Political Affiliation Poll

[Tomahawk]

imported post

If nationalism and patriotism were the same thing we wouldn't need two words, would we? Hitler and Mussolini were nationalists, or at least their followers were. George Washington was a patriot. The difference between the foreign policies and attitudes towards foreigners is the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

Patriots love their country, and are generally friendly and rational towards others. They do not see a threat behind every tree, and don't feel the need to blame all their woes on another nationality or ethnic group. The patriot is not interested in making war on anyone for any reason other than self defense. He doesn't have an inferiority complex that leads him to declare his superiority to anyone who is weaker than him.

THe nationalist, on the other hand, is afraid of anyone or anything foreign. He is a bigot who thinks his own little peice of dirt is special andblessed by his god, and he combats his fear of the 'other' by belligerently waving his nation's flag around and singing martial songs and getting together with like-minded people who all tell each other how great they and their group/nation/tribe is. The nationalist is predisposed to making war on others in order to rally his people around his flag. He will make up threats, if necessary, in order to find reasons to war against the 'other'. He is a threat to almost everyone, since his paranoia may lead him to turn on those he formerly considered friends, who he spies on constantly, tries to control, and never really trusts.

So, you asked me what my defintion of "nationalism" is, and there you have it. YMMV.


ETA: I also distinguish between "nationalism" and "federalism" when discussing forms of gevernment, since a national government is a central government is which all power flows from the top down. A federal government is a form of government which involves seperation of powers between the central and more local governments. The United States does not have a "national" government (not technically, anyway), is is a confederation of what the Declaration of Independence calls "free and independent states", the words "federation", "confederation", "federal union", and "confederacy" all meaning essentially the same thing, despite the stigma attached to the last word by the outcome of the war of the Late Unpleasantness.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

"Patriotism" comes from the Latin "pater" for "father."
"Nationalism" comes from the Latin "nascere" for "birth."

Both patriotism and nationalism both imply a link with blood. The two are practically synonymous. I consider myself both.

Nationalism does not mean imperialism. Pat Buchanan, who could be described as a nationalist, was vehemently against the invasion of Iraq (both times.) The people who were agitating for the war could be described as imperialists (indeed, Max Boot wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard called "The Case for American Empire.)

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

"Patriotism" comes from the Latin "pater" for "father."
"Nationalism" comes from the Latin "nascere" for "birth."

Both patriotism and nationalism both imply a link with blood. The two are practically synonymous. I consider myself both.

Nationalism does not mean imperialism. Pat Buchanan, who could be described as a nationalist, was vehemently against the invasion of Iraq (both times.) The people who were agitating for the war could be described as imperialists (indeed, Max Boot wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard called "The Case for American Empire.)

Interesting thoughts to mull over, roman.

BTW, when I first read stuff written by "Max Boot" I thought his name had to be a joke, since it fits so well.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

BTW, when I first read stuff written by "Max Boot" I thought his name had to be a joke, since it fits so well.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a Boot stamping on a human face - forever."

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

like_the_roman wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

BTW, when I first read stuff written by "Max Boot" I thought his name had to be a joke, since it fits so well.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a Boot stamping on a human face - forever."

LOL nothing like a little Orwell to complete the picture!

 

[Panos1296]

imported post

To me, nationalism invokes an allegiance to the govt. Iwould neverhave an allegiance to any govt. I consider this country to be a separte entity from this govt.

Another thing I notice is ppl using the word "we" when they describe the actions of the govt, ie.... "WE are at war."..... "WE bombed Iraq." Well, Iam not at war, and I didnt bomb anyone, so please dont use the word "we".

 

[AnaxImperator]

imported post

Lykosis wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/011016.shtml

Sobran is a self described theo-anarchist. This makes him opposed to anything that he would consider as "nationalist", and chooses to embrace the term "patriot" to try an distinguish his ideals from anything that might be construed by the general public as "nationalist". He therefore makes nationalism and nationalists out to being akin to those who root for the current best team in a given sport.

