Now these sorts of things are always motte and bailey attacks, so it's important to build a good motte. David French took this on in the pages of the NYT.
Anyone may disagree with Christian arguments around civil rights, immigration, abortion, religious liberty or any other point of political conflict. Christians disagree with one another on these topics all the time, but it is no more illegitimate or dangerous for a believer to bring her worldview into a public debate than it is for a secular person to bring his own secular moral reasoning into politics. In fact, I have learned from faiths other than my own, and our public square would be impoverished without access to the thoughts and ideas of Americans of faith.The problem with Christian nationalism isn’t with Christian participation in politics but rather the belief that there should be Christian primacy in politics and law. It can manifest itself through ideology, identity and emotion. And if it were to take hold, it would both upend our Constitution and fracture our society.
So that nicely illustrates both the motte and the bailey. The highly defensible motte is that he's only talking about radicals who want to establish some sort of theocracy in the United States in place of the First Amendment. As far as I know, there is no group of significant size attempting to revoke the Constitution in favor of a theocratic form of government. Nor would there be: there's no large church I know of that is happy enough with its own leadership to want to import it to the Federal government.
The bailey is 'of course Christians are willing to bring their diverse, deeply-felt opinions to the public square' -- as long as they don't insist that Christianity's vision win in establishing anything like enforceable laws. Of course you can feel that way, as long as we agree that the law cannot reflect your vision.
Thus, while we're defending the bailey, everything that Christianity has a fairly stable theological opinion about is off the table for US law. The First Amendment now means that nothing that happens to align with a Christian doctrine is allowed to be a law in the United States. If you disagree, you're a Christian Nationalist.
Well, until someone experiences some success at pushing back on that, at which point they'll retreat to the motte. Of course we're only trying to preserve the Constitution against the theocracy that no one is actually trying to establish.
UPDATE: To whit.
The fight for religious freedoms in the United States has become progressively more intense in the last three years, as the government has been chipping away at the Establishment Clause by catering to special interest groups that champion causes like child gender mutilation, sexual grooming of children, prohibition of public prayer, and more that are antithetical to many mainstream religious doctrines. The First Amendment is first for a reason, and Thomas Jefferson was clear on the topic. The wall between the Church and the State was not created to constrain religion, but rather to constrain the government. It protects us from the government creating laws demanding a single theology; but equally prevents the government from demanding the elimination of religious practices.
They got a rabbi to write this, which underlines that these standards are mere Christian without being merely Christian. Nevertheless, having laws on moral values that are basically in accordance with doctrine will be the bailey.
52 comments:
Thank you. Trying to pin down "Christian nationalism" as a definition has been as challenging as nailing Jello to the wall. I suspect my problem is that I default to a European definition of "nationalism," which can't really apply to the US or to Christians. (That being the "nation" as defined by place, language, religion, culture, and history, like the Polish nation or the Hungarian nation.)
I agree that no major group wants a Christian theocracy. That makes as much sense as "all Baptists want" X. The first question has to be "Which Baptists?"
LittleRed1
I'm not too surprised that a rabbi was willing to pen the second excerpt. Most of the folks who oppose "Christian Nationalism" aren't very happy with "Jewish Nationalism" where it is practiced.
Though I note that they seem to be unwilling to speak against with "Muslim Nationalism" for some reason I can't quite discern...
I understand faintly that any opinion resting on the idea of God having such a concrete reality that He could be said to be the source of something specific and important makes a lot of secular people blurt out "Christian!" in high alarm. It's less clear to me what the "Nationalist" part of the insult is supposed to be about. Is it just a buzz word, not intend to convey anything in particular? A way to criticize someone for being a Christian without simply saying "He's a Christian--eeeeek"?
Again, I understand vaguely that a Nationalist would be a Very Bad Thing if it's the opposite of a compassionate, cosmopolitan, sophisticated globalist. I just don't get the connection between Nationalism and the idea that rights come from God rather than man. "Nationalist" has become an insult without any definite meaning, a sort of bland suffix to "Christian" that makes the argument sound less like simple religious bigotry.
