they like it or not.

In fact, many of the new nationalists are explicit that libertarian economics, and the classical liberal order more broadly, are diametric to their desires. Writer Daniel McCarthy, in a widely circulated March 2019 essay for First Things, warned that America is headed for "suicide by liberalism," with a nationalist program "the most effective and honorable way out of the dilemma we face." Fox News host Tucker Carlson has repeatedly blamed "libertarian ideologues" for the GOP's unwillingness to embrace a program of "economic patriotism" resembling the one put forward by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). And Hazony used the National Conservatism Conference to "declare our independence…from neoliberalism, from libertarianism, from what they call classical liberalism. From the set of ideas that sees the atomic individual, the free and equal individual, as the only thing" that matters.

The list could go on. Too often these days, a nationalist is a person who thinks individual autonomy is the cause of all our problems and state autonomy is the solution. True, Lowry probably doesn't see himself in those terms—but as the story goes, the Soviets had a name for people who credulously dealt in an ideology without grasping the enormity of its goals: useful idiots.

Nationalism in Practice Isn't Pretty

One might object that these are all just theoretical proposals. Fortunately for those of us hoping to discern what this type of alternative might look like in the wild, there's a self-identifying nationalist in the White House we can look to.

"They have a word…it's called a nationalist," President Donald Trump said at a rally shortly before the 2018 midterm elections. "We're not supposed to use that word. I'm a nationalist, OK? Nationalist. Use that word."

Lowry understandably wishes to distance his proposal from Trump's more egregious behavior, writing that "there isn't anything inherently nationalistic about wild presidential tweets, extreme boastfulness, excoriating attacks on the media, the browbeating of allies or even protectionism or populism." Setting aside the assertion that boastfulness and protectionism can be exorcised from his project, it's silly to demand that critics ignore the most powerful person to embrace the label in its newly reincarnated form.

The list of things Trump has done with his power, like the list of things the new conservative nationalists would like to see done, is highly illiberal. On the immigration front, it includes attempts to ban people from Muslim-majority countries and to indefinitely separate children from their parents at the border. In the realm of economics, it includes the ongoing trade war alongside efforts to dictate private business decisions by dangling subsidies and threatening punitive taxes. And it's all but certain the president would go much further if he were not regularly thwarted by Congress, the courts, dissenters within the various executive agencies, and his own staff.

Lowry's position depends on a belief that "benign" nationalism can be kept from sliding into authoritarianism. But his description of what it looks like when things start to go wrong should set off at least an early warning bell for those who are paying attention.

Historically, he writes, the fascists "sought to substitute loyalty to the party and its leader to the squabbling of democratic politics" and "celebrated violence and the triumph of the will." We need not make Trump into Hitler to see worrying parallels in the man who pre-emptively declared the results of the 2016 election invalid if he didn't win; who has offered to pay the legal bills of supporters who "knock the crap out of" anti-Trump protesters at his rallies; and who cozies up to repressive dictators such as the Philippines' Rodrigo Duterte. Anyone who believes, as Lowry claims to, that America's nationalism is uniquely "inclusive" should also be troubled by the race-based us-and-them mentality on display, for example, when the president suggested a federal judge was unqualified to rule in one of his cases because of the judge's Mexican heritage, or when he tweeted that four nonwhite congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States, should "go back" to where they came from.

The most charitable definition of nationalism is the belief, in Lowry's words, that "we should be doing everything possible to break down tribal group loyalties rather than build them up." It's hard (to put it mildly) to reconcile that maxim with Trump's actions and rhetoric. Nationalism, as it's currently being practiced, isn't pretty. And nationalism, as it has been practiced historically, is much, much worse.

Liberalism Makes Us Exceptional

In Nationalism: A Short History (Brookings Institution Press), the Boston University sociologist Liah Greenfeld distinguishes between the "individualistic" nationalism that characterizes England and "collectivist" nationalisms like the French and Japanese varieties. The key difference is that in the latter societies, the nation is considered a separate entity "with a will and interests of its own, independent of those of the human individuals composing it." Members of these societies have a duty to work hard, not in the pursuit of riches or glory for themselves but in order "to contribute to the dignity of the nation" relative to the rest of the world.

The United States, by contrast, is history's purest example of an individualistic society. The American nation was "a community of sovereign members" whose own sovereignty "was derived from theirs," Greenfeld explains. "Americans pledged themselves, far more openly and unambiguously than the English did before them, to universal liberty."

The Case for Nationalism places an almost comical degree of emphasis on Lowry's insistence that America is not just an idea or a creed: "America is a nation, whose sovereignty and borders are dear to it, whose history and culture are an indispensable glue, whose interests guide her actions (or should)," he writes—and proceeds as if that settles things once and for all against the anti-nationalist position.

Yet what makes the United States distinctive is the extent to which its history and culture are animated by liberal values such as pluralism, entrepreneurialism, and personal responsibility. In Give Me Liberty: A History of America's Exceptional Idea (Basic Books), Lowry's National Review colleague Richard Brookhiser canvasses the last 400 years to show that, at virtually every turn, U.S. history has been shaped by Americans' deep commitment to individual liberty, from democracy and markets to freedom of the press and the free exercise of religion. As F.A. Hayek put it, "What in Europe was called 'liberalism' was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built." As H.G. Wells once observed, "All Americans are, from the English point of view, Liberals of one sort or another."

Lowry knows all this: "We are the inheritors of an Anglo-American tradition…that has profound respect for the individual and the rule of law," he writes. As far back as the 1630s, Americans were exhibiting "a bullheaded resistance to arbitrary authority and a willingness to resort to force in defense of our rights." Later in the book, he approvingly quotes Ronald Reagan's attestation that "America is freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare."

The problem for Lowry and his fellow travelers is that the new conservative nationalism, with its great affection for government power and its demands that individual autonomy be subordinated to the collective good, is the antithesis of those qualities that have always set us apart.

Dignity Must Come First

The project of reconciling liberalism with nationalism is doomed from the start—in part because even the self-proclaimed liberal nationalists have a tendency to veer into questionable territory.

F.H. Buckley, in his piece for Modern Age, writes that "nationalism has a gravitational force that pulls one leftward on social welfare policies." Lowry comes right out with his belief that "on global trade, it shouldn't be enough to say that it has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty, not if there's been a substantial cost to Americans." And the only substantive policy he spends real time in the book advocating is immigration restrictionism, on the theory that "the bottom line of a contemporary nationalist agenda [is] the preservation of the American cultural nation" and that "we are a people whose nature can be changed depending on who we welcome here or not."

This is why Greenfeld's phrase individualist nationalism obscures more than it reveals. Nationalism, to her, is something more like popular sovereignty—the idea that a nation's governing authority rightly belongs to the people. But that is at best an antiquated understanding of the word.

Today's nationalists think the federal government has an obligation to actively pursue what they call the "national interest." Any agenda that assumes the existence of such a thing must begin by making a variety of determinations, from who should be allowed to join the polity to whether to privilege the producer's bottom line over the consumer's. And in anything short of a monolithic society, that means overriding some individuals' preferences—and often their right to make choices for themselves.

"The fact that these questions can reasonably be answered in different ways helps explain why nationalism cannot easily dispense with coercion," argues George Washington University political scientist Samuel Goldman, who is writing a book on the topic. "Contrary to organic metaphors, nationalism is not the spontaneous expression of an underlying consensus. It always seeks to institutionalize one vision of the nation at the expense of alternatives."

If coercion is, by definition, the opposite of liberty, then a nationalist is someone who, when push comes to shove, will inevitably choose the former. Lowry unintentionally drives this notion home when he points out that Abraham Lincoln believed in a "hierarchy of values" that prioritized national unity above his abolitionist convictions.

"Much as I hate slavery," Lowry quotes Lincoln saying in an 1854 speech, "I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any GREAT evil, to avoid a GREATER one."

With the benefit of 166 years' hindsight, we should be able to recognize Lincoln's hierarchy as disordered. Slavery will forever be America's most profound failure to live up to its liberal values—a stain on this country's founding. We should not twist or falsify the historical record to emphasize that fact. But if we as a people can't acknowledge our mistakes, and learn from them, and dedicate ourselves to doing better, we aren't worthy of the "deep, abiding, and emotional" loyalty that Lowry wants to restore.

There are more important things than nation-states, which have come and gone through history. Human dignity, and the commitment to liberty that flows from it, must come first.

NEXT: Delaware Court Creates Expungement Remedy for Quickly Dismissed Protection-from-Abuse Orders

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Today’s nationalists consider the federal government should actively seek what they call the “national interest.” Any plan that allows the presence of such a thing must begin by making a kind of independence, from who should be permitted to join the polity to whether to privilege the producer’s behind line over the people. Concealed carry weapons equal to every person in the United States and help to improve national interest. https://medium.com/@kevin.king73/virginia-concealed-carry-permit-6204ee59569

    1. Has anyone ever been so far as even decided to use look more like?

      1. No, Mamma, we have ALL been waiting, with bated breath, for YOU to tell us, HOW do we “use look more like?”

        Is “use look more like” look anything like THIS?

        https://www.redbubble.com/people/jimmywatt/works/31050123-putin-rides-trump-meme?p=poster

        Putin Rides Trump Meme Poster

        1. It will be good when you die. The sooner the better.

          1. INFANTILE (YAWN)

            1. Ok, Mikey, I can certainly believe your yawns (like anything else you emit) being infantile. Can I be on your enemies list? Please? SNEER.

    2. Government of the People, by the People, and For the People is representative Populist Nationalism.

      Note that instead of attacking the #AmericaFirst Populist Nationalism of Trump supporters, which is their true target, Reason holds up the Globalist #NeoClown Lowry from NRO as their controlled opposition #FauxRight punching bag surrogate for straw man Nationalism. This is always the trick of the #EnemyOfThePeople: they simple ignore arguments they can’t refute, and prop up the controlled opposition as the only alternative allowed in the discussion.

      If Reason doesn’t think that American government should be for the American People, they should be open and honest just who they think it should be for instead.

      1. “If Reason doesn’t think that American government should be for the American People…”

        Spoken / written like a true tribalist-nationalist!

        How about being “for individual freedom” instead of being for the “freedom of the Collective Hive / Government Almighty”? Is THAT an option left open by buybuydandavis?

        1. Again, *whose* individual freedom? *Whose* conception of individual freedom? Who, *in this world*, if anyone?

          Are we to be the World Policeman, enforcing Anglo American conceptions of freedom on the entire planet, oh NeoClown?

          Or is it *no one’s* individual freedom in the actual world, and simply a religious adherence to your deontological moral intuitions, *damn* the liberty of any and all individuals in the world?

          You responded before my more lengthy elaboration of just how Slade’s article is a fine display of just what is wrong with Reason – they’re arguing as deontological Anarchists, and ignoring the real world consequences of acting on their current emotional feelings about liberty. The same clearly applies to you.

          1. “…and ignoring the real world consequences of acting on their current emotional feelings about liberty.”

            As defined by you. My own individual ideas about my own individual freedom means NOTHING to you. Same as it has never meant anything to any of the other collectivist tyrants. All Hail buybuydandavis!

            1. “As defined by you.”

              You can define words. Reality is not to be defined. It is what is. You can observe it. You should try it sometime.

              “My own individual ideas about my own individual freedom means NOTHING to you. ”

              Your hysteria that I don’t give a hoot about the Platonic Forms rolling about in your head shows what a religious fruitloop you are.

              But it conveniently does *prove my point* that the opposition to Trump at Reason is largely a deontological feel fest divorced from reality.

              Carry on!

              1. Ethics, very simply, means treating others the way that you would like to be treated, if you were in their shoes.

                YOUR ethics apparently means spouting a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, and then defining reality and freedom in YOUR terms, to dictate what other people should and should not do! YOU are the moral superior, to decide for others! (And I don’t give a hoot of you enlist 51% of the voters to help you strong-arm others for no good reason).

                Do YOU want to be treated this way? No? Then do NOT do it to others! It is THAT simple!

                1. “Muh Platonic Forms!”

        2. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. While the globalists induce the US military to fight illegal empire building wars all over the globe under the guise of fighting global terrorism (used to be global communism, remember?) and they use all sorts of subliminal propaganda in movies, TV shows, advertising, newspapers and sports events with patriotic slogans and scenes to socially condition the people’s minds to accept these illegal wars, lasting more than 20 year now, as necessary and those who fight in them are real patriots. How can you say then that nationalism is evil? The people brainwashed into fighting these wars are Americans, not globalists. Their nationality is undeniably American. So those who seek to kill nationalism are nothing more than apologists for the globalists and their one world agenda. The reason why they want to demonize nationalism is it stands in the way of on homogeneous global society full of non-thinking automatons, enslaved by a small band of super rich, super powerful, lunatic, globalist fanatics.

      2. This article makes for a wonderful compendium of the vast array of lies and fallacies by which Reason opposes the fundamentals of self government in an America First government policy.

        “The United States is not, of course, at risk of invasion by England or any other country on Earth. ”

        Yet another lie from the #EnemyOfThePeople. The US is currently subject to an invasion by 20 million illegal alien invaders, with more coming every day. How many invaders is it supposed to take to constitute an invasion? We’re counting in the tens of millions now. Should it be hundreds of millions instead?

        Of course Nick has already stated Reason’s policy that *no* number of invaders is too great. Reason’s “core value” is “the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.” Slade should get with the program and stop denying the invasion, and start glorifying it as her “core value”.

        “He doesn’t appear to consider that nationalism is a species of tribalism, which is why it so often itself turns bloody.”

        Government *is* tribalism. This is our dirt, we enforce our laws here. This is the most successful model for protecting the freedom of people that mankind has found.

        Anarchists like to pretend they have an alternative. Reality demonstrates that they have yet to find a *viable* alternative, but when they get Anarchotopia running, I’m sure we’ll all be happy to visit and check it out. Until then, they’re the flip side of totalitarians, working diligently to *weaken* the means that men have found to resist totalitarians and preserve liberty for themselves and their posterity.

        “it spills over into efforts to preserve our cultural homogeneity (such as it exists) from the diluting influence of foreigners. ”

        Heavens! There those nationalists go, wanting to preserve liberty for themselves and their posterity against foreigners who do not value the Anglo American conception of liberty.

        Hey Steph, have you noticed all the articles at Reason bemoaning the ever expanding government infringement of liberty in CA? It’s the influence of foreigners that has turned the CA of Nixon and Reagan into the one party Big Government state we have today.

        Import Not Americans, Become Not America. You asked for it. You got it. It’s time you noticed that the immigration policies that you favored brought about the outcomes you bemoan today.

        Reason claims they want Anglo American liberty, and refuses to even attempt to explain how you preserve Anglo American liberty when you import a population that simply has no history in it and doesn’t believe in it.

        “seeks to throw up barriers to free markets and free trade”

        What Reason calls “free trade” is a set of trade, immigration, and tax policies that benefits foreigners and US corporate ownership over US labor.

        Reason has yet to explain why it’s “libertarian” to tax domestic labor in preference to the products sold by Slave Emperor Xi.

        And whatever the benefits of purchasing our geegaws from a Slave Emperor, calling it “free trade” is grotesque. Is that what freedom is at Reason? The freedom to profit from foreign slave labor?

        Recall that Adam Smith himself favored tariffs to offset local taxes on production, protect industries needed for national defense, and pressure foreign nations to reduce their own tariffs against US products. Reason pretends they are for classical free trade, while railing against the tariff policies of Adam Smith.

        Reason is simply for more profits for corporate America, and pushes free trade as an out of context absolute when it suits corporate profits, but is strangely silent on a myriad of abuses of free trade and individual rights when it powers corporate profits, such as government intellectual monopolies, corporate limited liability, and violations of the Lockean Proviso.

        “There are more important things than nation-states, which have come and gone through history. Human dignity, and the commitment to liberty that flows from it, must come first.”

        And here is the Anarchist punchline undergirding Reason’s arguments. It’s all deontology. They call their commitment to their *feelings* about liberty a “commitment to liberty”, damn the actual *means* to liberty in the real world, nation-states, and damn the actual *consequences* to liberty in the real world following their deontological feelings will bring.

        As opposed to Reason, some of us have a commitment to liberty *in reality*, and support those policies which best preserve that liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Like the Founders, we’re Nationalists.

        When Reason condemns American Nationalism, they’re condemning the system which *in reality* created the most free, secure, and prosperous society in the history of mankind, *and* saved the rest of the world from imperial fascism and international communism in the 20th Century. But they don’t care about those facts, because they consider their feelings more important.

        1. “When Reason condemns American Nationalism…”

          You mean that the ideology of individual freedom instead of “Collective Freedom” means NOTHING?

          American democracy blessed, at various times (and for LONG times in some cases), slavery, Jim Crow, no votes for people who were NOT white male land-owners, expulsion (forced re-locations) and concentration camps for Native Americans, and ditto for Japanese-Americans… NO votes for women… The Collective Hive telling us we could NOT drink booze, and now, to this very day, telling us that we can NOT own our own bodies and decide for ourselves, which drugs to take… NONE of which agreed with (agrees with) individual freedom!

          What is YOUR excuse for YOUR ideological blindness?

          1. “You mean that the ideology of individual freedom instead of “Collective Freedom” means NOTHING?”

            I care about the individual freedom of *actual individuals*, not the astral Platonic Form of individual freedom. Until you identify *whose freedom* you want to talk about, you’re living in fantasy land.

            As for bad things, of course Americans have done them and will continue to do them. Reality will always fall short of the fantasy land utopias in your head, which are not constrained by the laws of reality in the least. Have you failed to notice that?

            Mankind used to be cannibals. We have progressed from there. That American Nationalism did bad things and will continue to do bad things simply does rebut my claim about all the good it did *in actual fact*, and how it compares to other *actual systems* *in actual fact*.

            As Thomas Sowell would ask: “Compared to what? What data do you have?”
            Compared to your fantasies, the US is horrible. That’s a funny thing about fantasies – they are unconstrained by reality, so they can always be better than reality.
            Compared to other systems *in reality*, the Anglo American system of self-government, inherently Nationalist Populist, has done greater than the rest of the world, and is doing greater than the rest of the world now.

