Brooks, are you covering for Trump? I have no idea if you are patriot or priest or polititian but from this I gather you are a white nationalist and are whitewashing their goals. I guess being in the party of Trump has finally gotten to you. As he says, "they say" that anyone who gets near him gets befouled in the process. Time to take a shower - a long one.
42
Stop enabling Trump!
24
Nationalism is Fascism.
28
David, You're confused. At least, judging from this latest opinion piece of yours, you are. To use "nationalism" as a synonym for "patriotism" is Orwellian as well as tone-deaf and sophomoric. A man of letters, such as yourself, should use words carefully; he should pay attention to nuance while he writes. You often try to provoke at the expense of the kind of nuances, which the English language affords, and which ought to interest you, as a writer.
44
David, I also consider myself a nationalist for similar reasons, and I accept the overtones of superiority that go with it. Unlike MADA nationalists who hanker for some lost sense of American might in the world, I believe our system of government is superior to anything else out there and that policies based on a nationalist view should include a healthy dose of proselytizing to oher nations on the benefits of our system. We are still unique in many ways and since the end of the cold war, seem to have given up the effort to help other nations evolve to our standards of government by law. Insted we seem hell bent on protecting our own selfish stakes, organized by tribe and tearing each other down. We are using the organization skills de Tocqueville touted as special to the American Character in its pursuit of the commonweal and turned it into a tool for the preservation of lost causes and personal interests.
2
Coming from a country that had several military dictatorships and a very screwed up "leftist" government (this one I avoided, by being here, in the right country), let me tell you that you can't put lipstick on that pig, man.
Nationalism is ALWAYS AGAINST something or someone. It's never constructive, as patriotism is.
But hey, you are a conservative writer, and I know it must be difficult to write an OpEd about conservatives these days (since apparently they are extinct).
41
David, your choice of words "American Nationalism" is so trite. Why the urgency to sanitize the the idea of what is a Nationalist? You love America, you're a patriot. No different than so many other Americans.
16
Pure gas-lighting in tacit support of Mr. Trumps declaration that he is a Nationalist and all the xenophobia implied by that statement. Shame on you, Mr. Brooks.
36
It's one thing to really love your country, but something completely different when your "love" is really "hate" for "those people" who don't look like you or speak the same language.
18
More like patriotism. That said, "nationalism" when speaking of the United States would involve a much more Liberal flavor, with concepts and ideas emanating from the European Enlightenment. "Nationalism" that is illiberal is not American nationalism. The nationalism that the Republicans and Trump are embracing is the cancerous nationalism of fascism, and its Nazi variation, that consumed Europe in the 20th Century, instigated horrendous atrocities and a world war that barely defeated the culprits. We've seen this path before, and would be fools to take it.
12
You grew up there and still think StuyTown is lower Manhattan?
9
I can't get past that the only people that root you to your neighborhood are men.
12
Why on earth do you choose to mimic Donald Trump’s terms? You know, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
10
Patriotic people are tax paying, law abiding contributors.
Nationalists are selfish, racist, equivocators who want to dismantle our institutions and hand our country's wealth to political donors.
Be a patriot. Be a voter
Vote to put a check on the GOP since they are too nationalistic to do their jobs
18
This is patriotism, not nationalism, I believe.
10
I am not a nationalist ... because nationalism is chauvinism ... blind loyalty and an unthinking, automatic acceptance and belief in the superiority of your nation even when it's unwarranted or unearned ...
Along with all of the reasons to be proud of America there are equally as many reasons to be ashamed ... so pride in country must also and always be tempered with a degree of humility and a resolve to improve upon the shortcomings of the past ... and to always at least try to hold ourselves to our higher stated ideals ...
So, yeah, I love America ... or at least the best aspects of America ... but I am in no way a nationalist ...
12
The most disturbing thing about this column is the last sentence. An inability to understand how someone could live without nationalism exposes a striking lack of imagination.
13
A letter to Mr. Brooks, I've been troubled by your op-ed piece since the time I initially read it early this A.M. I realize I may be overly sensitive (it's hard not to be at this time given the on-going turmoil in our country), but here's the effect your piece had on me. Since I am unable whether now or at any time going forward to identify myself as an "American Nationalist," I am deeply offended by even the faintest suggestion I do NOT love my country. If I'm reading your piece correctly, taken to it's logical (or illogical) extreme, somehow ( ? ? ) all the horrors of the concentration camps and the extinction of the Jews of Europe can be understood as an expression of German Nationalism, albeit a little too extreme.
Please understand why I'm so offended. First of all as I'm sure you've surmised, I am a Jew. As I've been composing this comment, I'm choking on almost every word I've written.
Talk about not appreciating the possible consequences of one's words and using a bully pulpit, in this case, The New York Times, inappropriately. Unfortunately, at this point, I don't even want to think about the context in which these words have been used most recently. Give us all a break, Mr. Brooks !
17
It is pathetic for anyone's identity to be defined by a geographical accident of birth.
I am an American because I was born in America.
I would be a Canadian if I were born in Canada.
I can be proud of my country when it deserves it and ashamed of it when it does not.
But, I'm not defined by my nationality.
Lincoln was not a great American. He was a great human being who happened to be American.
I feel pity for those who don't recognize the difference.
33
Trump doesn't love anything, including himself. He's self interested, but it's rooted in insecurity and self loathing. He's angry and bitter. See how his mouth formed a permanent scowl over the last two decades. He's like most dictators using "nationalism" and "patriotism" as a selling slogan for power and attention. And to get richer.
9
Patriotism is great except when it's used to whip people up to hate other people - then it's nationalism. Most people love their country like they love their family - even when it's acting badly. The key is not to love it blindly. Someone wise once said patriotism is "I love my country"; nationalism is "I hate yours." In today's global world we are all people first, Americans second. Churchill said "Nationalism is the last refuge of scoundrels." and he wasn't exactly a liberal.
12
Is David Brooks really so linguistically tone deaf that he doesn’t understand the distinction between patriotism (which is what he really seems to be writing about here) and nationalism (which is what he’s calling it)?
14
Personally, I identify with an America that doesn't yet exist. An aspirational nation that truly honors our national mythology. The problem is I do not believe there is a place in it for the likes of Donald Trump. Nor for the 30+% of my countrypersons who hang on his every word.
For THAT place, I could become an ardent nationalist.
1
Mr. Brooks, before you opted to redefine (and assign yourself) the term 'nationalist' in your op-ed, did you happen to check the Oxford or Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions? You can do better than this irresponsible co-opt of an longstanding definition.
Because Trump's not inclined to read beyond headlines, his tweet bragging about his fellow nationalist at the NY Times should be broadcasting any time now.
9
I believe that when Mr. Trump uses the term Nationalist it's just a dog whistle meaning "Keep those black and brown skinned people out of my country". His only ability to love is love of self.; certainly not one of country.
6
Everyone knows exactly what our so-called president means when he calls himself a nationalist. Now is not the time to conveniently redefine it in positive terms. You're guilty of fake lexicography.
6
Words matter; and the differences in words' meanings matter. Nationalism is broadly understood as not just love of one's country, patriotism, but an emotional or visceral feeling of my country above, and in opposition to, all others.
For Orwell, the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:
"A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade . . .The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side . . . having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him."
The patriotic, democratic majority of the United States opposes Trump's narrow, undemocratic nationalism. Trump knows this and denigrates norms & institutions that support patriotic Americans of all stripes: the rule of law, law enforcement, courts, honesty, integrity, and decency.
Please do not debase our language and our democracy by misusing the word nationalism.
9
I think you are describing patriotism, national pride. IMO, nationalism is the alternative to globalism, a statement of whom you would and would not throw under the bus.
3
Ernest Renan also said that the nation is "....a daily plebiscite" meaning its not something immutable, but can change, evolve, disappear, be taken away at a moments notice. It's not the kind of thing that I---unlike Mr. Brooks---would want to invest much of myself in.
2
There are many times I find Mr. Brooks enlightened. This is not one of those times. The very essence of the plight of the world is stated in your second paragraph. The fact that a mere 5 percent of those questioned comprehend that we are all part of the human experience is what leads to the self-selection, discrimination and division we face. Patriotism is simply a glorified term for nationalism and nationalism is simply national narcissism. Narcissism, at its heart, is egotistical selfishness. How can anyone find something desirable in such a state of mind? Why should anyone think their country is any better or worse than any other country? If we, in the U.S., choose to believe there is something special about our country, why would we not understand those in other countries who feel the same about their countries? Once that is the case, the world crumbles into my country is better than yours, we are right and you are wrong, etc. And then our communities and neighborhoods do the same. And we end up in our current lost state. Would that we valued that each individual in the world bleeds, hurts, hungers, laughs, loves, gives, takes, needs, strives. Would that everyone could comprehend that regardless of continent, country, state, community, neighborhood, tribe we are human beings first and foremost. Regardless of age, ethnicity, race, education, experience, economic status or any of the myriad of things we find to separate us, as individuals we are more alike than different.
7
A truly appalling column, by someone I thought I knew well enough to like, though I disagree with him virtually across the board.
Brooks has damaged himself here, and it is difficult to see it ever being repaired.
Nationalism is the latest curse to befall mankind, after Roman hegemony, the Age of Barbarians, the Divine Rights of Kings, the pervasive and arbitrary power of the Roman Catholic Church, and the rapacious Age of Imperialism. Nationalism reached the zenith of its ascendancy in the 20th Century, the bloodiest in human history, an accomplishment some seem to find worthy of celebration.
Et tu, Brooks?
I was born in one country, acquired a mother tongue in another, and came of age in this one. I acquired three languages by osmosis, and two more through study. Along the way I was immersed in cultures shaped by mutually incompatible religious traditions. In spite of all that, I feel no fealty or sentimental attachment to any of them.
I feel enormously fortunate that my experience equipped me to form a planetary perspective, not a tribal one. But it comes at a high cost: I have to live among shallow and unimaginative people who cling to self-destructive notions like dogmatic religion and nationalism as if they are virtues. And now Brooks has joined them!
Over a century ago, Albert Schweitzer wrote: "Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth." Though I have always hoped that he was wrong, I am beginning to doubt it.
8
You imply that American expatriates are somehow less patriotic. Think of Mary Cassatt, John Singer Sargent, the great Josephine Baker, Gore Vidal, to name just a few from previous centuries. The most distinctive American trait is to be rooted in "the party of humanity" -- wherever we happen to live.
4
If you look at who's doing what in DC, the only ones who systematically put "the needs of the community" above the "needs of the individual" are Democrats.
Ryancare destroys the healthcare of 30 million Americans.
Republicans want to cut social security.
They create record and structural deficits.
They go to war based on lies to try to increase the wealth of the American CEOs of multinational oil companies.
They deregulate the international Big Finance on Wall Street so that it can become even greedier, even though the risk is to once again plunge Main Street in a crisis where 700,000 ordinary citizens a month lose their jobs.
They try to suppress voter rights, destroy LGTB rights, and destroy climate agreements that America urgently needs.
And yet, we should consider THEM to be "America loving" citizens, and believe them when they depict Obama as someone who would hate America although he did the exact opposite ... ?
Sorry David, but that's not very credible ... ;-)
5
I recently read that there is a difference between an ethnic nationalist and a civic nationalist. While I consider myself the latter because of my great respect for our Constitution and the rule of law, I fear Trump and his ilk are the former. I think to many Trumpians, nationalism means wishing the country could go back to the way things were in the white middle classes of the 1950s and early 1960s. These folks had their heads in the sand as racism and poverty ran rampant but was unaknowleged.
I came of age in the late 1960s. Think of John Lennon's beautiful song, Imagine. "Imagine there's no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too. . ."
2
Interesting viewpoint. I can't help but be curious where your mother, grandmother and great-mother had their wonderful lives and made their impact? No mention.
1
What could you possibly mean by "It’s threatened by globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place."? I am an American who lived overseas as a child of a parent working for the US government. I call myself a globalist, and my heart is not only not bleached, but bigger and richer for loving people the world over. I am saddened by your small view of home.
6
These are lovely sentiments, but it seems Mr. Brooks is confusing nationalism with patriotism. He's clearly a patriot and loves his country, but it's unclear if he feels the sense of superiority and aggression toward other countries that characterizes today's nationalism. It's important he make that distinction if he wants to tout nationalism, otherwise how can we take anything he says about his version of nationalism seriously? He uses the term globalist just as irresponsibly: "It’s threatened by globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place." Globalist is a coded anti-semitic word, and has been for decades, so it's strange that Brooks, who is Jewish, is using it in such a fashion without bothering to make the distinction between whatever he actually means (truthfully I can't make heads or tails of his meaning) and how it's being used by Trump and other conservatives today. I can't imagine he's using it in the anti-semitic way, but he should know better than to use it pejoratively whilst touting nationalism. I think this is a very irresponsibly written article.
3
I am an out loud and proud Earthling.
2
When I was a child, I considered myself fortunate to be living in “the greatest country in the world”.
60 years later, our country is shameful and embarrasing to the rest of the world. It has hit a nadir, and no longer stands for any of the ideals I remember as a child.
Brooks is in denial.
4
“These are the essential conditions of being a people: having common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again. One loves in proportion to the sacrifices that one has committed and the troubles that one has suffered.” Well isn't that just so very special!! When we interfere in other country's internal affairs and, for example, overthrow a democratically elected prime minister and bring back the dictator of our liking, should we also think about those people's sense of nationalism and how our actions might impact it? Or how our actions impact their "common glories in the past and a will to continue them in the present; having made great things together and wishing to make them again?"
3
I love America so much. As a transgender woman, I'd get thrown off a building or be forced to dance at weddings to survive like in other countries in this world.
Instead, Im an MIT-educated marijuana consultant. I own 2 cars and a house, I go on vacations to Hawaii, and I live a happy live with my transgender wife where we live as DINKs and enjoy the disposable income that comes with that lifestyle.
I have no interest in other countries systems or cultures. In 90% of the world the local culture says I deserve to die. As such, I'm so grateful for being born here. I have so much success and support, and its ALL because I was born in the United States.
That's why it irks me when my fellow LGBT people say that America is so horrible and that globalism in the future. Maybe 250 years from now the world will be a better place, but I doubt it. I'd rather be an American citizen then a global citizen anyday in the present.
Sometimes there is a great notion, well expressed. This is yours. It is refreshing to find it on the NYT OpEd page, where the same old, same old clatter predominates, as it does nearly everywhere.
1
Back in the day, in the 60's and 70's, "nationalism" was a bad word with all kinds of negative connotations because 1- awful war in Vietnam 2- cold war and nuke threat 3- "whole earth" and that last one had a profound effect on people back in 1969 with a borderless Earth shimmering out there from the moon. The thought types, liberals especially, opted for a more globalist view and shunned nationalism at every turn. But what that did was create a vacuum of national identity that was filled by Reagan first and now Trump. No matter what your idealism may be if you can't project a deeply felt sense of "nation" I doubt if you'll have much chance for national elections. Trump has revealed the great lack in the liberal Democrats that they better start thinking about. And seeing how "nationalism" is still scorned it might be interesting to see what they come up with.
1
I applaud this piece because whether you agree or disagree with the primary premise, you still come away realizing what is great about America. And in Mr. Brooks' use of the term nationalism, I sense no animus. I acknowledge the baggage associated with the word...and understand how fraught that makes it. But if nothing else, this article also demonstrates that it is just a word...and it only is what we, as citizens, make it.
3
It’s interesting and frustrating that many commentators are redefining Mr Brooks attempts to define nationalism in a loving way an admittedly dangerous thing. I might use the term “American exceptionalism” which we should expect our leaders to believe, not to celebrate superiority or perfection, but uniqueness of characteristics, principles and qualities we would defend with our lives. I would expect the President of France to believe in French exceptionalism, the Queen of England to believe in British exceptionalism,etc just like a father to believe in the exceptionalism of his family. To think that Brooks doesn’t understand National Socialism is insulting to him hardly giving him the benefit of the doubt. Clearly he is distinguishing between himself and the Trumpians beliefs.
2
@Wayne
In that case, could you please explain what unique "characteristics, principles and qualities" Americans are supposed to "defend with our lives" and that the people of France for instance would reject?
One of the reason why history has shown that nationalism most of the time leads to the destruction of the country/people that starts to cultivate it, it because "nation" is a notion that is so vague that there's no way to give it a concrete meaning in such a way that it doesn't exclude many ordinary citizens belonging to and living in the same country.
And then we're not even talking yet about the fact that I don't see ANY bill or rule put into place by the current GOP that somehow would benefit the entire country rather than a handful of wealthiest international elites ...
5
Well expressed on your part, Mr. Brooks. You know far more about our country than I do. My having been born in New York, and brought up in Europe, it is not surprising that my home is to be found in the humanitarian community and that my good fortune rests in the diversity of friendships from all nationalities across the world.
When I worked in the corporate world in Manhattan for nearly two decades, it was with dedication and belief in my supervisor and his work for the City of New York and beyond. Born in Poland and a refugee from WWII and its horror, he became more American than an American.
It was a bit of an illusion, but I leaned on him for protection, and as a person in his own right, he was 'real', and human in the best of ways. And, President Obama will always be the Father of my Homeland for this American. Never a moment of pride, but a feeling of contentment on my part, to see this exemplar man sitting in The Oval Office, the tall shadow of Lincoln over him, with his honest smile.
And, while the politicians come and go, distinguished statesmen, and prominent persons of stature and honor, I continue to look at my country, knowing that I will always try to do better to establish an understanding with the above, while remaining an outsider, looking in and far beyond.
3
Nationalism is simply ensuring that "national interest comes first, last, and always." It means putting your country first, taking care of your own citizens first, looking out for national interests..... it doesn't mean what people have co-opted the term to mean.
Nationalism means love of country; wanting your country to do well and to do good, wanting policies and practices to be fair and reasoned. Nationalism means representing your nation in dealings with other nations, encouraging other nations to do well and to do good.
The amazing Barbara Jordan said, "Immigration, like foreign policy, ought to be a place where the national interest comes first, last, and always."
Remember Ms. Jordan? The first African-American elected to the Texas Senate after Reconstruction, first Southern African-American woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and the first African-American woman to deliver the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.
As the chair of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform from 1994-1996, Jordan advocated for increased restriction of immigration, and increased penalties on employers who violated immigration rules.
If you know Barbara Jordan and her work, you know she was an American Nationalist and a Democrat. She devoted much of her life to helping America and Americans.
Working to ensure that immigration served the nation was part of her legacy and was an important part of the DNC platform for a number of years.
5
@Azalea Lover
As it is today, obviously.
Now can you please explain how somehow jailing children and separating them from their parents is "serving the nation" ... ?
It' always the same problem with Republicans: you can't trust their rhetoric at all. They constantly talk about "America first", but when they have a chance to govern, they do the exact opposite: putting the wealthiest citizens all over the world first.
Ryancare, supported by Trump, would destroy the healthcare of a whopping 30 million Americans. Obamacare, insuring 20 million more than the previous system, saves 40,000 additional American lives a year. Soon that will be half a million American lives saved. Destroy those people's healthcare and that of an additional 10 million, as Ryancare does, and you actively cause the death of more than half a million Americans a decade, ONLY to allow a handful of insurance companies own by the international financial elite at Wall Street to get a bit more bonuses.
The GOP is not and has never been about "America first". The only ones respecting this ideas are time and again the Democrats.
And you know what?
They're also the ones who respect the rest of the world, and are respected by the rest of the world.
Turn against 99% of America's and the world's citizens in order to increase the wealth of the globe's wealthiest people, and call that "nationalism" if you want, but know that doing so means betraying your own voters and country in the most horrible way possible.
2
At a time when white nationalism is threatening to gain disturbing levels of legitimacy, I find Brooks flirtation with the idea of nationalism downright irresponsible. Nationalism, as many commenters here mention, entails an us vs them, “we are better” mentality. With Brazil succumbing to even more dangerous brand of fascism than what is taking hold here, this is not the time to wax poetic about amber waves of grain. One of America’s greatest achievements was creating or at least attempting global order. One of my most American qualities is my interest in all cultures. How tragic that Brooks appears to be fascinated with making nationalism safe for Americans when patriotism would do just as well and allow for all nations and tribes to seek prosperity.
15
People matter. Ideals matter. Not arbitrary political boundaries.
9
A very wise column. Like many recently, Mr. Brooks emphasizes the need for community and bonding as a powerful human need...and a counterforce to the tendency to demean "the other." The "community" in the US once was centered on town, then state, but after the Civil War it became the nation, given the consolidation of the country, the lengthening of a common history, and the progress of the technologies of long-distance communication and transportation.
So a REASONED nationalism is, indeed, a proper bonding force in our era to help lead us towards the "better angels of our nature." Identity as a "global citizen" has yet to inspire, and I doubt it ever will, given the distinct cultures and traditions and histories of the various nations of the world. The elites may be internationalists, but most people other than the 1 percenters oriented to the financial profits of globalism will find their focus of loyalty in the nation state.
2
@Marc Nicholson
In real life, for two centuries already many ordinary citizens understand that the only way to obtain a better world is to force the international financial elites to stop taking all the wealth produced by ordinary citizens for themselves, and we will only force them to do so if we work together, rather than sticking to the illusion that the boundaries of our state or country would miraculously coincide with the boundaries of our problems, remember?
THAT is what Obama's TTP for instance does: it increases labor rights BOTH for Americans and Asians.
And then we're not even talking yet about the fact that ALL wisdom tradition accentuate our common humanity and teach us how to see other people first of all as human beings just like us, wanting to be happy just like us.
Local customs and habits are wonderful and should be cultivated and protected.
But we should NEVER fall for the illusion that those are what defines us, rather than our commun humanity.
In the meanwhile, the "nationalist" GOP is passing one bill after the other that doubles the deficit and shifts wealth from America's citizens and those of other countries to the wealthiest multinationals.
Nationalism is and has always been a doctrine used to cultivate a "small" sense of self, which then distracts ordinary people so much that "nationalist" elites can then take and keep all the wealth for themselves.
And remember, that is EXACTLY how globalism has always been defined ...
5
Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a nationalist. Honest, pragmatic, common sense, anti-slavery - with the brilliance and unique ability to come to the heart of any matter or concern definitively and promptly. This is clearly not Donald Trump. Keep in mind that the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln. No more. The Democratic Party was the party of Jefferson Davis. Now, we have a complete role reversal. Lincoln must be turning over in his tomb when he sees the actions of the current version of the "Republican Party".
5
We are part of a social compact with other Americans and so I definitely think we should prioritize the well being of Americans over non-Americans.
How else could we justify asking a soldier to give his life for our country?
An "us versus them" mentality at the nation state level characterizes the global order, so even those who claim they are not nationalists really are.
In any event, as Brooks says nationalism in the U.S. is not tied to ethnicity so really doesn't carry the same baggage as compared to nationalism in the Old World, where nationality and ethnicity overlap.
2
I read you piece, "Yes, I am an American Nationalist," and then I reread it replacing Nationalist or Nationalism, with patriot and patriotism. I understand your point, and your intent, but in these charged times I would suggest this:
There is a difference between a patriot and a nationalist, and it goes beyond the imagery or the connotations. A patriot embodies everything you wrote about, while a Nationalist views his patriotism as a zero sum game.