"Nationalist" was part of NAZI, remember?
As to "Christian," there is no doubt that the US should be governed by the Natural Moral Law, as found in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and as referred to in the Declaration. But there is doubt that much of said law persists in these days.
That is a concern, as the alternative--the one we see pressing forward on all boundaries--is anarchy in effect. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong--so who owns the courts----or the biggest gun?
Regarding the distortion of "Christian" and "Nationalist" into something they're trying to manufacture fear of, that's just the Left's Newspeak Dictionary entry, rather than the actual definitions in American English dictionaries.
The way to counter that, IMNSHO, is the use the terms extensively in their proper meanings and to call out the Leftists for their dishonesty in distorting plain terms.
Eric Hines
Tucker interviewed a Kentucky woman who fled Red China. She was there during the Cultural Revolution and was forced to participate in the 'struggle sessions,' saw many acquaintances (particularly elders) be killed or 'disappeared,' etc.
Anyhow, she told Carlson that what she's seeing here today is stroke-for-stroke what the Maoists did. Erasing history (statues), determining what words could or could not be used going forward, and taking control of "news" outlets and colleges/universities to control the input into students.
That's to Eric's point above, but it's far larger than that.
Yeah, Dad is right. I lived in China in 2000-1, and talked to many people who survived the Cultural Revolution. Many of them were college educated teachers, who were vulnerable because of their attachment to old ideas like Confucius’ traditional values. It was a bad time.
And like our blue-haired know-nothing progressive youth today, the vanguard were college students who had passion but no real understanding of their own history.
"...there's no large church I know of that is happy enough with its own leadership to want to import it to the Federal government."
An excellent, often neglected point. These things are not based on any denotative information, but only connotations and words to conjure with.
They don't *really* care about these terms in logical or meaning terms- they only care about "scare factor", and effectiveness as a weapon. They've already set the ground for nationalist=bad, and many see Christian=bad, so it's an easy sell to them, especially in group for fundraising.
They may try the same thing, but college students in the US today are a far cry from college students in China 50 years ago. Most of them would break down if the wrong pronoun was used. They would crawl into a ball if an actual resistance was offered- ALA Kyle style.
The ones I am worried about are cadres of brand new importees, a much harder crowd with no common identity.
Oh, Socialist" was also part of "NAZI". And perhaps the most important part of the name.
"there's no large church I know of that is happy enough with its own leadership to want to import it to the Federal government"
I am quite happy with my church leadership because they are focused on the spiritual life of the Church. That is quite a different thing from being good national politicians or bureaucrats, and I certainly wouldn't want to lose them to that world. That would be tragic.
I tend to agree with most of the sentiments above. I do wonder about how weak the woke US college students really are. Sure, they may cry if you misgender them, but that kind of inculcated weakness can flip to murderous rage and cruelty, especially in a mob.
A good exploration of nationalism would be helpful, I think. It's funny how the Left redefines the most basic things, like man and woman, justice, and nation, in ways that seem like defending the basic meaning of these terms suddenly gets complicated. Who thought we'd ever have to defend or assert the meanings of man and woman?
The SEP article "Nationalism" is probably a good starting point. If anyone wants to discuss it, I could write up a post for it.
Just to get a reasonable idea of what nationalism is, here's a quote from the SEP article:
The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena:
1. the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity, and
2. the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination.
(1) raises questions about the concept of a nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and specifically about whether an individual’s membership in a nation should be regarded as non-voluntary or voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.
(End quote)
Briefly, the current opposite of nationalism is called "cosmopolitanism." (There are of course other non-nationalist forms of political organization: tribal, feudal, anarchic, etc.)
Nationalism...Claire Lehmann (publisher of Quillette) has argued that nationalism is an antidote (she actually said THE antidote) to racism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpmoAnvnbTw&t=128s
Certainly in the US today, the assault on the concept of nationalism has been concurrent with the runaway growth of tribal affinities.