            1. All hail the American system? The only one on the planet, where I need permission to blow on a cheap plastic flute?

              To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

              1. The others are worse. All of them. Sadly, you want to turn the US into them.

          2. Yeah, you’re right. National self loathing is much better.

            “Everything is so terrible and unfair”! ™

            Haha

            1. Wait till you get dragged into the night and fog, never to be seen again, for having blown on a cheap plastic flute, w/o permission! THEN say…

              “Everything is so terrible and unfair”! ™

              Haha

              1. You’ve clearly been traumatized. That explains a lot.

                Haha

                1. “blown on a cheap plastic flute”

                  What a peculiar euphemism.

          3. no votes for people who were NOT white male land-owners,

            Incorrect.

            1. Wrong again. 🙂

              1. Fact free as usual.

        2. Very well put!

  2. It’s nice that Stephanie Slade promotes Charles Koch’s immigration agenda.

    However I still don’t think she has any business writing for a libertarian website. Ranking just below open borders, the second fundamental, non-negotiable issue for Koch / Reason libertarians is unrestricted access to abortion care throughout all 3 trimesters. Which Ms. Slade has gone on record opposing.

    #StandWithPP
    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    1. DRINK! It’s the OpenBordersLiberal-tarian drinking game! Take a shot every time OpenBordersLiberal-tarian exposes obsession for Koch.

      1. Charles, you’re not fooling anyone.

        1. All three trimesters and beyond, you should mention.

    2. “unrestricted access to abortion care throughout all 3 trimesters”

      Only first 3 trimesters!?!? You monster!

      Sad that “libertarians” want to live in The Handmaid’s Tale dystopia. This is why one *must* vote against Republicans *and* Libertarians.

      A woman should always be able to use her body to throw her child off a cliff. A woman’s body, a woman’s choice!

      #DemocratsAreSparta

      1. Hey fuckhead. Learn what unalienable means. It means absolute.
        Am I going too fast?

        That means all fundamental rights are … absolute!
        Still with me, Gomer?

        If they’re all absolute, then they’re all. …. COEQUAL! (gasp)
        That includes Life, an undefined package called Liberty, an undefined package called Pursuit of Happiness … and all the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment, unknown but yet to be acknowledged.

        This may make your brain explode, but … how would YOU resolve conflicts between two fundamental rights, both absolute???
        I didn’t think so.

        Gomers sneer that rights can never conflict … because such conflicts are in-con-veeeeeen-yent to their authoritarian mentality … and to their limited intelligence. In their semi-conscious existence, they’ve never heard of.
        “No free speech right to yell fire in a crowned theater” …. or …
        “Your right to swing your fists ends at the end of my nose.”
        (I did say “limited intelligence.”

        Two absolute rights are in conflict if they cannot BOTH be defended, absolutely, Abortion is the most obvious example. The fetal child’s unalienable Right to Life CANNOT be absolutely defended … without violating the woman’s absolute Right to Liberty.

        Sooo, we get the left-wing thugs demanding the woman’s Liberty be absolute, throughout the pregnancy. Right-wing thugs demand the fetal child’s Life be absolute, from conception. BOTH gangs of statist thugs SHIT ON equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. Both.

        And both gangs seek to impose their preferred right by government force. And like all statists. they are SO totally self-righteous in their tyranny.

        Yes, the fetus has full rights at conception. SO DID THE WOMAN.
        Deal with it, Gomers.

        Or … admit that you beleeb Jefferson and the Founders were stoopid … not as “enlightened” as you … while you FUCK OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES. Libertarians are onto your racket, have been for over 50 years.

        But keep bellowing, screeching and shaking your fists at the sky.

        1. I’m surprised the staff at the insane asylum you inhabit haven’t euthanized you yet.

          1. THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT DENIES THE MEANING OF UNALIENABLE … WHICH INTERFERES WITH THEIR STATISM.

            1. Oh noes! This one is *all* bold caps!

              That makes the rhetoric *irresistible*.

              1. THAT WAS RIDICULE.
                SO IS THIS.

        2. I smell Hihn stank.

          1. When they LOSE on the issue (here, unalienable rights),
            They whine like pussies, which is all they have.

            I smell Hihn stank.

            Chicken-shit

            1. Your spittle flecked rage brightens my day.

  3. Socialists stole the term Liberal.
    Socialists stole the term Nationalist.

    Socialists are now trying to steal every other term that can be used to describe American exceptionalism as freedom loving, trade having, and wealthy people.

    Libertarianism is the key. Tiny and limited government under Rule of Law. Minimal government intervention in markets, social aspects of life, and civil liberties.

    1. Tiny and limited government under Rule of Law. Minimal government intervention in markets, social aspects of life, and civil liberties.

      How exactly do you square that with your worship of Trump?

      1. Easy: lesser of two evils.

        1. Lesser of two evils is still evil. You are worshipping evil.

          1. It’s your problem that you mistake a preference for Trump over Hillary/Sanders for “worship”. It’s also your problem that you think that a moderate Republican is “evil”.

            Except for being less slick, Trump is pretty much a run of the mill moderate Republican, and his support is pretty much the same support any run of the mill moderate Republican has received.

            And predictably, the American left tries to portray Trump as uniquely evil, just as they have tried with every Republican president for as long as I can remember.

            1. Are you really going to argue that lc1789 doesn’t display blind worship in his comments? Or that the majority of vocal trump supporters around here can even mutter one iota of criticism? No, they can’t. Because they are cultists. Cults demand loyalty, blind loyalty. Like affirming you dumb ass leader’s blatantly false assertions. Tell us again, where is Kansas City? (Fox News hosts and other conservative talking heads had to have some debate about this, one cannot say that the president is wrong.)

              1. Fuck off Pedo Jeffy. You don’t just suck the cock of the left. You let them plow your asshole too.

              2. Are you really going to argue that lc1789 doesn’t display blind worship in his comments? Or that the majority of vocal trump supporters around here can even mutter one iota of criticism? No, they can’t. Because they are cultists.

                When there is valid criticism of Trump, people gladly join in. The problem is that there is little valid criticism of Trump on Reason, only your kind of hysteria, panic, and lies. That’s because people like you know nothing and are incapable of reasoning.

                1. “The problem is that there is little valid criticism of Trump on Reason, only your kind of hysteria, panic, and lies. That’s because people like you know nothing and are incapable of reasoning.”

                  ahahahahahaha …gasp…..ahahahahahaha.

                  Typical arrogance that only a true believer could muster. Yep, the whole world, and the majority of Americans are wrong; just you and your little brownshirt friends are in the know.

                  Must be some huge coincidence that far right beliefs are contrary to science and reason.

                  Tell us more about how global warming is a communist hoax. Tell us about the pedo ring in the basement of a basementless pizza shop. Tell us about how jebus himself is going to surf a cloud down here and save 144000 people. Tell me how tax cuts with no cut in spending is good for a country. Tell me how inviting foreign interference in our elections, multiple times now, is patriotic.

                  1. AMC Entertainment doesn’t project as much as you do, cytotoxic.

                    Tell us more about how Trump is a Russian intelligence asset who will be impeached, convicted, removed, and criminally charged as a result of the completely unbiased Mueller investigation. Tell us about how supranational global governance is good for trade. Tell us about how censorship and discrimination on the basis of race, gender and religion is the true source of liberty. Oh and hey, tell us how inviting foreign interference in our elections, multiple times, is patriotic.

                  2. Oh by the way you retarded Canadian cunt sucking piece of subhuman dogshit, your cunt lost by majority vote. Trump enjoys an approval rating identical to Obama’s at the same stage in his presidency. Give up on the majoritarian argument. You don’t have one. MoveOn.org.

                    1. And given that Trump has 95% of the media working against him his true approval rating probably 8-10 points higher. Obama’s would have been far lower without the media covering for him.

                  3. Typical arrogance that only a true believer could muster.

                    True believer in what? I’m a political independent. I didn’t even vote for Trump. As a former long time Democrat, I have just come to despise what the Democrats have become in recent years.

                    Yep, the whole world

                    Most of the world is dictators, communists, and corrupt progressives; you know: the kinds of people you like.

                    and the majority of Americans are wrong

                    The majority of Americans didn’t vote for Hillary. Most of us stayed at home in 2016.

                    just you and your little brownshirt friends are in the know

                    The political programs and ideology of Sanders and Warren literally are indistinguishable in many points from the NSDAP and Mussolini. You are the brownshirt and you don’t even realize it.

          2. He’s more Libertarian than almost all recent LP nominees. He’s less evil than even the LP.

            1. Really, compared with Johnson (or Suderman) Trump is practically Gillespie’s leather jacket level.

              1. Not initially he wasn’t — He plowed out oppressive regulation like nobodies business.

        2. Which evil is lesser is often debatable. Was GW Bush really the lesser evil? Hard to say in hindsight. Perhaps the term should instead be “different evil”.

          Whatever the case might be, don’t confuse the lesser evil as being more libertarian — even slightly.

          1. I don’t think Bush was less evil than Gore or Kerry, but less of an empty suit banality.

            I don’t know if Bush was any smarter than Gore or Kerry, but Gore and Kerry were always just going to go with the Eastern Establishment conventional wisdom.

            Bush despite having deeper roots in the Eastern Establishment, which probably gave him a little more latitude, had Darth Cheney to guide him to a better path.

            1. “Better”

          2. I didn’t say that it wasn’t “debatable”. I said that people make their choice between the two candidates we usually get not based on blind worship but based on which they consider the lesser of two evils. There may be people who actually worship Trump and Hillary, but most people just held their noses and voted for one or the other.

      2. Better question, is how is supporting Trump contradictory to these stands? Not ad hominids or vague charges but concrete examples?

        1. “ad hominids”

          Like the old Geico caveman commercials?

          1. auto correct

            1. (/*winky smiley face*/)

            2. auto car wrecked

        2. He has none. He yells trumpistas at clouds when he gets rained upon.

          1. Yeah. Like you’re a beacon of civility.

            1. At least I’m honest about my beliefs. When you actually do make an argument I dont just scream Bernie supporter and run away.

              You will yell trumpista anytime you disagree with someone if they have ever made a single pro trump statement.

              1. I yell trumpista when people like you whine and cry and bitch and moan how Reason is a leftist rag whenever they print anything critical about Trump.

                1. No. No you dont. You yell it whenever you get into a disagreement on things such as trade. See every trade thread. You are lying even now. W

                  1. No you don’t! Waaah! You keep calling me names! Waaah!

                    1. Glad to see how quickly you devolve into this state. No depth at all to your beliefs.

                    2. Says the guy who responds to all of my comments with “TDS! You hate Trump! Aaauughh!”

                    3. I should have put that 9:36 comment in quotes to emphasize that I was mocking you.

                    4. Except you can read my responses in this thread. I didnt say TDS once. My you are bad at this. I said you have a shallow belief system.

                    5. Now he gets all literal on me. You know exactly what I meant. Unless you’re a complete dumbass.

                    6. Allow me to repeat myself again.

                      I trot out “Trumpista” when you and others have kittens whenever Reason is remotely critical of Trump.

                      “Unreason is a leftist rag! Everyone at Reason voted for Hillary! They’re not true libertarians! If they were they’d support Trump in everything that he does! If you don’t support everything he does then you hate everything he does! You’re a leftist! You’re an anarchist! Aaauughh!”

                      That is being a Trumpista. And yes, I’m exaggerating. I’m not being literal. You never said those exact words. Jesus. Get a fucking grip. It’s possible to be a libertarian who gives Trump credit for cutting regulation while not supporting his trade war and oppressive immigration policy.

                    7. And yes, I’m exaggerating. I’m not being literal.

                      Way to BTFO your own ”””””argument””””” you fucking retard. You’re literally doing exactly what you’re accusing your opponent. And your opponent isn’t.

                    8. It’s possible to be a libertarian who gives Trump credit for cutting regulation while not supporting his trade war and oppressive immigration policy.

                      Trump doesn’t have an oppressive immigration policy. His immigration policy is completely indistinguishable from George W. Bush or Barack Obama. This is why people you accuse of arguing in bad faith, being a moron, and being a Democratic Party nut hugger. Because you are.

                      Also neither you nor anyone on the Reason staff has written a single comment praising Trump for his deregulatory efforts. It is not difficult to prove how unbelievably biased this magazine is. It is far to the left of even mainstream outlets like NBC, CBS and ABC.

                    9. fuck off Tulpa

                2. The irony is you cant even make it through this discussion without labeling me a trumpista multiple times. It is all you have.

                  1. Its a badge of honor. Not that I approve of everything he does, but its true enough there is no need to run from it. Really, what’s the alternative, join the clown car parade?

                    I’d rather just celebrate what capitalism we still have with Trump.

                    1. Crony capitalism while the foundation of our republic rots away to nothing.

                      Who cares what the marginal tax rate for millionaires is when there might not be another free election?

                    2. Lol cry more jeff

                      Then vote bernie then tell us about it

                    3. Lol go fuck your sister.

                      Traitor.

                    4. ThERe MiGhT nOt bE AnoThER FrEE elEcTIoN!!!!!!!!!!!

                      I can’t imagine why people mock you mercilessly.

              2. “At least I’m honest about my beliefs.”

                Yes, for those readers NOT familiar with JesseAZ… He is forthrightly in favor of a Trumptatorship!

                See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480

                With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                I say again, this is important…
                “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                BOUNDLESS POWERS to the Trumptatorship! All Hail!

                We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!

                Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

                1. Holy shit. After a half dozen beat downs you still dont understand english.

                  You realize this entire argument makes you look fucking stupid right?

                  1. Fascists are generally arrogant, yes. So you see all non-fascists as being stupid. You don’t bother to refute their arguments… You just call them stupid! It’s what arrogant fascists do best! Has Trump yet offered to pay your legal bills for coming on over here to beat me up? Has it occurred to you, that when the Islamofascists killed people and burned down buildings, because some cartoonists called them ideologically ultra-violent… the Islamofascists proved their opponents correct! You are doing the same for the Trumptatorship… Showing the intellectually challenged and ethically challenged nature of the Trumptatorship! Keep up the good work of self-defeating your harmful cause!

                    1. You could prove you are right by simply stating what conditions bound Trumps ability to fire political appointees. That is what the discussion you linked to was in regards to.

                      But everyone here knows you’re fucking retarded.

                      All you’re doing is proving you cant comprehend arguments at even a 5th grade level.

                      If you were intelligent you would understand the discussion on bounded and unbounded powers in the constitution. But you are not, so you dont. It is common terminology. You’re just unread.

                    2. Yes, fascists are generally arrogant: look in the mirror for an example.

                    3. https://reason.com/2020/02/07/michael-bloomberg-and-the-imperious-presidency-2/#comment-8120734

                      JesseSPAZ comment: “He can fire political appointees for any fucking reason he wants.”
                      Jesse’s over-archingly lusting after the super-powers of the Trumptorship YET AGAIN!!!

                      Trump can fire them for not assigning their entire paychecks to Trump… For not licking Trump’s balls as much as JesseSPAZ does… For turning down Trump’s requests for then to perform personal murder-for-hire… For having fucked Stormy Daniels out of turn, when it was Trump’s turn… For Air Force Captain-Sir-Dude-Sir-Pilot-Sir refusing orders to go and bomb Nancy Pelosi’s house…

                      Just when I was rooting for JesseSPAZ to turn from his evil ways, he doubles down on Trumptatorship-worship AGAIN!

                    4. Yes, fascists are generally arrogant: look in the mirror for an example.

                      You’re calling Squirrely a fascist?

                      Haaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaa ha ha ha ha haaaa ha ha!

                      Dude….

                  2. You realize this entire argument makes you look fucking stupid right?

                    Mikey Hihn has a high tolerance for pain. It’s how he’s survived multiple bouts of sepsis after eating his own shit.

              3. You scream “jeff” and run away.

                1. cry more about marginal tax rates. Tell us taxing the wealthy is a good thing. Tell us of the wonders of illegal immigration and medicare for all.

                  That’ll surely get us to take you seriously

                  1. You really are too stupid to have a conversation with. You think the point I was making was that it is good to tax the rich?

                    Fuck off now, little dunce.

                    1. It’s literally what you’ve said many, many times cytotoxic. You should consider killing yourself. You are a subhuman piece of shit. You have no value as an individual or as part of a collective.

                    2. Jeff Goldblum, drinking Shitsy-Shitler’s Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

                      He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
                      Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
                      Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
                      Has no thoughts that help the people,
                      He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
                      On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
                      Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
                      Kool-Aid man, please listen,
                      You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
                      Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
                      The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

                      A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
                      https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

                    3. Jeff is Tulpa. Ignore it.

            2. He is. You just don’t like what he says.

            3. Sarc, you are treated far better here than you deserve. You should be thanking us for trying to straighten you out.

        3. Trade war is a major government intervention in markets. Increased immigration enforcement is a major government intervention is both social aspects of life and civil liberties. Or am I missing something?

          1. You’re missing reality. Just because you wish for an idealistic world doesnt mean we live in one. It is a naivete those with facial level beliefs exert. Trade wars didnt start with Trump. his policies have essentially been retaliatory. And per Adam Smith, since you seem to tout him, short term retaliatory tariffs can be necessary to stop bad market behavior. China has agreed to reforms in a fairly short time period.

            As for unlimited immigration, you keep intentionally missing the argument. First we have a welfare state. Importing an influx of people who tend to utilize said services is not sustainable. You seem to ignore this argument. Likewise you ignore that immigrants will not have the same political beliefs as you. The quickest way to authoritarianism is to import people who do not cherish freedoms to even the level the average American does.

            So basically you are missing reality.

            1. Interesting. Usually it’s leftists who chide my libertarian sensibilities with snide remarks about “reality.”

              By the way, I haven’t made any of the arguments you refuted, nor have you remotely responded to my comment.

              Tell me, how does a ramping up the trade war jive with minimal government intervention in markets?

              Tell me, how does ramping up immigration enforcement jive with minimal government intervention in social aspects of life and civil liberties?

              Try a direct answer instead of an condescending dodge.

              1. “Tell me, how does a ramping up the trade war jive with minimal government intervention in markets?”

                I literally told you Smith’s position. China is not minimally acting in markets, they have a heavy hand. Again, reality.

                “Tell me, how does ramping up immigration enforcement jive with minimal government intervention in social aspects of life and civil liberties?”

                The welfare state isnt minimal government intervention. Again, reality.

                Did you even read my post? Add some depth to your arguments.

                1. I literally told you Smith’s position.

                  No. You cherry picked from one page of an entire book that promotes free trade.

                  China is not minimally acting in markets, they have a heavy hand. Again, reality.

                  I never said otherwise. However the libertarian position is that unilateral free trade is better than a trade war because it gives consumers the best deal, even if circumstances aren’t ideal.

