Opinion “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism"

[Bargey]

Nationalism is advocating for your own country above all others. That’s your duty as a political leader or any national politician.

Same as a parent must put their child first before all others.

Same as an individual must put himself or herself’s interests above all others (with possible exception of children / spouse)

This is how life is supposed to be. Patriotism is the deep, personal love of and pride of country, nationalism is the public expression of that love with the actions that express that interest. They go hand in hand. People with no pride or love of country will express no desire to put its interest first.

Macron is a globalist who is clearly an anti-patriot. I have no idea if he hates France but he certainly has no love for it.

 

[JDragon]

The leader of the free world will be the sitting US president for the foreseeable future. You not liking him changes nothing. Lmfao at calling a Frenchmam leader of the free world

I'd be glad if that was the case. Obama was the leader of the free world. Bush was the leader of the free world despite Iraq. Clinton and all other presidents since WW2 have been.

Trump made it abundantly clear he is not interested in Europe as a partner, and that goes beyond NATO budgeting. It's up to the United States to decide - if the benefits of a common cultural and military sphere for U.S. power projection and soft power are not recognized any more, that's their prerogative. But let's not pretend this will not have an impact on the relationship between Europe and the U.S. or that the American empire will continue to exist in the same way.

Of course the U.S. is, by a large margin, the most powerful country in the world, and it will remain to be for the foreseeable time. And of course it speaks to the sad state of affairs if I proclaim that a French president is the main spokesperson for the West. But I stand by that. Donald Trump has willingly isolated the U.S., apparently this is also backed by American voters, so that is fine. I also think Europe needs to become more self-reliant, which is why I agree with Macron's call for a European army.

@TheGreatA Macron's domestic situation is fragile, yes. That doesn't really touch my point, though.

 

[JDragon]

Patriotism is the deep, personal love of and pride of country, nationalism is the public expression of that love with the actions that express that interest. They go hand in hand. People with no pride or love of country will express no desire to put its interest first.

This is a flawed definition in my opinion. Where I agree is that Patriotism doesn't imply putting down others. Nationalist foreign policy also negates collective gains and emphasizes relative gains, classical neorealism. There always must be a winner and a loser in every transaction. If something benefits both parties, but A more than B, then B should not do it under that logic, even if it's worse off then.

NATO as a collective security alliance is already a deviation from nationalist logic. You trade away part of your security and fight someone else's war in the hope that they will also fight yours. The logic behind it is that everyone will be better off under this collective agreement, but some will gain more from this arrangement than others.

 

[TheGreatA]

I'd be glad if that was the case. Obama was the leader of the free world. Bush was the leader of the free world despite Iraq. Clinton and all other presidents since WW2 have been.

Trump made it abundantly clear he is not interested in Europe as a partner, and that goes beyond NATO budgeting. It's up to the United States to decide - if the benefits of a common cultural and military sphere for U.S. power projection and soft power are not recognized any more, that's their prerogative. But let's not pretend this will not have an impact on the relationship between Europe and the U.S. or that the American empire will continue to exist in the same way.

Of course the U.S. is, by a large margin, the most powerful country in the world, and it will remain to be for the foreseeable time. And of course it speaks to the sad state of affairs if I proclaim that a French president is the main spokesperson for the West. But I stand by that. Donald Trump has willingly isolated the U.S., apparently this is also backed by American voters, so that is fine. I also think Europe needs to become more self-reliant, which is why I agree with Macron's call for a European army.

@TheGreatA Macron's domestic situation is fragile, yes. That doesn't really touch my point, though.

A leader who can barely lead his country, can hardly be expected to be a leader of the "free world", whatever that means. It is not as if Macron himself has spoken in favour of bringing US and Europe together, he has spoken of division just as Trump has been. His criticisms of America have been a major point throughout his political campaigns.

He is, at best, a Europe first leader, not the West first.

There were far harsher and more divisive presidents than Trump, for example, do we forget Bush proclaiming that all who did not stand by America's choice to invade Iraq, would be regarded as America's enemies? That would have also meant Germany, at the time.