American nationalism could be that, but as LR1 pointed out above the more traditional European nationalism is kind of an extended form of something like racism. Indeed, one used to see books with titles like “The History of the Irish Race,” which were a justification for Irish nationalism.
Even then you could say that Italian nationalism helped pull the people out of the loyalties to the city states and small republics; or that German nationalism helped pull together a Germany out of the mess of the Holy Roman Empire. It’s not much use beyond the ethnic divide, though, and if anything seems to act as a deeper justification in the minds of adherents.
Grim's comment gets to the heart of the problem of discussing Nationalism- and I think the definition Tom found is good- precisely because it doesn't attempt to define it further. Nations are not the same, so that which is based in one nation, or another, is unlikely to be the same and may in fact end up significantly different (as Grim points out).
The left is all too happy to let these nuances fall to the wayside and let it all be lumped in with ethnic/racial nationalism of the European (and frankly most of the world's) most typical sort. Then they can denounce the whole idea of national identity as bad in contrast with their cosmopolitan internationalism! Win-win (for them).
I have no problem defending the ethnicity of Americans and America and our culture.
The fact that Europeans tend to use "nationalism" differently than Americans do is a matter for Europeans to deal with, for all that our own Left tries so hard to distort American nationalism in their race baiting.
Eric Hines
The most natural and useful meaning of "Nationalism" is a desire for a county's own local rule, i.e, opposition to a subjugating foreign or international power.
In any case, nothing at all to do with whether human rights have a supernatural origin.
Grim..."American nationalism could be that, but as LR1 pointed out above the more traditional European nationalism is kind of an extended form of something like racism"...yes, I think that's true: 'blood and soil' nationalism can shade into racism. Claire is an Australian, clearly she believes that trans-racial meaning applies there as well (or should), maybe to the Anglosphere as a whole.
American nationalism could be that, but ...
Nationalism, though, is a global phenomenon, and I don't think we should define it JUST by the European context. As you point out, sometimes nationalism was used as a way to unify competing political claims within an ethnic group in a particular place (Japan fits quite well into this; it was not a nation in modern terms until around 1870). However, it doesn't fit well into the American context.
The SEP article points out that "liberal nationalism" (which is opposed to ethno-nationalism) is principles based. The nation is not seen as ethnic, but rather as common devotion to a set of democratic principles. In that sense, although I'd never heard the term before reading the SEP article, nationalism in the US has often been put forth as liberal nationalism. This is the "America is an idea" school of thought where anyone who subscribes to our founding ideals is in some sense an American. It is specifically a way to transcend racial and ethnic identities and loyalties.
Eric, what is "American ethnicity"?
The most natural and useful meaning of "Nationalism" is a desire for a county's own local rule, i.e, opposition to a subjugating foreign or international power.
Wouldn't that be 'countyism'? :-D
But, why the county? The point of nationalism is the claim that the nation is the proper level of organization for autonomy. If a county is a smaller political division of a nation, then insisting on local county rule woundn't seem to be nationalism.
One problem for nationalists is that question: Why is the nation the proper level of political organization for autonomy? Why not a global government? Why not a feudal government? Why not the county?
In any case, nothing at all to do with whether human rights have a supernatural origin.
Absolutely true. I think that's the "Christian" reference in Christian nationalism.
Though I note that they seem to be unwilling to speak against with "Muslim Nationalism" for some reason I can't quite discern...
It's a good point that they won't speak against Islam, but Muslim Nationalism doesn't make a great deal of sense as a broad term. I think Islam is globalist; the goal is a global caliphate. Nations are just not that important. Muslim imperialism, Muslim colonialism, Muslim theocracy ... all those make sense, I think.
I think David is right that the sting of "Nationalism" is supposed to be the whiff of racism, or at least bigotry. Still no obvious connection to the belief in human rights as divinely granted, except for the somewhat roundabout reasoning that a secular party's traditional enemies are those crazy religious fanatics, except for the Muslim ones, which are OK.
T99: That 'human rights/divinely granted' thing comes from the "CHRISTIAN" prefix--which is part of this discussion.