                  The welfare state isnt minimal government intervention.

                  When have I said otherwise? That still doesn’t answer how increased checkpoints are libertarian.

                  1. You assume that pure trade is the only motivation for retaliating against China with a trade war. Not only are there intellectual property issues, there is also south china sea, the Uighars, belt and roar, and general ass hattery to retaliate for.

                    1. The thing protectionists don’t get is that this trade war isn’t against China. It’s against Americans who buy stuff from China. It is basically a self-imposed embargo. An act of war committed by a government against its own people.

                  2. I never said otherwise. However the libertarian position is that unilateral free trade is better than a trade war because it gives consumers the best deal, even if circumstances aren’t ideal.

                    Cite?

                    While it is possible to have internal free trade, external free trade is impossible if others are manipulating the market and hiding actual market price.

                    It is fine to speak in and work towards ideals, but when you refuse to grasp the fact that working towards the ideal of free trade will result in a trade war with those who seek to have managed economies then you’re just talking to hear your own voice.

                    First you free the market. THEN you can engage in free trade.

                    1. Cite?

                      Oh, I dunno. Maybe a hundred articles on this site saying that same thing? Oh, I forgot. Reason isn’t libertarian because they don’t worship Trump.

                    2. Yes, the professional economists at Reason. LMAO. Jesus Christ bro, seriously give it up. You think in bumper stickers, and you’re proud of it.

                  3. I’m not a smart man, nor am I a member of the libertarian party. However, I do view myself as more of a libertarian than a republican. In my libertarian (free thinking) view, I have always thought of this platform as a world where everyone is free to do whatever they want until it affects me or my family.
                    China has been devaluing the Yuan for over a decade. As our US dollar fluctuates, but remains moderately steady, the devaluation of the Yuan has an enormous impact on our leverage in trading. That affects me…and you. State whatever conspiracies you what regarding the trade war, but at the end of the day…what china is doing affects us all.
                    Immigration….I’m all for it as long as it’s legal. But when our republic (you and me) are paying to support individuals that are here illegally….that affects me. When people can openly walk into our country and destroy me, my family, my friends….that affects me.
                    In the words of Sam Elliot in the movie Tombstone….”There has to be some law”.

                    1. Dude, you’re off to a good start. First of all Libertarian is a political party while libertarian is a philosophy. One is a bunch of stoners trying to get on the ballot while the other is thinkers.

                      On the Yuan, the free trade point of view is that if China wants to subsidize exports, then that’s great! We get cheaper stuff! It’s a matter of point of view. If your point of view is that of a producer then you’re gonna be apeshit. If your point of view is that of a consumer then you’re getting a better deal.

                      I’m mixed on immigration. I’m with Milton Friedman in that open borders is incompatible with a welfare state, but on the other hand I’m not a fan of heavy-handed enforcement. Because that heavy hand will soon be used for other things.

                    2. LOL on the first part. In regards to the China trade, it’s more complex than we get cheaper stuff. It lowers our GDP, factories get stagnant or close down, people lose their jobs and go on food stamps, famers are unable to sell their products and are forced to rely on subsidies. At the end of the day…..it’s no longer cheap stuff!

                    3. Yes, but you see, sarcasmic has no comprehension of economics more sophisticated than the grade school level examples he got in his one semester of community college and the 4 chapters he actually read of Economics In One Lesson.

                    4. factories get stagnant or close down, people lose their jobs and go on food stamps, famers are unable to sell their products

                      Textbook protectionism.

                    5. “until it affects me or my family.”

                      Literally anything anyone could possibly do or not do falls into that category. We are bound by cause and effect as components of a single system (the universe, the planet, the society, or any number of other subsystems).

                      You are no doubt not being literal, even if you don’t realize it, and more likely mean “until it discernibly affects me our my family,” but even then it’s unlikely that’s what you actually practice, as you’re likely much more tolerant of normal ways in which someone might adversely affect you: buying merchandise you like, choosing not to do business with the stores you like, not getting enough exercise, watching too much TV, or any number of other culturally normal practices.

                      The end result is that in practice your standard is pretty much uselessly vague and arbitrary and can be haphazardly applied to justify basically whatever curtailing of individual liberty you want. If that’s your idea of libertarianism, then you’re just an authoritarian with an excuse.

                    6. ICommentedOnReason – libertarians are a minority on these comments.

              2. Sarc, all this has been explained over and over. Since Trump’s tariffs are a tactic, and not structural, they have helped. You just can’t understand that.

                Protecting our sovereign borders. And not allowing massive swarms of illegals to enter our welfare state protects us on many levels. You just can’t understand that.

                Jesse, and many of us, have explained this to you. You’re just not smart enough to understand. That is your problem. Not his.

                1. I understand just fine. I’m simply saying that those aren’t libertarian positions. Understand?

                  1. No, those aren’t libertarian positions and they are not according to libertarian principles.

                    But neither is opening our borders to Mexico or removing tariffs from China.

                    Libertarianism advocates free markets and free movement of people within a libertarian society; we don’t have that with Mexico and China no matter what we do because they don’t allow it. There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

                    1. There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

                      Then why the trade war?

                    2. Then why the trade war?

                      The objective of the trade war is not a free market comprising China and the US; that’s impossible because China is a totalitarian state. The objective of the trade war is to motivate China’s totalitarian government to stop attacking us.

                    3. (smirk) Pearl Harbor was by JAPAN.

                  2. They are very libertarian given the current structure of our federal government. Again, you do not understand.

                    1. You are bat-shit crazy about libertarianism.
                      “Authoritarian statism is WRONG … unless it RESPONDS to authoritarian statism.

                      Pity the fool.

              3. Tell me, how does a ramping up the trade war jive with minimal government intervention in markets? Tell me, how does ramping up immigration enforcement jive with minimal government intervention in social aspects of life and civil liberties?

                First of all, “minimal government intervention” isn’t a libertarian principle; letting drug cartels murder people on the street freely would be “minimal government intervention”, but it’s not libertarian.

                What is libertarian? Free markets and free movements of goods, services, and capital within a society. Can we have that with China or Mexico? No, because those governments don’t allow it. Nothing we can do is going to change that one iota.

                All we can do is unilaterally remove tariffs and borders; that may or may not be a good policy decision, but the resulting system is in no way libertarian. Not even remotely.

                1. First of all, “minimal government intervention” isn’t a libertarian principle; letting drug cartels murder people on the street freely would be “minimal government intervention”, but it’s not libertarian.

                  Sorry but you lost me there. You’re comparing murder as a result of prohibition, as in government intervention in trade, with government intervention.

                  You’re comparing murder with tariffs.

                  I can’t have a conversation with you if these are your premises. It makes my head hurt.

                  1. No, I’m not “comparing”. I am saying that the statement “minimal government is a libertarian principle” is wrong.

                    You’re starting from the wrong premises and therefore reaching the wrong conclusions.

                    1. I am saying that the statement “minimal government is a libertarian principle” is wrong.

                      I’d try to edumicate you but it would be pointless.

                    2. I’d try to edumicate you but it would be pointless.

                      In other words, you really have no response.

                      Let me “edumicate” you:

                      Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association and individual judgement.

                      Note that this is not the same as “minimal government”. There are many ways of minimizing government, but only some of those ways actually support freedom of choice, voluntary association, and individual judgment.

                      You are mistakenly elevating a shorthand phrase (“minimal government”) to a principle.

              4. It’s worth pointing out here for your edification that there has been zero increase in immigration enforcement under Trump. Your chocolate messiah still holds the record for deportations you stupid cunt.

                1. Citations? Besides “…you stupid cunt”?

                  Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

                  So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

                  Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

                  Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

                  Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

                  At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

                  Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                  Thank You! -Reason Staff

            2. “You’re missing reality. Just because you wish for an idealistic world doesnt mean we live in one”

              Put them all on blast

          2. Increased border enforcement compared to his predecessor? The trade war is in retaliation for years of an undeclared trade war, but I will grant you both of those as being possible indications. Now do less regulations, his judicial appointments, his undoing of Obama liberty arresting regulations, how do the scales balance out?

            1. He refuses to acknowledge the positive parts. Because then he’d have to call himself a trumpista.

            2. Now do less regulations, his judicial appointments, his undoing of Obama liberty arresting regulations, how do the scales balance out?

              I give credit where credit is due. I’m not anti-Trump. But I will never call him a libertarian.

              1. I never claimed he was, but the hyperbole that he is the next identity of the dictatorial nationalist is pure bullshit.

                1. I never made that argument. I was responding to lc’s description of a small government, and asking how it squares with the guy he literally worships.

                  1. LC isn’t the one with the problem. You are. You hate Trump so much that you’re insane with anger that anyone supports him.

                    We have rational support of a president who does a lot of good things, and is at least a partial check on the leviathan state.

                    You are an irrational zealot who is blinded by your obsessive hatred for a man who is a million times better than The Hag.

                    Of course, none of this will penetrate your TDS. So basically, you’re part of the problem, just like the progressives.

                    1. WTF dude? I don’t hate Trump and I’m not angry. Try arguing against what I actually say instead of some caricature in your head.

                    2. “You are an irrational zealot who is blinded by your obsessive hatred”

                      To be fair, I don’t recall sarcasmic ever yearning for the day that rivers are choked with the corpses of his political opponents, so maybe you’re not the best spokesperson on that particular topic.

                  2. You’re literally delusional with partisanship and hate. Trump is a moderate Republican. His policies move us slightly away from the progressive authoritarianism of Democrats. That doesn’t make Trump a libertarian, but it makes him very much preferable to libertarians. And he’s the first president in a long time that has done so, because the shrubs just rolled over when ever the Democrats told them to.

                    1. It’s been fun watching you devolve into the same delusional psychotic that Hihn is, including linking to your own comments to validate your own subsequent comments. You should see about getting on some medication. Then take the entire bottle.

                    2. Well, @sarcasmic, I don’t know whether you hate Trump or yourself or just the world. But you sure hate something.

                  3. I never made that argument.

                    You have. Many times.

              2. “But I will never call him a libertarian.”

                At least he’ll never outlaw porn, or fracking, or guns.

                Name one other candidate thats running thats at least that Liberatarian.

          3. Yes, you are missing something: you erroneously assume a linear relationship between the degree of government intervention and how liberal/libertarian a society is.

            Liberal or libertarian societies cannot spring into existence without massive government intervention first, removing government interventions willy-nilly more likely leads to collapse than liberalism, and liberal or libertarian societies in a world of authoritarian states need national borders and need to protect them by non-libertarian means.

        4. Juts read the above article! Excerpt:

          “We need not make Trump into Hitler to see worrying parallels in the man who pre-emptively declared the results of the 2016 election invalid if he didn’t win; who has offered to pay the legal bills of supporters who “knock the crap out of” anti-Trump protesters at his rallies; and who cozies up to repressive dictators such as the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte.”

          Indeed, “We need not make Trump into Hitler…” Trump is well on that particular road on His Own Powers… Hitler had Jews for scapegoats… Trump has, for that same purpose, illegal sub-humans and what USED to be our trade partners!

          1. Oh please, enough hyperbole. There is no indications Trump is anywhere close to going down the road of that Austrian failed painter.

            1. You passed your loyalty test for the day, comrade.

              1. Pedo Jeffy, you are the communist. You are also a child rape enthusiast. Funny how those things always go together.

                1. Omg. I can’t believe a fascist is also a lying, slanderous sack of shit!

                  1. But enough about you cytotoxic.

          2. Which political party has been calling the 2016 election into question for three years? Which political party has called the current president an illegitimate? Trump/Russia collusion? The Muller investigation? Now according to the elites the Russians are pushing both Sanders and Trump? Is that not preemptively calling the 2020 elections into question?

            1. All (or almost all) politicians try to exaggerate the extent of their own legitimacy, and call into question, that of their opponents. No surprise there… Witness the Trumpster’s lies about how utterly monstrously huge His swearing-in crowd was.

              What is more scary by far, is CLEARLY signalling to your followers, that you approve of their personal, political violence! “Beat up my opponents and I will pay your legal bills”. Trump owns that! I have NOT heard of Democrats or (God Forbid!) Libertarians pulling this kind of fascist bullshit lately!

              1. Trump didn’t say “Beat up my opponents and I will pay your legal bills” He said that if people stopped violent acts at his campaign events, he’d “pay the legal bills” if that resulted in charges.

                Lying and projections, it’s what fascists like you do.

                1. https://time.com/4256809/donald-trump-l/
                  Trump May Pay Legal Fees of Man Who Sucker-Punched Protester

                  “Sucker-Punched” definition = A sucker punch (American English) (also known as a dog shot, coward punch, king hit or one-punch attack (Australian English) or cold-cock (American English)) is a punch made without warning or while the recipient is distracted, allowing no time for preparation or defense on the part of the recipient.

                  From there…
                  “McGraw defended his actions, telling Inside Edition that he enjoyed punching 26-year-old Rakeem Jones and that the protester “deserved it.” “You bet I liked it. Knocking the hell out of that big mouth,” McGraw said. “The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don’t know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization.”

                  Offender = totally unrepentant, that is…

                  So… I can just walk up to you, if you disagree with my politics, and suspect you of being a terrorist, and sucker-punch you? That’s OK with you? And it is OK with you if the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the land DE FACTO encourages this kind of thing?

                  WHO is the fascist here?

                  1. Yes, Trump offered (whether seriously or not) to pay the legal expenses of one protester (hooligan) at one of his campaign rallies. Is the protester his opponent? No. Did that offer extend to anybody not at his campaign rally? No.

                    You’re obviously following Goebbels in that you think that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.

                    Who’s the fascist here? The leftists who go to Trump rallies seeking violent confrontation. And the propagandists who lie through their teeth. Like you.

                    1. “Who’s the fascist here? The leftists who go to Trump rallies seeking violent confrontation.”

                      Blame the victim! Trump is as Trump does. WHAT is Trump’s excuse for this offense here? Name me ONE other politician of national stature (Democrat or Libertarian) who has pulled a similar stunt! You are evading the questions… But then again, the indefensible is, well, indefensible!

                    2. Use Google and look for “Democrats calling for violence”. They are doing so all the time. Not only are they calling for it, the American left regularly threatens and perpetrates violence against Trump supporters. Jeez, I mean, look at the Covington kids alone.

                2. liar. stupid fucking liar.

                  1. Watch your mouth you little pussy. A worthless faggot like you should learn it’s place. Cowering under your rock. Or preferably decomposing after you finally nut up and kill yourself.

                    1. Meet the NEW “Reborn” Shitsy Shitler, same as the old Shitsy Shitler!

                      Anyone who has ever lost a loved one to suicide (a child of theirs for example, not matter how old), will tell you, it is FAR worse than having your child molested!

                      So here is Shitsy Shitler, repeatedly urging others to commit suicide… Shitsy Shitler, FAR WORSE than a child molester! And Shitsy Shitler is PROUD of doing so!

                      How many dozen children have committed suicide at your urgings, Shitsy Shitler? Did ANY of them bring you happiness, that way? When are you going to stop serving Jimmy Jones and the Evil One, Shitsy?

                    2. Also, you utterly sick, corrupted, EVIL bastard… Do you like to molest the corpses after you help to bring about their deaths? Does THAT bring you any long-lasting happiness, either?

                      PLEASE DON’T ANSWER the question about your necrophilia… That is for you and your therapist(s)! I hope that you have an ARMY of therapists! I, personally, know QUITE ENOUGH about your sickness already!

                    3. Come get me, fuckboy. Always with the violent fantasies. Sad. Pathetic. Do something about it, bitch.

                    4. If you posted your address I would happily eviscerate you, jack off with your entrails, and cum in the hole I leave behind. Any time you’re ready, sport.

                    5. Anyone who has ever lost a loved one to suicide (a child of theirs for example, not matter how old), will tell you, it is FAR worse than having your child molested!

                      Oh hey look, the kiddie fucker apologist Mikey Hihn thinks fucking kids is OK but suicide is a tragedy. Is it because Mikey Hihn is a worthless old piece of subhuman welfare leeching shit who should kill himself but hasn’t got the dignity or balls to do it, and likes to fuck little kids? Hard to say.

                  2. Yup, “liar, stupid fucking liar”: that’s what you and the people who repeat this nonsense are.

                    Even taken literally, Trump didn’t say what you claim he says. And on top of that, you are misrepresenting a throw-away quip as a matter of iron clad policy.

                    You really are utterly reprehensible, and you keep proving it.

              2. Kinda like “Punch a Nazi?”

                1. AntiFa bastards piss me off! For those who missed it…

                  https://reason.com/2018/08/21/antifa-portland-evan-welch-violence/
                  This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open With a Bat.
                  Masked Antifa agitators told Welch, a Hillary voter, to hand over the flag. He resisted. They attacked.

                  1. Hey Mikey, remember how you spent those 2 consecutive years arguing that antifa are heroes, and then you try to pretend that you haven’t outed this sock 20 thousand fucking times and try to say the opposite?

                    1. You hallucinate pretty badly!!! Haldol will help. If you are scared of prescription meds, then believe it or not, brussel sprout extracts will help as well!

                      https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/eat-your-greens-broccoli-sprouts-brings-down-psychosis-in-schizophrenia-study-6610811.html

          3. Trump is a lousy President in many ways. But ideologically, it’s people like Sanders who are closest to fascism. You can literally take translations of core NSDAP election points and they are indistinguishable from the Sanders campaign.

          4. “We need not make Trump into Hitler to see worrying parallels in the man who pre-emptively declared the results of the 2016 election invalid if he didn’t win;

            After spending four years contesting the results of the election, you leftists don’t get to play this card anymore.

            1. What about us non-leftists who think that the Russiagate stuff was bullshit, but also aren’t comfortable with the candidate of one of America’s two major parties engaging in the sort of behavior described in that quote?

              1. Well since you’re a Marxist, that doesn’t really apply now does it? Tell me, were you concerned when Hillary Clinton said literally the same thing Trump did when she thought she was inevitable? Are you concerned about the fact that every leading Democratic candidate in 2020 has also said that the election will be illegitimate if they do not win? Hmmmmm you aren’t concerned about that at all because you’re a boot licking partisan nut hugger? Well I’ll be damned.

                1. Well since you’re a Marxist
                  I’m not, but since you don’t know what that word means, your confusion is understandable.

                  Tell me, were you concerned when Hillary Clinton said Trump did when she thought she was inevitable?
                  As I recall, Clinton and the other democrats were more concerned with widespread riots by Trump supporters. It wouldn’t make much sense for her to pre-emptively question the results of her inevitable election, would it? But yes, that was shitty of her.

