Patterico's Pontifications

8/17/2018

Book Review: Jonah Goldberg’s “Suicide of the West”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:25 pm



I recently finished listening to the audio version* of Jonah Goldberg’s “Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy.”

Goldberg’s central thesis is that the ideal state of Western civilization — capitalism, individual rights, pluralism, and limited government — is a “Miracle” that occurred very much by accident, and which could be easily lost. Partially the result of England’s island geography and unique cultural history, and partially the result of many other factors both named and unknowable, the Miracle deserves our gratitude, without which it cannot be preserved.

Goldberg writes in his usual style: very direct, clear, and approachable. He covers the history of the Miracle, its philosophical underpinnings, and the characteristics of modern society that are putting it at risk. Goldberg argues for the preservation of the Miracle, and against the forces that would undermine it, such as identity politics, nationalism, ingratitude — and, above all, tribalism.

To be sure, many of the principles Goldberg articulates are ones that I had heard before. Human nature has a tendency to be base and it takes civilization to overcome it. Virtue takes effort. Money and capitalism allows strangers to cooperate with one another, even across international boundaries, for the benefit of all. People want to be governed by a father figure, and any actions moving away from liberal democracy represent a reactionary tendency, towards our base nature of tribalism. The administrative state is a shadow government that poses a threat to our separation of powers and the legitimacy of our republic. These ideas are familar to me from years of reading libertarian and conservatarian writings. But not everyone has heard all these ideas, and seeing them all in one place is bracing even if you have seen them individually elsewhere.

One of the things I enjoyed about reading the book was picking up little bits of knowledge here and there that I hadn’t heard before. For example, Goldberg tells the reader about how those crazy biased cultural conservatives at Brookings have said that “most scholars now agree that children raised by two biological parents in a stable marriage do better than children in other family forms across a wide range of outcomes.” Another example: Goldberg notes that Robert Putnam, a Harvard sociologist, published a paper that (according to the words of its abstract) shows that “ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.” Interesting points both.

What I particularly like about the way Goldberg introduces such facts, however, is that he doesn’t use them to make mindless over-the-top partisan arguments. He just wants us to be aware of them for what they’re worth, and nothing more.

For example, the Brookings conclusion about two-parent families with biological children could be used as a mindless partisan cudgel against, say, adoptive parents, but Goldberg points out the obvious point that adopted children are way, way better off than kids in foster homes, so that is not the point. The point is that marriage is the traditional basic building block of civil society — and when we abandon the family’s responsibilities to the state, bad things ensue.

Similarly, the citation of the Putnam study about diverse neighborhoods could be used (and indeed has been used) in a mindless partisan fashion, as many alt right Trump cultists have done, to suggest that diversity is always and everywhere bad. That’s not even Putnam’s view, by the way, as a blog post at the Chronicle of Higher Education notes:

In the short term, [Putnam] writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society, and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.” Putnam cites the integration of institutions like the U.S. Army as proof that diversity can work.

Goldberg’s point is not at odds with a fair reading of Putnam — i.e., Goldberg does not argue that diversity is bad. Instead, he relies on Putnam to remind the reader that there are dangers in ignoring the trust and other civic benefits that come from an integrated society — meaning that conservatives ought to be cautious about demographic changes that are overwhelming and sudden, threatening to break down those trust mechanisms and other civic benefits. We should prefer instead a society where immigrants assimilate into the culture while bringing their own diverse elements and strengths into the mix.

I said earlier that many of the concepts are familiar, but Goldberg does articulate one profound insight that I had never before heard expressed in quite this way: nationalism is socialism. Nationalism, as opposed to patriotism, ultimately rests on the rejection of individualism in favor of identifying oneself as part of the nation. Any way you slice it, that is what socialism is: the empowering of the state in all its forms to the detriment of the individual. That’s an important concept to internalize these days.

Of course, Trump superfans who love them some nationalism won’t like being called socialists. But I have a dirty little secret for you: if you’re a true-blue dyed-in-the-wool Trump superfan, you’re unlikely to like anything about this book. When I say Trump superfan, I’m not talking about people who are reluctant supporters of Trump as a lesser evil than Hillary. I’m talking about true fans of the man; people who believe he is of unimpeachable moral character and who believe he can do no wrong. Yeah: you folks aren’t going to like this book in particular — or Jonah Goldberg in general. Or this blog. Or me.

So be it.

Which is not to suggest that this is nothing but a book in opposition to Donald Trump. Far from it. Sure: near the end of the book, there is some direct criticism of Trump and Trumpism — including a characterization of the more extreme forms of Trump worship as “identity politics for white people” — but that is hardly the meat of the book.

Instead, the book is a cri de coeur against the increasing wave of tribalism that we see infecting all aspects of our culture. It’s a manifesto of revulsion at the culture’s apparent rejection of the unique characteristics of Western society — the Miracle — that truly made America great. It’s an inspiring and edifying and entertaining book. And it’s worth your time.

*The benefits of the audio version include the fact that Goldberg reads it himself, which I enjoyed very much (although I recommend jacking up the speed to 1.25x). Also you can listen in the car, which (along with the gym and walks) is one of the main places I do my “reading” these days, since finding time to sit down with a hard copy of a book is not always easy. The main disadvantage of the audio edition is that when one sits down to write a review such as this, one is unable to easily go back and revisit the text to make sure one is accurately representing the author’s thoughts. I hope I have not done any violence to Goldberg’s ideas in this review.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

195 Responses to “Book Review: Jonah Goldberg’s “Suicide of the West””

  1. Ding!

    Karl (fa2c21)

  2. interesting how the rise of populism and tribalism has coincided with a remarkable attenuation of the influence and the cohesiveness social conservatives once demonstrated

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. hi Mr. Karl!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Great review, I too found it a very thought-provoking and enjoyable read.

    I’m pretty sure Jonah first made the “nationalism is socialism” (or perhaps more accuratately: “nationalism and socialism are just mutations of collectivism”) argument in his earlier, and equally insightful, Liberal Fascism.

    Dave (445e97)

  5. There are, I suppose, folks who think Trump can do no wrong. You may not actually be deluded. Emphasis on “may”.
    But there are many who look like it when Trump is criticized in vicious terms which have nothing to do with policy and much to do with personal issues which have been roundly ignored when manifested in other presidents. Or simple bile.
    Defend a policy–which may have been carried out by Bush and Obama–which Trump is carrying out and you’re a TRUMPLOVER.

    Richard Aubrey (3d7f6e)

  6. hi, Mr Feet.

    Karl (fa2c21)

  7. The point is that marriage is the traditional basic building block of civil society — and when we abandon the family’s responsibilities to the state, bad things ensue.

    And when we abandon the idea of no premarital sex, we hamr the possibility of good marriage -it may noonger be natural. That’s the root cause.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  8. Trump is standing for america against the anti colonialist obammy and the multi culturalists in both parties. to keep western culture alive. conservative libertarian free traders bitch and moan complain america shouldn’t be saved if it cost me any money! As marx said the capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them with! hopefully starting with the koch brothers and then the rest of the donor class.

    wendell (303e85)

  9. Goldberg notes that Robert Putnam, a Harvard sociologist, published a paper that (according to the words of its abstract) shows that “ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.” Interesting points both.

    That applies to a neighborhood, not a country.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  10. But there are many who look like it when Trump is criticized in vicious terms which have nothing to do with policy and much to do with personal issues which have been roundly ignored when manifested in other presidents.

    I have said from the beginning that my opposition to Trump is not based (primarily) on policy, but on the man’s moral degeneracy and mental incapacity.

    It is not true that Trump’s “personal issues … have been roundly ignored when manifested in other presidents”.

    It is certainly true that the Democrats have turned a blind eye to issues like marital infidelity, and made excuses for bald-faced lying by their leaders.

    What made the GOP different (and better) was that we had higher standards. Once the facts of Watergate were clear, nobody tried to defend Nixon’s lies, obstructions and abuses of power like Trump’s cultists do today.

    And we have never had a president during my lifetime who has viciously demonized his fellow Americans – even members of his own administration! – stereotyped and slandered minority groups, publicly praised neo-nazis, actively and openly attempted to intimidate law-enforcement officials and organization, or invented alibis for foreign military attacks on our country.

    If Trump agreed with on every single issue of policy, I would oppose him even more vehemently (or at least I would try…) because to the extent he advocates conservative policy positions, he discredits them by the mere fact of association with himself.

    As far as I’m concerned, the only thing worse than having a toxic, immoral, ignorant bigot pushing policies I oppose is having a toxic, immoral, ignorant bigot pushing policies I support.

    Dave (445e97)

  11. Patterico has a way with words, which is why he’s a lawyer. For example calling Goldberg’s Prose style “Approachable”

    Others have called in “Conversational”. I’d call it lazy and verbose. Really. Most of it sounds like Goldberg just talked into tape machine, and someone cleaned it up and printed it. And while it’s “Clear” it certainly isn’t “Concise” as Jonah rambles on from one point to another.

    Anyway, its seems that Western Civilization and Capitalism was A-ok under Obama, but is at risk now that Trump and her barbarian hordes are at the Gates. I mean, NAFTA might be repealed. OMG!

    rcocean (1a839e)

  12. The Outcast Jonah Wails.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. And here’s another Tip for the Never Trumpers.

    Another word for “Nationalism” is “Patriotism”.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  14. The problem with the Never Trumpers – of whom Goldberg is an example – is they’re being dishonest.

    Their No. 1 priority is supporting the Bad trade deals previous administrations have negotiated, and open borders, both of which are very, very good for the Chamber of Commerce and people like the Koch Brothers.