13
Mr. Brooks is usually thoughtful and interesting eve when I don’t agree with him. But he completely misses the mark on this essay. As a retired political science professor I think there is a clear distinction between “patriotism “ and “nationalism.” Patriots love their country; nationalists may love their country too but also denigrate other countries. Mr Brooks is a patriot, as are most of us, not a nationalist; Donald Trump and many of his supporters are nationalists.
19
Some years ago somebody did a study of national pride. There was a tie for first place - America and Australia. Must admit, for a country that's not Australia, America does have its moments. During the Tea Party's first ooze in to public recognition, I met Americans with names from everything from Paul Revere to just about anyone but Betsy Ross. The American pride was obvious, even if the spelling was lousy.
American pride and American problems are too much of a dichotomy, too drastic a contrast between myth and reality. The greatness of America has always been in gigantic ideas, innovation, progress in thinking, and above all, in a surprisingly genuine, usually understated, view of America.
Washington was no fountain of eloquence. Franklin was, but hardly bombastic. Lincoln was such a plain but good speaker that he's still one of the best big ideas voices in American history. Truman was terse but effective, and so on. Even the etymology of the word "nationalism" is inseparable from community, society, and above all, facts. The great American speakers also never dodged facts; they were all about facts, particularly injustices, in any and every form, and they were relentless on these subjects, from liberty onward to days of infamy and beyond.
Babbling about abstract greatness in the midst of so many obvious, all too real problems and serious issues barely qualifies as tiddlywinks by comparison. It just isn't even in the game. Stick to your standards.
2
Nationalism caused the two world wars. Nationalism created nations which in turn created hatred between nations. Nationalism is an unnecessary evil.
Ernest Geller, a brilliant philosopher and sociologist wrote the seminal book on the topic. Nations and Nationalism it is called. It used to be widely read in places of learning such as Columbia, Harvard and Books’ alma mater Chicago. I guess he missed those lectures!
13
@Blunt: typo correction: Gellner not Geller.
I must seem like a terrible patriot to many.
I think of myself first as a human and a Christian, though the orders sometimes caries. Either way, I don't think an American life is worth more than any other, which is implicit in nationalism.
Nation states have been the most expedient means for aggregating large groups of humans into meaningful and productive collectives, so far. But they have also been so costly. So costly, and the root of that has been nationalism.
2
Mr Brooks, your column is lovely. I admire how you describe your palpable love for this country, how inclusive it is, how beautiful as you describe your neighborhood and places you've seen. If you want to call yourself a Nationalist and give it such a positive twist, you have a huge forum in which to share your views. But make no mistake, Nationalism means a lot of different things depending on the times and the person.
For instance, Nationalist Socialism or Nazism was one of the greatest evils of the 20th century and you still have people walking around calling themselves Neo-Nazis. When Donald Trump called himself a Nationalist, most people recognize that he is referring to himself as a White Nationalist because his pattern of behavior has been to support white supremacists and talk like one. I know you get the gist of what I'm talking about.
As for myself, I identify with being patriotic and loving humanity as a whole. Or perhaps I should say, I try. Like most everyone else I'm a work in progress.
2
"The greatest threats come from those who claim to be nationalists but who are the opposite."
Except that the FBI has shown for years that most domestic fatal terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by white supremacists.
"Today, when bombs are sent and vitriol follows, our common American nationalism, our mutual loyalty, is under strain. It’s threatened by extreme individualism — people who put the needs of the individual above the needs of the community. It’s threatened by globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place."
Except that those who sent those bombs identify as nationalists and claim to want to protect the nation they belong to.
And if the GOP now FINALLY wants to "put the needs of the community above the needs of the individual", then why did it pass its deficit-doubling tax cuts for the wealthiest, and is now even promising a tax cut for the middle class all while threatening to destroy the middle class' HC and social security?
What Brooks writes here isn't intellectually coherent at all. And it doesn't take reality into account either.
A patriot loves his country, including ALL the nations that are always making up a country, and including all those who feel more connected to our common humanity than to one or the other nation.
The "enemy of the people" is not those who put humanity before language or custom, it's those who idealize local attachments and prefer to forget how this systematically leads to violence.
4
Despite the fact that I currently live in Canada, as a born and bred New Yorker and daughter of immigrants from Poland, I remain a proud American. Unfortunately, my pride in my native land is eroding, thanks to the current president and his followers. By his words and deeds Mr. Trump has damaged the country's reputation as the leader of the free world and as the world's finest democracy. He has brought out the worst inclinations of a vocal segment of the population and encouraged hatred and violence. It's imperative that those members in Congress who have supported Mr. Trump be voted out of office and are replaced by people with actual spines and a sense of decency.
6
Loving nationality is, for America, fidelity to constitutional patriotism amid multi-ethnic fellows. It's a love of regional humanity, in terms of what's ostensible: locality. This is the ideally-democratic republicanism that USAmerica is (within the humanity of North America and South America).
That is no ethnocentrism. But nationalism reeks of confusion with ethnocentrism (if not rightism). So, let's outgrow a confusion between republican nationality and ethnocentrism.
Not convinced. Nationalism, above all, is yet another "us vs. them" option. I'm reminded of the Charles de Gaulle quote: "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first. Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
9
When people describe themselves as nationalists I get nervous. I think of saying such as “Right or Wrong, its my Country”, which typically means even if America does something terribly wrong these nationalists will close ranks and defend it even if it means others will suffer for their actions. Nationalists tend to place themselves apart and above someone else and someplace else. I know many Americans, like many and even love some but the ones that believe that America is the best country in the world without ever seeming to accept other countries’ form of government and their policies as being equal to or perhaps even better than America’s leads too often to arrogance and ignorance and that is a receipe for strife.
4
When the constitution ascribes for a more prefect union and we would accept that as a fact that we as humans are imperfect and we resolve ourselves to be better than you are a patriot who understands the true intent of our constitution. Instead you take that statement and attribute the imperfect union to some that are part of " we the people" but not all that belong "we the people" based on whatever division you create (a disunion) than you are a nationalist and cease to be patriot.
1
David, Thank you. Best column in a long time, perhaps ever (I am a 30 year reader).
2
I migrated from Nigeria to the USA as an adult more than twenty years ago. In the past five or six years I have asked Nigerians about the same question as Brooks: would you die or voluntarily fight a war for Nigeria? The answer sadly, is always an unequivocal “no”. And that can be understood due to gross inequities, injustice, corrupt governance, and numerous undesirable complexities of the Nigerian society.
While I am completely Americanized (except for physical appearance and a trace of accent), I do not feel completely a part of any place in America, not even Atlanta where I have resided for 20 years. There is not a week that goes by without the ubiquitous question “where is your accent from?”. I appreciate most of these interests as they are excellent conversation starters, but some clearly, actually mean “you’re not really American”.
Ironically the same applies these days when I visit Nigeria. My reasoning, demeanor, speech and attitude betray my American lifestyle. I am told, “you’re no longer from here”.
Therefore where does my loyalty lie - Nigeria or America? Both. Nature implants in us a deep affinity for the country of our birth and origin. Yet I would bet my money on America, because it is the country that afforded me the successes I have enjoyed, and at least holds the ideals of equity and justice for all. Although imperfect in its execution, those ideals allow most Americans to quickly say “yes” to the question: “would you die or fight for America?”.
5
You can't call patriotism "nationalism" - you should know better Mr Brookes.
7
As far as I know, Mr. Brooks is an observant Jew and now he proudly agrees that he is a "nationalist" which is a term Trump has used to describe himself. Really. A columnist for the New York Times is so tone deaf as not to realize the full implications of that term. It's reminiscent of Megyn Kelly's inappropriate use of the term "blackface". Saying you're not PC is basically saying you're ignorant and proud of it. Mr. Brooks, is that you?
7
As usual, David Brooks could not be more tone deaf. "Nationalist" is code for white supremacist, David. Wake up, please.
11
Mr. Brooks, yet again, tries to draw a false equivalency. This time it's between nationalism and patriotism. Somehow, his opinions, always coming in right after some outrageous remark or action by the president, are centered around making Trump's remarks or actions normal and then how Mr. Brooks disagrees with them. Mr. Brooks tries very hard to elevate the president's words to a level where intellectuals can actually debate about them and agree or disagree with them. Sort of like trying to find food particles in fecal matter. It does not work, Mr. Brooks. Give it up! There is a fundamental difference between nationalism and patriotism, the feeling of superiority of the country above any other country (nationalism), and feeling of admiration for the way of life (patriotism). Mr. Brooks conflates the two, and he is much smarter than that.
9
I can tell you “how people live without” nationalism. In despair at the loss of civility, anger at the constant barrage of lies and conspiracy theories that divide us, angst at the unending toll of misery from political/religious ideological conflict around the globe. Frustration at the inability of elected officials to actually govern. America is living proof that society can muck up its’ nest to the point of becoming uninhabitable. God gave humanity a Garden of Eden to play in. Humanity immediately screwed it up. Nationalism? It is nothing more than tribalistic insecurity on an industrial scale. It has killed the republic.
4
I think it was George Orwell that said that redefining words to mean what you want them to mean for political purposes was a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.
8
This is one of the greatest essays about America and being American that I have ever read. It should henceforth be included in every copy of the Federalist Papers and other scholarly works regarding the Constitution. This is the prose version of America the Beautiful.
3
You are confusing patriotism (love of country) with nationalism ("my country, right or wrong"). Trump would like us all to be Nationalists, so we would follow him, as the leader of our nation, under any circumstances, whether we agreed with the action or not. Whether the action was right or wrong, we would follow and obey.
2
When the president of the US starts to systematically spread lies about minorities and immigrants and then claims to be a "nationalist", the role of Republican pundits is to:
1. remember the history of nationalism and ask the president and the GOP tough questions
2. clearly and unambiguously distinguish themselves from what that word is now meaning, rather than all of a sudden and for the first time in the lives starting to define themselves as "nationalists", as Brooks is doing here.
The reason why the GOP became such an utterly corrupt and immoral party, only working in order to increase the wealth of the wealthiest citizens on earth (because THAT is what their Wall Street deregulation and tax reform bills essentially do) is among other things precisely the fact that its pundits and "intellectuals" lost all sense of history and moral compass.
There is not ONE single text out there proposing a version of nationalism that somehow embraces diversity rather than wanting to impose one single language and ethnicity on a diverse group living within the borders of a country.
So if Brooks now wants to invent a nationalism that isn't merely a patriotism but that somehow maintains the notion of a nation, all while wanting to cultivate diversity, he'll have to do more than say that he loves America and then support exactly that political party that is selling it out day after day to the wealthiest international elites.
But that's not what he'll do, of course...
6
Sorry, David. I disagree with the word "Nationalism" almost as much as I do the word "Imperialism". To me, they are each a side of the same coin. On one side promoting political, social, and economic interests above all else and on the second side, the evil twin of a state's policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion over weaker states. We had both in the United States in the late 19th Century coupled with the idea of "Manifest Destiny" The result was the colonization of Cuba, Philippines, and the ultimate destruction of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Of course, US corporations were more than happy to assist so it looked more benign than it actually was. The problem with “Nationalism” is drawing the line. Especially when using it in politics where bombastic speech is more the norm these days. Politicians love to blur distinctions, don't they? Maybe that is why our Presidents from FDR through Obama did not touch that word with a ten-foot pole. They knew not to poke that sleeping bear.
I understand your love of country, places, culture, and people you hold dear to your heart. I suggest avoiding the word “Nationalism” however well-intentioned.
Words do matter, especially in these volatile times.
4
I’m not sure the word Nationalism can be rehabilitated. Brooks makes an attempt to do that here by associating it with all things good about love of country. His major point seems to be that we would be lost without a national identity to hold us together. I realize the standard forces of social cohesion aren't working as they have previously but to rely on “nationalism” ignores the terrible history that resulted from adherents to that concept.
Robert Reich was somewhat more helpful in his 2001 essay “Good and Bad Nationalism” where he tries to define the difference between a positive approach that is inclusive and tolerant, and negative nationalism that uses scapegoating and inflames fears of economic insecurity. The term is certainly complex but it doesn’t resolve the issue of why its usage is even necessary given its history. The term “patriotism” is perfectly adequate to cover all of the positive notions about why we do what we do in the service of our nation to make it better and to make it worthy of our loyalty. To trot out “Nationalism” as an ideal, or in Brook’s case to paint it as our sole remaining bastion of unity, is to enter into an environment laced with foul aromas of triumphal myopia. If we would want to suggest that America needs to go it alone or that the times require that we step away from simple human compassion, we could do no better than to rely on appeals to nationalism. It is a term that needs to stay pejorative. Its history and our future demand it.
3
One of my colleagues makes a distinction between nationalism and patriotism. The idea of Nationalism, is often connected with the idea of race, and in the 'German' Race, in the late 19th and 20th centuries. So Nationalism is really not an American thing. Here in America, we have Patriotism. And it is very much tied to the Constitution's creed: "We the People"... which essentially means Freedom and Democracy. Somewhere I read that Democracy is based on the use of Reason as opposed to Physical Force to maintain order. American Democracy is based on the Will of the Majority, but with important Protections for the Minority.
But most importantly, Patriotic Americans fervently believe in Freedom, the absence of a single, central Authority. Patriotic Americans believe We the People are the ultimate Authority. The success of that Authority depends upon how we all get along, and reason with one another.
2
I've seen that most comments below correct the author's wrong use of the word nationalism, and a number of them classify it as a positive patriotism. But what in the world is positive about patriotism? Loving your neighbourhood is real and meaningful, it is a love of memories and smells and colors and people - but the love felt for an artificial unit with a border, which is a political and historical accident? Some of the authors confuse this with a simple humanism of caring for a others around you, but how can that be limited by a border?
You love more people of Texas than of Mexico?? And if the border moves tomorrow, the love will move accordingly? I am amazed by a the narrowness of the author's emotional and spiritual vision.
3
How paradoxical that it's conservatives today who claim to be better Christians than liberals, whereas it's precisely Jesus who sent the world God's message of love and the possibility of redemption for ALL human beings, IF they can learn how to love those who are different as much as themselves.
Of course human beings need a sense of belonging. But we will always belong to many different groups simultaneously, and today, in a globalized world, we more than ever belong to humanity itself, especially when it comes to solving problems that touch us all.
Today already, for instance, there are 20 million climate change refugees in the world. We've been lucky enough to live in a region where, even though the West caused climate changed, the impact here isn't such yet that people have to flee the US. And we're also situated in a region that is still far enough away from the countries from which those people are fleeing, to have the luxury to worry about "caravans" of a couple of thousand people who want to cross our borders.
But everybody knows that this won't last.
So EVEN when you decide to only love your own country, and to limit your sense of belonging to the borders of that country, in the 21th century it's the world's problems that we'll soon be facing. And no re-definition of "nationalism" will allow us to find common solutions.
At the same time, it's precisely the GOP that continues to pass bills that hurt "the nation" and only benefit the wealthiest elites ...
5
Can you imagine how Brooks and others would have reacted if President Obama had identified himself as a nationalist? The right would have gone insane.
Trump says it? And these same right-wing pundits fall all over themselves to spin the label and claim it for their own.
I wonder what they'll will do when Trump proudly claims to believe in Socialism for the Nation...?
8
ERIE PA
I remember the country when we all loved it and could have disagreement without hating each other. I associate with what was not what is. I'm awake to the 1/3 of us that thinks like a non-human - that is how far away the REPS feel to me. When I try to intellectualize I can subdue that extreme dislike for their lies, deceit, fear mongering, and their joy found in other's misery. I'm appalled. They are not in my TRIBE and need to be gone.
1
Reframing nationalism as love of country is patriotism, and nobody would cavil with a healthy, respectful expression of that.
But Trump's talk of being a nationalist, especially when accompanied by the big, clumsy, coquettish hand over mouth admission -- "Oops! There, I said it!" -- betrays an awareness of how much of a bad word that term is. It's just one more in a host of winks and nods to what we all know is where his heart lies. He's a fascist.
Why then would Brooks try to reclaim the term as something benign? Trump's meaning is clear. He means it in the same way Hitler and Himmler meant it. The same way the current leaders of Austria, Italy, and Hungary mean it. The same way Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon mean it. Or Richard Spencer and David Duke, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Jefferson Davis. Or Trump's doppelganger, Benito Mussollini.
And now Brooks is trying to distinguish what he obviously regards as a healthy, decent love of country from its more malignant cousin, that which elevates country so far above all other considerations as to require demonizing OTHER and losing sight of one's own humanity.
But why? We already know what Trump means, and it should simply be denounced on its face. No need for fustian semantics. No need to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. He's there for all to see, teasing us the way Nazis used to prey sadistically upon the ambiguity of their supposed intentions. We know what they are. That's enough. Let's deal with Trump as he is.
4
I understand how the sense that one's identity is tied to country. There are many countries that have such strong sub-nations or tribes that loyalty is to that group (e.g. a Basque or Catalonian might feel closer to their ethnicity than to their country Spain) than to country. The goal of the U.S. is supposed to be to erase these distinctions albeit this is still a work in progress (e.g. race, religion, ethnicity as defining features either by choice or by imposition by the larger society).
In my case, my first loyalty is to my family above all else. Afterwards, within the U.S. I am a New Englander who lives outside of my native region (albeit within a very short drive to the border). There is a feeling a New Englander gets when he or she crosses the border into Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut or (by sea) Rhode Island of returning home. Wherever my entry point, my internal being has a transformation and the detail is to get where I grew up.
I suspect that people from some other parts of the country (Texas, Northern California, Southern California, New York) might have similar sentiments. Our regional culture and history sets us apart from the general history of the country.
Outside of the U.S., I identify as American before I mention New England. Being an "ethnic" person, I may have to emphasize this fact if I meet resistance or disbelief. Sometimes I have to do the same in the U.S.
3
"People with their same old need for belonging. People with their same old need to dedicate their lives to something, but with the great unifying object of love — the nation — taken away."
All wisdom tradition recognize a human being's need for belonging to a greater group and acting in order to advance a greater cause than their own individual lives.
The reason why NO sages of any religion ever advocated nationalism is because the only real belonging is realizing our common humanity, and working hard to increase the happiness of all human beings on this planet.
Of course we're attached to local customs and habits. But every wise man will tell you that those attachments also come with a lot of suffering, contrary to learning to see our common humanity. So local customs (if non-violent) deserve to be protected, but should NEVER be confounded with what we truly belong to, as human beings.
Gilles Deleuze, a famous French philosopher, distinguished right and left, on a political level, as follows:
- if you ask a left-wing supporter where he lives, he'll say: planet earth, the West, Northern America, the US, New York, NYC, 56th avenue, this house and family, me.
- if you ask a right-wing supporter, he'll answer: me, my family, my street, my city, my state, my country, the West, planet earth.
That's why globalism (using the government to make the wealthiest wealthier, to the detriment of the 99%) and nationalism will always be right-wing doctrines - and horrible mistakes.
What counts is family and close friends. Nationalism - American nationalism- is meaningless. Nationalism is used to sell things or to rouse citizens to hysteria. Tens of thousands of soldiers died for no reason in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghhanistan. It's sad many came back physically or mentally wounded.
3
My teacher in 11th grade US history, Mr. Katz, had a phrase that he used from time to time: "and then nationalism raised its ugly head".
I only began to appreciate his meaning as I grew older.
Nationalism is rarely so benign as Mr. Brookes describes it. I just returned from a vacation to several of the republics of the former Yugoslavia, where even after more than 20 years the wounds of war and its fault lines, driven by unchecked and simplistic nationalism, are still visible. This nationalism did not look benignly on everyone else. Rather, they were simply the enemy - the "others".
Nationalism is one of the levers by which the would-be autocrat pursues his goal, creating an enemy, because autocrats need enemies like they need food. Not recognizing the inherent danger of nationalism, redefining it as something benign, allows it to retain its power to unify and mobilize, so that he who wields it can pursue his mad goal of power, land, treasure or glory and drag the rest of us with him. As bad as that is, it's even worse if we are the ones made the "others".
So, Mr. Brookes, enjoy your sense of place. Look benignly on your neighbors with their strengths and foibles, their similarities and differences. But don't call that nationalism.
7
Charles De Gaulle observed that patriotism was love of one's own country while nationalism was hatred of other peoples' countries.
Mr. Brooks is giving cover to Trump's dog whistle calling all white bigots to support his (Trump's) agenda. For shame.
8
I'm not from the U.S. I agree that Mr. Brooks is describing patriotism not nationalism. But if he is a true patriot, as I think he is, he should spend more time musing about how to fix the very serious problems that currently exist in the U.S. The list is long: no universal health care in the face of massive health issues for those who are not rich: extraordinarily high rates of incarceration; huge lobbies that dominate the thinking and voting records of members of congress; an outdated Constitution; serious racial issues; dangerous and growing income disparity. I could go on.
It's a crime that a country with such enormous resources and so many kind, generous and buoyant citizens, is led not by a true patriot but by an ignorant despicable man who is only interested in "what's in it for me."
6
To me white people are nationalists because this country has favored white people. People of color have a very different take on what it means to be an American. Let’s not forget that this great country has spent its history marginalizing people of color over and over.
4
What if the answer to your question is "none of the above" -- that's not how I describe my identity, attachments or loves. Some of us could be happy living in any one of a number of countries. What makes the US so much better than Canada, for one obvious example? I don't get the point of your game, or why you devoted a column to reinterpreting Trump's latest birdbrain statement.
4
"You can’t be a nationalist if you despise diversity." Sure you can. People do it all the time. Nationalism is separating the world into us and them based on nationality, but it always has an aspect that identifies some people in the nation as "not us." At very least, that includes people who lack an emotional attachment to "the nation." Like all collective identities, nationalism has constructive and non-constructive expressions, and like all collectivities, nationalists take credit for the former and deny the latter. And more to the point in the present environment, nationalism lends itself to the unprincipled manipulation of large numbers of people for purposes most of the people wouldn't normally go along with. There are all sorts of ways and reasons to actively support the country for the things on which it's based and the things it makes possible without depending on a visceral emotional orientation, and to the extent they involve independently thinking about things, they're far less dangerous.
4
I have always liked David Brooks. I look forward to reading his columns the more than those of anyone else. I think that he at least tries to grapple with deeper issues. Yet I disagree with him on basic intuitions. I find his hankering after bygone ideals off-putting in the extreme. Though I am sure he has a better understanding of American history than I do, I don't believe these ideals were ever widely lived. All nationalisms are based on the lies, as perhaps the lives of all individuals are based on distortions. There is Trump's abhorrent kind of nationalism, and Brooks' 'ennobling' kind. But they are flip sides of the same illusion. Certainly, I am one of those globalists whose heart has been bleached of nationalism. How could it not have been? I was born in one country, raised in another and then moved to a third, this one, when I was twelve. My parents are nationals of two other countries and were born in yet another. The vast majority of homo sapiens have done fine without nationalism, and an even greater majority have lived without American nationalism in particular. There are currently over seven billion people on this planet who, unlike Brooks, can and do imagine living without American nationalism. If they are suffering, it is for want of other things.
5
"Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, but you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation "
Except that that's exactly what all nationalists have always done. Brooks seems to want to ignore or rewrite history here, and then somehow hopes that things this time will end well.