                  Are you concerned about the fact that every leading Democratic candidate in 2020 has also said that the election will be illegitimate if they do not win?
                  I haven’t heard any of them go that far, but they are already raising the alarm about the Russians again, which I guess is close enough. So yep!

                  I’ve said it before, but you should really go back to your fantasies of raping ENB. You were a lot better at that.

        5. Answer to soldiermedic:
          A list of Trump’s violations of libertarian principles:
          1. Continued military interventionism and killing of civilians
          2. Economic protectionism, tariffs, and attacks on free trade
          3. Significant increase in military spending
          4. Overall increase in federal government spending
          5. Interference in voluntary relationships between business owners and immigrants they want to hire
          6. Continued war on drugs
          7. Promotion of collectivists ideals

          Is that enough for you?

          1. what he said

            1. You might as well just use that as your blanket reply for everything. You haven’t once in your entire 10 year history here expressed an original thought.

              1. As if being an evil asshole and telling others to commit suicide was ANYWHERE near being an original thought! Did you ALSO first think of sliced bread and sex?

                1. It’s Tulpa. Ignore it.

                  1. I think that you are correct! Was starting to suspect the same…

                    Tulpa is anti-semitic… Foisting Tulpa-evil on “Goldblum”!

                    Tulpa is now stooping every bit as low as Shitsy Shitler, telling people to commit suicide!

                  2. Tulpa is whatever gets it attention.

          2. This is one of the things which is pushing me away from voting for libertarians. Libertarians are correct in listing violations as Mr. Wood has done above, but then overlook positives. As for number 6 Trump is not raiding marijuana shops like his predecessors, yes not optimal, but better. For the most part Trump seems content to let states deal with this issue. In looking at number 1, true, but given the last two presidents he is much better and we may possibly see a treaty with Afghanistan. You have a great list where Trump has violated Libertarian principles, but I ask who is a libertarian to vote for? Certainly not any of the Democrats, and Gary Johnson with carbon taxes? The biggest issue with Libertarians in my view is this hard line approach where candidates must be pure libertarians, then the LP runs numb nuts like Gary Johnson. In my opinion a vote for Trump was preferable to Clinton or Johnson(although I reluctantly voted for Johnson).

            1. Sad to say, Trump “pot” policies recently going to worse!

              https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/20/trump-reelection-campaign-official-says-marijuana-/
              Marijuana should be ‘kept illegal,’ Trump campaign official says in interview

            2. but then overlook positives.

              False.

              1. Link to one comment you have ever posted praising Trump, you Marxist piece of shit. One. Should be easy, right?

            3. Jacob Hornberger

              1. I hope he gets the LP nomination. I’d definitely vote for him. Of course, I have the luxury of living in a partisan state where my vote won’t have any chance of effecting the electoral college vote totals anyway.

          3. 1. Continued military interventionism and killing of civilians
            Trying to get the US out of Syria, Afghanistan, Korea and numerous other places–with at least some resistance from Reason writers

            2. Economic protectionism, tariffs, and attacks on free trade
            Offered total free trade right out of the gate. Was ridiculed

            3. Significant increase in military spending
            Yup. Defense is an enumerated responsibility of the government. BUT….

            4. Overall increase in federal government spending
            Congress controls the pursestrings

            5. Interference in voluntary relationships between business owners and immigrants they want to hire
            Securing the border/defending the border is an enumerated responsibility of the government and is part of even the most minarchist libertarian state. The wishes of the Libertarian Internationale are at complete odds with anything that pertains to actual liberty

            6. Continued war on drugs
            Stopped Obama’s policy of busting legal dispensaries

            7. Promotion of collectivists ideals
            Cite?

            1. You’re wasting your breath on obsessive idiots. They aren’t capable of learning. Just subnormal# who are part of the problem. At least Pedo Jeffy is just a Canadian, and doesn’t vote in America.

              1. ^this is the typical level of discourse you get from Trump die-hard around here.

                1. Maybe if you didn’t just regurgitate Democratic Underground talking points you wouldn’t get treated like a stooge regurgitating Democratic Underground talking points.

                  1. Says the pro-suicide asshole who advances the talking points of Jimmy Jones and Drinking the Kool-Aid! Who has NOTHING to offer, other than the talking points of Jimmy Jones, Drinking the Kool-Aid, Death-Eaters, and other hangers-on of the Evil One!

                    Regurgitate your death-worship some more, Evil One Junior, that we may ALL see you for who you are!

            2. I’m not sure why #5 is such a hold-up for some Libertarians. I understand the idea of free-movement, but this is reality, not a Utopia. When speaking of “securing the border”, I assume most people are thinking of illegal immigration. If considering illegal immigration and “Interference in voluntary relationships between business owners and immigrants they want to hire” I think anyone can see how minimum wage laws affect this. Get rid of the minimum wage and the welfare state, and see how much immigration the U.S. actually sees. Additionally, I live in South Texas, where most of the land on the border is privately owned. Does illegal immigration not violate these property owners’ property rights?

          4. Ok you delusional faggot, go ahead and vote for Bernie. Nothing we say penetrates the TDS in your tiny little mind.

          5. 1. Continued military interventionism and killing of civilians

            Interesting that you’re opposed to that today, when months ago you were shitting your pants about Trump abandoning our precious Kurdish allies in the middle east. LMAO.

            Also interesting how you sat there for 8 years while Obama doubled the national debt and didn’t utter one fucking syllable about spending.

            It’s almost like you’re a Democratic nut hugging shill.

            1. It’s almost like you’re an evil asshole who can’t make any citations or logical or factual arguments!

          6. For most of these, Trump doesn’t have a choice; he is necessarily continuing policies that were in place before him and will be in place after him.

            When it comes to free trade and immigration, you are simply wrong. Libertarians favor free trade and free movement of people; unilaterally dropping trade barriers with one country and unilaterally opening borders with another are not free trade and free movement of people. A necessary (though not sufficient) condition for libertarian policies on trade and migration is that they apply to everybody equally. That is, if Mexicans can come freely here to settle, then Americans need to be able to freely settle in Mexico.

      3. Trump cuts taxes and deregulates while all his potential Democratic opponents wants to do the exact opposite, some of them, like Warren and Sanders infinitely so.

        And Trump admin is the most “limited government” and “minimal intervention” one can ever hope for in current year…

        1. Cutting taxes while increasing spending is idiotic.

          Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

          -Bastiat

          1. Not at all. Cutting taxes lets people who use money responsibly squirrel it away for the dark times when the bill on the excessive spending comes due. It would be better to cut the spending too, but even in isolation, it’s good policy.

            1. Increasing the federal budget deficit is good policy. Gotcha.

              1. Libertarians for higher taxes!

                Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                At least back in the 80s the “low tax” part of “low tax liberals” was still true.

              2. It’s not “good policy”, but it is certainly preferable to taking my money and redistributing it.

                In other words, being one of those 20% of Americans who actually make a net positive contribution to the US federal budget, I am not responsible for the budget deficit or the debt, and hence I shouldn’t be forced to continue to pay for it.

                1. cut spending

                  1. You said:

                    Cutting taxes while increasing spending is idiotic.

                    Cutting taxes is a good thing. Cutting spending is a good thing too.

                    It’s your belief that libertarians need to link the two that’s wrong.

                    As a net tax payer, I’m not responsible for the excess spending, I don’t benefit from it, hence I shouldn’t be forced at gunpoint to pay for it. Lowering my taxes increases the deficit, but that’s not my problem and not my responsibility.

                    1. Behold the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of Trumptards

                      Lowering my taxes increases the deficit, but that’s not my problem and not my responsibility

                      ADULTS accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions … as YOU STEAL FROM YOUR OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN … WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR VOTE …………….. BECAUSE YOU’RE ENTITLED!

                      Another teat-sucking mooch on the alt-right 🙁

                    2. ADULTS accept responsibility for the consequences of their own actions

                      I agree!

                      As I was saying, I have no responsibility for the deficit since I pay substantially more in taxes than I receive in government services. That’s why you have no right to take my money to fix the deficit.

                      Given your sorry life circumstances, it’s obvious why you insist that other people fix the deficit you are responsible for.

      4. All Hail the God Emperor of the United States!
        #GEOTUS

      5. How exactly do you square that with your worship of Trump?

        He cannot. He’s a raving bullshitter … a statist claiming to by libertarian … much like Ron Paul (the spiritual founder of lc1789’s alt-right)

    2. The turn to nationalism is part of a bigger picture.
      For some 120 years, the major political move has been authoritarian. For which physics has an elegant description.
      “That which is not compulsory, it prohibited”.
      And this describe everything from communism to school boards.
      With it has been the drive to centralize authority.
      To the point where in-your-face and in-your-wallet government has become too much–prompting popular uprisings.
      So the reforming movement is back to the sovereignty of the individual and limited government.
      And the best way to control the latter is through local government.

      1. And the best way to control the latter is through local government.

        Yeah, but libertarians are the only ones who know how to do that, and what it would look like.

        The alt-right is clueless here, as they are everywhere else.
        For most of them, it’s just the KKK and southern racist excuse to DENY rights … like when they WHINE about “unelected judges”

        This one is TOTALLY ignorant of communism, which CAN be voluntary, and was defended by even Ayn Rand. (Learn what an Israeli kibbutz is)

        This one also says school boards are NOT local government!!

    3. Joan of Arc was responding to visions and voices in her head. That went a long way in the Middle Ages. She didn’t make a logical and impassioned speech based on principles of justice, sovereignty, and human rights. As far as the French soldiers were concerned, it was Michael the Archangel guiding them to victory. If that’s the conservatives idea of nationalism, benign or not, heaven help us. Literally.

      1. What a stupid thing to say. You have no concept of nationalism.

    4. The more I age, the more I find it harder to reconcile the idea that you can outsource the protection of your private property (i.e. the formation of a government) without that backfiring at some point and turning its arms against you. I don’t see a libertarian solution. Minarchism leads to a large hostile government over time, as does anarchy.

      1. I don’t see a libertarian solution

        Open your eyes.

  4. Nice piece, but a little tough on Honest Abe. Quoting a line from one speech he made back in the day doesn’t “explain” him entirely. How about

    “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.
    I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
    I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
    It will become all one thing or all the other.”

    1. It was awful. Not a shock that you liked it. But then, I imagine your patriotism is lacking, so the concept of nationalism is anathema to you. Maybe you should go to another country and stay there.

      1. PROOF!
        TO AUTHORITARIAN SHITLORDS … NATIONALISM REALLY IS “EVERYONE MUST CONFORM, LIKE ME … OR LEAVE” … EXACTLY AS STEPHANIE SAYS!!!

        (They are NOT the brightest bulbs on the tree. Just look at what he attacked!)

    1. Yup. Hitler, The Crown, The Emperor… to some libertarians it doesn’t much matter the size and scope of the government or who controls it just as long as they can say that the number of governments on Earth is 1.

      1. That’s wildly insane … even for you.

  5. Trump’s “nationalism” consists merely of recognizing that it is his job to work in the interest of American citizens, not of anybody else. In particular, it is his job to protect Americans against people arriving illegally who would destroy government based on individual liberties.

    It’s trans national institutions like the UN And globalist ideologies like socialism that want to destroy individualism and liberty. FFS, Marx spelled it out for you: he wanted the workers of the world to unite in a dictatorship of the proletariat.

    The article is utterly absurd.

    1. +1000

    2. Agreed. It is a shit article. Typical of Reason anymore. The good articles are becoming the rare exception.

      Nick sold his soul and his libertarian principles to the Kochs.

    3. Trump: the biggest bestest patriot who never did a fucking thing in his life for america until it became a benefit for him personally.

      Yeah, I’m sure he sees it as his “job” to work in the interest of american citizens, we just never see any evidence of that. Luckily for cultists and Trump, far right beliefs do not require evidence.

      You guys…cmon. Did you daddies not love you all enough? Why do you worship an obvious conman?
      The man was ordered to pay a fine for stealing from a veteran’s charity, while in office. He denies, again, that the russians are interfering on his behalf. He has stated on the world stage that he believes putin over the american government. The man is a known conman, a draft dodging coward, a sexual assaulter, and a moron.

      1. Why you worship Trump when Obama is the obvious messiah?! Hurrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

        Kill yourself cytotoxic. You have no value.

      2. Yes, and the woman he ran against was a lying, opportunistic, homophobic jerk who lived the high life on money foreign governments bribed her with through her so-called charity.

        In the next election, Trump is going to run against a Soviet-loving communist who hasn’t accomplished a thing in his life and whose policies would destroy the US.

        Yes, relative to people like Hillary and Sanders, Trump is the good guy and the patriot. And while I didn’t like him when he ran, I certainly admire his thick skin and his ability to deal with all the sh*t people like you throw at him.

    4. Bernie’s “socialism” consists merely of an egalitarian belief in the welfare of his fellow Americans. He believes that it’s the president’s job to protect his countrymen from destitution; especially the little children. Why do you hate little children NOYB2?

    5. The article is utterly absurd.

      Not if you take into consideration that Reason is a Marxist publication. They believe fully in the Marxist critique of capitalism, as they acknowledged and conceded in their ”””””debate””””” with Jacobin Magazine. As a result, they support supranational global governance by whatever means necessary to institute it, up to and including genocide.

    6. “Trump’s “nationalism” consists merely of recognizing that it is his job to work in the interest of American citizens, not of anybody else.”

      It’s so strange that government of, by, and for the people is now considered a radical position. America First is baked into the American concept of representative self-government. “For the People.” Generations considered it obvious that the people referred to in the context of American self-government were Americans.

      Trump’s America First slogan accomplished a very important thing: it revealed how many in America reject the fundamental premises of self-government.

    7. NOYB2’s reveals his bigotry … and proves Slade correct.
      As he SHOULD have learned in high school … just governments exist to defend … RIGHTS … NOT PEOPLE … AND NOT JUST CITIZENS.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

      HEY GOOBER
      1) WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT RIGHTS ARE NOT ENDOWED BY A CREATOR? … THAT ONLY CITIZENS HAVE RIGHTS?

      2) STOP YOUR HATEFUL BIGOTRY AND TELL US WHY THERE WERE NO INNATE AND/OR GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS UNTIL 1776 1789.

      Bellowing blowhards of the authoritarian right … BELOVED by lc1789, The Shitlord and their ilk.

      1. Your ranting is so much better with bold caps!

        1. They highlight the RIDICULE of dumbasses like you .. who failed the very simple question … so shoot at me. (snort)

          1. Pro tip: when it’s all bold, it doesn’t serve to highlite anything but your insanity.

            1. The Declaration PROVES you a full-of-shit bigot.
              But it’s me and Jefferson who are insane!!!

              Here, it highlights your crazy-ass claim that Thomas Jefferson was INSANE …. also the Founders!!!

              You are way above your class.

              1. “it highlights your crazy-ass claim that Thomas Jefferson was INSANE ”

                We’re seriously talking hallucinations now. Tell your keepers to lower your meds.

      2. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT RIGHTS ARE NOT ENDOWED BY A CREATOR? … THAT ONLY CITIZENS HAVE RIGHTS?

        Every human being on this planet has those natural rights according to the Founders. However, those natural rights happen not to include crossing national boundaries, any more than they include trespass.

        1. Almighty God has spoken to us!
          But does not know what “trespass” means.

          1. You (not me) invoked Christianity to justify violating national borders. But Christianity is crystal clear that human laws are to be obeyed unless they conflict with divine law. That is, human law can impose restrictions on you that go beyond the restrictions of divine law, and Christianity says you must obey.

  6. There are more important things than nation-states, which have come and gone through history. Human dignity, and the commitment to liberty that flows from it, must come first.

    If you think that someone’s liberty is dependent on recognizing their dignity, you’re a totalitarian.

    Nation states, on the other hand, are the precondition for liberty and liberalism in a world in which 95% of human beings lack both the capacity and desire to live in a free society. That is, the small minority of people who want to live in a free society can only do so by creating a separate, distinct society and being selective about who to admit.

    1. “Human dignity” comes across as an ideologically loaded term to me. It’s used by the left to force people into supporting entitlements and giving special privileges to certain groups. The rise and fall of nation states is indicative of changing cultures and values. It also signals to me that people are better off organizing into groups with shared values rather than forced “diversity.” Since we are interested in promoting freedom and self-determination, it seems natural to me that encouraging localized democratic governance should be a priority. Nationalism is something of an extension of that even though we must be wary of militarism against out groups

    2. Yes, a core issue: most people want either to be told what to do or to tell others what to do (or both). Only a small minority shows any affinity for true individual autonomy, and associated responsibility. And they have to resist almost all primitive human urges, at least in others, to survive in the open.

    3. “That is, the small minority of people who want to live in a free society can only do so by creating a separate, distinct society and being selective about who to admit.”

      When America imports Not Americans faster than it assimilates them, it becomes Not America.

      1. It has taken three generations for immigrants to fully assimilate … for over a century now. You are enslaved by your ignorance of, and contempt for, individual liberty … thus, witlessly, proving Slade correct!!

        1. I’ve missed you so. There are no other dancing monkeys with quite your gusto for the dance.

          1. THAT WAS (TYPICALLY) INFANTILE … BECAUSE I SHOWED YOU TO BE AN IGNORANT GOMER.
            AGAIN.

            (

            1. “muh bold caps!”

              1. MUH PROOF YOU’RE IGNORANT ON THE ISSUE. (sneer)

    4. “Nation states, on the other hand, are the precondition for liberty and liberalism in a world in which … 95% of human beings lack both the capacity and desire to live in a free society.”

      In *this* world. In the real world.

      Marxists want the goods without the institutions that produce them.
      Anarchists want the rights without the institutions that secure them.

  7. Meanings change over time. Trying to label someone a nationalist and draw a comparison to past nationalists is a fool errand. Now, if you have concrete examples that today’s conservative nationalist are on the path of a certain central European form of nationalism from the first half of the 20th century, please illustrate. But to draw a tenuous link, based solely on the use of a word is sophomoric at best. As for the criticism of the elite coastals, I doubt many (outside our resident trolls) on Reason would disagree with the notion that the coastal areas are the birth place of some of the most illiberal positions currently being brandied about. And a source of much of the discord that is gripping American politics today.

    1. Also, isn’t the function of the US government to govern in the national interest of the US? It isn’t the job of the US government to govern in the interest of Canada or Mexico or China or Scotland, but in the interest of the US.