    That’s why they hate Trump. But that won’t sell with the average American. So, we get all this hot air about “trump’s Character” and “Nationalism” and “Populism” and “Authoritarianism”. Or whatever.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  15. Of course, some of the Never Trumper’s are that frivolous. Policy doesn’t matter, only whether you went to right school and raise your pinky when drink tea.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  16. And here’s another Tip for the Never Trumpers.

    Another word for “Nationalism” is “Patriotism”.

    They’re different concepts, as Goldberg explains. Critically different.

    Anyway, its seems that Western Civilization and Capitalism was A-ok under Obama, but is at risk now that Trump and her barbarian hordes are at the Gates.

    You made that up. It bears no resemblance to anything Goldberg or I have ever said or would say.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  17. The problem with the Never Trumpers – of whom Goldberg is an example – is they’re being dishonest.

    Their No. 1 priority is supporting the Bad trade deals previous administrations have negotiated, and open borders, both of which are very, very good for the Chamber of Commerce and people like the Koch Brothers.

    That’s why they hate Trump. But that won’t sell with the average American. So, we get all this hot air about “trump’s Character” and “Nationalism” and “Populism” and “Authoritarianism”. Or whatever.

    It’s quite a trick to accuse Goldberg of being dishonest while badly misstating his position on immigration.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  18. “Nationalism is socialism.”

    That is so obvious incorrect as to be laughable. To whit, the EU practices socialism without nationalism – in fact nationalism is anathema to the EU project. Almost as if they are entirely two separate things.

    “Nationalism, as opposed to patriotism, ultimately rests on the rejection of individualism in favor of identifying oneself as part of the nation.” I’m gonna go with a hard no on that. That is like saying “If you are a fan of the Oakland raiders, you are in favor of Socialism, because you all cheer for the same team, and wear similar team jerseys”. In that analyses, anything we do as a group is a form a socialism. church is socialism. the army is socialism. large corporations are socialism. This, by the way, the same argument that Socialists make all the time – that we are already practice some forms of socialism – why not just go all in?

    I could make the reverse argument, nationalism is the opposite of socialism, because it recognizes the inherent competition between nations and peoples. See how easy it is to make the tweed jacket and pipe smoking faculty lounge argument? it is just as vacuous an observation.

    “Any way you slice it, that is what socialism is: the empowering of the state in all its forms to the detriment of the individual. That’s an important concept to internalize these days.” It seeks to use the state to control the citizens for the greater “good.” Really Socialism is a manifestation of the monarchism – a desire to have classes, and especially to have a system of patronage whereby the “in” groups get to patronize (and thereby control) the “out groups.” It is a desire to exert control, to have a say.

    Mostly it is a reaction from the stupid to the invisible hand of capitalism. They just can’t understand that via capitalism, which is really just a form of distributed computing, no one is really in control of the system. They see it as something that is spinning out of control, or is secretly controlled by some sort of cabal. In all cases it is too important to just let be – it has to be reigned in, and logical decisions must be made by discerning men and women. They think that about everything really – it all must be corralled and controlled. Can’t just have people running around making decisions willy nilly. What if they make the wrong decision?

    “Of course, Trump superfans who love them some nationalism won’t like being called socialists.” Ugh. Just terrible. No they won’t like it any more than you do. meaning you have a lot in common with them than with progressives, but you are too wrapped up in your own wet blanket of nevertrumperism to notice.

    “When I say Trump superfan, I’m not talking about people who are reluctant supporters of Trump as a lesser evil than Hillary.” Um, well, you stated definition of “Trump Superfan” seems to rarely match you actual identification of such people. Meaning they are mostly people who don’t hate trump as much as you. the moment they disagree with your assessment they are labeled as Trump superfans, and the conversation quickly goes south.

    If you don’t hate trump, you love trump, because how could you possibly be neutral on trump? So there is nothing but you and the super fans.

    George Orwell's Ghost (ba96d1)

  19. Hi Karl,

    I think that this insistence first to denounce trump, often by jumping to concluzions, not admitting that your original premise was wrong.

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. “Nationalism is socialism.”

    That is so obvious incorrect as to be laughable. To whit, the EU practices socialism without nationalism – in fact nationalism is anathema to the EU project. Almost as if they are entirely two separate things.

    Patterico: “A pine is a tree.”

    George Orwell’s Ghost: “ROTFLMFAO!!!1! There are trees that aren’t pines!!!1!!1!!!”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  21. Um, well, you stated definition of “Trump Superfan” seems to rarely match you actual identification of such people. Meaning they are mostly people who don’t hate trump as much as you. the moment they disagree with your assessment they are labeled as Trump superfans, and the conversation quickly goes south.

    Um, you say this a lot. How’s about you provide a specific example. Since you’re being, um, a jackass, we’ll enforce it through moderation. The next comment you leave that appears on the site will be an example or an apology.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  22. Conclusions by authors of studies are not “facts.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  23. So now that prager is being shadowbanned, this gets in the way of the two minute hate against trump.

    narciso (d1f714)

  24. “I have said from the beginning that my opposition to Trump is not based (primarily) on policy, but on the man’s moral degeneracy and mental incapacity.”

    Lets just stipulate that all the neverTrumpers here believe themselves to have vastly larger and superior mental capacity over President Trump, and in doing so we will put aside the fact that this is a rehash of the GW”the Shrub”Bush is the lost village idiot meme.
    I won’t bother with it because intelligence hard to quantify, but mental capacity is nearly impossible to determine due to human variation. For example it takes tremendous mental capacity to run the length of a basketball court and deliver a 360 degree windmill dunk. The central nervous system has to fire perfectly and mental capacity has to be up to the task. Verbal skills, math skills all use 1’s and 0’s, athletics, artistic expression all use capacity in different ways.
    I’ll finish by saying I think Trump has large mental capacity. You don’t get to where he is without the light bulb being on and bright although the snobbish would never ever be able to realize in humility that somehow the “stupid” guy is the boss… why if I’m so smart does the “dumb” kid always beat me at gymnastics? (Hint his body and brain are wired for it better than mine)

    Moral degeneracy is usually a pronouncement of judgement and the formula usually looks like this:
    Person X indulges in behaviors I do not, thus person X is a moral degenerate and should be excluded from polite society. This is illustrated at times by using a bunch of little old church ladies tsk tsking about some other womans short skirt excluding her from the group for “cause” while they are all cheating each other at cards and tipping penuriously… never guessing (but knowing deep inside) that that “bad” woman wouldn’t want to spend time with them anyway

    steveg (a9dcab)

  25. Remember Moses murdered a man and somehow was still chosen as a leader… a very flawed leader, but still the choice.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  26. Al Gore was briefed on some climate change studies (I highly doubt he read more than the abridged notes) Gore was briefed and concluded the facts where in and then made a bunch of stupid predictions

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/06/05/chris-wallace-confronts-al-gore-over-climate-claims-n2336464

    He misunderstood the fact that great writing style, lots of footnotes to a circle jerk of “experts” does not equal fact unless its reproducible again and again every time. Instead he came up with something of an inconvenient untruth, but he too invested in his own version for nonsense like humility

    steveg (a9dcab)

  27. “Patterico: “A pine is a tree.””

    No, lawyer, you didn’t say ‘nationalism is a form of socialism’, you said NATIONALISM *IS* SOCIALISM, something as clumsy, provincial, and wrongheaded as saying PINE *IS* TREE. It’s the sort of thing that begs questions, chief among them ‘wait, just how universal is this Dreaded Socialism that you keep hating if it turns out to be so many other things?’

    At this point you might as well say ‘Democracy IS socialism’ or ‘Federalism IS socialism’ or ‘Government IS socialism’ or ‘The Corporate Company Man mindset IS socialism’ and be both just as true and just as poorly informed.

    Steppe Nomad (839eb2)

  28. Feel free to add your own punctuation and spell check to my posts. My mental capacity for the written word is lower than my mental capacity for building high quality things (thank God).

    steveg (a9dcab)

  29. It’s quite a trick to accuse Goldberg of being dishonest while badly misstating his position on immigration.

    Well, OK Patterico. What *IS* Jonah’s position?

    All I can remember from the book, is that he doesn’t think low-skilled or unskilled immigration is a problem except he can’t support that with -any y’know – facts. AND that he likes Immigration – as a good thing – in an of itself.

    I can’t remember one word from Jonah’s book, about the need to secure the border or enforce the immigration laws, or about immigration bad effects on the Americans.

    But I’m willing to be proven wrong.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  30. Money and capitalism allows strangers to cooperate with one another, even across international boundaries, for the benefit of all.

    The hallmark of humanity, our essential human nature, is cooperation. Neither money nor capitalism are indispensable to its existence and a better argument can be made that they foster the opposite of cooperation: Competition, most often man-eat-man, predatory competition.

    I said earlier that many of the concepts are familiar, but Goldberg does articulate one profound insight that I had never before heard expressed in quite this way: nationalism is socialism. Nationalism, as opposed to patriotism, ultimately rests on the rejection of individualism in favor of identifying oneself as part of the nation. Any way you slice it, that is what socialism is: the empowering of the state in all its forms to the detriment of the individual. That’s an important concept to internalize these days.

    Nations have evolved as the preferred, and the most successful, form of human cooperation over the course of more than 5,000 years. Personally, I like the nation-state as the cohesive force better than the priesthood, the mercantile league, or the common medium of exchange.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. Yeah well a banana tree is an herb

    steveg (a9dcab)

  32. #30
    Don’t forget the blockchain.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  33. I believe what most in favor of nationalism (quibble over the definition f you must, but I’m addressing how it’s advocates see it)view it as the opposite of globalism. Especially as foisted on us through multiculturalism and open border policies. A one world order is the mother of all Nanny states, and the opposite of small government and self determination.