French nationalism for instance used the idea of a "nation", which indeed imagines a collective "soul", but that implies ONE language and often even one religion ... to impose the language spoken in the Île de France (a tiny part of France) by FORCE onto all other languages (Breton, Gascon, Flamand, ... ) within the countries borders.
There are NO nationalisms that somehow manage to invent a single collective "soul" that would be as divided as real countries are, when it comes to language and all other things associated with in individual/singular soul.
That's why "nation" is always an ideal, something nationalists aspire to, contrary to patriots, who just want all people living in their country to do well.
Patriotism has never been incompatible with recognizing our common humanity as human beings. Nationalism is.
So no, the right never had and never will have any excuse to justify trying to turn a diverse group of people into a "nation".
5
David Brooks, you should be ashamed of playing these word games. You well know the difference between patriotism (love of and pride in country) and nationalism, which is generally expressed lately as white nationalism. It's very irresponsible of you to make this argument, and I believe you know it.
118
@New reader
In a few well chosen words you have effectively summed up my response to Brooks' feeble excuse for a column. Good job, newbie. And thanks.
David Brooks refers to Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, A. Philip Randolph and Walt Whitman as "the great American nationalists." I am certain they are great Americans, but none of them would refer to themselves as Nationalists. There is a difference. Nationalists glorify the nation unthinkingly. But a true American sees the country as it is -- both its good and its flaws, as did the four Americans listed above.
Trump, on the other hand, uses the term as a bludgeon. to demean and insult his perceived "enemies."
5
Whether you want to be an "American Nationalist" or take "American exceptionism" seriously, the real question is what else do you embrace and what don't you embrace.
For example, I have no problem if you are a nationalist if you are also a humanitarian or your American exceptionism means to do share the goodness and bounty with the rest of the world.
Alas, many substantiated nationalist and exceptionist groups are colored with exclusionism and tainted with prejudice. Deep down, they elevate themselves by making others inferior, a lot of times against reality, such as seeing a different race or gender lower than they are or even inhuman.
People must not behave Pavlov's dogs by responding to whatever-baiting. On the other hand, if there are better ways to show your goodness, there is no need to behave shockingly.
2
This is always the dilemma. When someone distorts the meaning of words -- and turns "nationalist" into an offensive term -- do you try to rehabilitate the word, and Brooks is trying to do, at the cost of possibly being misunderstood, or do you give up the word and use other ones. I think "nationalist" has come to mean "nativist" and has to be abandoned, but maybe I'm wrong.
3
Instead of trying to reclaim the word "nationalism" with such admirable feeling and eloquence, Mr. Brooks, how about you try to figure out how to reclaim your party. That would make us all feel good.
6
Obviously Brooks is covering for Trump who said he was a "nationalist" probably as a wink to the white nationalists. Nice of Brooks to cover for a misogamist, ethnic and religious bigot and racist but:
"When talking about nationalism and patriotism, one cannot avoid the famous quotation by George Orwell, who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature and nationalism can be a little aggressive."
We have seen how Trump's nationalism and resulting aggression plays out both in domestic and foreign policy. All it needs is a few more enablers such as Brooks to push us over the edge.
I understand the impulse to want to reclaim the word "nationalism". However, Brooks' timing is terrible. Too many people don't, or can't, read carefully or well enough to get midway through his essay to the specifics of his re-definition of nationalism. Or they read just for what they want to hear. So to the casual, biased or unskillful reader, it seems like he's creating a cover for Trump.
1
I really enjoy reading David Brooks, but for the life of me, I cannot comprehend this column.
When my first ancestors came to this country, they were attempting to create a suburb of England. They succeeded... briefly.
When my last ancestors came to this country, it was shortly before the Civil War, and they were eternally sorry for having reproduced the mistake of the first ancestors.
On the other hand, my African ancestors did not share my experience at all. Patriotism and nationalism appear to me to be diseases.
If your ancestors came here as recently as Brooks's, I guess I can understand this column. Or maybe he just has a weird definition of "history", and no comprehension at all of who this country actually is.
The United States is not a nation. No more so than is Mexico a nation, or India. It is a diverse country. It does not try to trace its roots to the dawn of some mythic time. It says proudly in its motto: "E pluribus unum" - out of many, one. Don't look for its soul in an ethnic or racial past. That way lies racist madness.
Don't look for the genius of the Unites States in the genes of its people. In every generation, that gene profile changed. Once there was distrust of Germans (among the "real Americans" who were the English settlers). Then Germans were included. Once "Irish need not apply" because they were foreign (and "Papist"). Then Irish were included. Italians? Russians? Jews? Lebanese? Spanish? Chinese? Japanese? How can you have a "real nation" built out of such a mixture? Answer: the United States is not a nation but a country founded on a set of principles articulated in founding documents -- distilled thought commented on, amended and evolved over time. A growing concept. Not a "Volk and Vaterland".
I like how David Brooks presents a reasoned gloss on Conservative thought. But here he has gone off.
Nationalism is counterproductive as a primary loyalty. We better be primarily loyal to the species and the planet, or the human species will go extinct, and take most mammalian species with it.
3
"globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place."
Today, Republicans are inventing new definitions for "globalism".
For years already, it referred to a doctrine where the wealthiest elites of all countries work together in order to transform the laws of their countries in such a way that only they benefit, to the detriment of the other 99%.
Both Bernie Sanders and Bannon attacked this "globalism", all while attributing it to DC's "elites". Candidate Trump took over this "message", and publicly attacked the GOP "establishment" for being too globalist.
Now that he became president, everything changed. He himself is now signing globalist bills into law and his cabinet takes one globalist decision after the other. No wonder, then, that during a recent rally he decided to give "globalism" a totally new definition. Now it refers to "doing what is good for the entire globe", and this is now what he rejects, in the name of a "nationalism" defined as doing good for America alone.
Obviously, his fake attacks on migrants and minorities have only one purpose: suggesting that his policies are nationalist and hiding the fact that they aren't at all, but rather globalist in the normal, non-Trumpian sense of the word.
And now Brooks sees people no longer "attached to" any place, and calls THOSE "globalists" ... rejecting the fact that by definition, a "nation" isn't diverse at all, and rejecting the fact that we are ALL humans first.
What a mess.
Dear Mr. Brooks,
Do you differentiate between patriotism and nationalism, or are they the same?
David Brooks is wrong to say that globalists are “people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place.” We just have a love for a different place. We call it the planet earth, home to the human race and all myriad other marvelous beings. It might seem like a big difference to Brooks, but in comparison to the cosmos we humans and other things living on earth inhabit, the difference is not measurable or observable to the most sensitive instruments known to women and men, and the distinction between his love of place and ours wholly arbitrary and utterly meaningless.
2
David Brooks has long been a clever apologist for not so clever people. Here we see his artifice in full display. When President Trump claims he's a Nationalist, he invokes the type of tribal identity that always has been used for an ethnic group to claim a homeland as its own, to be cloistered from foreign invaders. Nationalism is not unique to America. It can be employed anywhere to nursemaid grudges against historical foes, real or imagined. The United States has always been the home of the Patriot, loyal to the ideals of Democracy, regardless of where he or she may come from. Brooks is a man of letters; he surely understands the difference. Yet he tries to reshape the divisive claims of a demagogue into a an acceptable form. I would advise Times readers to look for this pattern in all of David Brooks' writing. It is his most pervasive theme.
4
Somewhere, we use a phrase that says "Et pluribus, unum!". Maybe Trump prefers "Et album, unum".
1
Mr. Brooks, I don't believe there's any way to cleanse the word "nationalism" of the taint it acquired in the 20th century. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, to believe you're just being naively hopeful about the impossible. Because the alternative is that you're trying to put lipstick on a pig and tell me it's actually a beauty queen, and that would be unforgivable.
1
I am afraid Mr Brooks has a tin ear. American nationalist sounds as bad in English as in French. Surely he means American patriot or patriotic American? The French novelist Romain Gary once defined patriotism as "love of one's own [people] and nationalism as hatred of others." For Ernest Renan (whom he quotes) the nation was a "plébiscite de tous les jours." In a nation whose president regularly stirs up hatred against his opponents, a daily plebiscite is impossible.
1
Brook's seems to confuse his respect for America's constitution and political system with his identity and affection with its people (which is the more important of the two, in my view... whatever you call it.)
I consider myself a true liberal who is embarrassed by many of the left-leaning educated people in these forums who seem to despise about half of their own country's people. I live among "deplorables" and while some of them do express disdain for the liberal elite, or "snowflakes", they never consider themselves SUPERIOR to them. They may consider the 'other side', spoiled, pampered, misguided, etc., but certainly not mentally or culturally inferior - and they are their fellow Americans. They do not speak of cutting off the cosmopolitan coastlines. They (in contrast) fight our country's wars, whether they agree with them or not. Personally, I don't wave flags (as we live at the geographic center of the country and there's no ambiguity where we are.) But I understand why my "neighbors", i.e. the people of my county, may do this.
1
"It’s threatened by extreme individualism — people who put the needs of the individual above the needs of the community. "
That's sounds exactly like your Republican Party Mr Brooks and not just because of Trump.
2
Is this an apology piece for Trump saying he's a nationalist? Gaslight anyone? We all know what he meant.
4
1. ALL traditions of wisdom on this planet teach human beings how to learn to connect to our common humanity first, rather than falling into the trap of identifying with a specific place or country or demographic.
All people on earth basically want the same thing: to be able to have access to decent food, education, shelter, work and healthcare, and to be happy.
2. It is perfectly normal and human to get attached to what is most familiar to us, and there's nothing wrong with these kinds of attachments, IF AND ONLY IF we can keep in mind that they do NOT define our humanity, but are merely the result of where we happen to be born and live and who we happen to encounter on our journey through life. Time and again, history has shown that when we forget this, and start to put country/class/religion/race before common humanity, it dangerously divides mankind and very often leads to wars where nobody benefits from.
3. Mankind is extremely diverse, and in a sense every single person is a world on his/her own. That diversity is a positive thing, as it helps us not to get too attached to temporary constructs such as country/race etc. and to remember our common humanity. As a consequence, ALL cultural differences deserve to be protected and cherished, except for those aspects of a culture that lead to violence.
THAT is and has always been the left's answer to the right's dangerous obsession with nationalism and all too easy identification with "feelings" about a "nation".
1
The Rev Jerry Stinson got this one right back in 2014, it is chilling how accurately he describes the attitude of the current administration and the source of the violence that has invaded our politics.
"Patriotism celebrates the community that is our nation but always within the broader context of the global community. Nationalism so elevates our nation that other nations and people matter only for what they can do for us."
"Patriotism, steeped in critical thinking, is built upon honest evaluation of the past and present, and is thus it is always a confessional and humble enterprise. Nationalism, on the other hand, rigidly rejects critical thinking, and is often marked by pompous self-righteousness – my country, right or wrong, love it or leave it."
"Patriots are indeed concerned with stopping that which is evil; that which demeans human life. But they try to do so in ways that prevent us from becoming the evils we deplore – nationalists, on the other hand, get so caught up in hatred and vengeance that they are willing to stoop to the level of those they condemn."
Read his entire piece here: http://www.icujp.org/patriotism_nationalism
3
I am a proud American and I love New York , lived 43 of 70 years in Queens and Long Island. I am not a nationalist like Trump or Bannon. I know the United States is a divided nation , blue and red, people are deeply divided in this extreme polarized country. Nationalist or nationalism scare me a lot. These words remind me WWII and holocaust. Nationalism is not patriotism but nationalists may be patriot. I love America and it is the best to live in even with Trump at White House.
If you look at the data from the social security administration, the use of the name "Adolph" among babies born in the US went to zero around the time of WW2. The connotations were simply too bad. "Nationalism" has strong negative associations, and therefore we don't use it. I know you aren't that obtuse, but Trump certainly is. I don't think he understands the baggage associated with that word - he is too ignorant of history - but many of his followers certainly do.
2
We have chased theological abstractions from politics? Have you met the religious right and Mike Pence?
To read your columns is to believe that no one is responsible for the mess we're in; something extraterrestrial must be at work. One thing is certain, with you, "We," (all the inhabitants of ever neighborhood across America) are innocent. Magically, of course.
1
David Brooks's suave words are the lipstick to the pig that is Trump's divisive, hate-filled, authoritarian, neo-Nazi sympathizing nationalism.
Brooks's criticism of Trump is trivial, as is his paean to benign nationalism, since one need only look to the past to see that nationalism, and specifically the ethno-nationalism Trump, Miller, Kelly et al. ad nauseam promote, all too quickly becomes lethal.
Trump's ethno-nationalism is racism purified, toxic, and addictive.
I don't know why I'm sad every time I'm confronted by the ruin of the Republic Party, because the McConnell-ites and the Ryan-istas are exactly where they want to be.
When one of the two major parties essentially goes mad, how long can the nation last?
Answer that question, Mr. Brooks.
4
Nationalism is the perversion of patriotism that says "love it or leave it" without an ounce of critical thinking. I just don't think that's what you're going for David. Nor should you.
1
I am a pastor, and this article disturbs me because of this reason. Clearly, people desire to feel as if they belong to something bigger than themselves, and I find it disturbing that someone would reach for their citizenship to find this belonging. Our country has does and continues to do horrible things - why should our spiritual well-being rest in it?
I fear that Mr. Brooks is right - without love of country, so many people would be spiritually bereft. But this is awful. We need to have trust in something beyond human institutions (including human-run churches and denominations here on earth) because we humans and our institutions are corruptible and will end. My greatest attachment is not to my neighborhood, city, state, region, or country, but to something that is truly greater than myself. And the peace which comes from this passes all understanding. Perhaps this would benefit you, Mr. Brooks.
1
March Bloch once made a point about the French Crown, that well before it was a political idea, it, in Victor Tapié's words, "constituted for the country as a whole a kind of collective representation and a source of prestige and religious emotion. ... The king was the supreme embodiment of France ..." This is not something merely applicable to premodern France.
Intellectuals dislike unreflective devotion. A few months ago I listened to the fairly boring conversation Ezra Klein and Sam Harris had, and Sam at one point said something rather telling: He has a problem with particularism because it's incompatible with universalism. This is typical of a certain mode of thought -- and is ridiculous. The particular is what makes us who we are. To discard the accident of birth is an impossibility.
Some degree of difference makes life appealing. Sameness and uniformity would be boring. And nationalism needn't be dangerous, any more than familial love is; nor need it be one-sided or whitewashed. When Frederick Douglass started to read and learn, his condition became more intolerable to him, and he wrote: "Freedom now appeared, to disappear no more forever. It was heard in every sound ... I saw nothing without seeing it, I heard nothing without hearing it, and felt nothing without feeling it. It looked from every star, it smiled in every calm, breathed in every wind, and moved in every storm."
It's this kind of thing that fills my nationalism, not empties it.
1
@David L, Jr. Douglass had a friend, Martin Delany. You want nationalism? There’s some for you.
Whenever I travel abroad - Thailand, Italy and Switzerland just this year - I realize that I’m as American as a bowl of corn flakes. But whenever people ask me where I’m from I always reply, “California”, never “America” or “the USA”. We do live in an extraordinary country. It is also a country with deeply conflicted impulses, one that can be highlighted by the thought of James Madison holed up for six months at his home in Virginia studying all forms of governance past and present and writing the initial draft of our Constitution while looking out the window to the sight of his human livestock - slaves - working his fields. Our country has always been a mix of the wonderful and the horrible. Right now the ideological descents of the Confederacy hold all of the levers of Federal power and my country is a place of shame. But California, overall, continues to honor diversity, creativity, and good will towards all regardless of race, gender and gender identity, religion, national origin, legal or non-legal residential status, and sexual orientation. The red states turn all of that on its head even while most of them depend on our blue state tax dollars to make up for their own deficits. So, no, I am not any sort of a “nationalist”. I am a Californian who loves being part of the wider world.
4
There is a wonderful poem by a Tang Dynasty poet which begins with the lines — The country is broken but the mountains and rivers are still with us.... well, our country is well and truly broken. Some say things are in good shape and cite the booming economy. But a country is more than the money it makes despite what the President thinks. It is a collection of people, a very diverse set of people who by and large do try to live getting along with others. But now we have a leader who chooses to address only the segment of the population which cheers him on. There is no balance in this country which is why so many cry vote Democratic because Republicans are in control of all the levers of power. To worry about this is to be patriotic, to love the values which make up this country. Sorry, Mr. Brooks, it’s not nationalistic.
And while we’re worrying about our country, how long before we won’t have the mountains and rivers?
3
Love that you referenced the Tang, the world's main superpower of its day marked by vast trade wealth, influential culture, cosmopolitan urban centers and a government that became increasingly polarized between conservative and liberal factions a century after civil war, eventually collapsing under too great debt caused by an overextended military and an inability to extract taxes from wealthy warlords.
For reference, the poem is "Qun Wang" [Spring Gaze] by Du Fu (712–770), historically the world's greatest poet for his ability to "express intention" of deeply personal and public meaning using consistently exceptional and exquisite form and imagery.
1
The word "nationalist" immediately brings to my mind a different meaning than Mr. Brooks describes. I suspect it does the same for many, if not most people. Trump's use of the word or label he ascribed to himself recently was quite clearly just another dog whistle, not unlike his anodyne reading on Wednesday afternoon that the country should all come together. Of course, the same evening at one of his rallies he blamed the press for divisiveness and permitted chants of "lock her up."
Mr. Books noted that Trump despises half the country, but given his behavior it appears that he despises the entire country. Why not just be honest about what his typically incendiary statements clearly mean? Perhaps his policies on trade, immigration, foreign policy if he actually has one, enormous deficits, and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, will produce benefits that most cannot see now, but it is unlikely. It is profoundly saddening that he is doing everything he can to denounce the values in which most of us have believed that the United States is built upon. No amount of verbal parsing by Mr. Brooks, no matter how noble the intent, will change what Trump is doing to our country. The only thing that counts now is our vote, notwithstanding the composition of a very Trump friendly Supreme Court.
2
I think the point of this essay is to take back the concept of America, the Nation, the entire nation. It's pushing back on the use of the term nationalist, and provoking people to think about the term and what it means.
Why should Trump and his followers be able to define what and who this country is?
Phyllis Schlafly wasn't a great nationalist; someone who believes rape can't occur in a marriage and that LGBTQ people deserve a lesser tier of rights than heterosexual people isn't someone who's interested in all Americans flourishing.
I think David Brooks just had a Megyn Kelly moment. Nationalism hasn't been OK for a long time.
3
I think Brooks is trying to carve out a new definition or conception of nationalism that simply doesn’t match what it has always been. Of course you can be a nationalist and hate half the population. That’s an old trait of nationalists everywhere.
1
Clearly Mr. Brooks you don't love the part of America that loves the globe, Andes and Rockies, New York and London, the cleanliness of Tokyo and the charm of New Orleans. 'Hearts bleached'? I'm surprised to hear that kind of dismissive and frankly degrading language about Americans you purport to love. Loving the globe is not hating home. It is perfectly possible to love both. Since the 20th century nationalism has been about drawing lines - around a nation and therefore between nations. The divisiveness of nationalism is incapsulated by your very own words: nationalism is threatened by globalists. Love the globe and by definition you're threatening America. Extremely short sighted.
2
Jung said: "Until a man has empathy for all mankind, he cannot be said to be truly mature."
3
Nationalism may be a cousin to patriotism but these two relatives have alien DNAs.
What mostly disturbs me lately is the urgency by some columnists to accept the term "nationalism" as a positive stance of an American towards his or her country. Some writers, here in the Times went as far as suggesting to the Democrats to show somewhat more nationalism in their political stance in order to gain some Republican or undecided votes. Nationalism excludes everything foreign, from colour to religion. Forms of Nationalism have caused humanity devastating calamities.
If you love your country for what it is and stands for, you are a patriot. If you love your country with the belief that its people are better than the other people you are a chauvinist and please, Mr Brooks believe me, I do not mean you. I am sure you have nothing against the Brits for having their plane take off and land on the tarmac instead of the runway.
Brooks starts out nicely and then claims Donald Trump despises half the nation. This is a statement you have no true evidence of.
He may not agree with half the nation but it was the Clintons who despised half the nation. It has been the Democrats and Brooks' pals in the establishment who showed contempt for the vote of half the nation. It has been the media and so many commenters on these pages who despise half the nation.
I've never heard Trump once say he despises half this nation and he's never acted like it. I have heard many others disdain ALL those who chose to vote for Trump. I have listened to Acosta claim that Trump is secretly a "White Nationalist." I have watched the media proclaim that white nationalists are inherently racist. I've watched all kinds of hatred and vitriol spewed against me because I'm a white male and I want America to be strong. But I don't despise half the nation and neither does President Donald J. Trump.
2
Yeah David, I normally love your columns but you really stepped in it this time.
Patriotism (love and support of my country for what it stands for and a willingness to fix it when it strays from its ideals) with Nationalism (my country right or wrong) is profound error.
We all step in it from time to time so I look forward to reading your column next week.
1
wow, I guess I'm a 5%-er.
Wellp, I disagree with almost everything in this piece, but if some right-wingers interpret this op-ed as a small nod in their direction--and they are slightly more likely to believe The Times is slightly sympathetic to them--then maybe it will do more harm than good. I don't know.
But I am disappointed in such a cavalier use of the word "Nationalism."
1
And you're white, David, which makes you a "white nationalist." See how the equivocation game works? Normalizing Trump's language will not ease the tensions tearing this country apart.
8
I can only weep at the sight of someone who purports themselves as a reporter/intellectual proclaiming his affinity for nationalism. As a student, both of history and of journalism, it invokes nothing less than an exasperated sadness.
When we fight fire with fire we succeed only in burning the house down.
2
Reading the comments bring me hope. The majority suggest confusing patriotism with nationalism. Rookie mistake. Stop being an enabler, David.
2
It's a good thing Democrats are a temperate people. Moderate, prudent and level-headed.
Country bumpkins do not understand liberals.
Bumpkins can be educated and "smart" but that does not mean that they are not ignorant of some important things.
It isn't nationalism, it is searching to belong, read:
Let us be lovers, we'll marry our fortunes together
I've got some real estate here in my bag
So we bought a pack of cigarettes and Mrs. Wagner's pies
And we walked off to look for America
Cathy, I said as we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh
Michigan seems like a dream to me now
It took me four days to hitchhike from Saginaw
I've gone to look for America
Laughing on the bus, playing games with the faces
She said the man in the gabardine suit was a spy
I said, be careful, his bowtie is really a camera
Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat
We smoked the last one an hour ago
So I looked at the scenery
She read her magazine
And the moon rose over an open field
Cathy, I'm lost, I said though I knew she was sleeping
And I'm empty and aching and I don't know why
Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
They've all come to look for America
All come to look for America
All come to look for America
3
There is healthy local pride, and there is discrimination against outsiders.
The way people are generally proud of their hometowns is healthy. They cheer for their sports teams, volunteer for the schools, and help neighbors in need. This form of local pride usually does not take the form of discrimination—I love my neighborhood and city, but I would never suggest passing a law preventing new people from moving in or conducting commercial transactions according to the same rules as locals, and I would never hire a neighbor over a more qualified stranger for a job.