      1. Most of what’s being denounced as “nationalism” basically amounts to people demanding their governments do less “save the world” and more “fix the damn potholes”. For some reason, this has the Enlightened™ all up in arms.

        1. This is the most underrated comment here! Well stated!

        2. Yeah, this comment by Nemo nailed it.

        3. Excellent diagnosis, succinctly put.

        4. Very true.

      2. Nah, Reason wants Marxist supranational global governance. Whatever gets us there is fine and dandy.

      3. Also, isn’t the function of the US government to govern in the national interest of the US?

        (snort) What did our Founders say? The Declaration? The Constitution?

    2. I doubt many (outside our resident trolls) on Reason would disagree with the notion that the coastal areas are the birth place of some of the most illiberal positions currently being brandied about.

      Reason operates out of L.A. and D.C. so….

    3. Nationalism is a necessary but not sufficient part of good representative self-government.

      Government representing the interests of those governed. If not their interests, whose interests?

      But of course, nationalists can do bad things too. Hitler drank water is not really a good argument against drinking water.

  8. For 16 years, public policy was directed by presidents whose primary interests were not those of the United States in some of their most important policies.

    Under George W. Bush, we occupied Iraq–not because it was in the best interests of the United States but because it was supposedly in the best interests of Iraqis and others in the Middle East.

    Being progressive is all about using the coercive power of government to force people to make sacrifices for the greater good, and in the hands of Barack Obama, he used that power in an attempt to force Americans to make sacrifices of their standard of living on the alter of climate change–for the benefit of less developed countries. For goodness’ sake, China and India are building more new coal plants than we’re decommissioning!

    The point is that 16 years of policies that put the interests of others ahead of those of the United States was just begging for a nationalist response. It’s much like the relationship between elitism and populism: If you want a populist government, stuff policy with the concerns of the elitists. That’s a sure fire recipe for populism–whether from the left or right. If you want a nationalist government, push the interests of people in other countries ahead of the interests of the United States for 16 years.

    Occupying Iraq was not in the best interests of the United States.

    Signing a treaty intended to force us to sacrifice our standard of living for the benefit of people in other countries was not in the best interests of the United States.

    If we’re embracing nationalism now, it’s because of misguided anti-American policies now. Pulling our troops out of harm’s way in Syria and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord {Treaty] were important steps in reestablishing the confidence of huge chunks of the American people that our leaders have our interests at heart. If Bush Jr. and Obama had put America first, we wouldn’t be seeing this nationalist response right now.

    1. Makes sense.

      1. It doesn’t. Nobody believes that the US invaded Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Even those who ordered the invasion claim it was to destroy Iraq’s proscribed weapons of mass destruction.

        “that our leaders have our interests at heart”

        This is the nationalist fallacy, of course, that the nation has common interests that government is expected to promote and protect. Some did very well out of the Iraqi venture, and would be mystified by any assertions that the affair was counter to their interests. Record breaking profits in the oil industry tell another story.

        1. “Nobody believes that the US invaded Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people.”

          Agreed! While our soldiers go overseas to SUPPOSEDLY fight for the freedoms of foreigners, NO ONE fights for our freedoms from the petty tyrants at the FDA! Who (the FDA) deprive us (as the ONLY nation on the planet that does this!) of the freedom to freely blow on cheap plastic flutes! PLEASE bring our soldiers home, to provide US some freedom from tyrants at the FDA!

          To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

        2. The NeoClowns wanted to save the world with an American led worldwide NeoLiberal Jihad, and that was clearly part of their motivation with the War in Iraq.

          They were originally Democrats, the descendants of Kennedy:
          “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

          Kennedy forgot one important part in the preamble to the Constitution:
          secure the Blessings of Liberty *to ourselves and our Posterity*

          #AmericaFirst

          1. Yeah, the “Blood for oil” crowd and the “WOMD” crowd were buying the sales pitch.

            The Iraq war was a combination of an unstable situation (the continuing occupation of parts of Iraq) and a neocon idea of spreading democracy.

            The neocons had been pushing the idea of setting up a real democracy in the middle east for years. The idea was that all people yearn to breath free. So overthrowing one of the middle eastern dictators and installing a democracy would precipitate a flood of democratic revolutions.

            And democracies are inherently friendly to one another.

            So the plan for Iraq was to go in, quickly defeat Saddam and install a western-style democracy.

            The problem with that theory was that the people don’t understand that form of government. So they have not been able to make it work.

            They did manage to inspire the overthrow of dictators… unfortunately, those doing the overthrowing just want a different sort of dictatorship.

            It wasn’t a horrible idea – it is kind of rooting in a utopian view of humanity that sees all people as wanting the same thing – a chance at freedom and self-determination. As it turns out, not all people see that the same way.

            1. Cyto, that was great. Almost perfect.

              “The problem with that theory was that the people don’t understand that form of government.”

              Maybe some of the issue is understanding, but much of it is simply different values.

              “The idea was that all people yearn to breath free. ”

              This was the fundamental mistake. Freedom is not a universal value.

              Turns out that the guy who was most right about Iraq was Pat Buchanan, as he snickered at Neocon dreams of bringing liberal democracy to Iraq.

              If the Iraqis had truly desired to “breathe free” as we mean, they’d be a liberal democracy now. They’re not because Iraqis by and large are not liberal democrats.

              Countries are people. Given a chance for a liberal democracy, Iraqis rejected it. Freedom is not a universal value.

              The Open Borders crowd make the same mistake as the Neocons, thinking that you can make a liberal democracy out of people who aren’t liberal democrats.

              Import Not Americans, become Not America.

            2. Fundamentally, we ignored Arab culture, Cyto. My view is the biggest lesson we learned was not to involve ourselves in regime change wars in the middle east. And a corollary lesson – just leave the dictator in place and let his own people deal with it, without our help.

        3. “that our leaders have our interests at heart”

          This is the nationalist fallacy, of course, that the nation has common interests that government is expected to promote and protect.

          It’s the internationalist fallacy to believe that nations are arbitrary groups of people with nothing in common. And it’s the socialist fallacy to believe that in order to work in your interest, people need to have your interests at heart.

    2. “public policy was directed by presidents whose primary interests were not those of the United States”

      Government of, by, and for the People.

      Representative Self-Government is the “of and by” part, Nationalism is the “for” part. It’s so weird that anyone argues against it.

      1. Thomas Jefferson said you’re full of shit. In the Declaration.
        The Founders said you’re full of shit. In the Constitution.

        1. “I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was a friend of mine …”

          1. But he still said you’re full of shit.
            As does the Constitution.

  9. Modern Globalism is as drought with peril as nationalism is. It always amuses me how people will scream for free markets and then deny the tenets of it in every other form of social practices, especially in politics. One of the best descriptions of America was always the local and state governments being little experiments where the best solutions will permeate outward. Instead we continually have modern globalists talking about one size fits all grand solutions headed by elites. Nationalistic policies have forced competition between states and peoples. Competition is good. Can we stop denying this.

    1. There is nothing particularly “modern” about this globalism; it’s the globalism of “workers of the world unite”.

      1. ” it’s the globalism of “workers of the world unite”.

        I think you are a bit confused about the wording. Globalism is about integrating business and finance across the globe. “Workers of the world unite” has long been called ‘internationalism,’ as in the communist marching song.

        1. No, I’m not “confused about the wording” at all. The distinction you try to draw between progressive globalism and socialist globalism is a fiction. The Nazis already demonstrated how socialism could combine nominal private ownership with state control of industry and business, and that is the stated, explicit objective of progressives.

          1. I don’t know what you are talking about. Old time communists and anarchists like Lenin and Marx etc were internationalists the term gloabalists is a recent coinage referring to neo liberal ideals of free flow of capital and labor across the globe. Internationalists are more interested in world wide worker solidarity.

            Hitler wasn’t interested in economics, aside from building up the armament industry. Krupp was the major figure there and he was such a Nazi he didn’t need any party control, he managed perfectly on his own. As for the rest of the economy, Hitler handed the matter over to Goering and executives of IG Farben. Hitler liked to rail against capitalism but he bent over backwards to increase their profits, including supplying them with endless slaves, often Jewish or from other unacceptable elements.

            1. I don’t know what you are talking about. Old time communists and anarchists like Lenin and Marx etc were internationalists the term gloabalists is a recent coinage referring to neo liberal ideals of free flow of capital and labor across the globe. Internationalists are more interested in world wide worker solidarity.

              The modern American left advocates both “free flow of capital and labor across the globe”, while at the same time advocating harmonization of regulatory and tax regimes, and government control of markets and industries for the supposed benefit of society. Taken together, is a global takeover of the means of production by leftist functionaries, which is pretty much the same thing as “workers of the world unite”. So, as far as the left is concerned, globalism and internationalism really mean the same thing.

              “Globalism” never really was a meaningful concept anyway; you can’t have a “free flow of capital and labor across the globe”, since no country has that internally to begin with, not even the US. What “globalism” really amounted to was self-serving advocacy for favorable government treatment of certain kinds of businesses.

              1. And Obama is a Kenyan Muslim.

                1. ^ That’s what Hihn actually believes.

                  1. No, that’s how delusional your comment is.
                    This new one is even wackier!

                    Anyone else believe:
                    Birthers are libertarian, and Trumpsters are never Birthers?

                    Who would Birthers support, if not their crazed cheerleader??

                    For any other uninformed:
                    Trump got the GOP nomination with 37% of the primary votes — roughly the same percentage of Republicans who are Birthers. Can we get real here???

              2. I’m not sure I follow. Is Jeb Bush and all the Republicans who ran against Trump examples of the ‘modern American left?’

    2. More recently I’ve come to realize that the combination of continued acceptance of the current government combined with open borders and equality isn’t one iota different than the colonialism that sought to bring all the various peoples of England’s various shitholes under the sovereignty of the crown.

      The people who will cite England and US Imperial policy as being the cause of so much division and strife in Africa, C. America, and elsewhere, even to the point of linking it as the root to pretty much any and every social ill around the world will turn around and adopt their means and methods under the banner of globalism. Because it’s not nationalism *or* imperialism if you’re marching under the banner of the global king or world empire, it’s just how the world should rightly be run.

      1. “…it’s just how the world should rightly be run.”

        As is to be determined and defined by mad.casual, the Trumptatorship, and other madness! All in opposition just need to suck it up! Bow down LOW, peons! All Hail mad.casual, the Trumptatorship, and other madness!

    3. “Modern Globalism is as drought with peril as nationalism is.”

      Much worse.

      It’s a democratically unaccountable ruling global elite from which there is no escape on this planet. It’s the CCP without even the pretense of responsibility to those they rule.

  10. Refusal to recognize that people tend to group together around shared cultural values and common views of the world around them will only lead to disaster. The author may not like it, but people act much the same to externally imposed change all over the planet. They close up in the face of a perceived threat, whether actual, cultural, or just stylistic.
    If you remove all trappings of the nation, then people will find some other way to form communities that reduce the daily stress of confronting the strange. Does she want something like ‘The Diamond Age?’
    If there are no home values to defend, why join an army? Or the police? Or support anything other than your immediate family?

    1. Refusal to recognize that people tend to group together around shared cultural values and common views of the world around them will only lead to disaster.

      Progressives don’t “refuse” to recognize this; they recognize it, they simply want to stamp it out through government force.

      In a classically liberal society, Catholics might get together, form a state (let’s call it “Mary-land”), and live according to Catholic principles and dogma, including having anybody in that state agree to be bound by those principles as long as they reside in that state under penalty of law. Those who don’t like it can move to a different state within the US.

      According to “left libertarians” and progressives, there is only one correct form of government and law; arrangements like “Mary-land” just aren’t permissible; their ideal libertarian/progressive principles must be imposed on every level of government and self-governance, if necessary by force.

    2. “Refusal to recognize that people tend to group together around shared cultural values and common views of the world around them will only lead to disaster.”

      A government enforces law over a territory. The best mankind can hope for is that the people in that territory generally *agree* with those laws. That helps to minimize the remaining violence in the society, and minimize the sense of freedom thwarted in the population.

      Those shared values generally come from a shared culture. There’s no magic dirt or magic air that imparts those values to any and all foreigners once they cross the border.

      Putting people in the same place with fundamentality different values on *when* it’s proper to use force againt their neighbors, and what constitutes force against their neighbors, is a recipe for violence and civil war.

    1. Also, is ‘wock pupper politico’ a misspelling of ‘woke puppet politico’ and PJmedia needs an editor as bad or worse than Reason, or is ‘wock pupper politico’ a Canadian idiom that I need translated?

    2. Hmmm, interesting, I game with some Canadian on fridays. We’ve had two off weeks recently, but our last communication they were more interested in talking about the US electing a Democrat than any local issues.

  11. Nationalism is just another form of collectivism, generally promoted by those who see a way to make a buck off of encouraging everybody else to work for the common good while they themselves work at lining their own pockets.

    1. I approve of this message! For what it’s worth… I have no campaign contributions to spare, so it’s probably not all that much…

    2. Nationalism is a necessary part of self-government.

      It’s the “for the people” in “government of, by, and for the people”.

  12. I’ll read the article later, but for now I’ll anticipate the subject by commenting: No, it’s not the solution, but it’s also not the problem, ain and in the short run it’s getting us a little closer to our goals.

    Sometimes the winds are such that a tacking course is all you can use. Just because running with the wind would carry you the wrong way doesn’t mean the wind is of no benefit to you.

    Right now the greater effect of nationalism is to oppose the use of internationalism by authoritarians. Are there some adverse side effects? Sure, but they’re worth the main effect of this medicine, and when the pendulum swings back we’ll be able to get benefits in that direction too.

    Enough metaphors for ya?

  13. Incidentally, patriotism centered on things like the First Amendment and capitalism isn’t the problem either.

    1. It is for people who don’t believe in the first amendment or capitalism. Like Reason.

      1. Citations please?

        Or does Reason, like YOU, believe that all “politically incorrect” people should commit suicide? Again… Citations please?

  14. Nationalism is imposed from the top down.

    Patriotism grows from the bottom up

    Nationalism is what a head of state/political class tries to force upon the people when their actions and policies either do not generate patriotism or actively undermine it.

    It’s a sad thing that so many are accepting this nevertrumper volley as reality.

  15. I have no pride in “country”. The ideals of the Constitution were a pretty good start, for the time; but they have been so corrupted as to be worse than what was before. Read the indictments in the Declaration of Independence and compare them to now. Petty bureaucrats? Petty laws? Much much worse now. Taxation without representation is worse; only fools think we have any representation.

    The ultimate federalization is me, the individual. Devolve power down to individuals, and we will talk about pride in “country”. I have zero pride in our government, and they tell me that is country; so be it, and I have no pride in their concept of government and country. Pride in self-ownership, pride in what I do, or friends do, but neither I nor friends have any say in government or country, so no: no pride there.

    1. The First and Second Amendments still protect our rights today, and being unique–even among other countries that evolved under the influence of the Magna Carta–they not only help make our society free. They’re also a big part of what makes our country distinctly American.

      1. Barely. The Constitution has been corrupted far beyond what led to the Declaration of Independence. That a few bright spots remain is barely relevant.

        1. While you’re right, our forefathers would’ve started shooting a while back, that doesn’t mean those ideals aren’t relevant.

          2A is still very relevant, there are 300+ million very real guns in American hands right now because of it. That’s not some lofty ideal or philosophy, that’s tangible ability to exert violence. Just because we’re not using them today doesn’t mean we never will.

          1. I never said the 1st and 2nd amendments are worthless. I said they are nothing like what the Framers intended. Being proud of 1% of the US Constitution and disgusted with the way the entire thing has been corrupted, including the 1st and 2nd amendments, does not equate to pride overall.

    2. “The ultimate federalization is me, the individual.”

      “muh anarchy”

      Grown-ups answer the question “Compared to what?” with something in reality.

      If the US is so horrible, why don’t you take your “me federalization” somewhere that is much better compared to the US?

  16. The only reason we have the society we do is because collectively the people in this country want it that way. Stephanie lives in a fantasy world where everyone will choose freedom and a free society if they are only given a choice. And that is not just a fantasy, it is a really stupid and dangerous one.

    Most people in the world and most people in history don’t want to live in a free society. A society as free as ours is the exception in both the world an in human history. It didn’t happen by accident. It happened and exists because there was a critical mass of people living together who collectively decided things should be that way.

    If the people living in this country ever as a group decide they don’t want a free society, it won’t be free. And understand it won’t be the government that makes it unfree. The government will just be one of the instruments society uses to make itself unfree. It will be the people themselves who decide as a group that they no longer want a free society.

    Stephanie thinks you can kill off national pride in that culture of freedom and open the borders and let anyone and everyone in regardless of whether they have any interest in living in a free society and society will remain free. She and those like her as a foolish and delusional as the worst Marxist.

    1. +10000

      Libertarians are volunteerist by nature. We voluntarily give up a few rights for the Common Defense and other enumerated functions of the tiny and limited government.

    2. Stephanie lives in a fantasy world where everyone will choose freedom and a free society if they are only given a choice. And that is not just a fantasy, it is a really stupid and dangerous one.

      Not just or only that a good portion won’t choose freedom, plenty more will readily fall for being freed from the burden of choice or, moreover, accept one of the two options presented to them as their only/false choice.

      Orwell and Lowry can both be right about nationalism and patriotism, especially if Orwell is talking about Hitler’s and Lowry is talking about Trump’s America.

      1. Hitler’s Germany that is.

      2. Black Americans have been voting Democrat for decades and the Democrat Party was the actual Party of slavery that Southern slave owners belonged to.

    3. Slade is a libertarian, not a neoconservative seeking to impose liberal democratic forms of government on historically illiberal and undemocratic societies. (But even neocons believe exporting America’s political culture is in the national interest.)

      Nationalism is the collectivist delusion that we can somehow take credit for, thus pride in, the accomplishments of previous generations. It quickly turns isolationist and xenophobic when the will to preserve national institutions “under siege” manifests in a cultural and economic protectionism, suspicion and hostility toward foreigners as outside threats. Individual rights will be sacrificed to defend a heritage of individual rights. Liberal universalism gives way to cultural relativism, and appeals to a common humanity are dismissed as sentimentalist. When nationalists begin associating their nation’s “essence” with its ethnic composition, and see outsiders as dangerous precisely because they belong to people groups deterministically incapable of participating in the nation’s essential greatness, then xenophobia morphs into actual racism, and nationalists turn their attention to the outsiders within to explain societal problems.