    This is where conservatives have missed the boat I think. The fight is no longer about R vs.D, capitalism vs. socialism, individualism vs. collectivism, or any of that. It is nationalism vs. globalism, and the self determination of individual nations to be what their citizens want. Republicanism writ large.

    Diversity can be a good thing…in the context of a cohesive community. Diversity as an end unto itself is destructive of that cohesiveness that fosters civic tranquility. As is, it is a weapon being used against us, mostly in the form of identity politics, and as with any weapon of war, declaring it too morally repugnant to use is a fools folly. As with cavalry charges against machine guns, or unilaterally giving up our nuclear bombs, refusing to preserve our posterity is to doom western civilization our heritage has blessed us with.

    And please, I’m not talking about white supremacy here. I’m talking about western culture and the Christian ethos that built it. The fight is against principalities and powers, and the concept of diverse nations is the defense. Diverse populations is the weapon used to counter that defence. Identity politics are used to create division through tribalism, and the only way to counter it by using identity politics to unite us under one tribe. The nation. We need to return to the concept of one people, under God, and that is the fight currently being fought by Trump and his loyalists.

    You might hate identity politics, but you will all have to pick a side sooner or later.

    lee (e2ff85)

  34. Is there a way to buy this book through audible that will benefit you personally? Since I’m buying based on your review it only seems fair.

    Joe (d54166)

  35. now is excessive nationalism, I would call it chauvinism, really the biggest problem, now I suppose as a disenchanted latino protestant conservative, i’m in a small overlap of venn diagrams,

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. my nation what i’m part of is the America nation it has one president

    his name is President Donald Trump!

    one thing for sure about President Trump is he’s not a socialist (ask anybody)

    the important thing President Trump did is he cut taxes a LOT and got rid of the burdensome regulations

    he’s endeavored to help our economy grow more better

    Some people call this nationalism but I call it happy policy time cause this is the time we do the policies what make everybody so happy!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  37. @34 Joe

    Use the Amazon search tool on the right side of this website under “Recent Comments”. Plug in “Suicide of the West” and it’ll take you to Amazon.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  38. No, lawyer, you didn’t say ‘nationalism is a form of socialism’, you said NATIONALISM *IS* SOCIALISM

    White lies are dishonesty.

    Any muttonhead sees that is equivalent to saying white lies are a form of dishonesty.

    You can be uncharitable and pigheaded all you like, but it doesn’t make your argument reasonable or fair.

    Nationism is socialism. There are other forms of socialism. White lies are dishonesty. There are other forms of dishonesty.

    One more thing:

    Don’t ever cite my profession in am insulting way again or you are history.

    That means you will be banned, since you love using hyperliteralism and lack of charity in your argument style.

    Patterico (af0b8c)

  39. Nationalism precedes socialism, now you might have an argument with mercantilism.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  40. culture’s apparent rejection of the unique characteristics of Western society

    this strikes me as melodramatic

    i mean i know sweden and leggy meggy’s britain are toast but not us – we’re America!

    and we can start on making sure the west doesn’t do suicide all up in it by trying some simple commonsense reforms

    for example what if we tried having an Attorney General what wasn’t a useless corrupt p.o.s.

    i can’t even remember the last time we gave that a shot but guess what?

    it’s salubrious!

    can anyone else think of any simple commonsense reforms?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  41. It’s fascinating how frequently, when our host denounces Trump or Trumpists, someone comes along to accuse him of supporting Obama. It’s not only a non sequiter; it’s *easily dmonstrated to be wrong*.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  42. obama obama stay out of my heart cause i don’t love you

    obama obama ur a socialist fart and I don’t love you

    you only done heartbreak for me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  43. No i dont read sessions that way, but he is hemmed in by the web sally Yates, Fred phrs boss, had spun,

    narciso (d1f714)

  44. he’s condoning a coup Mr. narciso

    it’s who he is forever now

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  45. I don’t think it’s historically accurate to say that nationalism is socialism. It’s certainly *tribalism*, but that’s not the same.

    The eighteenth and nineteenth century nationalist movements were largely organized around two things: (a) in countries where the state roughly corresponded to national borders (eg, France), nationalism was about unifying the political, economic, and legal systems across the nation, and abolishing the system of local priviliges that meant that economic regulation and political rights could vary from town to town. It was about replacing a patchwork of different sytems with one, *national* system, which applied to everyone in the nation equally. (b) in multinational empires, nationalism was usually about people who spoke a common language and had a common cultural heritage coming together to demand a voice in government, because the multinational empires were normally politically and economically dominated by the people of the imperial metropolis and by people who shared a language and culture with the imperial metroplis. This was the case in, say, Hungary, Croatia, northern Italy, Greece, Romania, and much of the rest of central and eastern europe. There was a third, related thing, primarily in Italy and Germany: people with a shared language and culture who were split up into different states wanting to come together; if they’re going to be governed by a state at all, at least let it be a common state answerable to them 🙂

    My point here is that none of these are *socialist*. They assume the existence of a state and want to make sure the state is answerable to the nation, and they presume that national identity is more important than other identities, but they don’t require or even imply socialist-style state control of the economy.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. I’m having a little trouble finding “socialism” in the dictionary meaning of nationalism.

    lee (e2ff85)

  47. Typical neocon writing. I’ll stick to Sowell.

    mg (9e54f8)

  48. Also having trouble seeing where the dictionary definition of socialism overlaps the definition of nationalism.

    lee (e2ff85)

  49. here i’m a do boolean diagram of the overlap between the socialism and the nationalism:

    OO

    done and done now it’s science cause we graphed it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  50. I agree with Mk

    I’ll preface this by saying I’ve never wanted to buy one of Goldberg’s books, so I’ve never read one.

    But I sort of rejected him as an author I had any interest in reading simply as a result of his columns over many years at National Review.

    I’ve never found him particularly insightful, and his columns have always struck me as having a keen sense of the obvious.

    He’s tried to use his platform at NR to make himself into a political scientist rather than simply an observational commentator.

    i’m suspect he would agree with me when I say I’d much rather spend the next 5 years reading everything Charles Krauthammer ever wrote rather than ever turning a page on a book put out by Goldberg.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  51. That should have been mg — not mk.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  52. He’s tried to use his platform at NR to make himself into a political scientist rather than simply an observational commentator.

    i think he’s aiming for “public intellectual”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  53. must admit that happy’s comment cause me to laugh out loud.

    nicely played.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  54. happy — i was laughing about your graph.

    but your comment on goldberg is accurate in my view as well.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  55. 🙂

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  56. Neoconservative and. Classical liberal isn’t the same thing, James burnhAM the author of the first suicide of this west wee a trotskyite who Orwell thought was an imminent pragmatist, (he derived the three nation states from him.

    narciso (d1f714)

  57. Nationalism is certainly not tribalism. It is the breakdown of, and the counter to, tribalism. The Saxon tribe became England and Germany. Two thousands years before that the Ionian tribe became Athens and Thebes. How many flags fly over the English tribe, the Spanish tribe, the Catholic tribe, the Jewish tribe? And vice versa — over how many tribes does the American flag fly?

    nk (dbc370)

  58. aphrael,

    I don’t have the print volume of “Suicide of the West” in front of me, but this passage from a 2009 Goldberg column seems consistent with what I remember him saying in the book:

    Nationalism and socialism as actually lived and applied in the 20th century are the same thing (and in the 18th and 19th century, nationalism was often a force for classical liberalism!). It’s all a kind of reactionary tribalism (another “ism” which becomes poisonous quickly as you up the dosage). When you nationalize an industry, you socialize it. When you socialize an industry you nationalize it. Yes, international socialism rejected this formulation. And that’s why international socialism failed! People wanted to be Germans or Russians or Italians and they wanted to be socialists. Even the Soviet Union embraced national-socialism (socialism in one country) because that “workers of the world unite” crap wouldn’t fly. After Stalin, no Communist or socialist regime failed to exploit nationalism to one extent or another.

    So he qualifies it in a way that is at least consistent with what I said, and my use of the word “is” was not meant to imply “always has been.” When I wrote the post, I did not cast my mind back to historical nationalist movements of hundreds of years ago, but rather those of recent history, as Goldberg says in the above passage. In the modern sense, nationalism is necessarily statism, and is linked to socialism in that way.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  59. Nationalism is certainly not tribalism. It is the breakdown of, and the counter to, tribalism. The Saxon tribe became England and Germany. Two thousands years before that the Ionian tribe became Athens and Thebes. How many flags fly over the English tribe, the Spanish tribe, the Catholic tribe, the Jewish tribe? And vice versa — over how many tribes does the American flag fly?

    “Tribalism” as used by Goldberg refers to more than collectivism on behalf of literal tribes.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  60. So if you take pride in your country’s history of individual rights and protections from govt. overreach you are a socialist?

    Got it!

    harkin (c4b982)

  61. I’m not sure how you can work a full time job and have the energy to tussle with Trumpists. It’s a group that considers pig ignorance as a virtue not a vice… and logic? Well, logic must be some sort of high falutin’ trap.

    Rich H (0ca444)

  62. Is there a way to buy this book through audible that will benefit you personally? Since I’m buying based on your review it only seems fair.

    Use the link in the post and I should get the credit. It’s an affiliate link. Thanks for asking.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. So if you take pride in your country’s history of individual rights and protections from govt. overreach you are a socialist?

    Got it!