While this is interesting, I assert that there is no difference between nationalism and patriotism. Patriotism, is, in fact, a part of nationalism. To better understand this, you might want the read the following:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#3.1

It explains nationalism from a philosphical point of view, borrowing heavily in its analysis from political science.

For me, there is no difference between nationalism and patriotism. I love my country and support my country. This makes me a patriot. I also want to see my country be the best in the world, protect it's identity and sovreignity, and prevent detrimental changes to both. This makes me a nationalist. To best do this, I believe in upholding and enforcing our Constitution by strictly interpreting it as well as maintaining the morals and values of our Founding Fathers since that is the foundation upon which the greatness that America is today was built. This makes me a conservative constitutionalist.

Very well put.... my feelings exactly.



Tomahawk wrote:

If nationalism and patriotism were the same thing we wouldn't need two words, would we? Hitler and Mussolini were nationalists, or at least their followers were. George Washington was a patriot. The difference between the foreign policies and attitudes towards foreigners is the difference between patriotism and nationalism.

Patriots love their country, and are generally friendly and rational towards others. They do not see a threat behind every tree, and don't feel the need to blame all their woes on another nationality or ethnic group. The patriot is not interested in making war on anyone for any reason other than self defense. He doesn't have an inferiority complex that leads him to declare his superiority to anyone who is weaker than him.

THe nationalist, on the other hand, is afraid of anyone or anything foreign. He is a bigot who thinks his own little peice of dirt is special andblessed by his god, and he combats his fear of the 'other' by belligerently waving his nation's flag around and singing martial songs and getting together with like-minded people who all tell each other how great they and their group/nation/tribe is. The nationalist is predisposed to making war on others in order to rally his people around his flag. He will make up threats, if necessary, in order to find reasons to war against the 'other'. He is a threat to almost everyone, since his paranoia may lead him to turn on those he formerly considered friends, who he spies on constantly, tries to control, and never really trusts.

So, you asked me what my defintion of "nationalism" is, and there you have it. YMMV.


ETA: I also distinguish between "nationalism" and "federalism" when discussing forms of gevernment, since a national government is a central government is which all power flows from the top down. A federal government is a form of government which involves seperation of powers between the central and more local governments.

Nationalism is not in any waya form or descriptorof governance, but rather is a political or ideological sentiment which focuses on the nation.
Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez, Stalin, Tojo.... all of them were Nationalists, but they espoused a particularly virulent form of it, coupled with expansionist despotism. Unfortunately for Nationalists like myself Lykosis; the evils of those men, their penchant for conquest, and their modern followershave polluted the definition. As a true Nationalist, I do not fear or hate that which is not American, nor do I declare superiority over those who may be weaker. I do however, feel that true American democracy and traditional values are superior to certain flawed social & ideological systems, such as communism, fascism, naziism, or any form oftotalitarianism. Some of those systems are based onwhat is essentially a good idea; such as Marxism, but governments & societies evolve or are perverted into something completely different. But I do not subscribe to manifest destiny or feel thatour patch of land is inherently special; collectively it was madeso throughout the generations, and is something to be proud of and cherish. And as superior as the American model may be over those of other nations, pressing it by force onto them is not the ideal way to promote freedom & democracy.... unless of course the native peoples are subjegated and suppressed in a total violation of all basic human rights.

As Lykosis said, our brand of Nationalismis quite different from the popular definition; we & other American Nationalists I know are also strong patriots... for us, patriotisim & Nationalism are tied together, one & the same. We are not xenophobic, imperialistic, paranoid, racist, nor do we seek to make war or gain territorysolely to strengthen our national standing in the world. Instead, we seek only to maintain America's sovereignity and national integrity; socially, economically, & militarily,whichisparamount to our nation's continued survival in the 21st Century and beyond. Nor does the isolationisim of the 1920's & '30's fit into modern model of American Nationalism. We need to maintain relations & trade with our allies, andwe need to support & defend democracy and freedom abroad. Cutting ourselves completely off from the rest of the world will only ensure that we are cut off from the technological advancement & economic growth achieved by our allies. But we cannot continue to let our own Nation hemorrage wealth & jobs beyond our borders unchecked to opportunistic, unscrupulous, and possibly hostilecountries.