And to repeat: unless human rights are divinely granted, anarchy will emerge, or at least Totalitarianism of a very undesirable sort (see, e.g., Stalin and Mao.)
The debate is older than Christianity; Socrates also defended the proposition that all questions of justice needed a divine root. If men are the root of things like rights or questions of justice or goodness, well, they might just change their minds when their interests change. If there’s to be a firm foundation, a superhuman — if not necessarily supernatural — ground has to be sought.
Natural law was often preferred by modern thinkers who were uncomfortable with scripture or ancient churches. It’s still supposed to have a divine root, but also to be intelligible and discernible by human reason.
“… unless human rights are divinely granted, anarchy will emerge, or at least Totalitarianism of a very undesirable sort…”
The ‘at least’ case strikes me as much worse!
Right--I get that they hate the idea of divine rights and associate it with Christians, whom they equally dislike. My confusion is over the reflexive addition of "Nationalist" to "Christian." "Christian" as insult I understand in the context of the divine origin of rights, without agreeing with either the insult or the objection. "Nationalist," however, leaves me puzzled, even from the point of view of the critics of the divine origin of human rights (who do not include me).
what is "American ethnicity"?
You just described it: "America is an idea" school of thought where anyone who subscribes to our founding ideals is in some sense an American.
One problem for nationalists is that question: Why is the nation the proper level of political organization for autonomy? Why not a global government? Why not a feudal government? Why not the county?
No, that's a problem for European nationalists and our Left's race-baiting Newspeak version. Our Founders asserted the nation as being the proper level with the opening phrase of our Constitution, which is our nation-level blueprint for governance: We the People. We citizens--We the People--accepted that definition when we ratified our Constitution. That set the nation as the proper level.
As a practical matter, it can't be at a global level because a functioning ethnicity, or a functioning sense of nation, requires more agreement in modes of thought and concepts of morality than exists across the world, and likely won't for several centuries, if ever. It can't exist at a county, or even at a State, level because those entities are too small to be able to defend themselves against outside transgressions, without banding together with other such entities, as our own States discovered under our Articles of Confederation--and even that construct was an utter failure from its structure as a mutual defense treaty rather than as a unified nation.
...confusion is over the reflexive addition of "Nationalist" to "Christian."
The attachment is deliberate. It's a move by our Left to attempt to associate racism--their version of "nationalist/nationalism"--to their anti-Christian bigotry. It's also of a part with our Left's antisemitic bigotry; they're just short-handing the Judeo- part of the Judeo-Christian origin of our nation.
Eric Hines
Further to what is "American ethnicity"?:
From Merriam-Webster: ethnicity noun
Definition of ethnicity
as in nationality
a people having a common language, culture, and body of traditions
Eric Hines
Tex, I can't believe I didn't catch this. When you wrote "The most natural and useful meaning of "Nationalism" is a desire for a county's own local rule", it seems like you must have meant 'count-r-y', but I just ran with 'count-y'. Egads.
Eric, I had always assumed there was at least partial racial implications with the term 'ethnic,' but as you point out, not so. From the Free Dictionary:
1.
a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a group of people sharing a common cultural or national heritage and often sharing a common language or religion.
b. Being a member of a particular ethnic group, especially belonging to a national group by heritage or culture but residing outside its national boundaries: ethnic Hungarians living in northern Serbia.
c. Of, relating to, or distinctive of members of such a group: ethnic restaurants; ethnic art.
2. Archaic Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish.
So, it does have a sense of being a stranger in a foreign land, but is not necessarily so.
It seems that it is only in anthropology and ethnology that it is assumed to include racial characteristics.
Tom--whoops, yes, of course I did mean country.
Tom, my understanding of the history of anthropology is very hazy, but I've always been under the impression that the only reason anthropologists looked at racial characteristics was to trace species evolution from proto-primates (if there is such a thing) through the several apparent subgroups to neanderthal, denisovan, cro-magnan, modern homo sapiens. The racial "separations" among groups of homo sapiens were a come-lately, more popular than scientific, effort to justify claiming one group's superiority of some sort to other groups.