    Again: patriotism is not nationalism and nationalism is not patriotism. I made this distinction in the post.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  64. nk, at 57: nationalism is *absolutely* tribalism. by defining (for example) ukrainian speakers and polish speakers as being *fundamentally different groups with different allegiances*, you define the borders of tribes. they are larger tribes than the traditional ones, but it’s still the delineation of group membership, of in-group and out-group, and the promotion of loyalty to one’s own group.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  65. 61 what has your preferred presidential candidate accomplished the past two years?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  66. I refer to burleughs sacred spaces which is about the intersection of faith and tribe, the latter informed the reaction of the latter. Some tribes have been conjured out of thin air, like the Palestinians.

    narciso (d1f714)

  67. Patterico, at 58: thank you for the clarification. I tend to be historically minded, so my sense of and understanding of both nationalism and socialism incorporates their roots as well as their present day status, and claims that nationalism is a form of socialism bother me because they’re historically insupportable. 🙂

    In modern times, I still don’t see it. Are the Kurdish nationalists in Turkey being *socialist* when they insist that the government stop banning television and radio broadcasts in the Kurdish language? Are the nationalists in the Vojvodina being socialist when they demand the right for the Hungarian-speaking citizens of Serbia to govern themselves under their own political-cultural rules rather than having to submit to decisions made by a Serbian majority? Are the Vlaams nationalists in Belgian being socialist when they want self-governance rather than governance from Brussels?

    I think it’s true that a lot of nationalists, once they come to power inside a nation-state, pursue statist policies — in part because those statist policies earn them votes, in part because nationalism requires an us-vs-them tribal mindset that suggests that the state should be about helping *us* and hurting *them*. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that nationalism — the emotional affiliiation of tribal loyalty to one’s nation and the belief that members of one nation should be free from oppression from other nations — are socialist per se.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  68. “Again: patriotism is not nationalism and nationalism is not patriotism. I made this distinction in the post.”

    Funny, the dictionary definition I posted at #46 uses patriotism as a synonym for nationalism.

    Again: no mention of socialism.

    Maybe you should write them a letter.

    lee (e2ff85)

  69. So Catalan nationalist and Basques were more on the left, whereas as other parties were with the nationalist, similarly broad sections of the Irish populace saw liberation in Germany’s aegis, same with Christians Ukrainians e.t al, in the latter case the death of petlura and radic caused a vacuum

    Narciso (d1f714)

  70. Basically, Jonah loves the “free market” of Google, Facebook, NBC, the New York Times, and the Koch Brothers.

    And hates “Nationalists” aka “Socialists” like Trump, Ike, Reagan, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    ’cause without Zuckerberg or John D. Rockefeller we’d all be eating Socialist mud Sandwiches or something.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  71. Patterico and aphrael, then I guess I understand the words “nationalism” and “tribalism” differently from Goldberg. Because I understand “tribalist” Poles and Ukrainians but I don’t understand how their “nationalistically” coming together under the American flag makes them more tribalist.

    Is Goldberg saying American (or any nationality) is a tribe? Is he advocating for “One World, One Currency, One Economic System, One Father Figure”?

    nk (dbc370)

  72. Ok, I reread aphrael’s examples. Am I correct that your definition of nationalism is “tribes” within a nation, like the Kurds in Turkey, wanting to form their own nation?

    nk (dbc370)

  73. One aspect of 19th century natl, nk, I am thinking aph is describing. The US now is probably the mature country with established borders (on the continent since 1853), overdue for something like the English Civil War or if the left/Wendellites have their way, a French revolution. .

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  74. I think I’m getting it.

    1. Goldberg means something like the California tribe wanting to secede and be the Nation of California;
    2. The David Duke tribe wanting to be the White American Nation;
    3. Both of the above?

    nk (dbc370)

  75. Even the Soviet Union embraced national-socialism (socialism in one country) because that “workers of the world unite” crap wouldn’t fly. After Stalin, no Communist or socialist regime failed to exploit nationalism to one extent or another.

    Funny thing — I seem to remember that a major cause of the failure of the Soviet Union was the result of its artificial construct — they Bolsheviks called it a “union”, but in fact it was a subjugation of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazaks, Georgians, etc.

    So I have trouble squaring the idea that “nationalism equals socialism” and that the Soviet Union is an example of that.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  76. tribalism!

    sockittomesockittomesockittomesockittomesockittomesockittomesockittome

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  77. It was the czarist empire under different guise, this was why chambers ‘ghosts on the roof’ in time magazine was so unsettling.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  78. Goldbrick was a major cheerleader for the Iraq war, claiming Iraq had nuclear weapons and were a danger to the USA.
    How embarrassing.

    mg (9e54f8)

  79. does the white american nation have tasty tacos?

    i mean like for reals al pastor ones

    i’m collecting information

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. No, only corn bread with side meat and grits.

    nk (dbc370)

  81. Funny, the dictionary definition I posted at #46 uses patriotism as a synonym for nationalism.

    The link I followed says: “Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority.” I don’t necessarily agree with their characterization, but a “near-synonym” should not be characterized as a full synonym if one is being honest.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  82. nk — no, but i can see how you’d think that.

    a *nation*, in the way that i am using it, is a group of people with a shared language and culture and usually (but not necessarily) a shared religion who come together, see each other as being part of the same group, and believe that the state which governs them should be responsive to their interests as a group.

    so, for example, in spain you can have spanish nationalists and catalan nationalists and gallego nationalists and basque nationalists. each group considers themselves to be a seperate “people” that happen to share a state with these other peoples. some spanish nationalists will try to assert that the other nations don’t exist, that they’re really all spaniards (because the spanish *nation* in their minds includes anyone who lives in spain, and that means that everyone who lives in spain must, to them, consider themselves to be part of the same people … even if those people disagree).

    one of the major features of the modern *european* world is that most state borders are roughly coterminous with national identity borders. (i say *roughly*, because for example there are Germans in Italy, and Hungarians in Serbia, and Poles in Ukraine, etc). That was a major goal of nineteenth century European politics, and it was roughly codified by the Treaty of Versailles. But it’s anomalous; it’s clearly not true in Africa, for example, and it wasn’t true throughout most of modern European history.

    The United States is a wierd case because our history makes the American ‘nation’ hard to define. We tend to think that American nationality is equivalent to citizenship in the United States — that is, for at least one dominant mode of thinking about nationalism here, the nation and the state are *definitionally* coterminous, and becoming a citizen makes you American.

    But … that’s not the definition used in most of the world. My German friends will avow that a Turkish-speaking grandson of someone who immigrated to Germany from Turkey in 1952 is NOT a German, notwithstanding that they were born in Germany and lived there their entire lives. They’re a Turk … because nationalism is based on group membership, not state citizenship.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  83. One of the interesting things is that nationalism was often entirely constructed out of whole cloth. I mean: how did people who grew up in Provence come to see themselves as Frenchmen and not Provencal (as they would have seen themselves in the High Middle Ages)? How did the people of Prussia, and the people of Wurttemberg, each come to see themselves as ‘German’? A lot of it has historically been language, but not all of it; Bayrisch and Plattdeutch aren’t really the same language in any meaningful sense, for example, and there was a huge difference between langue’d’oc and langue’d’oil —> but both sets collapsed into a single nationalism.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  84. shipwreckedcrew — i think there’s a strong argument that, at least in the stalinist and subsequent eras, the soviet union was in fact relying heavily on *russian* nationalism. yeah, the other nationalities felt oppressed by this, but of course they did —- that’s no different than how the croats and slovenes felt oppressed by the serbian control of Tito-era Yugoslavia.

    A multinational empire can certainly appeal to the nationalist desires of the numerically dominant nationality, and then play the other nationalities against each other. That’s how the Hapsburgs tried to deal with the rise of nationalism in their empire, for example.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  85. i have to do me some paula deen corn bread casserole here at the first touch of fall to empty me prepper cabinet i have god knows how many boxes of that jiffy stuff

    but this is a great simple recipe you can do any number of improvisations with

    oh and the cheddar cheese is a lifestyle choice what tells the whole whirl who you are (there’s no reason to add cheese)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  86. and, for further example, jaruzelski’s military dictatorship was *explicitly* nationalist; it was justified to the people of the country as necessary to allow control of the state by the Polish nation, rather than by Russian interlopers. I’m pretty sure husak would have tried to use a similar rhetorical device if he hadn’t been installed at gunpoint by russian tanks.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  87. What has happened – one cant be a hard working America loving man anymore without being labeled by rino central.

    mg (9e54f8)

  88. Thank you, aphrael. I understand. It’s a usage that has no place in America, and would you like to amend “weird” to “exceptional”?

    nk (dbc370)

  89. To help facilitate discussion, here is an extended excerpt from Chapter 14 (“Things Fall Apart: The American Experiment at Risk”) of Jonah’s book.

    I apologize for the length, but I didn’t think a couple sentences, or even a couple paragraphs, could do justice to the argument Patrick referred to. I did omit a couple paragraphs of historical digression that in the middle that aren’t really essential…

    ——————

    There’s a reason why the Obama campaign thought “The Life of Julia” would be persuasive. There’s a reason why very smart political consultants opened the Democratic Convention with the words “Government is the one thing we belong to.” And there’s a reason why Donald Trump blamed “deindustrialization” on the “failed leadership” in Washington. When civil society is healthy, most people do not look to Washington for the answers to their problems. We look closer to home. It is only when the forests have been cleared that we can see distant peaks. But when the family and civil society are depleted or dysfunctional, we do not lose our desire to “belong” to something, nor do we lose our need for help when misfortune befalls us. And there is the state offering to fill in where other institutions have failed or fled. Statists have argued since the Founding that the government in Washington is the answer to our problems. That argument is more persuasive when the forests have been cleared away and all eyes look naturally to Washington.