The problem with nationalism—and the reason it gets a bad rap compared to localism—is that it usually manifests in the form of wanting to discriminate against foreigners rather than making your own country a nice place to live.
1
I believe in the unity of all creation. The only group with which I identify is the human race. Nations are only arbitrary distinctions. Nationalism and "patriotism" only serve to divide us and cause wars and other social dysfunction.
1
Here's a question for Mr. Brooks: If you were to move permanently to another nation, would you continue to consider yourself an American nationalist? Or would you do your best to assimilate into the culture of the land you have chosen as your permanent residence? The answer to this question says a lot about nationalism.
Many people, I think, would answer that they will always consider themselves American no matter where they live. Yet many in our nation today object when people who have permanently moved here from elsewhere stubbornly stick to the national identity of their native land.
America is commonly and accurately characterized as a land of immigrants. Except for those of "pure" Native American heritage all of us came from other nations. Why is it then that we find it so hard to respect the traditions of those that have chosen to join us in America? If we truly believe in our national motto - e pluribus unum ("out of many - one") then America is truly a multicultural globalist nation. If we are truly American we must rid of ourselves of the false dichotomy of nationalism v. globalism. To be truly American we must respect and honor the traditions, beliefs and cultures of all just as we hope to be respected and honored when we choose to live abroad.
2
I travel a lot as part of my job, and recently visited North Carolina and Missouri, both states still situated toward the rightward end of the political spectrum but, like my home state of Nevada, struggling with (or, I'd like to hope, embracing) the inexorable pull of demographic and cultural change — which, to me, is the true soul of America: Change, ultimately for the betterment of ALL. I saw what I see everywhere: People just doing through their days the best they can, making small talk, meeting with a smile, acknowledging each other with a quick wave. Though I'm a liberal I didn't feel threatened or marginalized, but accepted as a regular person. They cynical side of me could say it was because I'm a middle-aged white guy, but I'd rather say it's just because I'm a fellow human being who just happens to be American. To me "Nationalist" is a fraught word, still too connected to its darker connotations from the past, still used as a blunt instrument of ignorant superiority by certain current "leaders," to be uttered or invoked in any honorific sense. So I reject it, though my family's blood line traces far beyond the nation's advent. I'm a member of the human community, period. For all his thoughtful, patriotic words, for me Brooks' lens remains too narrow.
1
When something is just not working anymore, it is time to bluntly define the problem -- neither this column or this country has done that. There is now just too much that is wrong, wrong morally, wrong financially, wrong politically, wrong environmentally, wrong legally. The United States is the wealthiest, most protected, most fortunate country in the world an yet it has not used its national intellectual or systemic capital to lift all boats for people or the natural world. It has used its resources to exploit for both the short and long term -- what terms are left? Hence we have a man-made Sixth Great Extinction. I identify with humanity, period.
3
People always say, “This is the richest country on earth, and we can’t even do X,” but don’t they see that the vast disparities that our system generates are part and parcel of the advancements in technology and productivity that have provided immense numbers of people access to goods heretofore undreamed of? You can’t take these things for granted. Apart from a few small homogenous places, this country offers a standard of living unmatched anywhere in the world.
There’s a tension between tolerance of creative destruction and wealth inequality and the collective good that is not always as easy to resolve as the critics of so-called neoliberalism imagine. When you change the structures of our economic system in the kind of systemwide way that many on the Left wish to do, you can expect there to be changes in incentives and, I’d bet, declines in future living standards that go unnoticed.
And the environmental record of the United States and other liberal democracies clearly beats those of the socialist states. Can we do better? Always. But the solutions to the problems you’re gesturing toward aren’t, I assure you, as simple as you think.
1
Exactly, Mr. Brooks. The left does not understand nationalism, which I had the opportunity to study from a well known scholar on the subject in college.
Nationalism is an allegiance to a collection of people sharing a common bond based upon language, culture, habits, and to a lesser extent religion. Language and culture are by far the most important. Add a geographical area and government to a nation and you get a country, or nation-state.
Patriotism, on the other hand, is allegiance to a state, or government. If I had to choose one, I would choose nationalism over patriotism because nationalism professes allegiance to humans. Unlike a state, which is an artificial construct, a nation is very real and human.
The Kurds are quite peaceful. They are a nation. The Rohingya are quite peaceful. They are a nation. Kim Jong Un is a state. He is quite violent. Those in North Korea that first profess allegiance to Kim Jong Un are engaging in patriotism, not nationalism. Those in North Korea that first profess allegiance to the North Korean people are nationalists.
I'm surprised this isn't better understood by the intellectuals.
Orwell had some different ideas about nationalism
2
If we are just arguing over a word, you can go ahead and try to rehabilitate "nationalism". But your definition of nationalism does not distinguish it from either "globalism" or "individualism". Trump's nationalism is in opposition to both.
Individualism, patriotism, and globalism are all compatible with each other when it is the individual's choice to love country and to be willing to interact with the whole world. Trump's "nationalism" expects the individual to be subjects of the nation-state, and the state to seek only it's own interests against other states.
1
John McCain would disagree with this use of "nationalism." It's good old fashioned patriotism. Patriotism is to be a patriot; someone willing to work or die for the good of and continued existence of one's country. In America's case, for its creed, because historically the national never agreed on its values. But it did agree, at least to some extent, what constituted polite behaviors.
Nationalism allows for demagoguery, allows for hatred and suspicion of "the other," allows for divisiveness to those who do not use that word.
David, for whatever reason, is trying to give cover to Trump's use of the word. I cannot understand why. Does patriotism wound hokey to him?
3
Over the years, through my wife's work in several European countries, I have sometimes asked citizens (mostly male) of places like Germany and France about the status of their immigrants, whether they seek to have them become citizens and and encourage them to assimilate. An answer that I frequently get is that they first have to become "German" or "French." When asked what that means, they have difficulty expressing it. They seemed reluctant to see the immigrants as somehow broadening or enriching their own culture. That is what I see as "nationalism" and not something I would want for the U.S.
5
These issues were considered in Spengler's The Decline of the West. A masterpiece and sadly misunderstood. The idea of a 'people' has nothing to do with zoology, i.e. race, and everything to do with "the inwardly lived experience of 'we'". The definition of a people as a spiritual unit is a deeply fruitful idea and its time it was revived.
There is patriotism, and then there is nationalism. The French (and Jewish) novelist Romain Gary explained the difference thus:
Patriotism is the love of one's own, nationalism the hatred of others.
(Le patriotisme c'est l'amour des siens. Le nationalisme c'est la haine des autres)
As a Holocaust survivor and French air force officer in WWII he knew what he was talking about.
It comes as no surprise that, as a Republican, you identify as a nationalist. To you and your ilk being American is defined in opposition to a belittled or hated other. Under Trump, this includes fellow Americans, who are no MAGA nationalists or simply people of color.
9
@Kassandra: Do you think this man is able to understand Romain Gary? If he or his kin were to be drafted, guess where you would find them?
1
So David, you are proud to be an American Nationalist. Could that be American Patriot instead? In America, we have tended to see Patriotism as a positive. The Founding Fathers were know as Patriots and not Nationalists. Patriotism is an older term, going back to the 17th century. The term Nationalism is newer, going back to the 19th century. So the term Nationalist did not exist to describe the Founding Fathers. The terms Patriotism - love of country - and Nationalism - love of Nation - are overlapping terms. Nationalism with a political bent can be supremest and be very ugly: Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist Nationalists, WWI, WWII, Nazis/Facists, Communists, carnage of 20th century, White Nationalism.
It is interesting that you cite Yoram Hazony, a chief advocate of Israel’s Nation-State Law, that only Jews have rights to self-determination in Israel. So David, you can be an Israeli citizen, but a Palestinian Christian, who may be a direct descendant of Jesus, whose family is indigenous to the land for thousands of years, cannot be an Israeli Nationalist.
Are you also an Israeli Nationalist? A Zionist Nationalist? Do you support Palestinian Nationalism?
We don’t need a global government, but UN has stopped WWIII, Small Pox, Ozone depletion, Acid Rain, limited Nuclear weapons, saved hundreds of millions of lives, has peace keepers in 15 countries right now. The world of Nationalism, before UN gave us WWII & The Holocaust.
Perhaps, better to be an American Patriot.
5
There is no Nationalist in USA, because there is NO Son-0f-the Soil in America. Real Son-of-the Soil or Nationalists are Native Americans. Why not somebody reminds 45th that his Granddaddy is from Khalistadd in Germany. In that way 45th is the Nationalist/ Son-of-the Soil of Germany. It does not change even if he was born this side of the pond.
1
What a great piece! For quite a while now I have wondered how nationalism has become a dirty word. What's wrong with loving your country? Since Trump has come along with his new bastardized version of nationalism has come along, it has taken on a different connotation. Mr. Brooks hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "You can't be a nationalist if you despise half the nation". This is the line that resonated with me.
2
Mr Brooks, Not good enough. Marin Martin, Randall Adkins, Bobcat108 and David all have it right. "Patriotism" covers love of country and its ideals. John Cena made a brilliant Public Service Announcement about patriotism 2 years ago. http://time.com/4392727/john-cena-patriotism-ad-we-are-america/. Nationalism is freighted with ugly history. Even Mel Gibson knows the difference. He made a movie called "The Patriot", not "The Nationalist". Two different things, "Patriotism" is the better one.
2
The word you want is "patriotism", David. Nationalism has a far more sinister meaning. Wikipedia explains it nicely in its introductory paragraph to its article on the subject:
"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.[1][2] 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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
In other words, nationalism is closely linked with authoritarianism and worse. A "national identity"? Which identity is this supposed to be? This implication is chilling.
Stop trying to redefine words.
1
I have lived in several different states with many different cultures. Ditto for having lived in other countries. Nowhere is perfect, although I can honestly say that I have an affinity for some parts of the country more than others; I'm most comfortable in areas where diversity is the norm, not the exception, and where people work to make sure no one needs to sleep outdoors or scrounge food from trash bins. And it's clear to me that America is not the greatest country in the world. Every state or country is flawed, and every state or country is admirable in some way. I was born in the US, grandchild of immigrants, and I stay in the US because I admire many of the principles we claim guide our government and our lives. I stay and work for those principles. But if nationalists continue to destroy those principles (of fairness, of justice, of freedom of speech, of opportunity for all regardless of background/resources/color/creed), and if I think my efforts are no longer effective, I will move to a part of the world that is more welcoming. If the US becomes dramatically less perfect, I'll move to a kinder, more welcoming country that is more receptive to change than we seem to be here. It's not just a matter of civility. It's the vision of what kind of country we want to be.
2
I've loved my country because I could tell myself stories about it that -- while I knew they weren't the whole truth -- offered enough truth to give me hope and make me proud. https://fatherandsonconverse.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/my-america/
Those were stories about imperfection seeking to improve... about a "civic religion" that ultimately urged towards greater fairness, equality, and respect, in which even bigots were reminded that all people were created equal...
...about practical attempts to solve shared problems together... and yes, about diversity with more potential for success here than elsewhere, even in spite of many shameful events along the way.
Donald Trump aims to destroy those stories. But Trump is the same sociopath he has always been. He is who he is. It's my fellow citizens who love him that make it almost impossible for me to believe those stories any longer.
Beyond whitewashed stories of a white past, what, exactly, is *their* story of America? What, deep down, do they hope for? When they wave the flag, what beyond the word America do they believe it stands for? Freedom, to do what? A city on a hill, a light to the nations? Beyond bullying those who get in our way, WHAT?
2
Well stated.
There's a big difference between Mr. Brook's nationalism which embodies a country's collective positive attributes, and the cultural jingoism of say a Trump and Clinton whose blanket disparagement of the personal qualities of their political opponents defined the 2016 election.
However I disagree with his thought that our democratic system is threatened by extreme individualism, at least as it pertains to political rhetoric. Personal vituperation has characterized our political colloquy since The Founding.
For instance, during the 1800 election campaign the Jefferson camp accused President John Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman," to which Adam's men responded by calling Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
We're a tough bunch, who need to be able to take it as well as dish it out, because the only way to stop the vitriol would require gutting the First Amendment, which would effectively place the democratic process under the government's thumb.
For those who think nationalism is good:
Nationalism is our form of incest, it is our idolatry, it is our insanity. —Erich Fromm
Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill. —Richard Aldington
Altogether national hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture. —Goethe
The efficiency of the truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of the people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy. —Adolf Hitler
Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first. —Charles de Gaulle
Born in iniquity, and conceived in sin, the spirit of nationalism has never ceased to bend human institutions to the service of of dissension and distress. —Thorstein Veblen
I love my country too much to be a nationalist. —Albert Camus
The nationalist has a broad hatred and a narrow love. —Andre Gide
Nationalism today is the worlds’ idolatrous religion. —C. Wright Mills
By “nationalism” I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions of people can be confidently labeled “good” or “bad.” —George Orwell
Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.
―Albert Einstein
13
A lifelong Kansan, I found out I didn't really belong here in '68, when I was in grade school, and suddenly all the kids I had grown up with became lunatic supporters of Nixon and Bob Dole, in spite of the fact that you could tell just by looking at them that they were not to be trusted.
Sadly, my small hometown is mostly dead. Once it had a vibrant local economy with a thriving Main Street and generations of families, many of whom like my family were small farmers and ranchers. That's all gone now. Out-of-towners with no roots here own all the major businesses and we keep seeing our property taxes go up as a "build it and they will come" attitude in local government insists on constantly contracting with outside mega-construction companies to come in and build things like a new hospital, high school, law enforcement center, middle school, grade school, etc., etc.-- while our population continues to drop.
I can't relate to conservatives and I can no longer recognize the Democratic party. I don't feel connection with my neighbors, or my town, or my state, and I'm very much ashamed of my country. There is no beacon of light anywhere in this world of so much darkness. The love of money is the root of all evil. We have injected it, snorted it, drank it down by the case. It is now in our DNA. We pass it on to our children. CO2, climate change, plastic everywhere and still billions are sipping from it right now.
In short we are all out of time. Trump is the hammer.
2
I think David Brooks’ love of country in all its diversity and with all its democratic traditions is a fine thing. I share that love, but I call it patriotism. Historically, nationalist movements that put country first have caused global conflict leading to all kinds of terrible consequences: war and arms buildups and anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, racist and xenophobic policies. To care about global cooperation is not to forsake our love of country. We just need to consider that we all share space on this earth, and it’s in our own interest as well as the rest of the world’s to promote peace and diplomacy. I don’t see why it has to be an either-or proposition. I have not “bleached my heart” out of concern for international cooperation.
David Brooks just caused me to be proud of being what he calls part of the 5%. Humanity, a healthy planet, the enlightenment, sane leaders, the right's of children, animal rights, kindness and tolerance mean much more to me than a flag, borders, or a common--and frequently despicable, shared history. No, I am not a nationalist, and have no desire to become one.
5
I borrow from Haidt, " The righteous mind"
Ties that bind, blind.
strong loyalty to the group( nationalism) can blind a people to the virtues of other and justify injustice against the other.
I do think of myself first as an American, and I think of liberalism as the central idea of America..... so am I blind ? might be.
1
When I think of home I think of California. When I travel
abroad and am asked where I am from I say California.
In the U.K. a store owner told me that many Americans
are no longer saying they are from America but rather
their home state. I believe that is because many do
not want to be associated with Trump, his followers,
and the ugly actions and rhetoric in the US. I grew up
as a military brat and was raised to be a patriot which
is far different than a nationalist. Sadly, I can no longer
even identify as a patriot. I was so proud of the US when
Obama was elected and was in London when Obama
won the election I wore an Obama button that day and
Londoners told me how happy they were to see the US
make such a giant stride in electing him. Now, we have
gone backward and the ugly underbelly of this country
is exposed. I pray we can get past this. But identifying
as nationalists won’t cure our sickness.
Every American is, or should be, a Nationalist. Other 'political' considerations should be secondary. Unless hate fills the soul of course... then being American becomes secondary to politics.
"You can’t be a nationalist if you despise diversity. America is diversity; if you don’t love diversity, you are not an American nationalist."
I think a lot of people who consider themselves "real Americans" have a much narrow idea of diversity than Mr. Brooks does.
This is a dangerous misuse of the term "nationalism".
1
Mr. Brooks, Thank you for showing that nationalism and love of country can be reclaimed from those whose expressions of those feelings have made the words ugly signals of hatred. I believe the critics of the piece miss its point.
2
I'm sorry, but the meaning of the word Nationalism has been co-opted by the forces of division, segregation, and hate. I don't think they have any plans to give it back to you. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
I for one have a deep sadness building in my core where my love of country used to reside.
2
I like reading David Brooks column nut one statement in this one bugs me.
The United States did not win WW2, they participated in defeating the axis powers after dragging their feet to avoid entering the war.
Canada entered the war at day 1 and 10% of our tiny population served.
On D Day 30% of the vessels in the combat were Canadian naval ships.
Of course Canada did not win the war but we like the USA played a part.
No I am not an American nationalist.
Because while my earliest known white ancestor was in Lancaster County the Virginia colony in 1640 when he married and 1670 when he died and my free-person of color ancestors were in South Carolina and Virginia during the American Revolution and my enslaved black African ancestors were in Georgia 1830/35 where they were owned by and bred with my white ancestors and my brown Native ancestors mated and married my blsck and white ancestors in Georgia and South Carolina 1830/35 I am all and only separate and unequal in Donald Trump's white majority America.
Me and my family stand behind and below a Canadian born NYT OP ED columnist, a third wife Slovenian 1st Lady and the son of a Scottish mother and grandson of a German occupying the Oval Office of my White House.
I am an African primate ape human nationalist. A proud member of the one and only biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago.
Color aka race is an evolutionary fit pigmented response to varying levels of solar radiation at altitudes and latitudes related to the production of Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations.
Color aka race is a malign white supremacist socioeconomic political educational demographic historical American myth meant to legally and morally justify black African enslavement and separate and unequal black African Jim Crow.
Humble humane empathy is patriotic aka kneeling.
2
Brooks would do better to consult George Orwell who saw clearly the disease of nationalism in 1945:
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and...
To me, nationalism is the concept of ethnic and cultural identity being the foundation of a state. Nationalism became a prominent idea in the late 19th century and was initially a counter to imperialism. Nationalism has a problem with mixed ethnicities or other cultural diversity existing in a geographical area as almost always happens. Attempts to purify proposed nations via forced immigration or genocide are hopefully a matter of history only. The U.S., being the most diverse country on earth, is a particularly poor place for nationalist ideology. We would need to break into many regions, more like Europe, to create true nation states.
But it's hard to know what Trump means when he says he's a nationalist since he probably doesn't know much about the term or the ideas it references. He might just mean that he thinks that Americans should be richer than everybody else.
I would call on you to make one last analysis:
The English language.
I find that I could place myself in any of the English-language speaking countries and be just fine. The connection to the language itself that is obvious: communication allows for community in a way that nothing else does.
Once you start considering yourself close to Canada, New Zealand, and Ireland (among others), you start realizing just how communal our world is. From there, its just a step over to embracing all of humanity.
I share Brooks's sentiments but not his terminology. He confuses nationalism with patriotism. As Charles de Gaulle said: "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." As Brooks said, Yoram Hazony wrote that there is a gratifying tension between a person’s intense loyalty to her inherited traditions and an awareness that there are many other traditions, similarly beautiful, but that don’t happen to be her own.
Rejection of that awareness leads to destructive nationalism. One does not have to be nationalistic to be patriotic. And just as a good parent does not tolerate bad behavior in a child, patriotism does not require a citizen to accept everything that his/her country does. Trying to correct its wrongs is also patriotic.
1
Brooks sincerely defines his beliefs but does not touch on what he strives to believe. A person with his education and experience is capable to striving to be a better citizen of the world; to expand his love of "place" to include the entire earth and its vast sea of cultures and actual fragile seas. Being a well intentioned American Nationalist will not bring peace between warring tribes or save the planet. If being a well intentioned Globalist gets us there, then count me as one of the 5 percent "connected to humanity as a whole".
Mr. Brooks, you do seem quite lost lately but this column is the most divorced from reality you've been.
8
Me too!
David, our republic hangs by a thread.
The Leader is laying the groundwork for his version of the Reichstag Fire Decree by declaring the caravan of bedraggled refugees a "National Emergency," thereby enabling him to suspend certain civil liberties, postpone the midterms, muzzle the press, and move troops around to wherever he feels the national (read: his) interest is threatened. In fact, as commander-in-chief he has already ordered troops to the Mexican border. Where will they be dispatched to next?
He's got less than 2 weeks to whip up a so-called national emergency so that the looming threat to a Republican House majority quashed. (In the Leader's mind, Democratic House majority = subpoena of his tax returns, his worst fear realized.)
You are published once a week. You are squandering an opportunity to muster all the eloquence and, yes, patriotism at your disposal and make an existential plea to all Democratics, Independents, and principled Repuiblicans to vote straight Democratic in record numbers.
A Democratic House would mark the end of a beginning; a Republican House would mark the beginning of the end.
Now is not the time to parse the meaning of words.
You've got one column left. Please use it wisely.
4
David Brooks, the party of your younger years and aspirations has disappeared. It's gone. No matter how you twist your words and yourself into a pretzel, it's not coming back. You are a decent man and citizen and patriot. Stop wasting your good brain and your dignity on "trying to make this relationship work" and let it go. It's time to grieve and allow your life to move forward into the next chapter. See you at the poles.
2
Really David? I aways understood you to be a Toronto-born Canadian who later lived on the Philadelphia Mainline and went to our Radnor High School before heading off to college in Chicago or some such.
Mr. Brooks, make a salient point, or take a vacation.
10
For the past few months, Brooks has been waxing eloquently about how "community" is (or should be) the foundation of healthy societies. But today, he suddenly espouses that "love of country" is a greater "enobling love."
Huh? Which one is it?
However, I do have to cut Brooks some slack. Ever since his beloved Republican Party went off the rails and showed its true colors as a party rife with hatred, he's lost his sense of personal identity.
For a few months after Trump's election, he seemed to have found salvation in Liberal ideals (even though he couldn't admit it to himself).
Then he took some time away from writing his column, and found salvation in "community"; and has been blathering about it since his return to the NYTimes.
But this week's bombs have reminded him that the Party that he supported all these years has nearly succeeded in destroying our country. Quick, he has to do something to save the country! Otherwise, he's been complicit in its destruction for not speaking out while his party destroyed us.
What can he trot out to demonstrate that he loves our country? A photo of wrapping oneself in a flag doesn't translate into an op-ed column. Let's try a treacly paean to "nationalism!"
Empty pablum. Ersatz sentimentality. Blatant pandering. A lame attempt at assuaging his self-guilt.
Instead of preaching salvation in lofty grandiose ideals, try doing some honest work, like volunteering in a soup kitchen; that'll teach you what real America is about.
4
David, I think you might mean, patriotism, we don't need to belittle others to love the American ideal.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism
This is one of the silliest columns I've ever read. Trump throws out the word "nationalism" and Brooks like a good dog goes and retrieves it and writes a sappy column about it. Clue to Brooks -- Trump has no allegiance to anything other than Trump and he couldn't define "nationalism" if he was pressed because he is a boundlessly ignorant human being.