      1. We are the world! We are the children!

    4. She and those like her as a foolish and delusional as the worst Marxist.

      They are neither foolish nor delusional, but they are unequivocally Marxists. If you keep that in mind, and understand the role of propaganda in a Marxist society, you will know everything you need to know about Reason.

      1. Sure, because anyone critical of Trumpism is an America-hating, deep-state (((commie))).

    5. “Stephanie lives in a fantasy world where everyone will choose freedom and a free society if they are only given a choice. ”

      It’s unclear that her fantasy world is populated by anyone but her and her deontological commitments.

      Does she even try to *imagine* the outcomes of the policies she favors on deontological grounds? I see no indication that she does. Borders are icky, m’kay?

  17. It is utterly absurd to draw comparison between Trump’s “nationalism” economic or other wise and the National Socialist. Trump’s whole MAGA philosophy is a repudiation of things like NAFTA, letting China into the WTO(battle of Seattle anyone?), NATO,ect…
    All of these items were based either on a Cold War mentality which has long since lost any rational appeal or the idea that “freedom follows the free-market”(i.e. China). Americans are tired of being the world’s police, taking hits economically to prop up “allies” from a war that ended in 1945, propping up Western Europe against the dreaded red system which collapsed in 1991. We have done enough for the rest of the world and too much TO the rest of the world, its time we concern ourselves with our own citizens.

    1. “its time we concern ourselves with our own citizens.”

      Citizens? Don’t you mean nation? An true believing nationalist would know the difference. Citizenship is a legal idea, but nation is more of a blood and soil thing.

      1. Yes citizens. Citizens is a legal concept and not one based in blood and soil. The embracing of legal concepts over social ones is what distinguishes good nationalism from bad nationalism you idiot.

        1. Except the concept of citizenship has been warped by Democrats since the passage of Hart-Cellar into a cynical program for vote harvesting. They’re not encouraging mass immigration because they believe in American civic nationalism, they’re doing it to secure their own power base.

          My sole consolation is that if they get what they actually want, the white liberals who enabled it–at least the ones who don’t skedaddle overseas–will eventually be lined up against the wall as well by the very people they thought would overlook the sin of their melanin-free skin.

        2. If you want to embrace legal concepts, there’s no need to speak of nationalism at all, whether it’s good or bad. You idiot.

          1. Just for the edification of anyone watching, mtrueman is a 9/11 truther.

            1. I’m evil. I question the orthodox version of the 9/11.

          2. Nationalism as a necessary part of representative self-government is a political concept.

            Government of, by, and for the People. Nationalism is the “for the People” part.

            1. “Nationalism is the “for the People” part.”

              What if the People come from different nations? Lincoln would have said “for the Nation,” if he meant what you think he meant.

              1. You seriously don’t know the difference between “people” and “nations?”

                1. I know the difference. More importantly, Lincoln did too.

                  1. Then why did you fuck it up so laughingly?

              2. Civic nationalism allows for people from different nations politically assimilating into a civic nation.

                It *allows* for. A civic nation better make sure that assimilation happens, or they’re inviting political violence.

                1. Yeah, from you authoritarian bigots.

      2. I don’t believe in the “blood and soil thing”, sure that applies to other countries in the old world, but not here in the U.S. You have people here in the U.S. from all parts of the world and all sorts of different countries. Different blood and different soil.
        The only sort of nationalism I would support is a civic nationalism. I do not see a difference in what is best for the citizens and best for the nation. To be a citizen in the classical sense is to have rights, but also responsibility. I know in the modern sense its all about “what I am owed”, which I disagree. So when I say citizen I think of it in the Roman sense(during the republic).

        1. ” So when I say citizen I think of it in the Roman sense(during the republic).”

          I think that’s pretty close to the modern sense of the word citizen, except their idea of citizenship was also bound up in a state religion. I doubt Romans would have thought of themselves as a nation. That didn’t come about until Garibaldi and the unification of the peninsula in the 19th century.

        2. All cultures are not equal when it comes to individual liberty. American took in millions of immigrants but (except for perhaps Russian Jews) adopted the traditional American values of the Colonies…sound money, economic liberty, limited govt and avoidance of foreign interventions. The issue becomes when immigrants arrive with no interest or incentive to adopt our historical liberties. We saw this with the Southern and Eastern Euro immigration of the late 19th/early 20th century which led to the socialist New Deal (which was the start of cultural marxism in the US). Freedom of international movement into the States could very well be the destruction of the Bill of Rights and our natural liberties.

          1. The problem is when they don’t assimilate. The US used to exert enormous pressure on immigrants to assimilate.

            Without assimilation, you end up with increasing numbers of people with incompatible values *on the use of force*.

            Is an adult having sex with a 12 year old rape? Some cultures say yes, some say no.
            Is stoning blasphemers justice? Some cultures say yes, some say no.

            When people with fundementally different values on the just use of force live in close proximity, the outcome will be a lot of use of force.

            1. “The problem is when they don’t assimilate.”

              Assimilation is a two way street. Europeans have always been suckers when it comes to worshiping Asian desert wanderers.

              “When people with fundementally different values on the just use of force live in close proximity”

              National homogeneity is no guarantee against that. I might have a fundamental difference in values with my neighbor who shares my nationality nevertheless.

              1. The real world doesn’t come with guarantees.

                But agreement within the US is a better bet than agreement with people from countries without an Anglo American heritage.

                There’s not another country in the world with the equivalent of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The US is an *extreme* outlier when it comes to liberty.

                Import Not Americans, get less libertarian.

                1. There’s not another country in the world with the equivalent of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The US is an *extreme* outlier when it comes to liberty.

                  Which you squat and shit on.

                2. The idea of importing non Americans (or anyone else) is antithetical to Libertarianism. Libertarians believe in the free movement of people, goods and ideas.

                  1. NOW you say “black is white!”
                    Like Orwell’s Newspeak, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

                    Newspeak was his prediction of total mind control. His only error was assuming that requires a totalitarian state, and an entire citizenry. The US now has two separate versions of mind control — the political bases of our two major parties.

                  2. “Libertarians believe in the free movement of people, goods and ideas.”

                    Nope. That’s just *some* of the deontological libertarians.

                    The libertarians who actually want liberty to exist in the world, and want to preserve it for themselves and their posterity in their polity, reject Open Borders and tax policies that favor foreign produced goods over American produced goods.

                    1. They aren’t libertarians. They’re you.
                      And these are all crazy right-wing bullshit
                      a) open borders
                      b) tax policies that favor foreign goods over US. WTF!

      3. You seem to think that the only nationalism was German nationalism. What you are referring to was not nationalism, as Hitler and the Nazi’s goals were to destroy the nation-state and to go into a type of “living space” for blood and soil. Which is why they wanted the east more than the west.

        Citizenship is the core of nationalism. It is a construct, one that has to be worked at. It is not natural to have allegiance to a larger polity, yet it has been done in the US, so much so that those deprived of full citizenship have fought and bleed to be recognized.

        1. “Citizenship is the core of nationalism.”

          No it isn’t. Arab nationalism doesn’t need citizenship. You can be a citizen of Egypt or a citizen of Algeria, or stateless, entirely lacking in citizenship, like our Palestinian brothers and sisters. You idiot.

          1. Then there’s the Rhythm Nation. Are you part of the Rhythm Nation?

            But the relevant context here is nationalism as related to a country. We’re talking borders and citizenship.

            1. Which means you’re exactly what Stephanie says you are.

          2. Arab nationalism doesn’t need citizenship.

            The objective of Arab nationalism is to re-unify Arabs into a single, powerful nation state. So, citizenship is the objective of Arab nationalism.

            1. “So, citizenship is the objective of Arab nationalism.”

              No, an individual is already a member of a nation. The concept of citizenship doesn’t add to that. It detracts from it, as it leaves open the possibility of citizenship granted to individuals who belong to a different nation.

              1. NATIONS DO NOT OWN PEOPLE, DESPITE THE “VALUES” OF YOUR AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT.

      4. Americans have been civic nationalists for a long time.

        Foreigners can apply to join the club, and if accepted, and they choose to assimilate, they can become Americans.

        1. Ideally, yes. But foreigners can apply for citizenship, be accepted, and still continue to speak weird languages, eat weird food, wear weird clothes etc. Citizenship and nationality are not the same thing.

          1. See “and they choose to assimilate”

    2. Hitler drank water, Trump drinks water …

  18. “I don’t know what you mean by ‘nationalism,’ ” Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ 
    “But ‘nationalism’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

  19. Stay At Home Mom From New York Shared Her Secret On How She Was Able To Rake In $1500 Weekly From Online Work Just 3 Weeks After Losing Her Old Job .
    Find out how >>>> https://bit.ly/2vZce5F

  20. I’ve still read only part of the piece, but my own take is that nationalism goes along and is compatible with both good and bad, and is not inherently tied to either. It is incompatible with anarchism and extreme libertarianism, but we are so far from either of those end states anywhere in the world that nationalism is not meaningfully tending away from liberty in the here and now. It is certainly compatible with a greater degree of individual liberty than is now to be had, and it so happens that in this and many other countries (now and in history), it is also a factor in resistance to authoritarianism.

    Ms. Slade has simply cherry-picked the associations to make nationalism seem worse than it is. Sure, German nationalism and then the Nazis — but what about the time before and after the Nazis?

    1. I must’ve put something other than a leading slash after the closing bolding command, sorry. I meant only to bold “goes along and is compatible with”.

      1. Was the “preview” feature so expensive?

    2. Nationalism puts the nation above the individual. That one instance of it is less destructive than others doesn’t justify the premises that it is built upon.

      1. Shit, everybody puts the nation above the individual, that’s why it’s a nation! So practically everybody is “nationalist” if that’s all the word means. The question is, how often will we let the nation and the individual be in conflict? Reducing that frequency is the aim of all non-anarchist libertarians.

      2. Nationalism puts the nation above the individual.

        Supranational global Marxist governance like Reason advocates for puts the world above the individual. Of the two, nationalism is less destructive.

    3. Anyway, just because Lowry cherry-picks doesn’t make Slade’s cherry-picking any more convincing.

  21. We can argue about exactly what nationalism is or isn’t. But whatever it is, it is hostile to individualism.

    It figures that National Review types would embrace the nation over the individual. I appreciate the job that Agent Charles C. W. Cooke does at National Review. Without Agent Cooke on the job, NR would go full iron-fist.

    1. It only necessarily comes into conflict with individualism at the extreme of the latter. Meanwhile, we’re so far from the extreme of individual liberty, anywhere, that there’s plenty of room for nationalism and individualism to not conflict — and right now, in most of the world, more often than not, they not only don’t conflict, but are pulling in the same direction.

  22. The Federalist Magazine has condemned Elizabeth Warren’s Wealth tax as unconstitutional. But in the process, endorses ts erroneous Standard History of the Income Tax The Federalist thus endorses the view that the 16th Amendment created a new Hybrid UN apportioned direct tax on “everything that comes in” . The Supreme Court has never endorsed this view ((although it. Has done very little to stop the illegal collection. Of the tax) . Nevertheless, tens of thousands of Americans care enough to file educated. Tax returns and receive full refund of. All taxes. See http://www.nontaxpayersforronpaul.blogspot.com

  23. Nationhood can be based on the subset of the global population who happens to carry the right card or wear the right color shirt (or skin) at any given moment. This is nothing more than primitive tribalism writ large, and has no more intellectual standing than one band of chimps throwing turds at another.

    Nationhood can also be based on a convenient but temporary bit of geography. But silly origin myths aside, one plot of ground might serve just as well as another. Again, those chimps will defend a territory only until they decide to grab another.

    To me, the only form of nationhood that matters is the collection of core ideals that members commit to. And I suppose that any effort to nurture and continue those ideals is nationalism.

    Through my simplistic lens then selective immigration is fully justified, but the selection should be based on allegiance to ideals, not to geographic or group identities. (And allegiance to ideals should also somehow filter out the native-born who reject them.)

    Likewise trade should be managed (or not) only to reflect the ideals, not based on balances between continents and tribes.

    I can fantasize about a world where certain areas encourage specific ideals, and people freely move to where their personal beliefs align best. No more changing core ideals at home or exporting them elsewhere. Or an even more extravagant fantasy: we decouple ideology from geography and define “nations” purely by allegiance. Our neighbors and co-workers can belong to different nations and live by different ethics and rules that do not apply to others.

  24. Love for family, friends, local community, state, the USA, and fellow humans are all good things.

    Of course, loving one’s family (for example) doesn’t mean being a Clinton and trampling all over every moral principle in order to enrich one’s family. That’s wrong and happens to conflict with loyalty to country and humanity.

    And loving one’s country doesn’t mean bombing other countries until they pretend to adopt your own political system. That doesn’t square with loyalty to humanity.

    But love for family, country, and so on ought ideally to be an active love, not a vague preference like “eh, I hope those muggers don’t hit grandma too hart.”

    If liberalism – true liberalism – is to me more than simply “refusing to take one’s own side in a quarrel,” then it should be a philosophy one can endorse while still doing one’s duties listed above.

  25. There’s a lot of factors at play here. On a basic historical level, nationalism is indeed problematic. It’s borne from liberalism and is useful when a country builds its institutions. It worked hand in hand with liberalism and the concept of political liberty….but what happens when this dissolves as we saw in Europe on the advent of WWI?

    Once erect and stable, nationalism takes a nose dive into tribal collectivism and even racism. Not a fan.

    I remember back in the 90s an article in Foreign Policy (before it lost its mind) asking if America was a nationalist or patriotic nation. For me, having observed from afar as a foreigner, the United States was always a kind of raw-raw-raw patriotism where the individual came first. And with a strong individual you get a strong family and with a strong family; community until you reach a nation.

    America never struck me as nationalist. Nationalism conjures up dark rhetoric appealing to our most primal feelings.

    As for Trump, look. It’s simple. The progressive illiberal left has been on the march and have bitten off more than can chew. People instinctually feel things have gone sideways and the result was Trump.

  26. “As for Trump, look. It’s simple. The progressive illiberal left has been on the march and have bitten off more than can chew. People instinctually feel things have gone sideways and the result was Trump.”

    Too simple. Trump was a reaction against elites of all political stripes. He ran against Jeb Bush before he took on Clinton, both of whom are entirely run of the mill pols and ‘hardly progressive leftists.’ Gone sideways is a little too vague for my tastes. I think a feeling of insecurity, of being left behind, and dispossession drove people into the arms of Trump. He addressed these feelings directly, while Bush, Clinton and the like would tend to ignore them. I was thinking Sanders might have an opening here, taking on Trump’s issues (insecurity etc) but leaving aside the scapegoating of foreigners Trump relies on.

    1. Both Jeb Bush and Clinton are progressive establishment hacks: they want to control society, control the economy, control your personal life, and control the rest of the world. That’s what progressives do; there is no separate category of “progressive leftists”.

      The people now masquerading as progressives are simple socialists and neo-Marxists. You are right that Bush and Clinton were not (or, in the case of Clinton, pretended not to be) socialists or neo-Marxists.

      As for “scapegoating of foreigners”, nobody is doing that. All Trump ran on was enforcement of our immigration laws and secure borders. Saying that you shouldn’t enter the country unless you have permission and unless you can make a net positive contribution isn’t “scapegoating” anybody.

      1. “Both Jeb Bush and Clinton are progressive establishment hacks”

        My impression is they are both ‘centerists.’ Do you think they are leftists? Or are you using the word progressive in some special way? Were all the Republicans Trump ran against progressive establishment hacks? Did any, besides Trump, strike you as different?

        “As for “scapegoating of foreigners”, nobody is doing that. ”

        This has been part of Trump’s shtick for years. Not just immigration but trade and foreign affairs, as well. He probably believes it.

        1. My impression is they are both ‘centerists.’ Do you think they are leftists? Or are you using the word progressive in some special way?

          I’m using the way “progressive” in the traditional way: they believe in big, interventionist government in order to achieve social and economic progress.

          Yes, I realize that the news now uses “progressive” to describe the left wing of the Democratic party, people who believe in social justice, socialism, redistribution, etc. I’m not using the term that way; it’s a meaningless way of using the term.

          Were all the Republicans Trump ran against progressive establishment hacks?

          All the major ones, yes.

          This has been part of Trump’s shtick for years. Not just immigration but trade and foreign affairs, as well. He probably believes it.

          Saying “I don’t want more unskilled Mexican migrants in the US” or “I don’t want the Chinese to buy up all the real estate in the US” isn’t the same as scapegoating, it’s simply expressing a policy preference.

            1. Yeah, that’s even crazier than the original!

  27. Lowry >>>>>>> Slade.

  28. The nationalism can be good.

  29. I can saiy than on Barcelona, theres not a betther form of show a good nationalism than buy a knife from https://www.cuchilleriabarcelona.com/

  30. If nationalism simply means “preferring people with shared values over people with different values”, than all ideologies are nationalist, including libertarianism.

    1. Since ”””””libertarianism””””” is nothing except crypto-Marxism its alternatives at least have the benefit of being ostensibly bigoted but not genocidal.

  31. “If nationalism simply means “preferring people with shared values over people with different values”

    It doesn’t mean that. It’s more about sharing religion, language, ethnicity etc.

  32. All you die hard Big L Libertarians don’t want to hear this from me, an ex-libertarian, but, somebody has to tell you that you will never ever EVER get anywhere politically unless and until you embrace Nationalism as part of your coalition. I’d recommend helping to form a new political party, perhaps called The National Libertarian American Workers’ Party, but somehow I suspect that you hard core Big L Libertarian Libertines will refuse to give up your open borders and free trade.

    1. Sieg Heil! All Hail! Individual freedom MUST take a BOW to the Sacred Collective NAZIonalistic Hive! You want to interact with an illegal sub-human? Or, Government Almighty forbid, TRADE freely with them? Too bad; the Collective Hive knows BETTER than you!

    2. Refuse to give up core positions. Yup.

      Did you think Libertarians were a cheap date?

  33. Didn’t read, but

    “nationalism” is bad in the domestic sense of promoting a strong centralized federal government that degrades State and local government, acts beyond its enumerated powers, and infringes on liberty under some nationalistic justification

    “nationalism” is bad in the foreign policy sense of militarism, imperialism, and draining U.S. resources on wars on the opposite side of the globe

    “nationalism” is good in the international and foreign policy sense of (A) opposing internationalist imperialist militarism and instead devoting resources to your own country (B) opposing globalist ideologues and the attempts to impose international governing bodies and “unions” and degrade national sovereignty/self-government, and (C) the proposition that elected representatives should focus on benefiting their existing citizens and society in the realms of immigration and trade.