The only reason why people focus so particularly on Trump, is because of the power they give to the media's depictions of him, their greedy, click-bait, sensationalist journalism. In reality he's carving out a whole host of beneficial deals to both Americans and Europeans. And his vision of global politics, rudimentary as it may be, is far more wholesome than that of Macron's. For example, he opposes China, instead of bending over backwards for it.

If he could get rid of trash partners like Saudi Arabia, and criticize Israel's actions when it is warranted, and get over the Cold War fetish with Iran, he would be a great leader for the "free world".

 

[JDragon]

A leader who can barely lead his country, can hardly be expected to be a leader of the "free world", whatever that means. It is not as if Macron himself has spoken in favour of bringing US and Europe together, he has spoken of division just as Trump has been. His criticisms of America have been a major point throughout his political campaigns.

He is, at best, a Europe first leader, not the West first.

There were far harsher and more divisive presidents than Trump, for example, do we forget Bush proclaiming that all who did not stand by America's choice to invade Iraq, would be regarded as America's enemies? That would have also meant Germany, at the time.

The only reason why people focus so particularly on Trump, is because of the power they give to the media's depictions of him, their greedy, click-bait, sensationalist journalism. In reality he's carving out a whole host of beneficial deals to both Americans and Europeans. And his vision of global politics, rudimentary as it may be, is far more wholesome than that of Macron's. For example, he opposes China, instead of bending over backwards for it.

If he could get rid of trash partners like Saudi Arabia, and criticize Israel's actions when it is warranted, and get over the Cold War fetish with Iran, he would be a great leader for the "free world".

Point taken regarding the Bush doctrine. And yes, I agree in China. It's why I think Trump's stance on trade and NATO hurts the cause elsewhere. The timing is off, China would better be opposed together.

And regarding what it means: to me it means being the champion of the ''Western" cause. It sure meant more during the Cold War.

 

[TheGreatA]

Point taken regarding the Bush doctrine. And yes, I agree in China. It's why I think Trump's stance on trade and NATO hurts the cause elsewhere. The timing is off, China would better be opposed together.

And regarding what it means: to me it means being the champion of the ''Western" cause. It sure meant more during the Cold War.

Trump's stance on NATO is warranted. NATO members made a deal, to increase spending, and they haven't lived up to that deal. Trump is cracking heads to make sure that people live up to commitments. And it has been working. By doing that, he has made NATO stronger, not weaker. More money has been flowing towards the NATO cause, since his ascension.

NATO just held a massive military demonstration next to Russia's borders here in Nothern Europe, which forced Putin to hold a military demonstration of his own. We have rarely seen such shows of strength in the past.

Nobody right now can truly claim to be a "champion" for the Western cause. Macron is a deluded man who is every bit as hostile to the press as Trump is, difference is that his behaviour doesn't get reported beyond his own country.

Merkel would have had more of a claim than Macron, but she's already going out of the door and her power is weakening.

As for someone who will be standing up to Western liberties, you'll probably have to be waiting for a while. None of the above ought to be regarded as champions for liberty, not with their hostile attitudes towards free speech.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Which is why I inserted 'would'. Maybe you would like to reevaluate

Would doesn't change the meaning of your statement at all. You weren't throwing out a hypothetical. You were asserting that Macron was the leader of the free world because American foreign policy was compromised by being too close to Russia. It doesn't hold up to even a cursory factual analysis.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Russia is doing that too and conservatives seem to be fond of them lately.

Russia has some very legitimate claim to Crimea, it was part of Russia, then the Soviet Union, then it was given to Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union and remained in Ukraine when the USSR collapsed. However, fuck Russia. They had no reason to invade Georgia.

 

[rokzilla]

I'd be glad if that was the case. Obama was the leader of the free world. Bush was the leader of the free world despite Iraq. Clinton and all other presidents since WW2 have been.

Trump made it abundantly clear he is not interested in Europe as a partner, and that goes beyond NATO budgeting. It's up to the United States to decide - if the benefits of a common cultural and military sphere for U.S. power projection and soft power are not recognized any more, that's their prerogative. But let's not pretend this will not have an impact on the relationship between Europe and the U.S. or that the American empire will continue to exist in the same way.