    This trend benefited Barack Obama because his political philosophy is consistent with it and his campaign always encouraged the idea that he was the representation of a national awakening of some kind. His slogan “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” was a brilliant if creepy new age form of populism. But erosion of civil society and the traditional economy also helped Donald Trump. Where Obama pressed a technocratic progressive vision of the government as every citizen’s partner and helpmate, Donald Trump offered nostalgia and nationalism.

    I’ll get to the specifics of Donald Trump’s message in a moment. But I need to take a moment to deal with nationalism as an ideology generally. There is a raging debate in conservative circles about nationalism that divides many traditional allies and friends. At National Review … some of my colleagues have led the charge for conservatism to embrace what my friends Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru call “benign nationalism”:

    It includes loyalty to one’s country: a sense of belonging, allegiance and gratitude to it. And this sense attaches to the country’s people and culture, not just to its political institutions and laws. Such nationalism includes solidarity with one’s countrymen, whose welfare comes before, albeit not to the complete exclusion of, that of foreigners. When this nationalism finds political expression, it supports a federal government that is jealous of its sovereignty, forthright and unapologetic about advancing its people’s interests, and mindful of the need national cohesion.

    On the surface, my only objections to this are terminological. But terminology matters, given that rhetoric shapes how we think about the world we live in. What Lowry and Ponnuru are referring to here, by my lights, is not nationalism but patriotism. Nationalism is a universal phenomenon. Generically, it has no ideological content save glorification of whatever nation it manifests itself in. In this, it is somewhat similar to generic conservatism and radicalism. A conservative in Russia wants to conserve very different things than a conservative in the United Kingdom. A radical in Spain wants to tear down very different things from what a radical wants to tear down in Saudi Arabia. Likewise, a nationalist celebrates very different things in every nation.

    One could make the same argument about patriotism, of course. A patriot here is different from a patriot over there. But in the American context, patriotism is defined by adherence to a set of principles and ideals that is higher than nationalism. It is also a cultural orientation that is inherent to the idea of American exceptionalism. Despite a common misunderstanding on both the right and the left, American exceptionalism never meant “We’re better than everyone else.” It wasn’t jingoism; it was an observation. Until the last decade or so, the long-running argument over American exceptionalism wasn’t whether we are or are not exceptional but whether our obvious exceptionalism was a good thing. For the left, which wanted America to be more like Europe, it was bad. For the right – both the isolationist and internationalist factions – American exceptionalism was something to be proud of. But it never meant “nationalism”.

    Nationalism by definition is concerned with the collective will or spirit. Like arguments about the moral equivalent of war, the fundamental assumptions and emotional heart of nationalism are the cult of unity. We’re all in it together! Let’s unite around a cause larger than ourselves! The word “fascism” is based on fasces – a bundle of sticks around an axe – which was the symbol of Roman authority and meant “strength in numbers”. In America, patriotism can include these things in moments of crisis, but it never loses sight of the fact that the fundamental unit of our constitutional order is not the group but the individual. To the nationalist, the heroic entity is the righteous crowd; to the patriot, the hero is the man who, with law on his side, stands up to the crowd. G.K. Chesterton captured the difference well: “‘My country, right or wrong’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.'”

    [Historical discussion of romantic nationalism and national myths in Germany and revolutionary France omitted for brevity…]

    Racial essentialism, tribal superiority, the elevation of passion and myth – nationalism is not only powerless against these things, it is the medium by which these things grow like bacteria in a petri dish. Nationalism works on the assumption that the search for meaning and spiritual redemption is a collective enterprise. Lowry and Ponnuru’s “benign nationalism” is certainly at odds with such things, because the best part of American culture stands athwart mindless passions. But all the valuable work in the concept of benign nationalism is done by the word “benign,” not “nationalism”.

    That’s because nationalism shorn of negating qualifiers has no internal checks, no limiting principles that mitigate against giving in to collective passion. And that is why nationalism taken to its logical extreme must become statism or some form of socialism. It is a vestigial nostrum of Marxism and Leninism that nationalism and socialism are opposites. But everywhere nationalism has free rein, it becomes some kind of socialism. And every time socialism is set loose in an actual nation, it becomes nationalism. Take a speech by Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro and replace words like “nationalist” and “nationalize” with “socialist” and “socialize”; the meaning of the sentence will not change. When you nationalize an industry, you socialize it, and vice versa. When you leave the page and leap into the real world, the terms are not opposites; they are synonyms.

    Nationalism uncaged has to become statism, because the state is the only institution that is supposed to represent all of us. Which brings us back to Donald Trump.

    In his Inaugural Address, President Trump laid out his vision of the new order:

    “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”

    This is the same song sung by Barack Obama, just set to a different tune, aimed at different ears. Both men bought into the idea that all of America’s problems could be fixed from Washington. Their programs and rhetoric were different in all sorts of important ways, but the underlying assumption of both men was that, if we have the right person sitting in the Oval Office, we can transform the country, or “Make America Great Again”.

    ——————
    (end of excerpt)

    Dave (445e97)

  90. “Tribalism” as used by Goldberg

    not 100% sure this is a real thing

    nobody’s really talking about “Goldbergian tribalist precepts” are they

    nope not anywheres i been lately

    i mean i totally watch the news

    or am i out of the loop again (wrong news)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  91. Go home juche Dave, you’re drunk,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  92. #62

    I encourage everyone who buys anything (and everything) on Amazon to remember to do so through here.

    The host and I may disagree on a ummmmm host of things, but one way I can show gratitude for the forum, conversation is to be loyal whenever I feel the need to buy.

    So buy what you need through here. Its the right thing to do. If we are in so such bitter opposition we can’t bear to help carry the load of financing this site, then it really is time to find a different group of conversation mates.

    Carry on

    steveg (a9dcab)

  93. #91

    You’ve got it backwards. Its dark in moms basement, TV has only MSNBC, the walls are damp with his sweat and the PBR’s are gone. Go outside and turn the hose on your head is better advice

    steveg (a9dcab)

  94. I’ll see your G.K. Chesterton and raise you Sir Walter Scott, Mr. Goldberg:

    Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
    Who never to himself hath said,
    This is my own, my native land!
    Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,
    As home his footsteps he hath turn’d
    From wandering on a foreign strand!
    If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
    For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
    High though his titles, proud his name,
    Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;—
    Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
    The wretch, concentred all in self,
    Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
    And, doubly dying, shall go down
    To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
    Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

    nk (dbc370)

  95. Socialism is tribal, actually clan based, there is a matter of degree between eu grantees and the chavez Maduri clan, to cite the latest example. It arrogated over all private resources, making that joke about socialism, cited in the alienist about capitalism and socialism real.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  96. I appreciate the excerpt, Dave. Now I better understand Goldberg’s sentiments, even though they’re not mine.

    nk (dbc370)

  97. @91 Narciso

    Did you think that Dave typed that all up himself? He clearly said it was an excerpt of the book that is this thread’s topic.

    @93 steveg

    Same question.

    Davethulhu (fddbc4)

  98. “I don’t necessarily agree with their characterization, but a “near-synonym” should not be characterized as a full synonym if one is being honest.”

    You needed to scroll down just a liiittle further. Where it lists synonyms. The only one being patriotism.

    Honest.

    lee (e2ff85)

  99. The state is not synonymous with the nation or the people, except in totalitarian regimes, which are founded on the vision of being about ‘heaven on earth’ Jacobin Bolshevik maoist

    Narciso (d1f714)

  100. Elsewhere in the book, Jonah notes that tribalism was the original form of socialism, and that tribal, clannish and familial relationships are generally based on something very near “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Even today, families basically operate on those same socialistic principles. Jonah makes the point that he and his wife don’t charge their young children for room and board, that they share property communally between them, etc.

    It is “the Miracle” that gave rise to a different set of values, organizing principles and institutions that allowed us to rise out of the abject poverty and misery that accompanies all pure forms of socialism, including tribalism.

    Dave (445e97)

  101. Dave at 100 — you should watch about a dozen episodes of Intervention. That should disabuse you of the wisdom of “to each according to his needs.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  102. The traditional family is a dictatorship.

    At least the one I grew up in.

    lee (e2ff85)

  103. In essence Goldberg tries to tar Trump as a nationalist rather than a patriot. And does so by complaining that somehow since Trump rightly has decided the Chamber of Commerce/free trade/one borders stupidity of the GOPe since Reagan flew home are a bad deal for lots of Americans, therefore, he’s a nationalist. Nationalist bad, patriot, good.

    But pull back the curtain to see the Kochs and their ilk have bankrolled NR, the Standard, AEI, etc. to keep the likes of Goldberg’s electricity on . Goldberg and the conservative elite don’t like discussing their paymasters any more than they like discussing the calamitous wars they helped lead this country into under the Bushes.

    Bugg (8aed21)

  104. Good grief! If he strained any harder, he’d bust a gut. Trying to fit contrived and manipulative 20th century political labels on a million years of human evolution. Or 5,000 years of civilization, take your pick.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. Goldberg.

    nk (dbc370)

  106. @75/@84. Funny thing — “I seem to remember”- and quit vividly from our perch in London- Dubček, Prague, Czechoslovakia, August, 1968; 50 years ago this week.

    Tanks for the memories.

    Jonah was still safe in the womb at the time.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. I should not have tacked that to Dave (the other Dave?). I stand by the advice though

    steveg (a9dcab)

  108. lee (e2ff85) — 8/17/2018 @ 7:20 pm

    Regardless of what the dictionary says, it should be clear from the excerpt that Jonah explicitly distinguishes between patriotism and nationalism, or if you prefer, “benign nationalism” and “nationalism uncaged”.