7
There is a large difference between patriotism and nationalism, and the president’s use of the word is more along the lines of Mussolini’s concept than George Washington’s. Our president and his party are extremely afraid of “Brown People”, and every shout about fake news and fake bombs or ‘lock her up’, makes it clear they want to proceed with their agenda unimpeded by rule of law or morality. You can care for you your nation without being a blatant homophobe, racist, anti-Semite or religious, but somehow this current crop of “leaders” and their cheering crowds have forgotten that.
David Brooks, How could you write this column today understanding the word "nationalism" in historic context and the reality tv show host's use of the word this week. Shameful. You are better than this.....
4
I’m a globalist. I know that people in other countries are similar to people in my city, state, country, in that they want to be treated respectfully, have the opportunity to better themselves, and have access to good healthcare, education and shelter. And everyone wants to be love and be loved, no matter their country, race or sexual orientation. Boundaries are artificial. Walls are self defeating. Respect, civility and kindness are contagious.
1
I find it pretty easy to live with my American citizenship and patriotism low on the list of my self definition. Traveling outside of the country and experiencing other cultures makes a big difference.
2
The Left has tried to demonize the concept of nationalism by conflating it with racism, bigotry, fascism, etc., just as the Right has tried to demonize social democracy by conflating it with Communism, Socialism, totalitarianism, etc.
That is binary thinking at its worst.
There is a large spectrum of gradations between the healthy nationalism described by Brooks, and the nasty kind the Left associates with it, just as there is between a healthy social democratic concern with fairness and equality that provides universal health care, free education, public libraries, a social safety net, etc., and the extremes of Socialism/Communism.
Nationalism is a notion that is easily corrupted by ugly adjectives. To be an American is also to be a critic of the worst impulses of nationalism and an advocate for its better angels. I think this may be a poor defense by Mr. Brooks of an ideal that is completely disfigured by Trump and his most rabid adherents.
Suspiciously missing from Mr. Brooks’s list of “attachments” is “race,” for which, I believe, many of the other terms in his in-scientific survey serve as a proxy for, and significantly so for many white people.
Hence, your question is designed to reach your desired conclusions, rather than to reveal a truer nuance, significance and meaning of the term, “nationalism,” for various groups.
Now, you want to append “American” as as adjective to the troubled word “nationalist” in the hope, I suspect, of sanitizing its largely foul connotation. (Nice try, but it doesn’t work.) The word’s connotations are just as important, if not more, than its denotations. And, in the current political climate, “nationalist” used by a white American president, is dangerous and reckless.
Further, your column and its clever wordplay with the terms (meanings) “American” and “nationalist”—which, ironically, seem synonymous and redundant to many of us—is more dangerous and more reckless than the president’s.
This essay by Robert Brooks recalls an America that once was, an America with abundant natural resources and a vibrant democracy that valued diversity of opinion.
But that society is gone. It is replaced with two political parties that have adopted rigid positions that do not allow dissent.
The NY Times contributes to those rigid positions by publishing essays that are highly partisan and accusing Trump supporters of hate. (Consider the current article by Paul Krugman.)
Of course, Trump himself uses inflammatory rhetoric. But both sides have replaced reason with personal invective.
Meanwhile Americans seem badly informed about world affairs. A picture in today's NY Times shows a child in Yemen. The article blames the civil war in Yemen.
But wars do not usually cause starvation unless they are also accompanied by unsustainable population growth. And a look at the statistics shows that Yemen has had population as high as 5% per annum in recent years, with a current rate of 2.4%.
Such population growth can explain the hunger in Yemen, with or without war.
Of course, hunger makes the people more desperate contributing to political instability.
Americans do not understand how population growth is altering living standards not just in Yemen, but in the US.
People who oppose continued illegal immigration are characterized as racists.
But trying to solve the problem of poverty in the third world by open borders is like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.
Trump uses says "I'm a nationalist" as a dog whistle to the white-supremacist element of his base. Just like "monkey business" is used as a racist dog whistle. Trump has co-opted "nationalist" as a hate word, effectively turning it into a poison term that no decent person can ever use again, making Brooks's paean to "nationalist" seem completely out of touch.
Unfortunately all of the high-flown sentiments about what makes this a Great Nation have been condemned as the mouthings of Dead White Males. What is left is what we have: a multitude of bickering tribes, some of which can't even decide what their tribe is, or why the other tribes are Wrong all the time.
I think , in this area, Charles de Gaulle was closer to the mark when he said patriotism was when the love of your people comes first but nationalism was when your hate for other people comes first.
1
Are we becoming Amerika?
I support this country, but that does not mean that I think it is perfect, superior or anything else. If I think it is doing something wrong, I can accept that and still be a supporter, but not a blind nationalist-- sorry but the term has way too many negative emotional connotations. You want to be a nationalist, by all means go for it.
2
Mr. Brooks, you may be a "nationalist" but you are also a Jew, as am I. And as a Jew, history should have taught you a thing or two about "nationalism." Your learned flight of fancy to the contrary notwithstanding, nationalism is never about inclusion. It is always about exclusion. And Jews have historically always been among the first to be excluded. The great genius of this country -- its surpassing contribution to the history of nation-states -- is that America is a state but not a "nation." There is no gene pool of "Americans" -- no extended family. We are a country of immigrants -- we all come from somewhere else, and this somewhere else is everywhere. This reality creates, of necessity, America's great antidote to "nationalism" and its dangerous tendency to always create outsiders. It means that our state must be based on the rule of law and inclusion rather than on extra-legal tribal rituals and exclusive gene pools. Paens to "nationalism" such as the one you've just written undercut this historically unique inclusiveness -- at our peril. Want to know how perilous? Spend five minutes watching a Trump rally.
4
When Trump uses “nationalist” he uses it as a weapon and as way of linguistically separating those whom the Right believes are “legitimate” patriots from all those Others whom they vilify and exclude — especially the ones with foreign accents. If you want to identify as a patriot use the word . . . Don’t use the dog whistle of the extreme Right Wing that believes that “It Alone is The Answer,” because the word they use and the idea it conveys means that no one else has anything to contribute or belongs here! And that is definitely not what is meant by the words on the Statue of Liberty or in our founding documents.
Brooks clearly does not understand what nationalism is and its implications. He is conflating it with patriotism or trying to re-appropriate it. But it is too bound up with fascism for re-appropriation.
What Brooks says below are in fact the very characteristics of nationalism:
"You can’t be a nationalist if you think that groups in the nation are in a zero-sum conflict with one another — class against class, race against race, tribe against tribe.
You can’t be a nationalist if you despise diversity. America is diversity; if you don’t love diversity, you are not an American nationalist."
Sorry, you can't take a freighted term like this and define is as you please, no matter how much American exceptionalist myopia you harness into the effort.
1
I must say: where was this opinion during the fall of 2016?
2
"And yet I have to say my strongest attachment is to the nation, to the United States. You could take New York out of my identity and I’d be sort of the same. If you took America out of my identity I’d be unrecognizable to myself."
This sounds both a bit silly and a bit sad. The United States is not your community, and, apparently, neither is your community.
What makes you love the US so much other than the fact that you yourself was born here? Nationalism and patriotism have both always reeked of egotism to me. “X country is great because *I* was born here”.
Most nationalists I have known in my life had never lived anywhere else in the world, and yet they were convinced the country *they* grew up in was the best. Rather self-centered, wouldn’t you agree?
1
@Richard Myklebust, but he wasn't born in the US. He was born in Canada.
1
He's confusing nationalism with patriotism
It takes you until 2/3 of the way through to condemn the type of nationalism most commonly associated with the term after extolling its virtue generally. You do a disservice in playing so cutely with an ugly, dangerous theme. The Americanism you seek to defend and elevate here is debased and corrupted by the term "nationalism." You should really know better.
Mr. Brooks, are you tone deaf? You of all people should recognize that self-identity as a nationalist has a pretty awful historical context. The nationalists of Germany did not love everyone who lived there. They were nationalists because they believed the Jews, Roma, Communists, Gays, etc., were intruders in their beloved land. So too the nationalists of Italy and the ones now in Hungary and Poland. Do not, like Trump, attempt to change the popular understanding of the word's definition. As a journalist you should write more responsibly. You need to apologize.
2
America's greatness is not fully appreciated by those who do not value humanity above all else.
1
You lost me with Phyllis Schlafly standing for the common good.
2
“Sometimes opposite ways, for the common good: Gloria Steinem as much as Phyllis Schlafly”
Only a white well-privileged conservative Christian male could think that Phyllis Schlafly was for the “common good”.
4
He’s trying to redefine “nationalism” as patriotism. He is mixing “nation” with country and “nationality” with citizenship. Great doublespeak, David.
1
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." - Charles de Gaulle
I think we all know which sentiment Trump and his supporters worship...
2
Nationalism has been (and is) used by strong countries to exploit other countries. It has also been used by countries victims of colonialism to fight for their liberation. Nationalism also serves those who control the power and wealth of countries to keep their poor citizens subjugated using their "national" symbols as tools. Their workers fight and die for those symbols and their rulers enjoy the gains of those wars. It has been served to produce great literature and great music, but also to write Mein Kampf.
It is used by politicians like Trump for his own selfish goals.
2
I think Brooks has it wrong when he uses the word "nationalist". He seems to have forgotten how the word and the meaning is being thought of and used today a la Trump. Mr. Brooks, stop being a romantic and an apologist for the distortions of decency coming from Washington.
1
Surprising, for someone who actually used his passport. To me, it's an east coast state of mind.....
Rather than get caught up in the history of the word, I try to see the immediate context in which TRUMP and now Brooks have used the word, "nationalist". TRUMP clearly was talking about how separate we are from the world, and not beholding to any sense of sharing our good fortune with anyone outside. Brooks clearly wants to remove TRUMP's use from his. Brooks has a love for NYC that goes deep. TRUMP just loves his name on the towers of power that happen to be there. It's good that we consider what it means to love our country. It's twisted when we start personifying it by our leaders. TRUMP no more represents America than a branding contract emblazens the name TRUMP on a skyscraper owned, managed, and built by real people. There's much more substance and complexity to the country than any patriotic symbol or party affiliation can embrace. I appreciate Mr Brook's efforts to counter the TRUMP neoligism of nationalist without NAZI.
David I am with you... of course this is not what Trump means.
“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”
- James A. Baldwin
To be a nationalist, you have to have a nation. It doesn't seem as if we've had a nation since the early 2000s. We've had a tribal society full of grievances and rage. It started with the US Supreme Court choosing GWB in 2000, continued with the election of an African American president, and has reached its height (or its nadir) with the election of someone who specializes in rage and division. To be a real nationalist, you have to see your nation--warts and all--own the warts and try to bind up wounds. Don't see it happening; thus I grieve for my nation, rather than celebrating it.
I am a global citizen after having lived in three cultures, i.e. western Europe (Holland), West Africa (Ghana) and of the USA (New York City and North Carolina). As part of that three-fold cultural identity and my education in divinity, international affairs and the sociology of international development I identify myself as a sustainability sociologist who is engaged in local, national and international projects dealing with advancing sustainable communities at those three levels.
As a global citizen I responded to the 2007-8 financial debacle by searching for answers in terms of global systems, fully aware of this century’s greatest challenge of the looming climate catastrophe. Integrating the resolutions of both these global problems and challenges I have proposed a pathway that is based upon the transformation of the present unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system to deal with the every more serious climate crisis. It proposes a new world order with as its center the carbon monetary standard of a specific tonnage of CO2e per person. It globally extends the lifestyles of voluntary carbon reduction practiced by millions of people living lives of voluntary simplicity The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of this carbon-based international monetary system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
By your definition, David, Phyllis Schlafly was no nationalist and certainly not a great one. As a gay man, I find it difficult to love all of my countrymen, but I do, in my queer way. I love the bigots who are on the road to Damascus, who will find, as did Barry Goldwater, that they love their queer grandchildren. Even Fred Phelps, Sr., had a change of heart when he got to know his LGBTQ neighbors in Equality House, and for that he was excommunicated from the Westboro Baptist Church he had led. Perhaps George Wallace sincerely repented his racist past. Everything is possible.
1
The primary meaning of "nationalism" is "exalting one nation above all others" and "placing primary focus on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or . . . groups" (Merriam-Webster).
Anyone who has had the opportunity to live in more than one place or country will soon learn--if they approach the experience with even a hint of an open mind--that there are things to be loved in almost every group of people, culture, and country, that one can put down deep roots in many places, and that the exaltation of one nation above all others is pointlessly self-limiting, narrow-minded, and dangerous.
There's nothing wrong with loving one's country, but that's not what nationalism is about. Nationalism is blind self-love and, all too frequently, hatred of anyone or anything outside the borders of familiarity.
1
Next up from Brooks: “I’m a rascist because I love all races!” Durrrrrrr.
1
“I am a Nationalist”
Context:
“Nationalist:A person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.”
“National Socialist Party or Nazi Party may refer to: National Socialist German Workers' Party, more commonly known as the Nazi Party.”
“White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.”
David Brooks will likely respond: “simplistic”. Tribalism is simplistic. Most of the Jewish community heard Trump say he is a Nationalist and cringed. Most surviving WWII veterans were infuriated. “Nationalist” does not evoke patriotism coming from a man who dodged the draft 5 times, who embraced Putin and denied our military and intelligence reports on Russian interference, who spent years leveling racist charges and religious lies against President Obama, who equates neo-Nazis killers with anti-racist demonstrators, who incites violence at every rally. Nationalist coming from Trump alerts Americans to the terror.
Now 10 of Trump’s political opponents including 2 Presidents and one VP have had bombs intercepted. Trump allies construct conspiracies and Trump blames the media.
I am sure Brooks is not a propagandist for Trump. Spinning “Nationalist” is too strange Mr. Brooks.
1
This is abhorrent. You are excusing Trump's use of nationalism to excuse white supremacists. Enough to make me consider cancelling my subscription.
2
I’m going to stop reading these. Very disappointed that you missed the point. Nationalism has taken on an ugly side. It’s not new. I know you understand this. Please don’t be this ignorant.
David Brooks love of country would explain why his son has volunteered to fight for the IDF
3
I'm making a ridiculously gross exaggeration, but this feels a little like saying those guys were the bad Nazi's - I'm the really good kind.
1
Shame on you, Mr. Brooks. You know what Trump meant. It was a not so subtle dog whistle to his racist base, and nothing else.
1
Nationalism, like words carrying negative and hateful connotations for minorities, needs to be retired…period.
1
Good effort. But as usual you're confused and confusing. How can Steinem and shafly both be good nationalists? So you're like Trump on Charlottesville: good people on both sides. That's a lie, and you ought to know it.
I’m a member of the human race who lives on a planet that is being destroyed with people who have been murdering each other for centuries because of “nationalism”.
David, you are no better than anyone else just because you were born here.
4
I doubt if there's anything of consequence in this piece. It's kind of a high school assignment, i.e., "What does nationalism mean to me?"
Couple that with the author's usual dig at individualism, and you have a work that has a negative value in the public discourse. What do you expect from the man who not long ago wrote some filler entitled "Unleash Bannon"? Please do not follow someone who doesn't seem to realize he has has lost his way
Yuck.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
- Albert Einstein
3
David,
You're confused.
A person who loves their country is a patriot. A nationalist is a person who hates other countries.
2
Sinatra sang this better.
Just admit you voted for Trump, Mr. Brooks, before you pen another paean to an America you helped maim.
C'mom, Brooks. You know that nationalism is ruined as a concept by Hitler, Trump, David Duke, the "proud boys", Steve Bannon, and many others who use it to define narrow, white interest.
One might feel the swastika is a beautiful symbol, and from a graphic design standpoint, it is- mystical, proportioned well, like a less complex mandala. But you're not going to write about how you love the swastika, are you? How the swastika should be redeemed and revered? Because that's what you're doing with this "nationalist" nonsense. The swastika has been ruined perhaps forever, at least for 1000 years by it's taint. The word "Nationalism", too.
1
Dear David, never ever call yourself a nationalist, even in jest, to catch our attention with your cute little hook of a headline. You are not a nationalist. It means neo-Nazi. It does not mean love of the US. There is no need to love the United States. It is no better than other nations. The US. is lucky, lucky for an country borne of Slavery to come this far, to survive as long as it has, through a great depression and two world wars, wars that made the United States the predominant superpower it is. Not our glorious goodness, not our humanity and decency. We filled with hate mongers, over 60 million of them who voted for Trump. We lucked out. We had our own dictator, FDR, who was benevolent. He fought to bring America into the 20th century. He forced US. to rise out of the abyss of ignorance with socialistic programs. FDR forced Americans to be good because it was not in their nature, as it is not a human trait. Humans are a terribly selfish and brutal lot. We will do anything for buck. We admire people of wealth. We elect them president even though they are a pariah on society. The United States pays adoration not to God and the Bible. It adores false idols, the Almighty Dollar. Its politicians are bought and sold to the highest bidder. Please, Mister Brooks, stop telling me how great the US. is. We're lucky we made it this far in history. We are far from the greatest nation on Earth. Far, far from it.
DD
Manhattan
The great unraveling has begun. We will see there is no one there behind the bombast and self inflation. The first real crisis of his presidency brings the tantrum child, the inarticulate moron to the foreground. No leadership there; look elsewhere.
Sorry, Nationalism has too much nasty baggage for my embrace. Love of country, yes. Love of this fragile planet and all its people, yes. Love is indeed more powerful than hate; and we will see this soon.
2
No, Mr. Brooks, you're not a nationalist. You're a Republican.
3
You can say what you want but you are supporting a Nationalist Socialist president by condoning his use of that term.
2
You simply don’t understand what you’re talking here buddy.
1
Sorry David, but youre wrong about Trump. He doesnt despise diversity. He wants wants most Americans want, for our government to obey and enforce immigration law. For a strong border. If thats being "anti-diversity", then you arent a nationalist either. Every nation on the planet has immigration law, and a process to enter their country. When did it become racist to support immigration law?
And by reading through the comments, its easy to see why you say Trump is a nationalist for only a certain segment of this countru - because guess what, a lot of liberals posting here spelled it out in plain English that they DONT love this country.
1
I can go no further than the title of this op ed. What a tone deaf man.
3
Pride in or loyalty towards or love for one's country - all these are not nationalism. Nationalism is captured best by the phrases: "My country, right or wrong" or "My country above all". This is the kind of thing that made Hitler successful in leading Germans to war and genocide.
The term "nationalism" does not deserve to be reclaimed in a positive way. Doing so gives cover to white nationalists, national socialists, and all sorts of other lowlifes.
1
@Doug Muder
Reminds me of Megyn Kelly still trying to rationalize blackface. There is nothing but bad history and bad blood in these historic terms and associations. Leave them behind once and for all, there’s so much more and better out there.
Did the people in the photo for this column give permission to be used by David Brooks and the NYT to normalize Trump’s use of “nationalist”? In both definition and practice to be a nationalist is to be anything but patriotic, and is based on xenophobia and exclusion.
David Brooks attempts to reclaim hate-speech. I find this column and accompanying photo manipulative and troubling. Please share permission question with the NYT Ombudsperson.
It's really amazing that David Brooks could actually be this clueless! He is parroting Trump and white supremacists. You can draw a straight line from people like David Brooks to Trump and an out of control, destructive Republican party, how we got pipe bombs, "good people on both sides," out of control racism and empowered racists. No Mr. Brooks, that of which you speak is not nationalism. That term was co-oped decades ago by demagogues like Hitler and Mussolini and is used by their white supremacist followers today. It is NOT love of country, quite the opposite! What you are talking about is patriotism. Here's an explanation for you. Please apologize for this completely ignorant column. "Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism is when hate for people other than your own comes first. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism." Charles de Gaulle
3
Oh, look; David Brooks trying to rationalize one of Trump's more idiotic and repellent recent ravings. Is he going to start capitalizing country,too? Like the other White House minions?
1
David... Like Diogenes, call me a citizen of the world. Always have been. Started traveling the world at eighteen fresh out of high school and haven’t stopped. Your “world” seems rather small, encompassing but one country. And you can’t imagine not being a “nationalist” in love with your country?
And David, I don’t what to embarrass you, but there is a huge difference between a patriot and a nationalist. So your article receives a failing grade this time from this instructor.
Please do your homework before the next article.
2
Oh just stop it!
You are supposed to be a public intellectual. Part of your job is to be well informed, well read and thoughtful. You couldn't be bothered to check Merriam Webster to see there is an ACTUAL definition of nationalism - and it is not the blubbery fantasy nationalism that you espoused in this dishonest column. There is a whole swath of ugly 20th century history that used nationalism to incite resentment with tragic and catastrophic results. Surely you know this. We have an ugly, aroused white nationalist movement right now in our country that is buoyed by a President who embraces the word - they know exactly what he's saying. Why don't you? Why doesn't David Brooks of the New York Times know the difference between nationalism and patriotism?
Shame on you.
6
Will you please be quiet please?
Phyllis Schlafly symmetrical to Gloria Steinem? Are you unhinged? That’s as Trump as it gets.
Your maudlin filial piety, your soft conservative views are the zenith of republican shillery for the guilty Hampton set or Hyde Park’s annual ticket holders for Bayreuth. Yours are the monetized “intellectual” burblings of a lesser Allan Bloom, waiting in the wings for Will’s retirement.
And now you mix in a love of diversity?
11
please fire David Brooks. he might as well have just put on an armband.
1
It’s too bad Brooks used this term in his essay.
Because in 3....2.....1 I’m sure Trump will be touting how the “failing” NY Times finally agrees with him. If David Brooks calls himself a nationalist, why is it so terrible that I call myself a nationalist? More fake news not being honest!!!!
Just another warped way he’ll twist the facts to support his warped world view.
1
So easy for you to expound on and on about your love of the country and how you are an American and proud of it. Words, words, words. This is what I think of when I hear the word Nationalist. I think of my father who fought in WWII. I think of being a Boomer and growing up watching war movies, reading war novels and listening to my dad talk about war. I think of being a Jew. When I hear the word nationalist, I think of the word Nazi. Why don't you? We grew up in the same neighborhood. We are both New Yorkers and both Americans. This person that purports to be our Leader is a clear and present danger to you and your children and yet you feel that you can "explain" him to us so that we feel more in common with this monster. I pretty much gave up on reading your column a long time ago, and just like one other columnist , I go straight to the comments. I should have done the same with this one. You should be ashamed for even trying to cleanup his disgusting rhetoric. No amount of cleaning him up and using your vocabulary to explain him will ever make the word Nazi leave him. It's in his hairspray!!
2
It sounds great David, until they come to take you to the camps.
2
David, didn't you learn in grade school that 'nationalism' was one of the causes of WW2?
1
David. Your innocent use of the word 'nationalist' is ingenuous to the point of embarrassment.
2
"globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place."
I'd say the love of place is love of the whole planet as a place all living beings share and rely on to sustain that life. We humans have more in common with one another across national boundaries than many seem to believe. The toxic winds of Chernobyl did not stay inside a national boundary. I think it is high time that we recognize our global interconnectedness and act accordingly. Why limit love of place? I say, expand it!
Feeling attached to the world as whole does not have to take away from also having a national or city identity. It complements it.
The other way around - excluding our global identify - is dangerous for our future and well-being.