Of course the U.S. is, by a large margin, the most powerful country in the world, and it will remain to be for the foreseeable time. And of course it speaks to the sad state of affairs if I proclaim that a French president is the main spokesperson for the West. But I stand by that. Donald Trump has willingly isolated the U.S., apparently this is also backed by American voters, so that is fine. I also think Europe needs to become more self-reliant, which is why I agree with Macron's call for a European army.

@TheGreatA Macron's domestic situation is fragile, yes. That doesn't really touch my point, though.

I wouldn’t say he isn’t interested in being partners. The trade deficit and amount we pay to NATO is completely skewed in Europes favor and has been. Partners are supposed to be equal. If Europe works with Trump, I think we could still be fine. Even if you hate Trump to the core and are against everything he stands for, Trade and NATO are no brainers to support him on.

 

[Rod1]

Many countries are nationalist and dont start wars. Basically all countries outside the western world are.

They dont start wars because they are afraid of the USA.

 

[glenwo2]

The leader of the free world will be the sitting US president for the foreseeable future. You not liking him changes nothing. Lmfao at calling a Frenchmam leader of the free world

lmfao at calling a Frenchman a Leader of anything!

 

[Xuh]

Late journalist Sidney J Harris defines the difference rather well:

No he didn't.

Naturally I googled him, checked his wiki and my suspicion was also confirmed.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

No he didn't.

Naturally I googled him, checked his wiki and my suspicion was also confirmed.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sydney_J._Harris

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/68...atriotism-and-nationalism-is-that-the-patriot

 

[Xuh]

Macron is a fucking asshole, but there's nothing wrong with what he said. A patriot takes pride in his country and holds it to the highest ideals. A nationalist is proud of merely having a country and holds fast to that pride no matter whether what his country does is right or wrong.

Cool av br0, Sankara is one of my favorite nationalists.

 

[luckyshot]

Nationalism and patriotism seem to be synonymous if we're being honest.

No. Patriotism means, I love my country and want what is best for it, especially the achievement of its professed ideals.

Nationalism is, I'll cheer for my flag no matter what.

PATRIOTISM comes from the Latin root pater, meaning Father.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is the difference between a GOOD parent-- who fosters and supports actions and habits that are healthy-- and a "just there" parent-- who lets his kids eat as much junk food as they want and calls it "love."

Put it another way: unconditional love is no love at all.

Seems like there's a semantic break where Trump's definition of nationalism is different from the rest of the first world's definition of nationalism

No. Trump's definition of nationalism is: "We're America! We'll do whatever we damn well please! Pew pew pew!"

That's pretty much what his supporters support, and what civilized people reject.

I don't see any "misunderstanding."

 

[tramendous]

Russia has some very legitimate claim to Crimea, it was part of Russia, then the Soviet Union, then it was given to Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union and remained in Ukraine when the USSR collapsed. However, fuck Russia. They had no reason to invade Georgia.

most countries that annex others refer to a territorial claim. for example, Iraq claimed Kuwait on the basis that Kuwait had been separated from them by unfair British Colonialism.

Russia could in theory, claim that central Asia should be a part of their territory since they owned that territory before too.

 

[Armbars]

Late journalist Sidney J Harris defines the difference rather well:

“The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does , and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war .”

I respect these words.

 

[Armbars]

However,

Macaroni is wrong
“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism"
Nationalism is patriotism for ignorant narrow minded people, its certainly not the opposite.

Like @luckyshot said
Put it another way: unconditional love is no love at all.

 

[faustian]

No. Trump's definition of nationalism is: "We're America! We'll do whatever we damn well please! Pew pew pew!"

That's pretty much what his supporters support, and what civilized people reject.

I don't see any "misunderstanding."

I'm no expert in Trumpian linguistics but if I had to guess I'd say his interpretation of "nationalism" could be generally described as a populist anti-globalism ideology centered on protectionist economic policy and sovereigntist foreign/immigration policy. It's pretty easy to imagine how this would be a direct affront to EU ideology

 

[Victor Maitland]

what he said

Macron is a globalist beta male .