Why The Liberal Left Is Dismayed By The Recent Surge In Nationalism

a reply to: UKTruth

In this case, the case of TRUMP, it is a combination of ideological "purity" (i.e. think like I think or else), and to some degree ethnic purity. When he speaks of "protecting" America, he does not speak about white people, he speaks about ALL Muslims and casts dispersions on all illegal immigrants from Mexico, and that extends to very legal, very upstanding by normal measures, the judge of Mexican descent in his legal battle regarding Trump U (because you've been 'trumped?") who must hold a grudge because "Wall."

To deny that TRUMP has used an "ethnic" component to his demagoguery and his inflammatory rhetoric seems strange to me.

a reply to: UKTruth

I am not sure i follow you. If you have in your mind that the term 'real American' has racial connotations, is it not yourself that has some racial issues? Why can't a black person, a Muslim, a hispanic, an asian or a native American be a real American?

Same reason they can't be a "real Englishman." I'm sure you understand now.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, I don't disagree with any of that per se ... but you seem to be dancing around the question.

Nationalism is based on some idea of purity. "Real Americans" in the case of Republicans and Mr. Trump.

Purity, again, is the issue. There cannot be purity without the removal of the "impure."

For nationalistic political movements, those "impurities" are almost always, racial, ethnic, religious etc.

I am not sure i follow you. If you have in your mind that the term 'real American' has racial connotations, is it not yourself that has some racial issues? Why can't a black person, a Muslim, a hispanic, an asian or a native American be a real American?

.... and there goes the spin.

The phrase "real American" is used fairly exclusively by the right-wing in the US as dog-whistle code for "Republican, white, voters."

One more chance: The argument I am making is that every historical nationalist political movement has concentrated on the idea of PURITY ... and that requires the exclusion, typically, of those racial, ethnic, religious and other minorities that the party in power (or hopefully in power) sees as "other" or "impure."

That's my argument. Either address it or not. I'm not going to play silly games with you today.

a reply to: AboveBoard

To deny that TRUMP has used an "ethnic" component to his demagoguery and his inflammatory rhetoric seems strange to me.

In fairness to members who are not American, they use different coded language overseas.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Why can't a black person, a Muslim, a hispanic, an asian or a native American be a real American?

They can be. So long as the group that currently has the power position at the top allows them to be.

You see how that works.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, I don't disagree with any of that per se ... but you seem to be dancing around the question.

Nationalism is based on some idea of purity. "Real Americans" in the case of Republicans and Mr. Trump.

Purity, again, is the issue. There cannot be purity without the removal of the "impure."

For nationalistic political movements, those "impurities" are almost always, racial, ethnic, religious etc.

I am not sure i follow you. If you have in your mind that the term 'real American' has racial connotations, is it not yourself that has some racial issues? Why can't a black person, a Muslim, a hispanic, an asian or a native American be a real American?

.... and there goes the spin.

The phrase "real American" is used fairly exclusively by the right-wing in the US as dog-whistle code for "Republican, white, voters."

One more chance: The argument I am making is that every historical nationalist political movement has concentrated on the idea of PURITY ... and that requires the exclusion, typically, of those racial, ethnic, religious and other minorities that the party in power (or hopefully in power) sees as "other" or "impure."

That's my argument. Either address it or not. I'm not going to play silly games with you today.

You lost me. I don't accept the 'dog whistle' argument. It can be used, and all too often is, as a tactic to put words into people's mouths or paint them as something completely different to what they are. I heard the guy who runs 'The Young Turks' say in debate recently that Dinesh D'Souza was racist because he called a book 'Obama's Rage'. Apparently that meant he thinks all black people are angry.
I we are going to get into 'dog whistle' arguments then, no point discussing.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: UKTruth
Why can't a black person, a Muslim, a hispanic, an asian or a native American be a real American?

They can be. So long as the group that currently has the power position at the top allows them to be.

You see how that works.

Which of course those at the top should ensure that they are allowed to be.

a reply to: UKTruth

There is no point in discussing because you are studiously avoiding the very clear statement that every nationalist movement thrives on a platform of "purity."

Talk to you next time.

a reply to: maddy21

Only the countries with Right Wing policies has been successful

Does that include the right wing military dictatorships of South America in the 50s doing the bidding of the CIA? If thats your measure of success well I can't really say anything more.

a reply to: UKTruth

That's how it should be but it isn't how it is.

Quick example of how to NOT be considered an American.

"Here in America we say Merry Christmas. That's what we do here as Americans. That is our Cultural Tradition. But you don't say Merry Christmas because you aren't Christian or celebrate Christmas. Well, then obviously you must not be American then."