I have parents who came from two different countries and I mostly grew up in a third country, here in the US. Which nation am I supposed to be identify with most? Why do I have to choose one? I don't feel I have to.
Every now and then, you're a bit of an idiot. And this is one of those times. You simply don't understand or are in denial of the word nationalism. Far worse, you are doing a huge favor to Trump and a major disservice to patriots by creating ambiguity around the term. You are serving Trump's aims in normalizing the word. He knows it's bad and he knows the media is going to brand him with the word. So he's using the age-old and very effective tactic of adopting the pejorative to take away its power, and instead transform it into a term of empowerment. Trump owes you a big Thank You. Congrats!
1
David, I believe you're better than this. You are a patriot, not a "nationalist."
In all this talk about nationalism, the best quote I have heard was from DeGaulle:
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first, nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."
You're not a hater, David. I hope you re-examine your desire for this particular wording. It is most wrong-headed.
1
Trump is an isolationist - maybehe thinks he is a nationalist - except that he despises Democrats. Hillary Clinton was criticized for using the term deplorable while Trump is cheered for saying Democrats have low IQs and are ignorant- go figure! Check out NPR - they have real news. I tune out anything Trump.
1
Mr. Brooks, of what “nationalism” do you soeak? is this the “nationalism” of the Nazi Party? Is this the “nationalism” that led to Mussolini’s Italy in the 1930’s? Or is this the “nationalism” that led to so many jingoistic wars and human suffering for the past 300 to 500 years?
Or is this the “nationalism” of which President Trump spoke a day ago, seeking, as you say, to enlist supporters for his verbal attacks against the “other,” whether they be Honduran mothers and fathers seeking safety for their children, gays and transgenders, the fake news, the free press of CNN, or any of his critics?
You suggest that “nationalism” must be inclusive and that because Trumpism is aimed at belittling and attacking the “other,” Trumpism cannot be as he says it is intended if half this country is excluded from his support and benevolence. Your latter point on inclusiveness is well said. However, your equivocation and confusion about what “nationalism” means to our dog-whistling President comes across as an apologia for his inanities.
You owe the readers of this paper an explanation of what you meant. End the confusion. Explain the mixed and horrid history of this term “nationalism” that Trump inserted into our public discourse.
2
Our nation IS superior so being a nationalist makes sense.
I doubt there’s much of it in, say......Honduras.
Get it?
1
“You can’t be a nationalist if you despise diversity. America is diversity; if you don’t love diversity, you are not an American nationalist.“
Actual nationalists are very good at this.
That’s why they must be opposed.
This is the worst column you have ever written.
1
David, it will take more than cupcake sprinkles to change or soften the Word "nationalist". Your attempt further strengthens the fear that a minority white nationalist movement will through propaganda, terroism and murder tilt this once great democracy into a dictatorship. I see through your sprinkles.
Nationalist is the First refuge of a Conman and performance artist. How’s THAT working out for us ?????
1
“Patriotism is love for your people and country; Nationalism, is hate for others.” ~ Charles DeGaulle
David Brooks, cannot believe you are promoting an idea, a word that post WWII Germany has outlawed due to its evil history.
David Brooks,
You cannot just CHANGE the meaning of a word just because you want to defend Donald J Trump's ignorance. You are conflating Patriotism and Nationalism and you very well know that they do NOT mean the same thing.
You are LYING.
You know very well that Nationalism and Patriotism do not mean the same thing. That healthy love of country defined by patriotism is not the false pride and overweening arrogance of Nationalism which seeks to beat down other countries to the detriment of the world.
Shame on you!
3
Running cover for Trump dumb remark is very unbecoming of you.
When Trump said nationalist the White supremacists knew exactly what he meant.
1
"Nationalism is an infantile disease." - Albert Einstein
1
This is confused from the git-go. America is a continent, the United States is the nation state.
I don't like name calling and labeling, but this is Brooks at his childish, naïve, worst. (Comments above and below explain how).
He has been trying so desperately of late to see the nation's glass as half full . No, its not naïve, is it? Its self deception.
For someone who's a self described "intellectual", he rosily romanticizes every topic he treats.
This piece more than any other lately defines David Brooks. I think he's searching and I think he should discover progressivism.
1
I love words and their meanings. I also love designs, logos, marks and other art that takes on meaning like written words.
One of the most deligtful marks, was the swastica. Emphasis on was.
It has meant many lovely things in other cultures. The sun, good luck, prosperity...
Then it became the Nazi symbol in WWII and it will now forever be a symbol of hate, racism, and death.
Nationalism as a word also became symbolic of racism, hate and extremist narcissism during WWII. Nationalism, and the swastica need to go in the round file along with the N-word and other words and symbols that denote hate. They don't stand for anything good anymore.
I love my family, my state & country. I also subscribe to "Think Global, Buy Local". But I know what nationalist means now.
Trump is a narcissist, not a nationalist. He doesn't work for all citizens. He doesn't even work for his base. He uses them.
4
Something has happened to David Brooks. His thinking is no longer helpful.
2
How does a columnist for the New York Times not grasp the difference between patriotism and nationalism?
2
Please listen to Imagine .. It will help you.
2
Brooks is an anachronism in Trump’s era and he’s trying to stay relevant and save his day job. Honestly, he lost the script long time ago. Time to pack it in Mr. Brooks and find a job teaching journalism somewhere.
2
The word is ... patriot
1
I guess you could say that the nation is one big meshugganah family.
1
Dear Mr. Brooks - do you have to use the word 'nationalist', so loaded with eye-winking connotations?
Couldn't you just say patriot?
1
I'm reading this and I'm thinking, "What is David smoking? Or is Lysergic acid diethelymide coming back into fashion, as Michael Pollen and the Silicon Valley inhabitants suggest?" I actually get what you're saying here, Mr. Brooks, and appreciate the effort. But every day I awake, it seems as if we are on the verge of civil war, caused by one and only one person-- the psychotic, ignorant narcissist in the White House. I'm doubtful that the sort of nationalism you suggest can do anything in the short term to excise the neoplasms of hate and resentment now metastasizing in the GOP-controlled USA.
1
“…the wild mixed-up urge that seizes millions to sacrifice, in sometimes opposite ways, for the common good: Gloria Steinem as much as Phyllis Schlafly, those who stand for the anthem and those who kneel.”
Phyllis Schlafly? Really? I defy anyone to cite a single act of hers—dying doesn’t count—that contributed to “the common good.”
I suppose we can expect a column shortly celebrating the unsung pioneers of medical research: “Jonas Salk as much as Josef Mengele.” Talk about false equivalence.
1
Of course David Brooks loves America. It is great to legacy white guys like him, whose wealthy lineage he proudly proclaims. But the power of the Fourth Estate lies less in what it tells us than in what it avoids telling us. The kids in their schoolbus who got blown to bits in Yemen the other day by Raytheon and Lockheed laser-guided bombs probably wouldn't have such nice things to say about America, if they were still alive. ...... In place of "Yemen," feel free to substitute "Iraq," "Iran" (1953 coup d'etat, the Original Sin of modern American foreign policy in the Middle East), "East Timor," "Honduras," "El Salvador," "Chile," "Nicaragua," etc.
So are Canadians David.
2
go paint a landscape
1
Well Brooks, your partner in op eds Friedman came out yesterday and advocated voting for Democrats across the board to help fix this idiotic mess we find ourselves in. How about you? Do something other than just saying “tut, tut, tut” for a change.
1
What is a "nation"? Mr. Brooks has a vague, wishy-washy definition, which makes it easy for him to reach whatever conclusion he wants. He embraces a vague, wishy-washy nationalism. Mr. Trump has a strong and simplistic definition, a nation is defined by its borders. Do Americans really idolize borders? A nation is defined by its government, and the USA is defined by the Constitution, with its lofty goals set out in the Preamble. That Constitution is under its most serious attack since its inception, led by a man with no respect for either law or precedent. Donald Trump is a nationalist, in the same sense as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Castro, Duterte, and many, many others. Mr. Brooks' insipid columns will do nothing to preserve our nation.
1
“The American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous,sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.”
H.L. Mencken, "On Being An American,” 1922.
He forgot to call us bootlickers and lickspittles on this one occasion, but otherwise got about 50 percent of us right.
1
Baloney pablum. Trying to rehabilitate your sorry, pious blathering with the Good Ole Patriotism appeal. Except now you (loosely) use the word "nationalism" - which you well know is inextricably knotted into every extreme "patriotic" ideological and uncritical appeal throughout the world and throughout history. Why are you doing this? Perhaps a first step towards rehabilitating your particular political ideology?
1
As important as it is to celebrate the virtues of the United States, it is reckless to embrace the language of people whose motto is "My country, right or wrong.," and there are many of them, even in among people I love.
Whitman wasn't interested in showing American thought to be superior to the thought of another country. He was interested in articulating that which could be said to be unique about American thought. His poetry is about reconciling a new nation to its voice, not to privileging that voice over the voices of others.
2
There's value in a nationalism of values. American values are something to be proud of and can arguably be held above those of many other nations. Advocating for those values is the best expression of this nationalism.
2
And what are those values. Corporatism? Imperialism? Profit interests over social interests? A well documented history of racism? Overthrowing democratically governments? Extermination of the indigenous population and breaking every treaty made with it? Tome to take off rose colored glasses. Being a patriot means having an honest reckoning with your past and doing something to change it for the better.
1
I used to love this country, but not recently. But then again I was a child then. If I get the chance, I don't think I'll ever love another one.
Patriotism has value, but simply encouraging love of country in schools and the media isn't enough. When a large portion of the country feels that their prosperity is under threat, or that the system is rigged by the uber-wealthy, patriotism rings hollow.
Americans are still exceptional: exceptionally ignorant and incurious; exceptionally obese; exceptionally hypocritical in religious matters; exceptionally materialistic; and exceptionally proud of it all. Keep voting GOP to ensure yourself and your family an exceptionally early grave.
Cute headline. But that's not what Trump symbolizes to dangerous far right elements and you know it.
2
Respectfully, David Brooks, nationalism has always had a narrow, jingoistic, blind chauvenism to it. As an obvious lover of words you must know nationalism is a synonym of jingoism and chauvenism.
So, I was shocked by your headline claim.
While your Sisyphean attempt to redefine it is commendable, alas, this has only become fodder for those who will not read beyond the headlines or 140 characters!
1
If you're going to make an entire column around a loaded term like "nationalist", you might want to start your research by putting that term in a search engine and seeing how that term is actually defined.
2
America, my mother country. My mother spends her money on soldiers who don't need it instead of feeding her children. MY mother hangs out with murderers from Egypt, Suadi Arabia, Israel, even Russia. My mother gives them planes and bombs so they can kill anyone who threatens them.
My mother says she is for democracy and then uses tricks and lies to keep people from voting and to make sure those with money dictate all decisions.
I love my mother but I don't know how to nurture her good side. My children are not welcome home for Thanksgiving if they haven't voted.
1
Merriam Webster Dictionary
Definition of white nationalist:
-- one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation
I realize that Mr Brooks' nationalism is hardly the same thing as Trump's, but there is still a danger hidden in his genteel patriotism. There is nothing wrong in loving one's home or even one's homeland. But there is a danger of letting an attachment to one's culture become the foundation of bigotry and xenophobia, which is exactly what Trump is encouraging. Closed borders are more easily closed by closed minds, after all.
My own personal experience has taken me far away from my birthplace, Washington DC. After travelling the globe, I now live in Britain. Though I still enjoy going back to DC, it's no longer home, even sentimentally. Home is this magnificent planet where we all live in a web of social, economic and ecological inter-dependency, and where we are as responsible for each other as we are reliant on each other to make the earth habitable for us all. And unless we wake up to this fact, we risk turning our home into a hell.
Yes, I’m an American Nationalist Good! Help us put limits on incoming foreigners who will NEVER become real Americans.
1
Mr Books, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
This is just a fancier, more fulsomely dolled up version of “USA! USA!” Smells like team spirit. Judging by the decals on the windows of the trucks and SUV’s in my California town, the chief relationship in life is with the Rams, just as in my former home, Chicago, it was Cubs or Sox, Bears or Packers. Rah rah, Brooks.
"...globalists — people whose hearts have been bleached of the particular love of place."
Ouch. That hurts. Like David Goodhart's essay on the "somewheres" and "anywheres" on either side of the Brexit divide, you forget that many people are actually "everywheres" who truly happen to be part of a larger project as opposed to a tribe or a clan. What if they got there by genuine happenstance, such as growing up in a military or diplomatic family, or embarking on a career path that had them accept postings abroad? Or find a life partner from a different country? Does that make them any less nostalgic or wanting for the many places, as opposed to the single place, where they shared tears and joys, made friends and ate home cooked meals? What if they authentically and deeply love ALL those places? What if they realise years later that they have no choice, as all of the places they've lived and the passports they hold do not make them, in the eyes of the "local nationalists", real ____ (fill the blank). The latter would rather label them "nowheres" than "everywheres". Is it not ok to stand or kneel for more than one flag?
I guess you can call us global nationalist. We identify with every street corner, shop, deli, school we've experienced and feel just as nostalgic about them. No less than you do. Please don't talk about hearts being bleached. They've been super coated with layers of experiences that can only make this planet a better place for all.
1
Me. Brooks, I understand your impulse to wrest the hateful rhetoric from Trump and his minions, but come on, I think your attempt at rhetorical diversion fails here. Why try to salvage the meaning of a word such as nationalism which has not had the most stellar of reputations? I think you’re picking a lost cause. If you need to expound on the meaning of a word that has lost currency in the last number of years, how about “decency?”
2
Ugh. Nationalism is a comb-over duping the poorly informed. “Look, the enemy is over there!” while arms merchants, bankers and the ultra-wealthy plunder and murder.
3
David, you buried the lede: “Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, but you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation — any more than you can be a good father if you despise half your children. You can’t be a nationalist if you think that groups in the nation are in a zero-sum conflict with one another — class against class, race against race, tribe against tribe.”
2
My father grew up in a town in Poland where his family had lived for many generations. He loved the family home the garden the horses the store and the neighbourhood. He went to the local Catholic school and he never stopped loving his home, his friends and his community. He learned Polish, Hebrew, Yiddish and and a number of other languages.
Then in the 1920s my grandfather told all his children Europe was no place for Jews and sent all his children to Canada and the USA.
I imagine that most NYT readers love their country as much as my father loved his Poland. Till the day he died my father loved the country where he was born and because he was here in Quebec he never understood how his friends and neighbours could do what they did. Hannah Arendt called it the banality of evil.
My parents never allowed hate into our home, and my wife and I try to keep the hate away from our door.
I imagine that the NYT readers who worked all their lives making America the richest most powerful country on Earth cannot understand why so much of America hates them. I don't understand hate it is hard for me to read your excuses.
Here in Quebec be have seen how nationalism breeds hatred it was a little over 50 years ago when I was stopped and my trunk was searched for explosives as I drove by an armory.
Mr Brooks what is it about your neighbourhood that makes it and its people the enemy of Ted Cruz and much of the GOP? Why is providing everybody with health education and welfare such a sin?
2
David is trying to salvage the tatters of a word with a horrendous history and horrible connotations. It rings to me a lot like Megyn Kelly’s failed defense of blackface. This nationalism that you speak of David, it was never good for me and my family and friends of color - it wasn’t for us at all; it was against us. Maybe you should have spoken to some Americans of color before you tried to filter an ugly history through your whitewashed lens. Nationalism wasn’t ok for many of us in the past, and it isn’t now. So your article fails for a large part of your audience. It would be nice if you could join those of us living in 2018.
1
From one who is often critical of David Brooks and his latent right wing sermons I believe this column represents his latent decency and his potential for growth. Well done.
1
Nationalism as defined by Donald Trump strikes me as being too close to National Socialism, and we all know where that got Germany.
For someone who claims to deplore Trump, you sure are straining to offer him cover Dave. Nationalism does not become patriotism simply by eliding the commonly associated word "white."
1
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson
1
"you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation"
You still support, to the hilt, the same political party that every single day proclaims people like me to be un-American traitors.
You still support without fail the political party which every day denigrates women, non-Christians, ethnic minorities, and immigrants and their descendants.
You don't love the America which actually exists. You love some sepia-tone image in your head, and call for the subjugation of Americans who seek something else.
3
David says. “you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation.” Well, I guess that leaves me out. I despise the ( somewhat less than) half the nation who voted to make Trump president as an expression of their hatred for those who don’t fit their image of 1950s white America.
1
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Nationalists are fascists. Society has no use for fascism.
This column was a mistake. Don't try and rehabilitate this word, which is irretrievably bound up with racism and genocide.
1
Sending kudos to the first three or so contributors under Reader Picks. They nailed it and if David Brooks ever read these letters, his head would be spinning.
I appreciate the article, David, and the civics lesson, even if your main source is biased by his declared Zionist heritage.
But please change the headline to something more accurate and less Trumpian. How about:
Let Me Explain What Nationalism Really Is, Mr Trump, Because You Just Don't Get It
or
I Believe in Nationalism. It's Not the White Nationalism that Trump Thinks It Is.
Considering the attention span of Americans, you need a headline that doesn't appear to support the President, as many people won't read much beyond the enlarged font.
1
Yes, you can be a nationalist and hate half of your country. Franco was a nationalist and he vowed to kill half of the country to keep Spain pure in his eyes. Franco didn't kill half of the population after all; however, his nationalist victory turned Spain into Francoist Spain.
And Renan was clear in his thesis that he was writing not about nationalism, but national identity. He argued that national identity was a "daily plebiscite" where citizens awoke each morning and voted (not literally, of course) to continue to elevate the heroic deeds of their ancestors and work to surpass these deeds through their own acts of greatness. This daily vote is what keeps a national identity cohering.
We seem to have come to a place where many of us have and still are reevaluating some of these deeds and don't want to repeat them; others are sure that they are performing great acts that would make our ancestors proud.
Renan's ideas are interesting to read, but they don't speak about the psychic territory that we have entered as a nation.
Perhaps it's worth considering what lived experiences might cause someone not to feel generally warm and fuzzy about the country in which they live. I'd suggest it's not lack of nationalism or patriotism that generally causes "feelings of anger and powerlessness", but vice versa.
And yes, I am an American Internationalist.
I love America. But I love Africa too. I love Australia, India, China, Russia, Canada, Argentina, and Papa New Guinea too.
God does not care which country you are from. He cares about what goes on in your heart.
1
"Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, but you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation — any more than you can be a good father if you despise half your children. You can’t be a nationalist if you think that groups in the nation are in a zero-sum conflict with one another — class against class, race against race, tribe against tribe."
Oh get this, we're playing No True Nationalist now. Did you all know that no side in a civil war has ever been nationalist?
The US as the ur democracy should stand for all humanity and not just a rousing aesthetic experience- America, David, should serve as your gateway drug to mankind. Maybe you're a special case, but I'd say your nationalism and the nationalism you espouse is a gateway drug to Trump
So-so commentary. GREAT reader comments.
2
Trump's National Populists (Natpos?) don't have anything to do with the liberal Enlightenment values of David Brooks. Trump means Blood and Soil.
1
Mr Brooks; You don’t get it. We all live on a planet, which we are trashing. It’s time to think of others. Don’t be so selfish.
1
Thanks to David brooks, that piece made my day.
@Jay and others:
You do not have to be ashamed of your country,
you can take it back.
1
What if nationalism and patriotism involve different structures and related personality traits in the brain such as cooperatively (nationalism) or compassion (patriotism). It's been done: https:/aa/www.nature.com/articles/srep29912.
1
Nationalism is a dangerous word to use, in this day and age. Was Abraham Lincoln a nationalist or simply a patriot? Nationalism is immediately associated with Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Milosevic of Serbia and other xenophobic dictators and tyrants. It should not be confused with patriotism and love of one’s country. If Republicans like David Brooks use this word as a synonym for patriotism they are inviting the xenophobes of the extreme right into the fold, for the extremists will gladly use a more liberal interpretation of the word to bring their interpretation of the nationalism into the mainstream, as our President is currently doing. Words matter, David Brooks.
1
When the Tea-Party movement came along, were you and other Nationalist Republicans thinking of how that would develop?
Mr. Brooks I could not even read this in its entirety. I was disgusted half way through. Diversity was force on this nation in such large numbers that it caused resentment. Americans like me are actually tired of people like you preaching to us, how to vote, how to live, your interpretation of nationalism, what's acceptable to say, what's not. Who are you to say the Donald Trump hates half the country? What are you basing such a ridiculous statement on? I wonder about you. Just remember there is lots of hate for America in the diversity you so admirably promote.
Brooks is a whisper away from Trump’s ideological core. I just think Brooks flip-flops from the half of the country he hates like a line spinner on a game board.
1
@Pilot
Yeah, ya know, I think Brook's tone deafness here is deliberately meant to deceive. I'm beginning to think he's not the nice guy he wants us to think he is.
1
I think Mr. Brooks has a screwed up meaning of nationalism. Nationalism is not patriotism. Nationalism is fear of loss. Patriotism is reverence for the preservation of American, democratic, and human values, those that men and women fought and died for against European nationalism in two World Wars.
Mr. Brooks may have led a sheltered life, which could explain his fixation on the loss of local community. We are all people of the world and to exclude this inherently factual, broad view leads to narrowing views and irrational fears.
We cannot turn inward and expect the outside world never to intrude. Americans need to grow up and face the reality of a President with sick, incompetent, irresponsible nationalist views that threaten US national security.
Americans need to have the courage to confront un-American and anti-democratic agendas. Americans need to start thinking rationally and to close the mental doors to the imagined idyllic places of childhood.
I grew up during the Cold War. There was no safe place to be unless one ignored the threats to human existence, which apparently only small town America and small minded could accomplish.
Not much to refute from your argument except one rather large point. Mr. Trump’s idea of nationalism is far different and ultimately dangerous. A blatant bull horn to neo-nazi, hate filled conspiracy theorists is the nationalist message he’s so dangerously spreading. The president is incapable of bringing our beloved country together and we are left reeling until his term has ended.
But are you an American chauvinist David? America is the nation of the great circle of cultures and the ideal of having an identity without having to oppress your neighbor. That is the great dream of America. Your English is too ambiguous and the title either must be reclaimed and defined or discarded as was 19th century National Art which wasn't untrue but which sought to colonize the world in favor of one art over the other. The right wing is in danger of becoming a jingle singer.
A thousand people, mostly whole families, are trekking their way over a thousand miles to come to the country who sent its' minions to overthrow their elected governments in order to enrich banana-growing capitalists who exploit them. This country's president sends an army to bolster a national guard that backs-up ten thousand armed border agents to guard us against the onslaught of men, women and children yearning be free.
Ah, Nationalism, thy name is profit.
Mr. Brooks, you're confusing nationalism with patriotism. I'm surprised you don't know the difference. Look it up.
2
I fear your great love of this nation is just a grand extension of the patriarchal mindset that runs through your writing. Did you notice that when you spoke of neighborhood connection, every family member that you listed was male. Wake up and smell the estrogen, Mr. Brooks. Walk a mile in someone else’s pumps. Strong connection only comes from feeling appreciated and recognized. Why bother loving something that doesn’t love you back.
Nationalist. Huh. And you, a devout Catholic. One of my favorite questions to ask Republicans: what is more important, your God or your country?