The racial implications of "ethnic" was more European than American, and that may have been a result of Nazis insistence on racial purity. Or, at least that's when I first became aware of that claimed aspect of "ethnic."
Eric Hines
"One problem for nationalists is that question: Why is the nation the proper level of political organization for autonomy? Why not a global government? Why not a feudal government? Why not the county?"
Former Confederate general Edward Porter Alexander (he was Lee's artillery commander at Gettysburg) became a railroad president after the war. His experiences in running a major transportation system probably had something to do with the evolution of his thoughts regarding state’s rights:
"Well that (state’s rights) was the issue of the war; & as we were defeated that right was surrendered & a limit put on state sovereignty. And the South is now entirely satisfied with that result. And the reason of it is very simple. State sovereignty was doubtless a wise political institution for the condition of this vast country in the last century. But the railroad, and the steamboat & the telegraph began to transform things early in this century & have gradually made what may almost be called a new planet of it… Our political institutions have had to change… Briefly we had the right to fight, but our fight was against what might be called a Darwinian development – or an adaptation to changed & changing conditions – so we need not greatly regret defeat."
I think a lot of the belief in unlimited globalization is implicitly driven by an extension of Alexander’s argument, with the jet plane, the container ship, and the Internet taking the place of the railroad, steamboat, and telegraph.
What Are the Limits of the Alexander Analysis?
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/54565.html
Coming back around to Islam, one of the mysteries of the 21st century is how the Western Left with all it's LGBTQIA+ ideology can possibly reflexively support Islamic movements. In part, it's intersectionality, but in part I think it's that both are cosmopolitan movements that view global rulership as the goal. To the extent that Islam is opposed to nationalism, it is an ally in achieving the goal of global government. Presumably, the Left's idea is to turn on Islam after nationalism has been defeated.
In a very real way, bringing in Muslim immigrants is a way to fight nationalism.
The Left can support Mohammedanism due to its theology. There is no "Trinity" in that heresy (Islam), therefore there is no "community" needed. That is why Allah can contradict himself at will and rules absolutely.
You see the Totalitarian there, just as the Left would have it on earth.
Tom: One problem for nationalists is that question: Why is the nation the proper level of political organization for autonomy? Why not a global government? Why not a feudal government? Why not the county?
Eric: No, that's a problem for European nationalists and our Left's race-baiting Newspeak version.
I disagree here. The Left have their answer and are quite sure of it: The nation for them is NOT the level for autonomy. Their answer is global government.
Eric: Our Founders asserted the nation as being the proper level with the opening phrase of our Constitution, which is our nation-level blueprint for governance: We the People. We citizens--We the People--accepted that definition when we ratified our Constitution. That set the nation as the proper level.
Well, the whole Constitution was the Founders assertion of nationalism, I suppose.
However, the Left hasn't been impressed by the Founders or the Constitution, and more than ever seems to see them all as obstacles. They are apparently turning against citizenship as well. Leftist teachers have taught at least a generation, probably two or three, to look down on all that. Kids today are taught to be "Global Citizens" in many, many schools.
Let's forget the Left, though. The key is to persuade the persuadable, and I don't think an appeal to the Constitution or Founders works anymore. Those who would be persuaded by them already are. I think we have to argue the issue again and show that it is the right way to go. The cosmopolitans are certainly making their pitch to the persuadable.
Eric: As a practical matter, it can't be at a global level because a functioning ethnicity, or a functioning sense of nation, requires more agreement in modes of thought and concepts of morality than exists across the world, and likely won't for several centuries, if ever.
Well, the cosmopolitans don't think a functioning ethnicity is necessary. They are all-in on diversity. Obedience is the only thing we all need to have in their view, though of course they would deny that vociferously.
Eric: It can't exist at a county, or even at a State, level because those entities are too small to be able to defend themselves against outside transgressions, without banding together with other such entities, as our own States discovered under our Articles of Confederation--and even that construct was an utter failure from its structure as a mutual defense treaty rather than as a unified nation.