For example; the massive growthof commercial outsourcingin the manufacturing, technological, and financial sectorsis crippling our economic base, creating a steady flood of jobs, technical experience and moneyout of the hands of Americans, and into foreign nations.... many of which havecultural & governmental modelsdiametrically opposed to ours. While not basically bad, doing so without restraint is putting our working class out of badly needed jobs, and putting money/technology into thecoffers of many who would later bite the hand that feeds them; China & Russia being prime examples. As I said before, myself & others feel that Nationalism is the polar opposite of globalism and liberalism.

As far as the immigration question goes; I have no qualms about allowing immigrants into our country, as long as it's controlled. The means by which immigrants entered America in years past through Ellis Island was not perfect, but it gave the Federal government a way to monitor and screen immigrants. With modern advancements in technology, it would be possible to investigate each immigrant's identity & history much more thoroughly, and allow authorities to weed out "bad apples".

Because of America's evolution, some of our traditionalvalues & practicesno longer have a place in modern American society, such as slavery, which could be considered a traditionalAmericanpractice. Another is the moraldirection laid outin the old poem; "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...." which isa dangerous path in this century.

From our Nation's inception until the last half of the 20th Century, immigrants came here because theircountries were ran by ruthless, murderous governments or despots, or their countries were impoverished. They came here with the knowledge that through hard work & skill, America afforded anyone the means to greatly better their lot in life. Our government did not have the massive social-aid bureaucracy then that it does now, nor did it or the economy offer such easy ways to gain wealth through unscrupulous means. But now, while there are still immigrants who intend to make an honorable entry & living in our country, they are vastly outnumbered by those who know that they can simplylatch onto the ever-dripping teat of American generosity, and be coddled by a government riddled with agencies & bureaucrats who's livelyhood depends on simple headcounts. While there are plenty of individuals & families, both American & immigrant, who fall on hard times and honestly need those social-aid programs to survive until they can regain jobs, America's historic openess & giving nature is abused by far more people just looking for a free-ride. Unlike those "Nationalists" who claim otherwise, the loss of jobs & living-space to illegal immigrants has nothing to do with racial superiority, and everything to do with the government's immigration & national security policy.

 

[Lykosis]

imported post

AnaxImperator wrote:

Lykosis wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/011016.shtml

Sobran, etc. SEE PRIOR POST. doing this to save space.

Very well put.... my feelings exactly.



Tomahawk wrote:

If nationalism and patriotism were the same thing ...etc. SEE PRIOR POST

Nationalism is not in any waya form or descriptorof governance, but rather is a political or ideological sentiment which focuses on the nation., etc.

SEE PRIOR POST

I think that AnaxImperator and I are on the same page. The modern Conservative Constitutional Nationalist is, IMHO, akin to what Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were, and perhaps Goldwater.

I call myself a CCN to distinguish myself from the neocons and what the Republican party has become today. I have been disappointed too many times by the 'Republicans' on the national level since the end of Reagan's presidency.

Lumping all Nationalists in the same boat because of what some people view as nationalism is the same as racism or theism. The horrible experiences in the early and mid 20th century that so-called nationalists inflicted on this world have led some people to believe that all nationalists are the same. The marginalization of Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWI helped to breed sentiments of aggression and imperialism in those nations. Lumping them together with nationalists like AnaxImperator and I shows a disregard for our beliefs and a willingness to remain blind to the fact that there are vast differences in what the MSM and certain political theorists want you to believe is nationalism and the nationalism that AnaxImperator and I practice.

 

[asforme]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

The nationalist is predisposed to making war on others in order to rally his people around his flag. He will make up threats, if necessary, in order to find reasons to war against the 'other'.

Lykosis wrote:

The modern Conservative Constitutional Nationalist is, IMHO, akin to what Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were

You mean like the Eisenhower doctrine which in essence removed the need for a proper formal declaration of war and dictated that the US Military would become a world policeman against communism. Yup, that's nothing like the Nationalism Tomahawk was talking about.