Nationalism: the white male patriarchy. Personally I've had enough.
5
From what i'v seen in main stream media, Mr Brooks is one of the few commentators who'v ventured into attempting to define nationalism.
And that should prompt us all to do the same for the new batch of ism's we'r presented w/ in this new, post centrist political world [ Romney is centrist, Trump isnt. ]
Steve Bannon defines his politics as "right wing populism." He, we may recall, was Trump's campaign manager for the 2016 election and then Trump's Chief Strategist. He's no longer w/ the administration -- it seems his populism clashed w/ Wall St. elite, globalist Kushners.
Hitler gulled many Germans w/ his National Socialism,
and the bloody Kim dynasty defined North Korea as a Democratic Peoples Republic.
I'm an American nationalist, too, of the progressive type, of the Teddy Roosevelt, Trust Buster school, and favoring the New Deal, the Great Society and Obma's Affordable Care Act.
And favoring closed borders and almost zero immigration on the model of Japan.
1
The problem with this column is that Mr. Brooks has defined his vision of nationalism. And then he expounded on it. Trouble is, I don't view his view of nationalism as the same as mine. When I hear that word, I think of Charles Lindbergh, Hitler, Mussolini and Trump.
And they have nothing in connection to Mr. Brooks definition. Just ask David Duke. Just after Trump declared his Nationalism, Duke Tweets out his welcome to Trump.
I think Mr. Brooks may need to spend another column to refine what he just said.
Nice switcharoo, David. You took Trump's reference to "nationalism" the other day (a major dog whistle to xenophobes and aggressive militarists) and redefined the word for your own purposes to what sounds much more like the standard definition of "patriotism" instead.
Oh just stop. Loving your country does not make you a Nationalist. As that word is currently defined it means there is no world only us, precious wonderful us. Be True to Your School - I get it. The globe, everyone else (who all happen to think as you point out that their half acre is the best) all that stuff isn't nearly as loveable for sure. But one of the great joys, motivators and comforts of my life has been our constant struggle to keep democracy and freedom alive and well. We just won't give up on it. The genie is never going back in the bottle. Great country - greater idea.
When you say 'the winning of World War 2' you mean the part where the US made every possible effort to avoid engaging the Nazis until we were forced into the war by Pearl Harbor? And then we helped the Russians and the British (among many, many others) win the war. That 'winning WW 2'?
1
By "nationalism," Mr Trump deliberately invokes the lacuna: "white." He means his base to hear "white nationalism." It is yet another among countless of his racist dog-whistles.
Quoting from your column: "..you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation — any more than you can be a good father if you despise half your children. You can’t be a nationalist if you think that groups in the nation are in a zero-sum conflict with one another — class against class, race against race, tribe against tribe."
David, the trouble is you CAN be a nationalist if you despise half the worlld. You CAN be a nationalist if you think that groups in the world are in a zero-sum conflict with one another — class against class, race against race, tribe against tribe nation against nation. As a description, it's fequently correct. But as a goal or aspiration, it's total insanity.
Right, Mr Brooks... You're an American Nationalist. And Andrew Jackson was an American Hitler; and Robert E Lee was an American Agrarian; and Andrew Johnson was an American Enabler; and Ulysses S Grant was an American Cincinnatus. You're ALL alike.
ALL bent on locally staying what's anathema to order's beam of light at conception whence the formation of more-perfect-unity can only universally perpetuate MOVING FORWARD.
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, you whiffed big time on this one. You wrote a lovely column on what it means to be an American, not a nationalist. You wimped out big time by failing to criticize the president when he draped himself in the nationalist (white xenophobe) flag. We don't need a dog whistle to know what the president clearly and loudly yelled out.
"Patriotism is I love my country. Nationalism is I hate yours."
Charles De Gaulle
6
Nice try, Mr. Brooks, but you sound like Humpty Dumpty defining words to mean whatever you want them to. The N in "Nazi" stands for "National." Mussolini was a nationalist as is Recep Erdogan. Almost every nationalist you can point to rode into power by defining national identity in terms of a specific race or religion. You actually can be a nationalist by despising diversity. History proves it. The inclusivity you so admire is best embodied in secular humanism, a term you don't even mention.
2
More imbecility from Brooks. That's patriotism. He knows full well that "nationalism" connotes xenophobia, bigotry, intolerance and ultimately, inevitably, inter-
and intrananational confict.
The Democrats despise nationalism , love of country , and ridicule praising our country. They are globalists as are the communists with which they share many values.
1
“Yes, I’m an American Nationalist.” A brief statement about identity. Is this the only dimension, semantically transmitted, of WHO you are?You hint at immigrant roots in your “I.” You hint at professions being a component in your family; part of each males' “I;” not focusing on each one’s associated behaviors. You hint at NYC’s Lower East side’s contribution to your “I,” while noting that NYC, as an entity, could be deleted from your “I.” Your writings, over many years, associate you with ranges of conservative ideological positions, yet you chose not to include “Conservative” with “American Nationalist.” Is it part of your “I?” Your writing style, as an indice of WHO you are, not WHAT is important to you-events, behaviors, processes, outcomes, answers, questions, issues, etc.-most often is presented within the constraints of a certitudinous either/or. A firm, and not a questioning, conviction!This “Ode to American” is an example. “I” is not considered in terms of “and in addition, and in addition…,” notwithstanding your shared examples.IDENTITY is self-created. Experienced.Beyond semantic-limitations. + the WHO created as valenced + +/- - labels. Imposed upon/attributed to ME. + one’s cultural BEING. Languages spoken. Thought in. Dreamt in. Foods.Music. Distinguishable from our overt and more hidden behaviors. Our WHATs.DOINGS,or not,associated with a range of roles in our environments. Contexts. Networks. "I" is multidimensional.Dynamic. Not a single static “I am.Was…”
"Extreme individuality": that sounds like minor league extremist
intellectualism. But Walt Whitman as a nationalist: does David
Brooks really know the poetry? Ah, Whitman would be rolling in
his grave, were he not laughing out loud at a simpering, foolish
article propelled by hot, if eminently reasonable, air.
I think this well intentioned article ignores the fact that the word nationalist often is a dog whistle for white power advocated and neo nazis
I’m guessing even David Brooks is afraid to even meekly call out our president’s often vile behavior. This president uses the bully pulpit to verbally assault his enemies. Now people know that if they criticize this president they may get a bomb in the mail.
It’s time for David Brooks to step up and tell the truth.
"My words mean exactly what I say they mean, at the time I say them, nothing more and nothing less."
-- Humpty Dumpty (paraphrased)
Mr. Brooks, the word "nationalism" actually has a definition and a currently understood meaning, and it is not the same as "patriotism"... regardless of what Humpty Trumpty says.
As a columnist for the New York Times I assumed you understood this. Shame on you.
The cult of nationalism started two world wars. Although I don't doubt for a second that David Brooks is a bonafide American Nationalist, I find his absurd attempt to redefine the word laughable. Did he really think the New York Times was the right place to spin such nonsense? Fox News would be a much more appropriate venue for that level of gall.
1
David, I typically enjoy your forays into critical thinking, but now is not the time to let a liar define nationalism. By claiming your right to your own definition, you appear in lock step behind Trump. Change your lede to suggest you aren't Trump's idea of a Nationalist.
What you describe is the ideology of identity as politics national, but also deferential. When folks say Trump shouldn't use the term because it echos white nationalism, they don't recognized white nationalists echo National Socialism. The Nazis.
No surprise letter bombs are dropping only a day after Trump signals the dogs. And rather than those threats, Trump declares an emergency along the border because of slow rolling starvation that won't get here for months. I'm now living my worst fear. The Feds are coming. There goes the neighborhood.
That was Hitler's biggest lie, being socialist, because he only cared for the German worker's welfare until he didn't have to and outlawed their unions.
Way to wiff from the Gitmo, David. Your lede is misleading at the worst time in history.
So David Brooks has come out yet again and line up with Donald Trump. Nobody sent him any bombs.
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.
Sir Walter Scott
Lay of the Last Minstrel, Excerpt
1
What utter nonsense. Find another job. You brought us Trump and continue to pretend you are somehow not Trumpian. You are no different and putting pictures of oppressed women with their heads wrapped in rags does not humanize you.
5
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism is when hate for people other than your own comes first. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism." Charles De Gaulle.
Pauline Gilgan
Oldsmar, FL
Here's a question. Is it okay to unequivocally hate America with every molecule of the self.
I doubt it. Our idea of what freedom is does not allow the kind of dissent that doesn't, and never will, fit into the ideological box we believe is free speech. Take a knee has to do with authority murdering children with impunity. It has nothing to do with patriotism.
It has everything to do with race. I hate cops. White people like David do not comprehend why because privilege prevents it.
I hate America.
I hate existence because I am forced to live surrounded by indifferent moral platitudes, deep, irreversible poverty, and hunger. I eat out of dumpsters. The New York Times will not believe that, and will not tolerate articulating it. I shower in shelters. I am invisible. You don't want to see me. Mainly, I eat inside the dumpster because I don't have a home, and no one knows I'm in there. I don't have a neighborhood. I don't have a college to extract romanticism. I don't have food.
What I have is sex work because that is what America pays me for. Your friends and your brothers and your sons and your neighbors and your priests pay me to be something I am not. I am not immoral. I am not dirt. I am a human being.
Brooks' focus is the sunny side of America. The country that has tried to destroy me all my life.
If I walk around my old neighborhood, I see the nodding out and needles stuck in arms. I see other prostitutes. I see cops with guns, and they will kill you, too.
4
Stop legitimizing the language of racists. It is no secret that Trump used the term as a dog whistle to white nationalists. Aiding and abetting him in that normalization is despicable.
2
Mr. Brooks,
You are a boring apologist. Nationalism has synonyms which are less loaded - patriotism for example. Nationalism has been tainted by history and for Trump to use that word and claim it only means patriotism is either ignorant or mean.
3
Why in the world would anyone want to use a word that carries so much baggage? Patriotism would work. So would just I love my country. Brook, you sound like Trump supporters who try to redefine his bigotry.
Running a high brow cover for Trump. Low.
3
Wow David, you are being very naive. Do you think a New Yorker has anything in common with a backwoods West Virginian or farming Nebraskan. They do not appreciate or understand a New Yorker's life style; conversely, if you were forced to live their life, you'd probably go bonkers or commit suicide. I have traveled widely in my lifetime and I can assure you our northeastern people have more in common with Europeans than many southern, mid west and deep west Americans.
Ethnic diversity made America strong. Sectional diversity is tearing it apart.
Thank you, Mr. Brooks.
1
Now, Mr. Brooks, it's time for a column discussing the difference between Nationalism and Jingoism.
This is the most disingenuous column I have ever read by David Brooks. He knows perfectly well that the word “nationalist” denotes idolatry of one’s nation state to the exclusion of others, a refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing of one’s own nation state, a deep sense of superiority. Nationalism gave rise to the horrors of the last century and is one of humankind’s great evils, along with racism and religious extremism (which often all go hand in hand). I think this column is a failed attempt by Brooks to be cute. It doesn’t become him.
Mr. Brooks, you are ignoring the history and meaning of the term nationalism. Underneath your patriotic pablum, you know full well that Trump meant (White) Nationalism. By conflating patriotism with nationalism, you are supporting Trump's racist agenda, pure and simple. You are helping Trump incite racial division all in the name of God and Country! That trope is very tired and unbecoming of an honest conservative, of which there are apparently none left. Do you also support religious freedom as opposed to freedom of religion? They're not the same thing either.
False choice, David....
Of course one can be both a nationalist and a globalist.... and that's what I am.
2
I think this headline is grossly irresponsible.
1
Can someone confiscate David Brooks's keyboard and call him a cab? The word "Nationalist" has clear connotations going back to the fascist movements of the 30s. The word "Nationalist" means something just like "Globalist" means something. When Trump talks about being a nationalist, he isn't talking about plain ol' patriotism. It's a dog whistle that just about anyone but a naive New York Times columnist can hear. The last thing anyone needs right now is a word-parsing piece on how "nationalist" doesn't mean exactly what we all know it means... Wake up, David.
1
When Trump calls himself a "nationalist" the "white" is silent. Kind of like the "K" in Knownothing. Which he also is.
Imagine something else, David. It's easy if you try.
2
Two thoughts come to mind from David's defense of nationalism as the prize of humanity. One is Aristotle's summation of life as "spirit pervading matter," from the simplest protein molecule to the totality of the Universe. The other is Sri Aurobindo's "We are consciousness, not life and form."
These universal thoughts subsume nationalism as a lower level order of familiarity that ignores the innate nature of reality as animated spirit in all things, and consciousness itself which is the universal sensate tool necessary for perceiving materiality. Shakespeare reduced such grandiosity to a handle we can grasp: "The eye is the window of the Soul."
But, we've chased spirituality out of politics, or reduced it to a ground-level fundamentalism that divides rather than unites.
Nonetheless, we cannot content ourselves with political realities when it's eye restrains our better angels from the transcendence which is our real prize.
1
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
1
Not good David
Vote.
This word already has a meaning. Find a different one. You're doing the same exact thing that President Dennison is doing by purporting to benignly appropriate it. It's like someone saying they're a "human racist" because they love the human race. Words matter — now more than ever.
2
You lost me at Phyllis Schlafly.
1
Mr. Brooks,
Methinks your definition may be a bit out of date. Please check Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism
David, you seem to have jumped on the Trump train. Your last few columns have shown either this or you are at the station waiting for the Trump train to arrive. Have you now become one of his sycophants trying, after the fact, to explain away his statements in more acceptable terms?
I regret that Mr. Brooks delves into a worthy subject, "nationalism", without defining the term. It's clear that Brooks' nationalism is not that of Trump or Hitler, but it nonetheless remains largely undefined. I suggest that essays of this sort should begin with "My definition (concept) of 'nationalism' is ……………………………".
I think that might make Brooks' conclusion about "American nationalism" seem a bit less associated with the mere accident of birth, in his case the US rather than, say, Bolivia or Romania.
You're confusing nationalism with patriotism
So? So you are an American Nationalist, so what? What does that mean? When tough decisions come up will you use your identity as a point of pride and say 'American's Aid People' or will you continue to do what you and other Republicans have been doing and use your sense of American exceptionalism to call for exclusion, derision, and mocking of those in desperate need because they are not American like you. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it matters what you do.
Hmm...so David Brooks is a Nationalist now? Apparently they come in various flavors these days, and he chose to be of the “warm and fuzzy” variety.
He still fits in with the rest at the next convention but soon after could be called out as a NINO which is a “nationalist in name” only. Then what?
I am not sure this essay was really necessary or would have been written just a few years back. Simply say you are a Patriot and we understand how you feel.
Doesn’t the word ‘nationalist’ conjure up images of Brown Shirts, torchlight marches and cattle wagons to death camps? Doesn’t it evoke terrible memories of a whole continent laid to waste? You love your country, David. It is as simple as that.
You are mistaken in your language. What you describe is patriotism. Nationalism is the fodder of fascism and you know that Mr. Brooks. I’m not certain what your aim is here, but you do the nation no favors by using a term like nationalism to describe love of country. If you don’t wish to share the mantle with neo-nazis and xenophobes you should not do readily embrace it.
1
Just what you'd expect from this flack from today's GOP, deliberately clouding the issues with language to show the reader how erudite he thinks he is.
1
Mr. Brooks has written the most superb criticism of what love of country is not - "Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, but you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation — any more than you can be a good father if you despise half your children. You can’t be a nationalist if you think that groups in the nation are in a zero-sum conflict with one another — class against class, race against race, tribe against tribe." Unfortunately he misconstrues the meaning of "nationalism" as it is understood by historians as an exaggerated and extreme example of an isolationist, domineering and dangerous political ideology that has led to countless wars and the death of millions of innocents. German nazis were nationalists yet they despised jews, gypsies, and gays. This article would have been clearer if Brooks gad simply written what it means to him to be an American.
I think you are describing a patriot, not a nationalist.
“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” Charles de Gaulle
3
Of course what's good for the Gander is good for the GOOSE.
You can't be a patriotic american Nationalist if you are a
high placed member of the Democratic Establishment---
'the people's party"----and HATE most of the working class
based on a "race test".
Maybe after the midtems Chuck and Nancy can make
nice with Donald, just like they used to.
In the good ole days was he was just another fun socially
liberal billionaire who knew how to write a check for
a good friend and/or politician.
1
It sounds like you love where you live and that doesn't make you a Nationalist by current definition. If you are trying to say that you believe the USA is the greatest nation on earth, well, it isn't and it continues to fall. It doesn't even make the list of the top ten countries in which to live. It does come in as #11 though, right after Canada.
I think Nationalism is an arcane idea and extremely dangerous in this time period when we have hotheads sitting in their nation's power chairs nuclear holocaust is just a bit over 35 minutes away for all human beings. There is currently a man sitting in the White House who has already threatened to use nuclear weapons. That same man is dismantling human rights for all but rich white men, and he is pushing the world into deep environmental danger by dismantling any progressions in halting climate change. Millions of people around the world are going to die because of this particular man, many will be Americans and some of your family could possibly be numbered among them. So you're a Nationalist huh?
I can't say that announcement has made me glow with respect for you.
Nationalist v. Globalist. History is echoing. God Save America.
1
This is the height of equivocation. Only in Brooks's private language can't you be a nationalist if you despise half the nation. Here is what Brooks's (former?) party has been legislating (and, more importantly, adjudicating) for a long time:
> Merrily gutting voting rights protections and cynically disenfranchising minority voters through voter ID laws
> Boisterously taking "our" country back (from a black president)... remember "I made this!"?
> Cravenly stirring up fears of others (i.e., who are not white)
> Baldly championing white identity politics
Nationalism operates by privileging "true" and "pure" groups while delegitimizing others. It circumvents critical thought by elevating love of country and nostalgia for a more "pure" time.
It's not hard to see why the word "white" so naturally prefixes, precedes, and prefaces it.
3
You are not entitled to redefine words that already have meaning! Claiming “nationalist” means “I love my country” is akin to a parent claiming “pedophile” means “I love my children.” This column is a naked attempt to give Donald Trump cover for his hateful rhetoric.
2
Mr Brooks, should we expect you in the future to redefine racism, bigotry and homophobia so that they too are palatable?
4
"Love for nation is an expanding love because it is love for the whole people." I understand that you feel love for this nation, but as the eminent philosopher Clint Black once wrote:
"Love is certain, love is kind/
Love is yours and love is mine/
But it isn't somethin' that we find/
It's somethin' that we do"
People who love Germany and its people split Germany in two for forty years. People who love America sacrificed 59,000 soldiers in Vietnam, along with (perhaps not as important, since they weren't American) 1 million enemy combatants, and 2 million Vietnamese civilians.
You think you love our country? There is no greater love for our country than is embodied by John Bolton, our National Security Advisor. His love is soooo great, he'll probably start WWIII over it.
'Stupid is as Stupid does' said Forrest Gumps mother. She could as easily have been talking about the 'American nationalism' you consider as one of the primary motivators in your life.
Do something stupid with your love, and it ain't love, fella.
So long as you're not also an American Socialist - guess it'd be OK...
After all, what's in a word - or two...
1
So Mr Brooks, it appears by your standards, trump has misapplied the word Nationalist. While i initially shied from the label as hyperbole, Fascist is the description trump was looking for. He cares nothing for your benign notion of nationalism or this nation’s founding ideals. Nothing. It should be obvious to all that his value system represents the antithesis of what you would seem to hold most dear. Will eagerly read your column on what fascism means to you.
1
“Love for nation is an expanding love because it is love for the whole people.”
Nice try David. You managed to undermine your own argument with that single statement.
Rationalizing nationalism doesn’t work when your self declared nationalist “leader” has no love for ANY people who aren’t white billionaires or tyrannical strong men.
1
Trump dogwhistle. I’m a little surprised you fell for it.
1
Right idea, wrong word. A "Nationalist" is the "Fascists" first cousin. A "Patriot" or one who loves and respects his country and it's inhabitants, all of them, is not.
1
Not sure that Teddy Roosevelt, who saw "hyphenated-Americans" as a threat to national cohesion and praised racist texts such as The Passing of the Great Race, should be in your pantheon of big-hearted, big-tent nationalists.
“ I do not think that word means what you think it means “.
Do better, Brooks.
3
Next please write an elegant essay touting that you're also a "Socialist" since presumably you like to be social.
1
Patriot works for me.
Trump has a different definition of nationalist and nationalism, one that leaves out and implies “white” before “nationalist”.
1
"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first." - Charles de Gaulle
I think Mr. Brooks is confused.
David claims that "You can’t be a nationalist if you despise diversity." Yet too many Trumpanzees do exactly that. They hate diversity and they love the nation as they believe it SHOULD exist.
David Brooks always has a way of being the intellectual Donald Trump.
But if you had lived in this country as a black man, a Muslim woman, or transgendered, would your experiences still have led you to all these warm feelings about your country?
2
David Brooks,
There are times when I may disagree with what you write and say but I've always found you to be thoughtful and insightful.
This piece, however, is just little more than bait.
You know full well what the president meant when he was speaking at his rally.
You know his intention was to feed his base and his ego, nothing more. In fact, the current president likely doesn't know what "nationalist" means in any historical context.
You are endorsing his ignorance.
Maybe in your next piece you can write about how you're a socialist because you're a social person in society.
David you should not attempt to instantly bleach the negative connotations of this term nationalist.
I also have learned you title your writings as flags to sell papers.
1
Would you have said the same thing if you grew up in Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia, if your humanity was violated and your family killed? If you were a Jew born and raised in Germany before World War II, how would you talk about your country of birth and love for it? How would you talk of this nationalistic fervor of yours about America if you were born black in west Baltimore?
You are a privileged white dude who confuses the relationship between individual and nation and individual and your own class. Nationalism is a menace. Nationalism and patriotism are modern tribal instincts. It's primitive, myopic, and dangerous to talk of these sentiments with this kind of passion. Or as Samuel Johnson eloquently put it once: "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
4
"Donald Trump says he is a nationalist, but you can’t be a nationalist if you despise half the nation — any more than you can be a good father if you despise half your children."
Maybe Trump is a Transactional Nationalist.
Nationalism has been a curse for humanity. Think back on the 20th Century and its two world wars. Germany, France, England, America, etc. were all thoroughly nationalistic. And nationalism is especially a curse when a country believes that it is not only exceptional but also believes it is the only real hope for solving the world’s problems.
Prime examples of this type of thinking are Nazi Germany with its concept of “blood and soil” and its belief that National Socialism was the only hope for saving western civilization, and the Soviet Union with men such as Stalin believing that “Mother Russia” could save the world by ultimately converting every government in the world to communism.
More recently, think of George Bush and many in the US thinking America could “install” democracy In Iraq and Afghanistan simply because of the belief that America is a truly exceptional and wonderful country, and that because of our wonderful exceptionalism in the end no country can resist emulating us.
Humanity must strive to move beyond nationalism.
"One loves in proportion to the sacrifices that one has committed and the troubles that one has suffered.”
A description that can equally be used to explain Stockholm syndrome, or the psychological conditioning of spousal abuse and fraternity hazing rituals.
Not being a masochist, I personally love things in proportion to the extent that they promote and encourage the best and highest expressions of humanity.