    My take is that patriotism is by definition an

    individual

    sentiment of positive feeling toward one’s country, culture and fellow citizens. In particular, my patriotism has no claim to govern the actions of anyone but myself.

    Nationalism, on the other, is an ideology intended to unite many individuals under a particular banner. It says, in effect, that all must serve.

    Dave (445e97)

  109. (the “individual” in #108 was supposed to be italicized rather than quoted…grr)

    That should disabuse you of the wisdom of “to each according to his needs.

    So you think toddlers should be expected to provide for themselves, then?

    Dave (445e97)

  110. Dave, if we are going to disregard the definition of words, garb fishes trash flowers.

    lee (e2ff85)

  111. Lock and Loading against tyrannical governments is Patriotic, correct?

    mg (9e54f8)

  112. 93- sweat is a euphemism for something else, correct?

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  113. Good grief! If he strained any harder, he’d bust a gut. Trying to fit contrived and manipulative 20th century political labels on a million years of human evolution. Or 5,000 years of civilization, take your pick.

    Well, it’s one of the central elements of his whole argument.

    There is Humanity 1.0, who barely scraped by for a hundred millenia in crushing poverty, with ~90% infant mortality and 30 year life expectancy under the tribal/strongman-based system.

    And then there is Humanity 2.0 of the last 200-250 years, a.k.a. “the Miracle”, whose poorest members today live better than kings did not that long ago.

    Apart from occasional (transient) local fluctuations of affluence, humanity’s standard of living really improved imperceptibly, if at all, during the thousands of years between the invention of agriculture and the Enlightenment.

    Dave (445e97)

  114. The scientific method, mass production, and the labor movement.

    nk (dbc370)

  115. About that life expectancy thing…

    Also, if you want to base quality of life on leisure and material wealth, than yeah, we got it pretty good. Not too sure the trade off in what has been lost, like fathers for half of America’s kids for example, makes up for it though.

    lee (e2ff85)

  116. “Don’t ever cite my profession in am insulting way again or you are history.”

    Hit a nerve, have I? Fine. But under Goldberg’s poor forumlation and his poor argument, ‘professionalism is socialism’ because it ‘ultimately rests on the rejection of individualism in favor of identifying oneself as part of the profession.’

    I might also note that lots of professions tend to ‘guard their borders’ via gatekeepers and other ‘walls.’ Some even use whisper campaigns as ‘secret police’! Darker rumors abound of ‘unions’, ‘PR agents’, and even ‘armies’ of ‘lawyers’ staffed to defend them!

    Better metaphors are available. Better authors have used them.

    Steppe Nomad (22505b)

  117. Circling back to that life expectancy thing, and how infant mortality figures in, what would be the modern life expectancy if you considered abortion statistics?

    lee (e2ff85)

  118. #113

    Stasis and punctuated change.
    I think the argument is usually over what causes the “punctuation” rather than whether it is real.
    When the right people are in the right place at the right time with the right climate, abundant food, just enough enemy to keep ones senses in place etc
    Big things happen.
    Otherwise you get the Mayans or the Ashanti… geniuses whose culture was swallowed by the jungle

    steveg (a9dcab)

  119. About those “crazy biased cultural conservatives at Brookings”, for awhile they were the only ones providing such decent information on the conflict in Afghanistan, including polls on Taliban approval-disapproval and lots of other subjects.
    Regarding “nationalism is socialism”, I don’t believe they called it the National Socialist German Workers Party for no reason.
    BTW, I’ve been a fan of Jonah since I saw his random, stream-of-conscious (and funny) work back in the 1990s at lucianne.com.

    Paul Montagu (5b48d1)

  120. Looks like all the libertarians decided to push the same meme today. FIGURES:

    “(((Alex Nowrasteh)))

    @AlexNowrasteh
    Follow Follow @AlexNowrasteh
    More
    Nationalism is the Communism of the right.”

    Steppe Nomad (7beb8c)

  121. “I don’t believe they called it the National Socialist German Workers Party for no reason.”

    Kinda like the Department of Redundancy Department, am I right?

    lee (e2ff85)

  122. The ruinous rot is deep. Jonah performed a great service in relating it to our failure to recognize the ultimate supremacy of human nature over the “learned” selflessness and other-directed behavior and culture.

    Today, we can add in the massively disruptive technological revolution which inevitably has led to fewer bonds of contact and community. The new efficiencies are ruining the middle class which was the mechanism for the unique Americanism which afforded the economic largesse necessary to behaviors beyond survivalism.

    Nothing short of a massive disruption or revolution is now required else the decay be irreversible.

    Or, dare I mention…Divine Providence.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  123. “Or, dare I mention…Divine Providence.”

    Try “Divine Justice.”

    Steppe Nomad (86980a)

  124. Regarding “nationalism is socialism”, I don’t believe they called it the National Socialist German Workers Party for no reason.

    And now we have Democratic Socialists. How long before they have their own party? When they do, I suspect it will be for the same reason.

    felipe (023cc9)

  125. Hit a nerve, have I?

    Nope, you’re just playing unfair. You know all about me and I know nothing about you, so it’s low of you. You should be decent enough not to take advantage, but you’re not. So I have to enforce decency and I will.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  126. “The link I followed says: “Nationalism has a number of near-synonyms, each of which carries its own distinct meaning. Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority.” I don’t necessarily agree with their characterization, but a “near-synonym” should not be characterized as a full synonym if one is being honest.”

    So “Patriotism” does not imply ‘superiority.’ Glad we’ve cleared that up, since every liberal on the airwaves uses it interchangeably!

    This definition also doesn’t imply ‘loyalty’, you can easily be a patriot of two or more countries so long as you don’t align yourself with any icky “national interest,” which would imply that one nation’s wishes were ‘superior’ to others.

    After all, making decisions on something as random and inconsequential as the interest of whatever piece of dirt you happen to be living on at the time is socialism, the enemy of individualism!

    A great example of this EVIL SOCIALIST NATIONALIST mindset is Ben Franklin, who socialistically told his own brother(!) to Go Back to England after the completely random and inconsequential interpersonal violence that created another slightly less tyrannical state than England (but still regrettably *marked* with the Original Sin of Nationalism, which we must daily expunge!)

    All in all, this extremely vague definition of ‘patriotism’ that mysteriously tends to align precisely with the interests and temperament of Jonah Goldberg strikes me as ‘special pleading’ by what I’d venture to say are actually a group of ‘Unpatriotic Conservatives’, to use a former National Review luminary’s phrase.

    I certainly don’t doubt his personal belief in Individualism Above All, though!

    Steppe Nomad (9b99c6)

  127. “You know all about me and I know nothing about you, so it’s low of you. You should be decent enough not to take advantage, but you’re not.”

    That mindset is EXCELLENT. Perhaps you should consider applying that mindset toward Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Spotify’s relationships to their clients.

    Steppe Nomad (578b7b)

  128. nk @ 104 — a bullseye on target.

    I think I’ll pass on letting Jonah Goldberg define for more the historical concepts of “tribalism”, “nativism”, “nationalism”, and “socialism.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  129. 126 — the host is correct. if you want to attack a comment on the basis of the writer’s profession, then you should fess up your own professional bona fides so the readers can consider whether you’re chosen path is meaningful to their views of what you write.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  130. your — no autocorrect.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  131. Good to know that the Founding Fathers who demanded self-governance and their own identity away from the King of England were really socialists. Enlightening.

    It’s just strange that all the current socialists hate nationalism and want to destroy it by destroying the USA. Look at Andrew Cuomo’s “America was never great” remarks for example.

    NJRob (b00189)

  132. The scientific method, mass production, and the labor movement.

    Not sure if this was an attempt to refute my statement that

    humanity’s standard of living really improved imperceptibly, if at all, during the thousands of years between the invention of agriculture and the Enlightenment.

    but elaboration of the scientific method was concurrent with (and an inspiration for) the Enlightenment, and mass production/labor movements came 100+ years after.

    Dave (445e97)

  133. Socialists, like those at the AP, NY Times, Politico, Buzzfeed, Washington Post, etc. tried to get the jurors’ names in the Manafort trial to intimidate them into deciding the case the way they wanted… or else.

    But that doesn’t fit Goldberg’s definition so…

    NJRob (b00189)

  134. Good to know that the Founding Fathers who demanded self-governance and their own identity away from the King of England were really socialists.

    Except that’s not what they went in demanding, or wanting.

    The American Revolution was an attempt by the colonists to secure what they considered to be their rights as Englishmen.

    From the time he took command of the Continental Army in 1775, until the Declaration of Independence was signed a year and a day later, George Washington and the officers at his mess table drank a toast to the health of King George III at every meal. It was the colonists’ firm conviction that they were in the right under English law. They thought of themselves as Englishmen (and Virginians, and New Yorkers, etc), not Americans.

    Only when it became clear that they could obtain no redress for their grievances from the British government, and that there could be no compromise, did the colonists reluctantly opt for independence as a last resort.

    But even after the Declaration, the war was never about American nationalism. The colonies considered themselves (individually) sovereign states, and there was nothing resembling a national vision until the Consitution was hammered out years later.

    Dave (445e97)

  135. Socialists, like those at the AP, NY Times, Politico, Buzzfeed, Washington Post, etc. tried to get the jurors’ names in the Manafort trial to intimidate them into deciding the case the way they wanted… or else.

    Dude, get a grip.

    Dave (445e97)

  136. Perhaps you should consider applying that mindset toward Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Spotify’s relationships to their clients.

    Because Facebook, Amazon, Google and Spotify have all delegated final approval of their privacy policies to … Patterico.