    1. Started to read your comment but then didn’t.

    2. Didn’t read, but…

      Stuff and stuff is stuffy, except when it is not!

      My stuff is MORE than stuffy enough to VASTLY overwhelm your puny stuffiness, because of stuff and stuff! BEHOLD My Superior Logic!

      If’n ye do NOT see what my stance is, ye must be short on your stuff and stuff!

  34. The author has chosen to find the worst that can be tied to nationalism, used that to condemn nationalism, and not offered the slightest clue about what to replace it with.

    Radical individualism? Not specified, but, it has never, ever worked, and the ideas of libertarianism are thousands of years old.

    Today’s nationalism in the US is simply the assertion of that which Americans took for granted for most of our history – that we are one people, and that we have a nation to protect that people, and that was the purpose of government.

    Without a replacement for that, the author’s piece comes across as no more than an uninformed rant.

  35. Slade you are totally a stupid shit. The country is being invaded at this very minute. You simply do not know what an invasion is. It does not have to be Russian soldiers in columns carrying AK’s you ignorant piece of shit.

    1. Invaded we are. By two types of rna viruses. Influenza and Corona Those are very serious to life and health and resulting in economic shock waves.

      Were you referring to something else?

  36. Reality Check “First and foremost, Hitler saw the State as the ideal form of social organization; managed by people dedicated to making it finer and stronger. Wrong! He failed totally to get his premise right, i.e., that individual humans each own themselves, and should interact only when and how each wishes to do so – in what we call the “market.” This fundamental error he shares with all who favor the continuing existence of government. Thus, at root, every politician is a Nazi.” From: http://strike-the-root.com/monster-in-making
    Oh, and by the way, there were some people in the 1940’s who chose “rule of law” over rule of conscience. They called themselves Nazi’s and their decision to ignore their conscience got them hung.

  37. I find it sad the long slide that National Review has taken since William F. Buckley’s death. It used to be a hotbed of intellectual conservatism. Now, it seems nothing more than a rationalization for the isolationist, protectionist, and, yes, nationalist electoral tendencies, starting with the Tea Party, and intensifying during the Trump years. Rich Lowry’s ‘journal’ is reduced to a ‘we good, they’ bad’ meme, difficult to justify using three-syllable words.

    And, now the Democrats seem poised to mimic this success story by celebrating the inane class-warfare rantings of Bernie Sanders. These are pretty sad political times.

  38. “…helped drive the British army from her country…”

    English & Burgundian armies actually. There was no British army in France during the Hundred Years War as there was no state called Britain yet.

    “The United States is not, of course, at risk of invasion by England…”

    I imagine not, indeed no one is given “England” does not have an army or navy. Britain on the other hand has has since 1707. Such simple errors undermine the impact of the article.

    1. I agree. Slade made a few good points, but then she ruined the credibility of her article by resorting to bad information (like what you said) and bad arguments. She describes Trump’s nationalism as “highly illiberal.” Very true, but she continues with this.

      “On the immigration front, it includes attempts to ban people from Muslim-majority countries and to indefinitely separate children from their parents at the border.”

      This is exactly the kind of a weak-minded non argument that someone would use on the Democratic “debate” stage. That some religion may predominate in a certain country does not mean that any action against that country is directed at that religion for the purpose of making some “religious” point. I am sick and tired of people citing this as an example of racism/Islamophobia or whatever. And the emotional appeal of using worn-out, exaggerated terms to describe what has been happening for years and years to illegal immigrants who have been apprehended (I’m not saying I am in favor of how we deal with immigration in general) is a similarly disappointing remark and fails to illustrate why Donald is uniquely “nationalistic.”

      This is the garbage that I would expect to read on my Google News feed; not Reason. Stephanie Slade, what a disappointment.

      1. “exaggerated terms to describe what has been happening for years and years to illegal immigrants who have been apprehended (I’m not saying I am in favor of how we deal with immigration in general) is a similarly disappointing remark and fails to illustrate why Donald is uniquely “nationalistic.”

        The brutal treatment has been going on for years but it’s only Trump who is celebrating it and promising more. Harsher treatment, more prisons, more prison guards.

  39. this nationalism thing might be the most overblown thing in popular media in quite some time….right up there with the alar apple scare

    1. I think it’s quite under-blown, actually. The media doesn’t need to drive anything. The first domestic casualty seems to be being able to generate a reasonable Presidential candidate from either major party.

      1. nope, still overblown

  40. This is one of the most worrisome things I’ve read recently:

    “The lineup featured a parade of right-of-center intellectuals explaining what, practically speaking, nationalism means to them: higher tariffs (“economic nationalists must be willing to pay higher prices to protect our fellow citizens,” said Christian activist David Brog), larger expenditures to support the American industrial sector (“we should have a National Institutes of Manufacturing just as we have a National Institutes of Health,” said former Mitt Romney adviser Oren Cass), stricter immigration laws (“it doesn’t make a darn bit of difference what the economic arguments are if our cohesion is shot,” said Israeli political philosopher Yoram Hazony), and more aggressive efforts to legislate morality (“we should care about a whole host of public goods and actually be willing to use politics and political power to accomplish those goods,” said Hillbilly Elegy author J.D. Vance).”

    If American conservatives abandon liberty as one of their top values, we really are doomed. Because who else is there? Libertarians are smaller in numbers and plenty of them of don’t even believe in voting (for people that might win). So they have no real electoral counterweight to keep the authoritarians from dragging things too far to the dark side.

    I’ve never been a nationalist. I’ve never waived the flag, I’ve never worshipped the military, and never had that deep, unconditional love for the soil, much less for the blood. My love has always been conditional: I like America BECAUSE it’s free. I’ll work towards keeping that way, through voting and preaching. But if I eventually lose and it’s stop being free, then I’ll be willing to sell it for an ice cream cone. You can’t just crap all over me and expect me to love you. That’s part of why I’ve never been a conservative. That, and I score low on puritanism.

    I grudgingly agree with conservatives on one thing, though: immigration. Not because I want greater assimilation, “no border, no nation”, “Speak English, damn it!”, anti-cospolitanism, anti-multiculturalism, or any of that stuff. On the contrary, I enjoy diversity, I enjoy the big city, etc… within reasonable, pragmatic limits — if a place is too black, I’m gonna keep my eye open. I’m aware of statistics. I live on Earth.

    No, my agreement with them on slowing certain type of immigration comes mostly from this: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/20/latino-voters-favor-raising-minimum-wage-government-involvement-in-health-care-stricter-gun-laws/ — And Bernie’s Nevada win just made that abundantly clear. I love my freedoms too much to kill them for the sake of ONE freedom (that of international movement).

    1. Bingo…

    2. Let them come, let them work, let them live as they wish. Don’t let them vote.

      The libertarian position is not amnesty. It is simply recognizing that allowing the relatively unrestricted flow of goods and services across borders is economically beneficial to all.

      1. Which is more politically feasible (and more palatable among the broader public) in the 21st century: Reducing illegal (and legal) immigration, or disenfranchising an ethnic group?

      2. I’m fine with the free flow of good and service. And until recently, I was fine with the flow of people as well. But it turns out the current flow of people wants to turn my cherished economy system in the one in Nicaragua and take away people’s guns. They’re also more socially conservative.

      3. The problem is that they already do vote illegally. Not by casting votes themselves, but by being counted in the census rolls, thus stealing electoral votes, congressional seats, and more importantly tax dollars from American citizens.

        To everyone who wonders why freedom loving people start advocating forced removal of illegal immigrants, consider why you would want to live in a country where you are nothing more than a host for a parasite. Either we leave or they leave.

        1. So you’re also ignorant on how polling is done.
          Obama was born in Kenya.
          And … THE DEEP STATE!

    3. Why is it so important for you to have government permission to possess a gun? If you really want a gun, just buy one on the black market and don’t make such a fuss. Junkies have been successfully buying their drugs like this for years without wringing their hands over legalities or what the latinos think.

      1. It’s not about what they think; it’s about what they vote. And they’re slowly voting to make criminals out of gun owners.

        Buying one in the black market means if you ever use it, you’ll go to jail. I’d rather not go to jail.

        1. I suggest you get one anyway.

          “Now, now we’re people, we’re like the birds and the bees
          We rather die on our feet than keep livin’ on our knees”

  41. The foundations of what America is..sound money, free markets, limited govt, and peace have been under attack for 100 years…first by the progressives that gave us the Fed, income tax, WWI, prohibition, the rise of the left/elitists in academia, govt (the new deal), and the attack (almost constant) by globalists on American traditions and Christian European Americans. I keep thinking back by the savage attack on Charles Lindbergh who represented traditional American values..by the globalists in the late 30’s. The slow decline of our liberty has been directly attributable to cosmo globalists time and again. Education, Media, entertainment, govt, and now corporate america has been infiltrated by statists and elites who don’t give a damn about our basic natural rights.

    And now we hear any push back is “nationalism.” Really..destroying our industrial base by allowing trade with govts who manipulate their currencies (and then buy all the govt debt with the dollars spent by American consumers issued on Fed credit) benefits cosmo elites but who else? And now let’s open borders and promise all sorts of goodies as long as the entrants vote to destroy the Bill of Rights…

    Austria Hungary? Czechsolvakia? and on and on…countries are culture…multicultural nations have no future..there has never been one that has had any glue to keep them together. The cosmo world is one of failure as Jefferson pointed out. Cities are not the norm for liberty…

    1. I’m pretty sure Trump hates sound money, free markets, limited government and peace.

      You complain about the Fed manipulating our currency, but Trump is the one advocating for negative interest rates. How do yoy think that would happen?

      By the way, open borders is not the same thing as amnesty. Theoretically, you could support unrestricted immigration and still be totally against handing out citizenship and the right to vote to any of the newcomers.

      1. Ya missed the part about Christian European Americans.

  42. It rather difficult to hear that multicultural nations have no future when the US is the ultimate multicultural nation. Today less than 2% of the population is aboriginal. Almost everything our culture has is borrowed. There are exceptions, Jazz originated in the US. Most other things did not they were assimilated from immigrants. What nationalist want is to cherry pick customs and ideas to come up with their version of American. The reality is that the population as a whole will pick what it wants to keep and what to let go in a evolutionary process.

    1. Hence the importance of just who you let into the “population as a whole”.

      Import Not Americans, become Not America.

      1. Except for the less than 2% everyone is not Americans. The English, Irish, Germans, Swedes, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, East Indian, etc. were all not Americans, until they were. English is not native to this country, it was brought here. With the exception of LDS every major religion in this country is not American, they were brought here.

        1. The US was founded by an overwhelmingly English population. English is the native language of the US.

          Others did assimilate to that culture. Part of that assimilation was learning to speak the native language of the US as their own primary language.

    2. There is no aboriginal human population in the Americas. None.

      I will not cede a legitimacy to the first human settlers of this land that is denied to others at political whim.

      Consider that the entire Israeli/Palestinian conflict exists because the aboriginal people of the area are being denied their claim to their ancestral lands in favor of later claimants.

      Nothing in American culture is ‘borrowed’. Not one thing. Because borrowing is not how America works. Assimilation is. It is the prime tenet of the civilization–‘e pluribus unum’.

      America didn’t go places and bring stuff back, like Europeans, America let the world move in and become American. In so doing all those things that people consider ‘borrowed’ became actual parts of America.

      I am American. Every tradition is mine–because every culture is part of this country.

      When

  43. 200224 reason.com 2020 02 24 against-the-new-nationalism

    as always, ‘unreason’ uses every opportunity to demean and denigrate America, not just with their mindless twaddle about how being pro America = spending our money on our America = developing and competitively engaging in global economics free from intellectual piracy : 1 way tariffs on American products is horrid Nationalism…

    they don’t stop there, they go on to run their victim-o-logy ‘Krap about the stain of slavery on America…

    America inherited the slavery problem within a society that had come to them with acculturated slavery in place…

    a predating institutionalized slavery that was only possible because the black brethren of Africa were engaging in their + 4,000 year old business of selling one another to any buyer they can find – year after year…

    if the white people of America took 78 to 79 years to do away with inherited : institutional slavery; then, given the world America was created within : into, with the existence of slavery being an integrated part of society, nothing else could be expected while the transition ‘from’ slavery was positively dramatic : timely;

    Especially when compared along side of the + 4000 year African History of Slavery : blacks selling one another to any buyer – a slave making scourge that goes on to this day…

    It seems if removing slavery from your society while you create a completely new society and begin dragging the rest of the world, kicking and screaming into a wonderful new world that would create to today; then, at least, a 13’r of at’a’boys are in order.

    as far as slavery, quickly removed from America, being a stain on America under any pretense – then, especially when the 78 year termination of slavery in America is stood beside the ON Going + 4,000 year practice of : abomination of black on black slavery that must surely be a 4,000 year curse on the very soul of the black race.

    the earliest Constitutional stipulation advancing the termination of slavery, in America, involves the 1808 provision… 21 years after the Constitution was adopted… lets see 21 vs. 4,000 and still rising …hummm

    but, none of your Hate America twaddle being vaguely True and you not caring what lies you make up to advance your vacuous ‘NONCONTRIBUTORY’ Hate America to Destruction ‘stupid social justice diversity ‘Kommunist victimological whining is understandable.

  44. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==►Read MoRe 

  45. Start getting paid every month online from home more than $15k just by doing very simple and easy job from home. Last month i have earned $17954 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day using my laptop. I am now a good online earner. Get this job you guys also and start earning money online right now by follow details here………… Read More

  46. In The Case for Nationalism (Broadside Books), Rich Lowry has decided, rather boldly, to go up against Orwell and stake out the inverse position: To be a nationalist, he says, is merely to feel a glow of pride in one’s country, to recognize it as possessing a particular cultural character that differentiates its citizens from all others, and to insist on its sovereignty in the face of crusading outside forces. Nationalism and patriotism, in other words, are essentially interchangeable.

    I have a better title for Lowry’s new book:

    The case or Hitler and Nazi Germany; Great ideas, poor execution.

    1. ^^THIS

  47. “He doesn’t appear to consider that nationalism is a species of tribalism”

    The problem with your logic here is that you have conflated all forms of tribalism. You fail to differentiate between a tribe that kills all non-whites and a tribe that uses restrictive immigration to preserve its cultural values of faith, freedom and limited government.

    American nationalism is the most benign nationalism that has ever existed because it does not know race, religion, or any type of immutable characteristic. It is based on common values that anyone can believe in. The reality of any democratic nation is that demographics matter. If the majority of voters don’t support our cultural values, then they have the means to chip away at them. That is national suicide and it is well within the NAP to prevent such people from entering your nation and to remove them if need be.

    “If you kill your enemies, they win.” -Justin Trudeau

    1. “American nationalism is the most benign nationalism that has ever existed because it does not know race, religion, or any type of immutable characteristic. ”

      LOL ok. SO now explain to me why the current nationalist movement, in both language and in practice, is predicated around separating out-groups and re-asserting the dominance of “real” (aka white Christian) Americans?

      lc1789 and buybuydavis will be along shortly to tell me why that’s “not true” despite the feact that it is demonstrably true on a daily basis. And what gets me even more is that these are the same people who NOW retroactively pretend they were against GWB’s policies, when in reality they were the ones shouting “why do you hate America” or “why do you hate the troops” or “we are a Christian nation and have to fight the Muslims” at anyone that dared criticize our policies from 200-2008. Anyone that argued against the US govt propping up multinational slave labor under the guise of “capitalism” was mocked by these same people as being “against capitalism” and pointing out these injustices was mocked as essentially “wanting American companies to fail by restricting their God-given right to infinite profit.”

      Now in 2020 those same people are saying that we “hate America” by suggesting that maybe having a me-first authoritarian shitwad in control who clearly on a daily basis advocates for protecting white Christians at the expense of everyone else, even using the dreaded tools of welfare (see farm bailouts in response to tariff problems etc.) that would be unthinkable if used to help poor immigrants or strugling artists or whatever. The people like LC1789 and BBdavis like to pretend they are all about individuals but in 2004 they were the same people saying anyone that wasn’t 100% rah rah flag waving in support of “fighting the Muzzies” was a traitor and hates America.

      1. O now explain to me why the current nationalist movement, in both language and in practice, is predicated around separating out-groups and re-asserting the dominance of “real” (aka white Christian) Americans?

        Half true. It is based on the dominance of Judeo-Christian and Anglo-Saxon values and traditions. If you’re willing to conform to those cultural and social norms, conservatives welcome you regardless of race.

        1. Not all Anglo Saxon values and traditions are required. Mainly just the political ones, although learning English should be required as well.

          In a world that predominantly doesn’t believe in the Anglo American conception of liberty, if we want to preserve liberty for ourselves and our posterity, we can’t have more immigration that we can assimilate our Anglo American values of liberty.

          1. So …. FUCK INDIVIDUAL LIBERY is defending liberty.

            ALL hate-spewing bigots beleeb they’re just be honest.
            Jews really are inferior.
            Blacks really are inferior.
            Immigrants really are inferior,
            Gays really are inferior.
            Muslims really are inferior.

            It’s about “purity” — a “master race” — and he actually brags about it! 🙁

            You atheists make me vomit …

            1. Vomiting up your obviously overprescribed meds will be good for you.

      2. “lc1789 and buybuydavis will be along shortly to tell me why that’s “not true” despite the feact that it is demonstrably true on a daily basis”

        Your demonstration must have fallen off.

  48. “The problem with your logic here is that you have conflated all forms of tribalism.”

    Perhaps that’s because we have over 2 centuries now of nationalism turning out badly regardless of the original intent. You may start out with the purest motives, but those who take control of nationalism after they shove you aside will be all about blood and steel.
    Remember, the nation state replaced the Empires that preceded them by appealing directly to the mob using language, culture and religion. This led to everything from the Armenian Genocide to the Nazi concentration camps and Stalinist Gulags, not to mention slavery and minority dominated mass incarceration in our own country. Just how many innocent millions killed do we need to see before we accept that the very notion of Nationalism is evil. No matter your original intent, an appeal to blood and country always ends violence in a bloody country.

    “American nationalism is the most benign nationalism that has ever existed because it does not know race, religion, or any type of immutable characteristic.”