There are plenty of nations smaller than some of our states in both land area and population, but I tend to agree that at least in part their security is guaranteed by larger, powerful nations and alliances that have invested in a more-or-less peaceful world order. So, the US is good for many nations, and I think if the US broke up the world would become much more violent. Although I could be wrong, of course. I haven't given the matter a huge amount of thought.
Still, that's not a general argument for the nation. It's an argument for the US to be organized at the level it is.
On anthropology, it goes back further than that. I think you're right post-Darwin, but before Darwin there were other concerns. National races such as Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Teutonic, etc., as well as major trans-national racial groups like Europeans, Asians, and Africans, were much discussed prior to Darwin's Origin (1859) and Descent of Man (1871). Although the field of anthropology was still forming in the early 19th century, they, ethnologists, philologists, biologists, and medical researchers all got into research and speculation about the various races and kinds of races. So, there was a strong focus on race before people really started talking about humans evolving from lower animals.
David, that's a very interesting source! That kind of thinking seems to have been common in the US after the Civil War. This weekend I'll go through the comments to that post, but for now I just have this to add:
State sovereignty was doubtless a wise political institution for the condition of this vast country in the last century. But the railroad, and the steamboat & the telegraph began to transform things early in this century & have gradually made what may almost be called a new planet of it… Our political institutions have had to change…
It didn't work that way in Europe. There was no great sense that the railroad, steamboat, and telegraph made Portugal obsolete.
These technologies may have made controlling huge geographic areas easier, but it didn't make a surrender of states' rights necessary. So, I'm curious if he talked more about that.
Dad29, I'm curious about your reasoning. I tend to think of the Left as more-or-less atheists. Also, they are very focused on community (hence, communism and socialism -- the insistence that man is basically a social animal, not an independent individual). So, where do you see the connections between that and Islamic rejection of the Trinity?
Tom..."In a very real way, bringing in Muslim immigrants is a way to fight nationalism"
And/or to fight local tribes that are perceived as a threat. Someone used the analogy of the Golem: in Jewish folklore, the Golem was a powerful artificial man created by the Chief Rabbi of Prague in order to fight off anti-Semites. Which he (the Golem) did successfully. But, at some point, the Golem became dangerous to those he was supposed to be defending, and had to be destroyed by his own creator.
Tom: One problem for nationalists....
Eric: No, that's a problem for European nationalists....
Tom: I disagree here. The Left have their answer....
My argument here was strictly limited to the irrelevance of Europe's or our Left's use of "nationalist/nationalism" to American nationalism.
However, the Left hasn't been impressed by the Founders or the Constitution, and more than ever seems to see them all as obstacles.
That's not new. Professor and Princeton President Woodrow Wilson was writing against our Constitution and the need to get rid of it. US President Woodrow Wilson acted within his disdain for our Constitution when he nationalized all the factories east of the Mississippi because they weren't producing the products he wanted them to produce in the amounts he wanted the factories to produce them. His mentee once removed Barack Obama at least had legislative support for nationalizing our health provision and health insurance industries.
Let's forget the Left, though.
We can't; they're too powerful to simply walk away from them. They need to be dealt with one way or another. I'm down with having another national discussion regarding the utility of our Constitution, though. A strong majority of Americans will be amenable to a serious discussion on that.
the cosmopolitans don't think a functioning ethnicity is necessary.
True enough, and not particularly important, except in the expense of their trying--again--and failing again. The wars of Europe prior to the development of nation-states and the world wars of the last century and the failures of the League of Nations and United Nations demonstrate the inevitable failure of trying to govern diversity. Which is another reason we can't just forget our Left.
that's not a general argument for the nation. It's an argument for the US to be organized at the level it is.
I'm not that interested in the structure or ethnic diversity or purity of other nations; I only care about the United States. I am, after all, an American nationalist. [g] I'm also an America First sort, with the understanding that we can't be first alone; we need friends and allies. And perhaps a couple of alliances, but most alliance-like arrangements really need to be ad hoc cooperative arrangements to deal with particular situations and lasting only long enough to deal with the situation. Even there, though, we often wouldn't be able to afford the time to form the arrangement first; we'd need to act immediately and work to form the arrangement as the situation develops.