    Dave (445e97)

  137. nk, at 88:

    (a) sure, i’m happy to amend wierd to exceptional. my point wasn’t to utter a negative judgment, just to say that this is hard to discuss in America because our prior assumptions are so different.

    (b) I agree this kind of nationalism has no place in our country, but I’m also aware that this is *precisly* the kind of nationalism that Miller and Bannon want, and that certain parts of the alt-right are openly calling for: a nationalism of the blood, where Americanness is defined by derivation from certain ancestry, and anyone who isn’t an American by blood is no longer an American. This is, to be honest, one of the reasons I view Trumpism as such a huge threat to the America I love.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  138. “a nationalism of the blood, where Americanness is defined by derivation from certain ancestry, and anyone who isn’t an American by blood is no longer an American. This is, to be honest, one of the reasons I view Trumpism as such a huge threat to the America I love.”

    Which Trump policy most closely echoes this ‘American by blood’ ideology?

    harkin (c4b982)

  139. Michelle Wolf’s Talk Show Canceled By Netflix
    __ _

    CP
    @c_peters
    She didn’t even make it through the first trimester

    harkin (c4b982)

  140. why hasn’t coward-lick John McCain resigned yet

    this is obscene

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  141. She didn’t even make it through the first trimester

    love that

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  142. why hasn’t coward-lick John McCain resigned yet

    Because 1) he is in a comatose or near-comatose state and lacks the mental competence to make that decision and the physical capacity to make it known; 2) his family wants to keep getting his salary, benefits and perks; and 3) his staff want to hold on their to their now phony-baloney jobs for as long as possible. All three.

    There is no mechanism for replacing an incapacitated Senator. Technically, the Senate could vote to expel him but it would be unprecedented not to mention historical.

    nk (dbc370)

  143. the McCain family has no class

    this is disgusting

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  144. Mattis says he’ll dispatch Navy hospital ship to help Venezuelan migrants

    this idiot is everything that’s wrong with failmerica’s incompetent trannied-up military

    he’s just a deeply silly person

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  145. Back on topic (more or less), you know that there is one place that checks all the boxes. In descending order
    1. Tribalist
    2. Supremacist
    3. Nationalist
    4. White
    5. Socialist

    It’s in the Middle East, it starts with “I” and ends in “l”, and the letters in-between are “srae”.

    nk (dbc370)

  146. yesterday i was working and there was a knock at the door

    i opened the door without peeking first cause i’m an idiot

    so there’s this nice girl nicely dressed hi i said

    and she said hi i live around here and i’m having an event in the park!

    i said oh nice this has been a beautiful week for being outside

    and she hands me the invite

    ice cream social(ism) it says

    Come out for FREE Ice Cream. (ice cream is capitalized)

    then there’s some kinda typo and we continue like this:

    community and meet members of Reclaim Chicago: A people-led movement devoted to reclaiming our city, county and state governments from the grip of corporate interests and the very wealthy.

    here is their website but no url is on the invite

    it’s a bernie sanders front group

    so speaking of suicide here’s one of their more suicidal proposals:

    Illinois has two of the largest financial markets in the world, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME; CME owns the Chicago Board of Trade) and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE). Each year the value of products traded on these two exchanges totals well over $900 trillion.

    Proposals for a LaSalle Street Tax that have been submitted to the Illinois State Legislature call for a $1/contract fee on all agricultural futures and options traded on these two exchanges and a $2/contract fee on all other futures, futures options and options traded on these two exchanges with the exception of options on individual stocks. Average contract size at these exchanges is more than $225,000, so this tax amounts to less than 2/1000 of a percent of average contract value.

    it’s just another reminder that the long-term prospects of Chicago are pretty dismal

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  147. koffi annan is dead

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  148. oopers *kofi*

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  149. Dave, you’re a chump. The Founding Fathers turned around and formed a political union considered their identities as Virginians, New Yorkers, etc and were inherently nationalistic which is why they refused far away governance. But keep changing meanings like Goldberg does. It won’t help your case. Just reveals your character.

    NJRob (b00189)

  150. Next we get to call Lincoln a socialist. What a winning claim.

    NJRob (b00189)

  151. Nationalism, per wikipedia:

    Not to be confused with Patriotism.
    […]
    Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry. Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation’s culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country’s government and the means of production.

    Owning or controlling the means of production is the textbook definition of socialism, so the difference between Goldberg and wikipedia is “is” and “in some cases”.

    Paul Montagu (5b48d1)

  152. He’s like John film, this was not one of Jonah’s best work sadly.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  153. if goldberg is saying president trump is a nationalist and therefore a socialist he’s just a dipstick

    not a serious thinker

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  154. This is one of those things that you really, really, really, I ain’t sh!tting you, you don’t want to go to Wikipedia for, Mr. Montagu.

    nk (dbc370)

  155. You will find these folk know their socialism from their nationalisms

    https://babalublog.com

    Narciso (d1f714)

  156. nk (dbc370) — 8/18/2018 @ 7:09 am

    I have cited wikipedia a few times as a “look even these guys get it” kind of thing, but nk is right, some things are too important to entrust even a consultation with those guys.

    felipe (023cc9)

  157. Neocon goldbrick is a partisan hack.

    mg (9e54f8)

  158. North Korea sent its vice chairman of the Central Committee of the North’s Workers’ Party Choe Ryong-hae, considered second in power only to dictator Kim Jong-un, to Cuba this week to reinforce bilateral ties as denuclearization talks continue with the United States.

    He was sent to either say “goodbye” or “would you hold a few things for us?”

    felipe (023cc9)

  159. Trump demonizes groups. The implication–planted axiom so nobody spots it and notices it’s nonsense–is that Obama and Hillary didn’t. Which is obviously obvious. They did, and they laughed about it.
    Trump demonized MS13 and various opportunists lied like stinking rugs and pretended he’d slimed Mexicans. This lie is apparently supposed to be believed by the rest of us. Not. Happening.
    This is pretty much the schedule for P’s list of Trump’s failings.
    Excuses for attacking America? Examples? Obama and Iran and cash. P has two choices; pretend it’s a dandy idea and good for us. Or hope the rest of us don’t have a clue about it.
    P’s projecting. Trump defense, Trump policy defense, is some kind of demented blind love for Trump. Got it backwards. An irrational, virulent, visceral hate for Trump is the issue. Facts not necessary.

    Richard Aubrey (3d7f6e)

  160. The Founding Fathers turned around and formed a political union considered their identities as Virginians, New Yorkers, etc and were inherently nationalistic which is why they refused far away governance.

    They did not reject “far away governance,” they rejected governance in which they had no say.

    It was a centuries-old custom of law in England that a free man could not be taxed without having some say in the matter through representation. Multiple civil wars were fought to defend this principle against violation.

    The bulk of the Declaration of Independence is a laundry-list of complaints about being denied the rights and protections the colonists insisted they were due as Englishmen.

    Dave (445e97)

  161. Strzok go fund me is almost at his goal of $500,00.00. Put him over the top davey boi.

    mg (9e54f8)

  162. The bulk of the Declaration of Independence is a laundry-list of complaints about being denied the rights and protections the colonists insisted they were due as Englishmen.

    If you leave aside that New England was largely settled by the people who beheaded Charles I; New York by Dutch non-“Yankee Doodles” who had their colony stolen from them by Charles II; Maryland by the indentured servants of Lord Baltimore; Virginia and the Carolinas by rebels, debtors and convicts enslaved outright by James II, etc., etc., i.e. people with no particular love for some inbred German kingling sitting on his cold little island or for the cold little island itself.

    nk (dbc370)

  163. This is one of those things that you really, really, really, I ain’t sh!tting you, you don’t want to go to Wikipedia for, Mr. Montagu.

    Well, of course, it goes against The Narrative.

    Paul Montagu (5b48d1)

  164. Well he was a ponce much like this current prince Charles,

    Narciso (d1f714)

  165. Here’s another nationalist and economic illiterate, with an ego that almost rivals our own nationalist and economic illiterate president.

    Paul Montagu (5b48d1)

  166. Of course no one can admit the emperor is bereft

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/08/the-brennan-factor-2-2.php

    Narciso (d1f714)

  167. I agree with the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence. Particularly the reasons why governments are instituted among men. It seems to me that Jonah Goldberg does not.

    nk (dbc370)

  168. And yet he was Obama’s favorite foreign leader, one of the lead supported of islamist militias in Syria and turkey.

    Narciso (d1f714)

  169. Greece is the leading exporter to Turkey.
    Lmao.

    mg (9e54f8)

  170. One cannot think about nationalism and socialism without associating government coercion….and in some sense government…reflecting the sentiments of the mob….picking winners and losers. With this, there also is a certain intellectual conceit…..the government actors know the optimal balance of trade, what trade sectors should thrive, what workers should be allowed into the country, and what is the best distribution of the country’s wealth and income. In both cases, the interests of the individual are subservient to the interests of the collective….the Midwest farmers losing business and U.S. companies paying more for steel/aluminum have to suck it up. Citizens paying more for goods because of tariffs or worker restrictions is worth it to validate the fears and hatreds of the mob. Much of the time this just becomes government Whack-A-Mole. It doesn’t help that government actors have their own political interests that infect their policy calculation. I’m with Patterico on this one…both of these -isms are worrisome.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  171. Amen, AJ.

    Paul Montagu (5b48d1)

  172. Excuses for attacking America? Examples? Obama and Iran and cash. P has two choices; pretend it’s a dandy idea and good for us. Or hope the rest of us don’t have a clue about it.