Now apply that same line of thinking throughout every cultural vein in society. "What do you mean you don't watch Nascar drink Budweiser and eat apple pie??? Well, that's what we do here in America. That is our Cultural Tradition. If you don't do those things then clearly you're not American. You're something else. When you decide to Be Like Us, then you'll be American. Until then you're one of them other people."

a reply to: Gryphon66

America has no historic parallel,now.We have excelled that long ago.We have done our fair share of making it happen too.
THE whole IDEA of the US is something that hasn't happened yet.
WE aren't Rome,Nazis or Europeans.
Some would look to those places as how a country SHOULD be run, or even MORE hilariously a comparator of equal values.
THE ISSUE is NOT to be overrun by an alien ideology that threatens that idea.
The Constitution and it's amendments are our guidelines in this,for a REPUBLIC.
Any socialist or racial demands of national identity will be rejected on THAT basis.
Nothing personal ,of course unless IT'S MADE that way.
THAT is a tool for the left to play with,to get as personal as possible and make the right look like we are the aggressor so they look good as victims.
Dumb games.

a reply to: maddy21

Besides, competition in money lending is a good thing.

Where is competition where all Central Banks are part owned by the Rothschilds? Hahaha....you have swallowed the bait...hook, line and sinker,

originally posted by: cavtrooper7

The Constitution and it's amendments are our guidelines in this,for a REPUBLIC.

Agree completely.

Perhaps you should read this sometime, when you have a minute: Tom Paine's Agrarian Justice

a reply to: UKTruth

Dog whistles? No. Those are far more subtle that what we are hearing coming out of Trump's mouth. They are so loud and clear I wonder that you cannot hear them?

Are you being selective in your hearing? What part of "banning" and "registering" all Muslims does not have an ethnic slant, as if to say DEAR GOD EVERY MUSLIM COMING INTO OUR COUNTRY OR EVEN ALREADY HERE COULD BE A TERRORIST!! This isn't "ethnic?" What part of that doesn't imply a need to "protect" America by keeping it "pure" from THOSE MUSLIM PEOPLE. Geez. I'm surprised he hasn't suggested rounding them all up into FEMA camps...

Then there's the dispersions against all illegal immigrants, calling them "rapists" and "bringing drugs" saying they are, by implication ALL really really bad people so we have to build a WALL to keep THOSE PEOPLE FROM MEXICO out of America, to keep America "pure" of them.

Now, I won't deny that there are a handful of bad people, criminals, that come illegally over our border - no one denies that. What is scary is how ALL illegals from Mexico are painted with a broad brush of being not just guilty of crossing our border to seek a better life for themselves and their family back home, or to join their family here, no, they are ALL BAD people. Beware the Brown Man!

Statistics show very clearly that illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes than American citizens - why? Well, they try to keep a low profile and stay out of trouble so they don't get deported. And maybe they aren't bad to begin with.

See???

- AB

Nationalism is the only rational form of solidarity. The rest—solidarity by race, religion, by economic standing and other tribalisms—do not bind people by any rational self-interest. Shared assets, shared territory, and common bonds such as these, make nationalism the best form of group sentiment and attachment within any given state.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: UKTruth

Statistics show very clearly that illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes than American citizens - why? Well, they try to keep a low profile and stay out of trouble so they don't get deported. And maybe they aren't bad to begin with.

Yea, check out these "statistics".

www.ojjpac.org...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: UKTruth

Dog whistles? No. Those are far more subtle that what we are hearing coming out of Trump's mouth. They are so loud and clear I wonder that you cannot hear them?

Are you being selective in your hearing? What part of "banning" and "registering" all Muslims does not have an ethnic slant, as if to say DEAR GOD EVERY MUSLIM COMING INTO OUR COUNTRY OR EVEN ALREADY HERE COULD BE A TERRORIST!! This isn't "ethnic?" What part of that doesn't imply a need to "protect" America by keeping it "pure" from THOSE MUSLIM PEOPLE. Geez. I'm surprised he hasn't suggested rounding them all up into FEMA camps...

Then there's the dispersions against all illegal immigrants, calling them "rapists" and "bringing drugs" saying they are, by implication ALL really really bad people so we have to build a WALL to keep THOSE PEOPLE FROM MEXICO out of America, to keep America "pure" of them.

Now, I won't deny that there are a handful of bad people, criminals, that come illegally over our border - no one denies that. What is scary is how ALL illegals from Mexico are painted with a broad brush of being not just guilty of crossing our border to seek a better life for themselves and their family back home, or to join their family here, no, they are ALL BAD people. Beware the Brown Man!

Statistics show very clearly that illegal immigrants are LESS likely to commit crimes than American citizens - why? Well, they try to keep a low profile and stay out of trouble so they don't get deported. And maybe they aren't bad to begin with.

See???

- AB

Selective hearing you say?
Did Trump say he was going to ban and register all Muslims, or did he say he was going to ban Muslims from entering the country until proper vetting was in place? What's the full context of the 'Muslim database' comments form last November. Are you interested or do you just want the headline and the condemnation?

www.politifact.com...

I don't think this has to do with selective hearing - i think it is more to do with interpretation to suit a narrative for political purposes, nothing to do with the actual words used.

But you crack on.

Perhaps today of all days you should be talking about DNC prejudice, as Bernie Sanders is, after it's become clear the DNC were planning to smear his Jewish faith. I can understand the need to deflect though in these troubled times for the DNC.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

Wait, you mean that wasn't a quote from Goebbels?

Be damned.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you don't think "shared humanity" is rational?

People do not share humanity. So no, I do not think it is rational.