Eric Hines
Good points, Eric. I keep thinking in terms of rhetoric and persuasion, and since I see much of the Left as unpersuadable, I wouldn't waste much rhetoric on them, hence my 'forget the Left'. I didn't mean don't consider them, but I think we're at a point where we must simply defeat them rather than persuade them.
Similarly, it is in the context of persuading the persuadable that I'm thinking of general arguments. But, I guess persuading them first that America is unique and should follow its own particular logic rather than a general logic could be a viable approach as well.
I guess persuading them first that America is unique and should follow its own particular logic rather than a general logic could be a viable approach as well.
It's the difference between the American credo that America is an exceptional nation, and the credo of that Hero of the Leftist Union Barack Obama that every nation is an exceptional nation.
Eric Hines
Tom, both Communism and Socialism require a totalitarian government.
As to the atheism of the Left--that's wildly inaccurate. They do have a god, the State--so long as they are in charge. Mussolini's quip about 'all for, all in,' was not just a slogan.
David, that's an interesting tale. I'll have to read up on it. It does sound like what I'm describing.
Eric, I'm not sure if you intended it that way, but my beginning with general principles doesn't deny American exceptionalism. It just provides a starting point for the argument that the US should be an autonomous nation and as such should have all the prerogatives of nationhood, such as control over its border, meaningful differences between citizen and non-citizen, and that America first is a good way to do things.
Dad29, okay, I see what you mean.
Tom, I knew what you meant; I was just emphasizing that the general doesn't seem relevant to our nation; we are not them or the general.
On the other hand, as a technique of the debate, you may be right that the general is a useful starting point. My claim, though, is that it's useful only so it can be debunked as relevant to us. The Left's insistence on us being more like Europe (or the hero of the time) is just their insistence that we're no big deal, and that's an attitude that I reject and claim that that attitude makes it useless to talk to them.
Eric Hines
I'm beginning to see more articles on Christian Nationalism, and now am finding it easier to see what people are trying to denote. One article, for instance, put it this way: the adherents "often believe that America was founded as a Christian nation, that it is a providential nation in history and, most important, that Christianity should have a prominent, if not pre-eminent, place in American life."
Others, such as the original podcast offender in attempting to explain herself, simply assert that Christian Nationalists improperly mix their religious beliefs with their politics, or try to impose aspects of their religious value system on their political opponents. I agree that this can be a serious problem, but I suppose she would never consider that progressives do the same thing. It's always easier to detect one's opponents' insistence on taking a certain moral judgment for granted without even trying to find out whether others agree and, if not, why they should be compelled to--especially if one insists that all moral judgments are relative and can't possibly be traced to supernatural authority. Somehow their own moral judgments are immune to this criticism, and any of us who disagree should be disenfranchised and imprisoned.
Which takes me back to my initial confusion: why a belief that rights are granted by God leads to adding the insult "Nationalist" to the insult "Christian." It seems that the main problem is the progressives' conviction that only a bad Christian Nationalist would insist on the validity of his own moral judgments, whereas the secular progressive is simply asserting his own self-evident virtue as something exempt from criticism or even analysis. That is, he's right about his concept of virtue while his political opponent is wrong, and the problem is that his political opponent looks to God for his vindication while the progressive is simply correct in the view of all right-thinking and valuable people.
Yup.
And of course, Trump is a "nationalist."
Mr. Hines: "Our Founders asserted the nation as being the proper level with the opening phrase of our Constitution, which is our nation-level blueprint for governance: We the People. We citizens--We the People--accepted that definition when we ratified our Constitution."
I think it's important to note that they saw that as necessary for strength against foreign powers, and to nullify some of the liklihood of infighting between the states, but of course they also tried to greatly limit the federal government to favor state and local governance. This stepped or terraced method was a wise one for many reasons, not the least of which was you really only know the people in your community, beyond that, it's all loose affiliation. Local is where it's at, but you need friends for support.
Post a Comment