    Richard Aubrey,

    Your homework is to read this post and re-evaluate your claim that I either portrayed the Obama/Iran cash deal as dandy, or said nothing about it and hoped nobody would notice.

    An apology would be nice. In fact, you’re moderated until I get one.

    I’m pretty much done with people making bullshit unsubstantiated allegations about my positions without consequences.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  173. Goldbrick was a major cheerleader for the Iraq war, claiming Iraq had nuclear weapons and were a danger to the USA.
    How embarrassing.

    I thought Iraq was a danger to the USA.

    I’ve since said that the war was a mistake, but that it seemed like the right thing to do based on what we knew.

    Like Donald Trump, I supported it at the beginning.

    If you want to fault Goldberg for that, fault me too. And fault Trump.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  174. I agree with the sentiments of the Declaration of Independence. Particularly the reasons why governments are instituted among men. It seems to me that Jonah Goldberg does not.

    I can assure you that he does. I’m not sure where you get the idea that he doesn’t.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  175. On the patriotism vs. nationalism thing, here are some more thoughts from Jonah from last year. He sees nationalism as OK and even desirable in small doses, but very disttinct from patriotism. The whole thing is worth reading, but here is a taste.

    Rich and Ramesh do not see patriotism and nationalism as distinct things. I do. And so did Bill Buckley, who famously (thanks to Jay Nordlinger) said, “I’m as patriotic as anyone from sea to shining sea, but there’s not a molecule of nationalism in me.” The historian John Lukacs also saw a distinction — albeit a complicated one — between patriotism and nationalism. It was from him I learned that Hitler said he was a nationalist but not a patriot.

    Walter Berns in his wonderful book Making Patriots, argued that no one is born a patriot. They are made. I would add that everyone is born a nationalist, to one extent or another. That’s because nationalism isn’t so much a doctrine — though many have tried to turn it into one — but an emotional or psychological state. In short, it is a passion, and one very closely related to populism. So even before the rise of the Westphalian system (which kinda-sorta created nation-states), there were nationalists in the sense that there have always been tribalists. Tribalism is natural. Patriotism takes work.

    Definitions get messy because, for the average American, nationalism and patriotism are mixed together. They get messier still because many intellectuals use terms such as “civic nationalism” to describe patriotism and “ethnic nationalism” to describe the blood-and-soil variety. As Rich and Ramesh note, John Fonte distinguishes between “authoritarian nationalism” and “democratic nationalism.”

    Rich and Ramesh fall pretty obviously into the camp that differentiates civic nationalism from ethnic nationalism or authoritarian nationalism. For what it’s worth, I think ethnic nationalism is obviously a very real thing (see, Hitler, Adolf), but I also think seeing ethnic nationalism as the only form of bad nationalism is obviously a mistake. Not all nationalisms are necessarily racial. Fascist Italy was quite obviously nationalist, but its nationalism wasn’t particularly rooted in any of the biological pseudoscience of Nazi Germany. I would argue that the Soviet Union was nationalist during World War II (a.k.a. “the Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia”) and after, but it was also a great multi-ethnic empire. The “new nationalism” of, say, Richard Ely had eugenic attributes to it (because Ely was, after all, a leading progressive racist), but it didn’t speak with any of the romantic poetry of 1800s Germany.

    In short, nationalism is complicated.

    Because it’s complicated, this won’t clear it up entirely. But for those grappling with the issues in good faith, like aphrael, it may be illuminating. For those looking to score cheap debating points because they feel Jonah has attacked their tribe, it may be less illuminating — but honestly, I don’t give a rat’s ass about such people and I wish they would all leave.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  176. I don’t know enough about his views. I confess.

    nk (dbc370)

  177. I doubt anyone here is rejecting the assertion that nationalism IS socialism because of tribalism. Personally, I’m rejecting it because it’s ludicrous on its face. Right up there with “marriage is rape”.

    lee (e2ff85)

  178. Do if you appreciate the freedoms, laws and cultural norms that have resulted in the best country on earth, you are a patriot.

    If you’d like them to be maintained, you are a nationalist.

    harkin (c4b982)

  179. I don’t know enough about his views. I confess.

    After quoting the Declaration to open Chapter 4 (“The American Miracle: They Put it in Writing”):

    “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”

    Jonah continues:

    (start of excerpt)
    ———–
    The Founding Fathers were wrong.

    It is not self-evident that man is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights. Colloquially, “self-evident” simply means obvious. Something that is self-evident, according to the dictionary, is something that does not require demonstration. The existence of gravity is self-evident and that is a very easy thing to prove. It is obvious that fire burns, and if you need a demonstration, I can provide one on request.

    Meanwhile, how does one demonstrate that we are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights? People have been trying to demonstrate that our Creator exists for thousands of years. If that cannot be done to everyone’s satisfaction, it seems a daunting task to prove that He created unalienable rights. The simple fact is that the existence of natural rights, like the existence of God Himself, requires a leap of faith. Meanwhile, the vast history of mankind provides one endlessly dreary demonstration after another that people can be alienated from their rights quite easily, starting with their right to life.

    The first and most glorious achievement of the American founding was to assert in writing – not argue for, claim or suggest – that all men are created equal and endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. It’s a bit of a strained analogy, but in the context of the Miracle, one can think of the English people as the Jews. The Jews introduced a moral monotheistic framework into the world. But in ancient times, it only applied to Jews. Christianity took those precepts and universalized them. Similarly, the English introduced an understanding of rights and liberty into the world – and made it work. But initially it only applied to the English. America universalized these English ideas.
    ———-
    (end of excerpt)

    I think that argument also shows clearly that America was founded on the antithesis of nationalism. The declaration says “all men” are created equal – not Englishmen, not New Yorkers and Virginians, not Americans – but “all men”, everywhere. It is a universal statement about the rights of individuals. And that’s why it’s so powerful.

    This excerpt is from the introduction of the Appendix to Jonah’s book, where he tries to demonstrate what a dramatic and revolutionary break from the past the Miracle” represented:

    (start of excerpt)
    ———
    The spoiler, of course, is that no one truly knows why the Miracle happened. There are many theories but no consensus. The best explanation is that ideas changed. Starting in the 1700’s, in a remote corner of Europe, people started to believe that the individual was sovereign, that innovation was good, that the fruits of our labors belong to us. We invented the notion of God-given rights and a way to organize the larger society – the extended order outside of family and tribe – that allowed humans to make contracts rather than club each other. We stumbled into a non-zero-sum system that made people freer and wealthier. I have called this the Lockean revolution, but John Locke no more created it than Adam Smith created capitalism when he described it.
    ——
    (end of excerpt)

    To summarize, I don’t think anyone can fairly doubt that Jonah is on-board with the Lockean view of government expressed in the Declaration. He considers it a central element in “the Miracle”.

    Dave (445e97)

  180. Patriotism is rarely controversial — it connotes more with national pride. Nationalism frequently is controversial as it connotes with national superiority. Rarely do we associate “Patriots” with looking for scapegoats. Nationalists frequently are looking for purity, uniformity and how to restore something that they believe is slipping away. Nationalists always seem to need that “other” to vilify. We would be a greater manufacturing country if it wasn’t for those Chinese…..would you hear that from a patriot or a nationalist? The Mexicans are screwing us over with NAFTA. Is it factual? Would it be said by a patriot or a nationalist? Muslims are coming to the U.S. and changing our culture for the worse. Again, patriot or nationalist? Patriots seem to focus on positive aspects of the nation when explaining their pride. Nationalists seem absorbed in dreams of a mythical past or a mythical future. Would Hitler…Mussolini…be considered a patriot or a nationalist? Would George Washington be considered a patriot or a nationalist? Right or wrong…there is now more of a fanatical bent to the word nationalism.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  181. There were five Saxon tribes that settled in England, and some still have counties named after them:
    The West Saxons settled in Wessex.
    The East Saxons settled in Essex.
    The South Saxons settled in Sussex.
    The North Saxons seem to have left no trace of themselves.
    I don’t even want to speculate which Saxons settled in Middlesex.

    nk (dbc370)

  182. And speaking of nationalists, and white nationalists in particular, Trump employed one as a speechwriter. Sigh.

    Paul Montagu (5b48d1)

  183. The North Saxons seem to have left no trace of themselves.

    That’s because they settled on Nosex.

    Appalled (96665e)

  184. Hazony, has a much more nuanced view of nationalism, re the great upheaval, France’s nationalism was inherently chauvinistic it immediately cause incursions in Austria and elsewhere on the continent.

    Narciso (f9b4cc)

  185. The North Saxons seem to have left no trace of themselves.
    I don’t even want to speculate which Saxons settled in Middlesex.
    nk (dbc370) — 8/19/2018 @ 12:12 pm

    The North Saxons were the North Umbrians? So maybe Middlesex were the South Umbrians?

    felipe (5b25e2)

  186. Appalled (96665e) — 8/20/2018 @ 7:27 am
    Ha! Good one, Appalled.

    felipe (5b25e2)

  187. David Horowitz nailed Goldberg. Goldberg proved what he is when he personally attacked Horowitz.

    NJRob (f3b511)

  188. Jonah Goldberg really should know better. Socialism is about the state. Nationalism is about the nation. Although Israel was socialist in the beginning and socialism was considered an advanced reflection of Jewish values all that nationalism meant in that case was the possibility of self-determination and giving Jewish values physical expression. It’s a miracle to have Jewish farms and Jewish fruits and vegetables no matter what institutions are used to own them.

    bordenl (2b9352)

  189. Similarly for most of my political life American nationalism has meant American Exceptionalism in some form, and that means capitalist institutions.

    bordenl (2b9352)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1573 secs.