 

[Lykosis]

imported post

asforme wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

The nationalist is predisposed to making war on others in order to rally his people around his flag. He will make up threats, if necessary, in order to find reasons to war against the 'other'.

Lykosis wrote:

The modern Conservative Constitutional Nationalist is, IMHO, akin to what Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were

You mean like the Eisenhower doctrine which in essence removed the need for a proper formal declaration of war and dictated that the US Military would become a world policeman against communism. Yup, that's nothing like the Nationalism Tomahawk was talking about.

The idea of communism was and is a threat to the way of life of the citizens of the United States. However, communism as Marx described it is very different from what the USSR, the PRC, and Chavez practice. There form of government is better described as totalitarian socialism. Communism is and of itself seems like a good idea, but one which I would dispute. It removes any reward for hard work and perseverance, and replaces it with the fulfillment of needs.

The idea that the Eisenhower Doctrine created the U.S. World Police is a misrepresentation of the what the E.D. sought to accomplish. The E.D. sought to give the President more power to militarily and financially intervene when there was imminent or actual aggression against the U.S. While I do not favor the lack of a formal declaration of war to protect the U.S. from the imminent or actual aggression, I do agree that in order to protect the U.S. from severe harm (economic or otherwise) something had to be done.

Ignoring that the Middle East's near monopoly in oil production could harm the U.S. if the leaders of the various countries in the region became opposed to the U.S. is sheer folly. We are currently in such a situation, and it has harmed the U.S. While it would have been favorable not to ever have become invovled in an unstable region that provides most of our energy needs, the outcome of WWII and the failing power of France and Britain forced the U.S. into actions that were and are unsavory. The current quest for enegry independence is a direct result of allowing other nations to dictate to the U.S. how they will fulfill those needs.

While the E.D. should have been refined and altered in order to maintain the balance of power between the branches of government, the goal of protecting the U.S. from imminent and actual aggression is laudable. To ignore the fact that there are people and nations that wish us harm is detrimental to the U.S.'s well being and that of its citizens. We all believe in exercising our 2nd Amendment right because there are people that wish to do us harm. We are proactive in our attempts to protect ourselves and our loved ones. To say that the U.S. should not do the same borders on hypocrisy.

 

[AnaxImperator]

imported post

asforme wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

The nationalist is predisposed to making war on others in order to rally his people around his flag. He will make up threats, if necessary, in order to find reasons to war against the 'other'.

Lykosis wrote:

The modern Conservative Constitutional Nationalist is, IMHO, akin to what Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower were

You mean like the Eisenhower doctrine which in essence removed the need for a proper formal declaration of war and dictated that the US Military would become a world policeman against communism. Yup, that's nothing like the Nationalism Tomahawk was talking about.

Remember that even prior to the end of WW2 and immediately afterwards, Stalin, Khrushchev & friendswere planning for war against the West; setting up puppet Communist states in Eastern Europe, and bolstering their presence in Asia.The Eisenhower Doctrine wasn't an act of Nationalism, but rather a response to and check against unrestrained Soviet expasionism. Would've it been better to let the Russians & Communisimspread acrossS.E & S.W Asia, Africa, Europe, and S. America?

In addition, Ronald Reagan espousedtrueAmerican Nationalism in rallying American citizens,beating backSoviet Communism & winning the Cold War.... without the war-drums & trying to bend other nations to our will as the Soviets did (i.e. Afghanistan). Instead Reagan's nationalism strengthened our resolveinmaintaining our economic & technological advantage, forcing the USSR to expend far too much effort & money in keeping up. Heknew that a strong America and not backing down in the face of Soviet aggression was the key to victory. And it worked.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

AnaxImperator wrote:

In addition, Ronald Reagan espousedtrueAmerican Nationalism in rallying American citizens,beating backSoviet Communism & winning the Cold War.... without the war-drums & trying to bend other nations to our will as the Soviets did (i.e. Afghanistan). Instead Reagan's nationalism strengthened our resolveinmaintaining our economic & technological advantage, forcing the USSR to expend far too much effort & money in keeping up. Heknew that a strong America and not backing down in the face of Soviet aggression was the key to victory. And it worked.