    Spoken like a white heterosexual male with no experience of being under the boot of government violence. On paper that’s true, but only on paper.

    That’s the thing about nationalism. If you’re in the majority you get to enjoy oysters and wine with your friends while just down the road families are torn apart at the border and lifestyle crimes involving drugs, sex, and vice are enforced against the out groups. It mustt be good to be the king.

    “If the majority of voters don’t support our cultural values, then they have the means to chip away at them. That is national suicide and it is well within the NAP to prevent such people from entering your nation and to remove them if need be.”

    This statement presumes that voters have the right to impose their cultural values on others at the point of a gun. The danger of nationalism is not that the majority will not support cultural norms, it’s that the majorities insecurities about control will justify violently imposing those cultural norms on those who don’t agree.

    If you look at crime statistics and where our resources go it’s pretty clear the goal is not protecting social norms or ever stopping the violent, but social control. That is the cost of Nationalism. Not the collapse of a country, but turning a country into an evil authoritarian prison run by the majority that is not worth defending.

    1. Perhaps that’s because we have over 2 centuries now of nationalism turning out badly regardless of the original intent. … This led to everything from the Armenian Genocide to the Nazi concentration camps and Stalinist Gulags, not to mention slavery and minority dominated mass incarceration in our own country.

      How did nationalism lead to any of this? The victims of the holocaust were German citizens. Stalinists didn’t imprison foreigners, they imprisoned people who opposed socialism. Slavery in the US was a legacy of European feudalism, and segregation and the mistreatment of minorities was the result of progressivism and scientific racism.

      It’s left wing, authoritarian ideologies that lead to mass murder by governments, not nationalism. And left wing authoritarians actually favor the replacement of national identity with left wing identity.

      1. “How did nationalism lead to any of this? The victims of the holocaust were German citizens. Stalinists didn’t imprison foreigners, they imprisoned people who opposed socialism. Slavery in the US was a legacy of European feudalism, and segregation and the mistreatment of minorities was the result of progressivism and scientific racism.”

        You’re both incorrect and off point.

        Deutschland, Deutschland über alles”

        No, nothing Nationalist about that.

        Hitler and Stalin locked up their own people, (and Stalin locked up far more than just those who opposed socialism as you state) but both locked up, tortured and imprisoned plenty of foreigners who were not in their country. That is, unless you believe the Germans and Russians fought a 6 year war of expansion without harming anyone outside their countries.

        That’s a cardinal virtue of nationalism in the 19th and 20th century. Once you release the passions of the mob to dehumanize those who do not belong to a tribe, a dema​gogue quickly takes control by appealing to the worst instincts within humanity: Fear, xenophobia, tyranny, torture. Those are the most effective tools within Nationalism once you have built the machine.

        You seem to be arguing that America is so special and represents such a unique genetic breed of humanity in history that we are magically above how every other culture in the 19th and 20th century defended into tribal warfare and brutality under Nationalism.

        The sure sign things are not different is when someone says but it’s different this time!’

        “Slavery in the US was a legacy of European feudalism, and segregation and the mistreatment of minorities was the result of progressivism and scientific racism.”

        You confuse the how for the why; Nationalism was used to justify and support ever crime you mentioned here.

        No politician ever argued “we all have value and rights as individuals under the Constitution, and therefore we need to lock these inferior black people up!”

        Also, the European legacy of slavery excuse is one of the more heinous tropes I hear. Yes they had slavery in Europe, but we fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution to be different. The appeal to European racism to justify slavery in the US sounds too much like some 60 year old sitting in prison telling us he led a life of rape and murder because his Mommy didn’t hug him enough. We need to be big enough to accept our own failures if we hope to someday correct them.

        1. Deutschland, Deutschland über alles” No, nothing Nationalist about that.

          Oh, Nazi Germany certainly was nationalistic. So were Imperial Germany, the Weimar Republic, post-WWII Germany, Great Britain, France, and the US. The national anthem for Germany still is still based on the same text that you quote. Germans today are still highly nationalistic.

          You seem to be arguing that America is so special and represents such a unique genetic breed of humanity in history that we are magically above how every other culture in the 19th and 20th century defended into tribal warfare and brutality under Nationalism.

          No, I’m saying that all functioning nations are necessarily nationalistic; there is nothing special about the US.

          Also, the European legacy of slavery excuse is one of the more heinous tropes I hear. Yes they had slavery in Europe, but we fought a revolution and wrote a Constitution to be different.

          It’s not an excuse, it’s a historical fact that US slavery was neither the result of nationalism nor the result of US policies. In fact, slavery was introduced into the Americas by European aristocrats for personal gain.

          You confuse the how for the why; Nationalism was used to justify and support ever crime you mentioned here.

          Demagogues twist any idea or concept to their purposes; that doesn’t mean that the idea itself is bad.

          The fact is that every nation on this planet is nationalistic and has a national identity. Only a few of them ever turned fascist. Therefore, nationalism is not the source of ills you believe it is.

          The idea that nationalism is to blame for fascism is a fraud perpetrated by socialists and communists, people whose ideology was identical to fascism except for nationalism. The reason why fascists were mass-murdering totalitarians is that fascism is a derivative of socialism and socialism always turns into mass-murdering totalitarianism.

      2. Don’t waste your time arguing with him, he doesn’t seem to understand that even the most nationalist, authoritarian states regularly invent categories to separate others. Nazis liquidated tens of thousands of Jews from the military because of their ideological puritanism. It’s quite silly to attribute this to some sort of national identity. A national identity that doesn’t even protect its own heroes is certainly an identity, but a national one, not so much.

    2. “Perhaps that’s because we have over 2 centuries now of nationalism turning out badly regardless of the original intent.”

      American nationalism produced the most free, prosperous, and secure nation the world has ever known, while saving almost all of the world from imperial fascism and global communism in the 20th Century.

      That “turned out badly” compared to what actual alternative *in reality*?

      1. That was the opposite of nationalism.

        Bigots BELEEB they’re just being honest,
        Jews REALLY ARE inferior.
        Blacks REALLY ARE inferior.
        Immigrants REALLY ARE inferior.
        Muslims REALLY ARE inferior.

        Hitler called it “purity”
        A “master race.”

      2. “American nationalism produced the most free, prosperous, and secure nation the world has ever known, while saving almost all of the world from imperial fascism and global communism in the 20th Century.”

        Correlation does not imply causation. We are free and secure because of where we are (geographically), not because of who we are. To the extent we have created a free prosperous country we have done it in spite of periods of Nationalism, not because of it. We fought against fascism and communism because we believe in individual rights over the rights of the collected at the heart of Nationalist Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It would be a tragedy if in the end we became a type of nationalist countries we defeated in WWII.

        1. Native Americans had the geography first. Turned out to be not so secure.

          And another Mexico in place of the US would have secured neither themselves nor the world against fascist imperialism and international communism.

          The magic dirt and magic air of our location is not what created our freedom, prosperity, and security.

          1. “Native Americans had the geography first. Turned out to be not so secure.”

            The advantage of US geography does not simply boil down to safety, but I doubt a discussion on the nuances of geopolitics beyond a one dimensional view of “water as safety” would be comprehensible to a blood and steel nationalist like yourself. The Indians were a stone age culture at the time the Europeans arrived. Not only would geography offer little military protection against invasion by an industrializing Europe, but just as importantly they were not in a position developmentally to take advantage of our many inherent mercantile advantages.

            “And another Mexico in place of the US would have secured neither themselves nor the world against fascist imperialism and international communism.”

            Well this is a more interesting idea, although for reasons I suspect you don’t really understand yourself. I actually think Mexico, or any other industrialized culture that occupied this terrain would have acted exactly as we did against fascism and imperial communism just as surely as George Washington would have been terrified of invasion and yearned for a warm water port if he had been born a Russian Czar.

            Geography as expressed through national imperatives is as close understanding true motivations as we have. America has multiple excellent deep water harbors, navigable rivers that dramatically lower the cost of transporting goods to market (especially the Mississippi river basin) and wide plains that are excellent for food production and offer many mineral resources. We are guarded by two large oceans and two of the longest peaceful borders in the world. In essence, we act as an island with the resources needed to screw with other countries at little substantial risk to ourselves. This is why our behavior so often aligns with the national imperatives of the British. That would not be the case if we had lost the Mexican American war, or been born in the vast unprotected steppe that is Russia.

            In many ways we would have become Mexico and they would have become America if we had lost the Mexican American war (you will want to look that one up. I think they have a picture version for you).

            I suspect a discussion on America’s geographical imperatives is above your pay grade, (let’s face it, Nationalist are never the best, or brightest within any culture, although they do often display an excellent cunning and the ability to end a speech at just the right point to incite the mob) but one of the 5 national imperatives of the US is to ensure no combination of external powers threatens our other 4 national imperatives. One of those other 4 imperatives is control of the sea lanes in the Pacific, which led to war with Japan. America shares a deep fear (along with Europe) that the industrial might of Germany will someday be combined with the resources of Russia to create a power capable of challenging us on the world stage.

            Fascism didn’t begin in 1941 when we entered the war and America remained largely indifferent to its spread in Europe for a decade until Operation Barbarossa in 1941 threatened to combine Russia and Germany under a single hegemon. In case you are going to trot out that predictable 4th grade “because pearl harbor!’ trope, recall that we first invaded Europe in response to the pretext of Pearl Harbor.

            I think it’s cute and kind of sweet that you bought the grade school stuff about “America fighting Fascism for the good of humanity” to explain WWII, although after a certain age I figure most people outgrow that. I would recommend Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian war if I did not think the words would be too big for ya.

            Countries fight to protect national interests. The slogans about piety, justice and fidelity and “fighting fascism” is for the unwashed masses who in the name of Nationalism blindly send their children into the meat grinder to protect the interests of the elite.

            You will find every country does this, not just the US. We do seem to have an unusually large number of adults who carry your child like view of national decision making into adulthood. I suspect it’s a result of the Nationalism that dumbs us down, but that’s just a guess.

            Anyhow, some night when the cross is burning brightly against the clear sky and you’re crushing beer cans with your hooded friends, this might be a topic worth raising with them. I would start by seeing how many of the countries mentioned here they can find on a map.

            1. “I think it’s cute and kind of sweet that you bought the grade school stuff about “America fighting Fascism for the good of humanity” to explain WWII,”

              I think it’s cute that you look down on your intellectual superiors while clearly displaying your inferiority.

              I didn’t say America saved the world from imperial fascism and international communism “for the good of humanity”, only that America *did*.

              You should learn how to read before getting on your high horse.

              “I actually think Mexico, or any other industrialized culture that occupied this terrain would have acted exactly as we did against fascism and imperial communism”

              Another fail from the poseur.

              Nazi Germany was an industrialized culture. If they had occupied America’s terrain, would our magic dirt have transmogrified them all into Thomas Paine clones? Or would they have used our greater resources for more effective fascist imperialism?

    3. “This statement presumes that voters have the right to impose their cultural values on others at the point of a gun.”

      No shit sherlock, what do you think the Constitution is? A bunch of voters who imposed their cultural values at the point of a gun.

      What baffles me about this, and why nationalism has evolved, is at what point in history people started to believe it’s a bad thing to defend your own values in society. Since when is “anything goes” the norm?

    4. “white heterosexual male”

      Wow, racist, sexist and homonormative much? I’m Jewish you stupid fuck. I’m more of a minority than you’ll ever be.

  49. “For decades, the ‘liberals’ have regarded ‘nationalism’ as an arch-evil of capitalism. They denounced national self-interest—they permitted no distinction between intelligent patriotism and blind, racist chauvinism, deliberately lumping them together—they smeared all opponents of internationalist doctrines as ‘reactionaries,’ ‘fascists’ or ‘isolationists’—and they brought this country to a stage where expressions such as ‘America First’ became terms of opprobrium.” – Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Column # 20 Nationalism and Internationalism pp 59 – 60.

    1. Liar.

  50. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==►Read MoRe 

  51. Like a lot of people who grew up in the shadow of the cold war and knew Eastern Europeans who had lost everything before fleeing to America when the winds of Nationalism blew against them in their home country, I’m as surprised we are having this conversation as I would be if I needed to explain the value of the Bill of Rights.

    Then again, I also seem to spend more time these days explaining why people should not be thrown in jail for saying unpopular things, so I guess it’s a trend.

    Every country eventually grows old, insecure and dies. I just didn’t imagine it would come to America so quickly.

    1. If you want to not be a collectivist, stop speaking on others’ behalf. I am one of these people you describe and American nationalism is the only thing that would have saved my family that the Germans killed. This American identity I have today doesn’t care that I’m Jewish. It doesn’t otherize me. Sure, people always treat me a bit differently because that’s just part of life. That’s how people typically are when they meet new people who are different from them. But nobody ever questioned whether or not I belong here and in spite of not having Christian values or sharing a common history, I get to partake in society because I share its values. There is no other place like this, so pardon me for being a bit more concerned about inviting people who want to destroy those values.

      1. Your anecdotal story only proves my point even with your historical inaccuracies included.

        Jews lived peacefully in Germany under the Weimer republic in the 1920’s prior to the rise of the nationalist Nazi’s in the 1930’s. I don’t think Nazi nationalism (or Russian nationalism) was especially good for the European Jews in the 1930 and 1940’s. The American identity you have today doesn’t care that you’re Jewish, but it historically has during Nationalist periods in US history.

        When the jews first arrived in the US fleeing nationalist anti-semitism in the 1930’s they were met by American Nationalist anti-semitism strong enough to send more than a few Jewish boats back to their death in Europe. Nationalists gotta keep the blood pure and the women clean you know.

        That’s why I find this new Nationalism so embarrassingly naive. You think, 2,000 years of history to the contrary, that you can inflame the passions of blood, steel and country, then magically draw some imaginary line and sand and say “whoa, not past this point!” to those you have inflamed. Where do you get the hubris? Do you recall what happened when the French attempted to draw that magic line during their nationalist revolution? American nationalism during WWI led to the incarceration of innocent journalists and activists who criticized the war. Even collectivists Nationalists like John Dewey and Oliver Wendall Holmes that supported US nationalism during WWI came to regret the unchecked passions it excited and the broad based violation of civil rights, human rights and the Constitution we are still living with today. Nationalism is the mob our republic was designed to protect us from to avoid a repeat of the end of the Roman Republic. We have countless examples this then and it always ends with a tyrannical strong man. And you want to give it another go?

        Look, I understand the appeal of nationalism just as clearly as every 2-bit demagogue in history that exploited it does. Most people are deeply insecure followers that need a leader and a group to belong to in order to feel value, If that requires them to lynch of few black people or beat down some minorities along the way to prove their purity’ it’s an easy bargain for them. I think it’s the job of the rest of us with a healthy ego to keep the emotional children in line, not supply them with justification for their worst instincts.

        Here’s Marcus Aurelius response to the type of small minded Nationalism over 2,000 years ago. He was not addressing only Romans when he wrote this:

        “Neither can I be angry with my brother or fall foul of him; for he and I were born to work together, like a man’s two hands, feet or eyelids, or the upper and lower rows of his teeth. To obstruct each other is against Nature’s law – and what is irritation or aversion but a form of obstruction.”

        How sad that you are embracing the very police that killed so many of your ancestors.

        1. You’re a condescending piece of shit, you know that?

          Using history as an argument against nationalism is bullshit because everything prior to today was bigoted and most things today will be considered bigoted tomorrow no matter how hard you try. People were exploring free markets and natural rights while subsequently enslaving others. Does that make those values inextricably linked? Of course not.

          The first waves of Jewish migration were not in the 30s. We started to come over towards the end of the 19th century. My family came from then Austria-Hungary Empire in the 1890s. Nobody turned us back or made us change our names. Do you even know where names like Cohen and Levy come from?

          Your example about naivete might have a point if the nationalism I supported had anything to do with blood. But that’s the point; it doesn’t. There is no blood requirement. Being an American nationalist means being part of the American identity. People fresh off the boat who aren’t even citizens are often more American than some of the waspiest people who have lived here for generations.

          The appeal of nationalism is not insecurity. Nationalism is inherently reactionary. It is a reaction to assaults on the thing we always take for granted; the status quo. The continued attack on the Enlightenment and everything American that spawned from it (BoR, limited government, rugged individualism) has evolved from mere rhetoric in elite universities to actual policies and masses of people voting for them. More importantly, these people also advocate mass migration policies that bring more people who vote for their interests or who afford them more representation through the census. Of course people are going to start fighting over the American identity; it’s scary as shit to imagine that “American” can mean no 1A, no 2A, legislation through the judiciary, HoR replacing the executive branch, NPV destroying the Republic part of our govt, etc. It’s bad enough it took Americans this long to wake up and start fighting back.

          The “police” who killed my ancestors hated Jews. They didn’t love us and then suddenly become brainwashed by nationalism. It is extremely ignorant and chronocentric of you to apply 21st century conceptions of nationhood and cultural identity to past societies. Jews were never considered German, French, Spanish, Russian, etc. We resided in those geographical areas. That was the full extent of how we were viewed. That’s how most people were viewed back then. America is the first and remains the only place where Judaism is part of me, but isn’t my sole identity. I will continue to fight to make sure we don’t hand over the American mantle to people who want to strip me of the very rights that are necessary to prevent the situations you described.

          1. He nailed you to the wall!

            It was FDR who refused to accept boatloads of Jewish escapees from Hitler.

  52. I understand the libertarian antipathy to nationalism, but it’s not really national provincialism or pride that is the root problem. The real evils are arrogance, intolerance, authoritarianism and imperialism. Countries like Denmark or New Zealand are provincial and proud of their identity. But they don’t consider themselves superior to other countries; neither claim to be “the greatest country in the world”; neither is trying expand their dominion over other countries; and neither has an authoritarian government.

    In our era, American globalism has been as problematic as nationalism, because it has come with arrogance, authoritarianism and imperialism (we know best, the world needs us to guide it, to police it and to pass judgment on governments, cultures and foreign leaders.)

    One potential positive aspect of Trump’s nationalism is that it could lead us to mind our own business when it comes to international affairs. That potential hasn’t been fulfilled. But it is consistent with less arrogant behavior, unlike the idea articulated by Obama in his last State of the Union address, when he said that since the end of WWII, the world had come to depend on America to decide what was right and wrong globally.

  53. Getting paid easily every month from home by doing very easy and simple job from home. I have received my 3rd paycheck of $19852 last month from this home based easy job in part time. Every person can get this job and start making real cash online by follow details here……Read MoRe 

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.