Really? Did Reagan ever actually use the term "American Nationalist"? Did he "espouse" it? If so, please cite the source, because the first time I have ever heard so-called conservatives call themselves nationalists as if it were a good thing is in this thread. Maybe I'm just not observant or something.

This sounds to me like some of the more far-out stuff that leaks into gun forums from time to time, where various radicals revise a little history here and there to fit their own view. The use of a capital N in Nationalist is another clue, punctuating it as if "American Nationalist" were a formal group of some kind.

 

[AnaxImperator]

imported post

I don't recall Reagan specifically using the word Nationalist, but his speeches on America's economy, national security,& the struggle against communismdo in fact espouse Nationalism as I see it.... which as stated before, has nothing to do with thesullied popular definition. And my plain statement of Reagan-era history is in no way revisionist. And how does my using a capital "N" equate to radical politics or group? Some people use "P" when describing Patriots, or "L" for Liberal; is that a tip-off toties with some sort ofradical/extremist group? I think not; rather, it's my own personal writing style.

 

[joshcdc]

imported post

Voted libertarian.
I am opposed to the bipolar liberal/conservative political model. I am pro constition, which as i interpret it, means pro state rights and pro freedom, and i am also a patriot. I think that government should be as small as possible, especially federal government, and of course, I am pro 2A and a supporter of the natural right to self defense.
I am against the government making tyranical laws creating victimless crimes and prosecuting people for them, and i am also against foreign entanglements. I think that our military should be used strictly for national defense.
Depending on who I'm talking to, I am seen as either liberal or conservative due to these views, however I am really neither. I am usually classed with whoever the person i'm discussing politics with disagrees with, unless im talking to a libertarian. We need more than two choices. I wish Ron Paul had won the rebublican nomination, i would have voted for him.

 

[t3rmin]

imported post

Former neocon turned pure small-L libertarian. God bless Ron Paul!

 

[JBinMontana]

imported post

DEROS72 wrote:

Absolutley conservative,christian gun totin REPUBLICAN.

+1

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

I'll go with libertarian. Close to anarchist... but I believe there is a role, albeit extremely minimal, for government.

I want you to have guns, money, drugs, and prostitutes, and I don't give a damn about the country in which you were born, or the language you speak, and I want you to have as little or as much sex as you want with whatever consenting adult you want. You are a free man (or woman), and as such, you have the right and the duty to make every decision about how to live your life.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

My views are mostly Libertarian, but I don't belong to any political party. I used to be a registered republican until they became just as big-government, wasteful-spending as the democrats were. I also used to be a straight up conservative on all issues, but have mellowed considerably on some. For example I'm now pro-choice- I don't necessarily think abortion is a good choice, but I am against making it illegal. I am also in favor of gay rights, including gay marriage. I figure: how could it possibly affect me at all? Why should I care, and better yet, what gives me the right to tell them they what they can or can't do?

As far as gun rights, I'm pretty extreme. I believe that ALL types of gun control are unconstitutional (which of course they are). To me, the 2nd amendment is pretty clear, and it doesn't provide for ANY sort of registration, regulation, licensing, taxation or control. I mean seriously, what part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to get??

Oh, and I believe the greatest American president was Thomas Jefferson. The second greatest was Ronald Reagan.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

The second greatest was Ronald Reagan.

Better than Washington? Really? Just sayin...

 

[savery]

imported post

voted independant, mostly libertarian. However, a good bit of the time i vote republican. I never vote democrat.

Used to be very in line with the republicans until they adopted policies that are along the lines of "if it takes 30 trillion dollars and the rights of every American to catch one terrorist it's worth it."

The republicans also brought us the DHS and it's related totalitarianism, and the Iraq war. I don't really have a huge problem with the Iraq war, but for $341 million a day and almost 3,000 american lives?? I'd like to think that money is better spent elsewhere (or put back in my pocket) and I think that the life of an American troop is far more valuable than all of that money combined. Is it really worth it?

As a general rule I personally believe in a lot of the republican values.... BUT i have the rare ability to set my personal beliefs aside and realize that others have rights and the job of the government is NOT to tell someone how to run their life.