But perhaps that's because I relate more more to the 5% that's referenced at the beginning of the article.
David Brooks is being as naive as Megyn Kelly was for the blackface controversy. Mr. Brooks is once again trying to rationalize for his Republican president by changing the meaning of nationalism, ignoring the deeply hurtful history of the terminology.
Unfortunately, this is starting to be true for "patriotism," as well, since the contentious debate began over kneeling during the national anthem. This president has decided that only people who follow his edicts are patriots.
This president is also attempting to change the definition of "American citizen" by redefining birthright.
So let's not conflate our identification with local and state environments with our feelings about our country. It's normal to identify with the familiar culture surrounding us for most or all of our lives, but that's a completely separate issue from the defining values of our nation.
Nationalism as a concept developed during the enlightenment. It asserted a common relationship among people who share a language, a history, a religion. What made America different is that it was based, not on ethnicity, nor language, nor the other things, but on a common creed, which was declared self-evident. That it has, as a nation, failed so frequently in attempting to approach that creed has not kept Americans from their arrogant self-aggrandizing statement of American exceptionalism.
When I first became an expatriate, more than twenty years ago, I would tell people, half-joking, that I was a political refugee and almost no one took me seriously. I venture that if I said it today, most would nod and believe me.
1
Nope, don't agree. Nationalism is exclusionary, xenophobic and inherently hostile to "others". If you start with the premise that you are part of a nation with defined borders rather than a part of the human race, you are already going down a darkened path. I thank the Lord every day that I was born in the United States of America as are my children and grand children and to me it means to say to the world "Look what right minded people can do". It didn't just happen. People fought for rights and still do. People fought for raising the quality of life and still do. Even in these times where it seems the entire deck is stacked against the common folk the ideals are worth fighting for. This country isn't just lines on a map. It's a people and a vision of what the world could be.
Me, I'm an American first, even though half the country's deliberate obtuseness and flat-out racism makes me ashamed.
We are not who we hope to be. But don't ask me to give up. Cynicism is the refuge of the weak--which tells you everything about the Republican party, which is praying you don't go to the polls in November and show them up for what they are.
This is word play and bad word play at that. I've been around for some time now, have read and thought about a lot of history and I'm hard pressed to think of an instance when "nationalism" doesn't have, on balance, an overridingly negative connotation. If David Brooks imagines that Trump is going to read this column -not likely, of course- and agree that he is not a true "nationalist" as defined by DB, well, I'd say he's greatly misguided. Trump has grabbed the mantel of nationalism and he's not going to let it go, contorted DB argument or not. I, for one, would be loathe to have myself yanked into Donald Trump's verbal tent under any circumstance whatsoever. Far better to define yourself as a "patriot" and work diligently to minimize the influence of the dangerous flag-wavers amongst us.
1
Absolutely fantastic, Mr. Brooks. Bravo!
I agree with what I'm reading from my fellow American NY Times readers, Mr. Brooks. Your attempt to normalize the disgraceful term "nationalism" has me wondering if Trump's negativity, his profane twisting of what America stands for and his obviously infectious appeal to those who enjoy separating people hasn't also contaminated your usually well-reasoned writing.
Please write another column to roll back your implication that Trump is right and the rest of us are wrong about the term more-closely related to dictators than to American presidents.
Words matter!
I prefer the term patriot to nationalist. Donald Trump has already started the process of expropriating the word "nationalist" to mean something other than love of country. Ultimately, I'm sure he will it into something ugly.
If anything, he is not a nationalist. His rhetoric inclines to division, exploitation and expulsion. If anything, he is partisan with a bias to exclusivity.
2
I saw a quote from DeGaulle recently: "Patriotism is love of country, nationalism is hatred other countries."
1
This column appears to be a dangerous attempt to normalize the term nationalism, which has and should continue to have negative connotations, because it excludes or lessens the humanity of those in other nations relative to those in one’s own country. What Brooks is talking about is patriotism, not nationalism. Being a nationalist is not a good thing and Trump showed himself to be a dangerous fool when he embraced that term. Don’t try to normalize the word—that’s only going to help Trump, and that’s the last thing we need at this point.
1
I understand what David Brooks is attempting in this essay, and he makes unequivocally clear what he intends by the term nationalism. I for one can’t dissent from the spirit of what he says. At the same time the word nationalism has an irredeemably dark history and is so weighed down by negative baggage that I’m not sure that it’s possible or even desirable to attempt its rescue from Trump and his fellow travelers. Even the moniker patriotism has troubled me in recent years. Was it Mark Twain who said of it that it’s the last refuge for scoundrels?
1
Our mutual loyalty is NOT threatened by globalism. Feeling attached to all of humanity INCLUDES feeling attached to one's countrymen. Globalists (humanists) do not send bombs. David, just because you put nation above humanity does not mean it is a superior stance. In fact, it is what leads to world strife. Your feelings for your country and locale are strong. That does not mean they are superior to others'.
Nationalism has always seemed an odd sentiment to me. You are born in a certain place at a certain time to a certain family, over which you have zero choice or control. For the ensuing dozen or more crucially formative years, you are raised and taught the culture and mores of that place - again, over which you have virtually no control. So your identification with place is essentially a cosmic accident. Attachment to that place is baked in by that accident. By the time you are old enough to think critically and hopefully with a curious mind, it would be very difficult to jettison that background completely, not to mention inconvenient. It allows society - and you - to function and find happiness and comfort. Fine. But when that personal attachment becomes an egotism that declares YOUR place is better than any other place, there lies soil for toxic fruit. Fondness for the familiar streets, people, and history of your personal surroundings is natural and good; raising an entire nation (especially one as diverse as this one) to the defining note of your identity seems false, foolish, and dangerous.
1
Mr. Brooks, I believe you’ve confused nationalism with patriotism. I believe you are a patriot and not a nationalist. Nationalism has so many negative connotations and rightfully so.
This is the best column you have written in a long time. I want Chris Evans to put on the Captain America costume and read it aloud at a rally somewhere.
America has majorities and minorities. We should always be on the lookout for the majority to oppress the minority. Most conservative friends, in truth, scoff at groups like BLM, the Caravan etc. But isn't that so easy to do when you're in the majority? That's not bravery. Closing down a highway? That's bravery. Leaving your home to confront the police in your neighborhood who oppress you? That's bravery. Walking 1,000 miles to get to a better place to live for your family? That's bravery. The majority can sit in their cozy family rooms and watch all this play out on TV and make opinions about what is right & wrong about it. But that's not bravery. Minorities in this country embody the idea or reach of the free and the brave. The rest of us are free....but come on, being born on 3rd base is not brave, it's just luck.
We all live during the worst presidency in our nations history. He is the worst embodiment of America that we could ever conceive. Obnoxious, foul, aggressive, grandiose, showy, mean spirited, a philanderer, a cheat, a liar. We left all that to become America, but the Tories still exist. But as a counter to all that is un-American in my country, I'll always vote with minorities on my mind, because they are the reminder of why this country is great.
I think you're smart enough to know this is not what Trump means by nationalism. What you write about is better described as patriotism. Your party is so patriotic that they've spent a generation trying to take that word away from their opponents - who make up over half the country they claim to love.
1
Mr Brooks has exposed the big problem in modern American conservatism. The world must be seen as we vs them. America must win and others must lose - that is the zero sum game of republican conservative ideology.
Nationalism allows 5000 desperately poor central Americans to be viewed as a threat rather than fellow human beings reaching desperately out for our help.
Nationalism is what enables Trump to walk away from the Paris Climate accord - an effort to save our planet from destruction.
Only a Nationalist could deride this last ditch effort as unfair to our business interests.
"Conservative" has become an all encompassing and convenient shield for too many who chose to bury their heads in the sand rather than trying to deal with a large dynamic world that is awakening.
1
It is wonderful to realize that you are so idealistic about the role that nationalism could provide all of us if we would just embrace it. But instead, half of the country is living in a nightmare, and the other half has more money than God and is jetting around the world and buying up real estate in NYC at $50,000,000 a pop, that is fifty million for those number-challenged readers out there, and the other half are addicted to opioids and living in trailers with plastic sheeting on the windows and a tarp over half the roof. I guess we should slap ourselves and do what David says.
Mr. Brooks,
That you describe nationalism from a place of love and inclusion doesn't change that others using the term take nationalism from a place of hate and exclusion.
Trying to make nationalism more acceptable doesn't make it more acceptable when Trump describes himself as a nationalist. Not when he has plainly and openly sympathized with the white nationalists.
1
Mr. Brooks - you can't bring the country together by trying to redefine nationalism as love of country.
You only play into the hands of the whack job right by continuing to allow them to define the narrative.
Attempting to soften, or bring nuance to the concept of nationalism is not only lost on far right ideologists, their exploiters like Donald Trump, and their followers, it increases their influence.
They have been drowning out the love songs to America with nationalist, vitriolic appeals to bigotry and fear for decades now. But dirges - they are getting louder.
What you can't imagine, I have been wondering how I am going to live with for years now, as the purveyors of right wing extremist ideology and personal greed have increased their hold on the hearts and minds of right wing America and the Republican Party, while neutralizing Democrats, the free press and others in positions of power from mounting a sustained and committed opposition to their agenda.
Mr. Brooks, I have read and listened to you often. You are *not* an "American Nationalist." Saying that you are only feeds the extremist movement that really is.
Brooks as usual makes some good and interesting points. The problem now though is that nationalism is being used to divide and conquer. Trump seems to be best at not only dividing our country, but creating divisions for Americans with many other people on Earth. I don’t see how promoting American nationalism is helpful. Maybe if he was comparing nationalism to corporatism, his message would have some usefulness.
From Merriam-Webster:
"These two words [patriotism and nationalism] may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.
A somewhat subtler difference between the two words may be found in their modifiers and the ideas to which each is connected. When we examine large bodies of recent text we see that patriotism is more often used in a general sense, often in conjunction with such words as bravery, valor, duty, and devotion. Nationalism, however, tends to find itself modified by specific movements, most frequently of a political bent."
2
I am a second generation American. My family came to this country from Eastern Europe in the very early 1900's. I grew up with a sense of pride about being an American. In elementary school, one of the songs we sang weekly was "the House I Live In". It still elicits a warm feeling and an occasional tear whenever I hear it.
I learned early on what America's role in the world was. The place at the head of the table among the pantheon of nations. America was a giant to be reckoned with.
As I grew older I began to learn of our strengths and our weaknesses. How we lead the Allied nations to victory in WWII, and how we disgraced ourselves during the McCarthy hearings and blacklists.
American industry was a dynamo powering the world economy to the benefit of all.
I used to think that America was the greatest nation on earth. I guess that would qualify me as a Nationalist.
Somewhere along the way we lost sight of what was really important; The Constitutional promise to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The current administration led By Donald Trump has made a mockery of our Constitution. And yet, he is not the one I fear. I fear his people who cheer him on at his rallies. The people who think that a white Christian America can live apart from rest of the world. I fear a return to America as it was in the 1930's.
I fear Trump's America.
2
In the abstract, being an American nationalist might be a positive thing. But let's consider it in the concrete. Would a true American nationalist withdraw from an international nuclear disarmament treaty if he thought it was in his nation's best interest?
If David Brooks answers yes to this question, a nationalist is indistinguishable from a lunatic.
If his family has such deep American roots, Brooks needs to explain why his son chose to enlist in the Israeli army, not the American army, when we were still fighting in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where he did his best to promote our involvement.
Trump does not love this country. He has expressed a malicious hatred and disdain for most of us, and he doesn't even respect his loyalists.
He loves himself. He is a Trumpist, and his loyalists are his Trump-pets.
2
I once felt as you but when red states keep sending people to represent them in Congress like Lindsay Graham who hurl spittle-inflected rage at those who represent the progressive majority with which I identify, the love utterly evaporates.
The positively primitive superstitious world the GOP and their enablers are forcing upon this country has caused me to retreat to the coasts to be with people like me who want to move forward into the future and expand our embrace of the world. I did 7 years in Missouri, so it’s not like I’ve not tried.
I am now first an Angeleno, then Californian, then, given my long association with the New England region and its blue state ways, bi-coastal. But when I travel abroad, I feel the greater pull of being a citizen of the planet. Because of Trump and intentional, vengeful, and now gleeful red state-directed destruction of the great progressive America I was born into, my American citizenship is now only actively acknowledged at passport control. I feel more at home in European society then I ever did in Saint Louis. Abroad, I am now simply a Californian who is a citizen of the world.
3
Seventy two years ago Frank Sinatra recorded "The House I Live In", a simple sort of corny ode representing all that David Brooks seeks to spotlight. Among the thoughts melodically expressed are:: "...what is America to me/a name, a map , or a flag I see/A certain word democracy/The children in the playground/...all races and religions/ that's America to me/The howdy and the handshake/The air, a feeling free/And the right to speak your mind out/That's America to me."
This could be the opening anthem for every Democrat's rally going forward. It is corny but it means something really dear to everyone.
Here we go again with the sloppy sentimentality, one of the defining characteristics of the conservative. It is used to justify some of the most outrageous violations of human rights we see. Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Brooks.
2
Clever bit of sophistry- to redeem national pride, patriotism and love of country by redefining the context of the term 'nationalism.'
Fascists' corrupt emotional fervor, loyalty and protective impulses. The reason we must recognize the identity term 'nationalist' is because it has been historically & persistently linked to fascist racist nativist movements led by thug strong men. They are also called 'demagogues' because of the perversion of fear & patriotism- the longing for certainty beyond complex policy or reasoning with facts. It is an emotional epidemic, where feeling strong emerges from hating the Other, isolationism and fanatical rigidity.
Yes- Trump is divisive, not focused on the public good or the national interest, but on retaining power and building his fortune.
He appeals to some peoples' cynicism that expects street bullies to cheat & lie to win. This is seen as smart.
These days, Americans seem clearer about their fervor for a major league or NBA team than the democratic enterprise. They take for granted the blessings of civil society- of civilized structures of daily life: order, decency, reliable utilities, basic rights like voting, garbage pick up, fire departments & ambulances.
These functions of sound governance require emotional investment in our shared democratic community and the institutions that sustain it.
This emotional allegiance is the other infrastructure that is crumbling.
2
Unfortunately love is blind.
What sacrifices have you committed and what troubles have you suffered, Mr. Brooks?
Nice sermon but when significant numbers of people have such divergent views about what nation they inhabit, are their two loves equivalent? What if you don't really believe in a nation where all people are created equal and should be treated equally?
“The 19th-century French philosopher...”
While it’s clear that most media figures either don’t understand Existentialism, or they just pretend that they don’t (it’s probably the latter), it would be awesome if our national dialogue could move beyond the retrograde ideas of the 1800’s.
Love you. Thanks.
1
Until you come out with a column denouncing the current state of affairs with our president, your words are useless. Our country is moving in a dark direction, and unless you take a direct stand against it, your kumbya are empty words.
If Mr. Brooks was born in N. Korea, he would presumably have the same point of view, or ought to, according to him. We live on one planet. Why not love of planet? Should I believe whatever religion is current in the country I was born in? Patriotism is what the poor are taught so that they fight the rich people's wars. Why be "patriotic"? What does this really mean? Doesn't it mean my country is right, and yours is wrong, regardless of what is happening? Colbert or one of the other comedians recently made the joke: Trump doesn't want to hear about global warming. His position is, tell me about it only when we have American warming! LOL! We are one planet, and one species, and one people. Please consider the phenomenon of killing other people: if I kill a fellow citizen, it is called murder. But if a lot of my fellow citizens kill a lot of the citizens of another country, it is called war, not murder. The problem of global warming is loudly telling us to STOP thinking about nationality and instead pay attention to the whole picture, which is looking like a horrible disaster for the entire species, not just people on other continents, so long as we continue our solipsism. Love of country does not nourish life. A country is an abstract entity. And, people are the same over the whole Earth. Why love some at the expense of others? Love of oneself and others, including other species and the environment, is what nurtures life.
Think for yourself?
By your definition Mr. Brooks, globalists who seek to make money for their American investors and the US Treasury by working economically with other countries are then nationalists. Anyone who works to further our nations economy, our financial wealth by any means, including trading with China and the EU, are in fact 'nationalists'. Your definition would also include the neocons, who claim to be working in the 'nations' best interest to fight proxy wars, involve ourselves in other countries and see the world as 'ours' to control.
I don't think your attempt to re-define nationalism will get you very far; particularly with the 'white nationalists' who have for decades defined the word 'nationalists' for their purposes. You are a day late and dollar short on this one this one sir.
1
With all due respect to Mr. Brooks, who is a gifted writer, why do conservatives feel like they have to clarify what Donald Trumps says and does to make it more palatable to a reasoned mind?
He chooses to soften the term "nationalist" by adding American as an adjective. Would the technique work if he chose German, Italian, or Israeli as his modifier? Shout your patriotism form the rooftops David, and we will affirm your love of country and neighborhood!
But your backhanded way of clarifying what Trump said, and meant, is disappointing. For someone who sees the damage done by this President and his appeal to "national socialism" you choose to distract instead of challenge.
3
In the current national rhetoric, the word nationalism is used by those who want "America First" while dehumanizing non white, non gender conforming Americans, especially those who come from south of our border. Nationalism does not describe the benign patriotism you casually use and find so cosy. Nationalism is a dangerous, exclusionary tribalism that is currently doing great harm to many Americans. I'm sure that if you were the parent of a child being held in detention right now, simply because you sought the same ideals you uphold in your essay, you would more closely consider the current rammifications of nationalism.
Words matter!!!
Love of one's country is better associated with patriotism because it conveys a need for a citizen to sacrifice, rather than just wrapping oneself in a flag, or wear a pin on one's lapel.
Nationalism is simply a belief, nothing asked and nothing required other than empty words. This is why Nationalism is a better word for Trump, who has never sacrificed anything for our country.
5
Maybe we need to stop using labels.
To paraphrase Dr. Samuel Johnson, Nationalism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
3
For me, this article is dangerous because an intelligent person as Mr. David sanitized the word 'Nationalist', assisting the Nationalist movement as defined by Mr. Trump to take hold. With this article regardless of how Mr. David redefined the meaning of a Nationalist, it will not change how it is perceived in the public eye. I would also urge to change the title from 'Yes, I'm an American Nationalist' to 'NO I am not a Trump Nationalist'; as the majority of people do not read beyond the title, which comes across as a blind endorsement to the very position that Mr. David is repulsing in his article
The identification with any kind of believe system, nationality, culture etc necessarily separates the "me" from the "you" in a substantial way and leads to a world you see out there every day. As a human being the only affiliation one can have is humanity and not some random nation one is born into and conditioned by.
PS: the much talked about caravan of 6000 thousand or so people should be welcomed at the US boarder as fellow humans and given dignified shelter, clothing, food and a future.
Brooks is cynically ignoring the historical implications of the word "nationalism", choosing to redefine the word for the benefit of an eye-catching opinion column headline. There have been any number of articles recently decrying Trump's nationalistic leadership. Mr. Brooks is well aware of this. Hey David, we know the opinion column section is a crowded field, but writing provocative "sleight of hand" columns is not the way to promote helpful discussion or ultimately to promote your own career.
2
On top of the white nationalist rhetoric that plays to the identity politics of his base, Trump agrees with the premise of the simplistic dichotomy of only Nationalism or only Imperialism as described by Brooks' main source, "The Virtue of Nationalism" by Yoram Hozany:
" Either you support, in principle, the ideal of an international government or regime that imposes its will on subject nations when its officials regard this as necessary; or you believe that nations should be free to set their own course in the absence of such an international government or regime."
Because for the Zionist, Hozany, and the Corruptionist, Trump, there is nothing more inconvenient than International Law that Trump has repeatedly dismissed.
But this approach better behooves a small player like Hozany's Israel.
It is meanwhile catastrophic for the USA that was able to become the world's only superpower by virtue of its post-war use of Soft Power, and the world's wealthiest nation thanks to the worldwide power of the still almighty dollar.
We will be weakened dramatically as the type of non-globally minded Nationalist nation Brooks proposes.
Don't take my word for it.
Take Putin's word in his remarks a week ago in ovserving that his installed POTUS is unable to handle his international role:
"Thank God, this situation of a unipolar world, of a monopoly, is coming to an end," Putin said. "It's practically already over."
Only dictators, not our allies, are happy with this "Nationalism."
2
What is nationalism?
loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
So David Brooks claims to be a nationalist as does the buffoon in the White House.
Who's more authentic?
Depends on whose Kool-Aid you are drinking.
One traffics in autocratic conduct, rhetoric and bombast who works hourly to divide and conquer our country instead of
the creed, unite and prosper.
The other is an opinion columnist that often traffics in questionable theories about what America is and should be.
I was born in America therefore I am an American, period.
Am I proud of my country?
Sometimes. Other times I am not and will question my country like any other patriotic citizen. That is being responsible.
I am not a nationalist.
Sorry Mr. Brooks you once again struck out.
2
I'm with Steven Colbert on this - the word nationalism is the second half of "white nationalism". It might once have been a positive word but given the last 500 years of history, it is now an ugly word which invokes concepts of racism and it's twin - imperialism. It invokes blind loyalty to arrogant delusions of racial superiority and ensuing subjugation of the expendable "other". David, your benign concept of nationalism makes you a majority of one. You would communicate better with "patriotism" although that word too has it's associations of blind evil. However, I believe that word, at least, could be redeemed with some national honesty.
1
I like David Brooks' more encompassing view on nationalism. But let's never forget that peoples nationalism can easily be turned into something truly evil. "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it."
I wonder if a thoughtful person today could afford the luxury of being either national or patriotic. How would we classify those men and women who built this nation from a colonized existence and gave it subsequently the wing to embrace the entire mankind in liberty, justice and understanding?
Obviously, our President does not represent all the nations of America, his ward is mutually exclusive to the rest. When President Kennedy informed the world “Ich bin ein Berliner”, he delivered Berlin and Germany on the world map with the entire America as its citizen. Recall President Obama when he pointed out that “the world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith”? Could there be any room in it for petty nationalism (or patriotism based on exclusivity) that is surfacing today?
1
I'm connected to my own reality through these beautiful words that have swept down the wind tunnel of thought and across your mind. But it seems something is missing—what nationalism really is.
Nice try, David. Do you really think the Pope’s heart has been “bleached of the particular love of place“ just because his main love is for mankind as a whole? Doesn’t his example show that one can be connected and not isolated if their main love is for all? Don’t you think Francis has figured out how to live without a focus on this place or that place. You may say that that isn’t easy, that most of us find it easier to love the USA, or the tip of Manhattan, or just my own family. Maybe. It’s not easy to master many valuable things.
1
The what-aboutism in Trump and his supporters is what needs to be called out. Many in the media feel that they have to give "both" sides of the story as if everything has some kind of fairness principle. If we talk about the theory of gravity we don't need to talk about "anti-gravity". If we talk about child molestation, we don't have to give the pros and cons of it. The same should go towards global warming. This is established science and it is time to call anyone who is against it, just plain wrong.
1
Brooks trying to play it cute by responding to Trump's "I am a Nationalist" rant at political rallies. But the problem I see is that Trump's voters do not read his columns and they would just take it as another sign of expanding the popularity of the term "nationalist". Believe me, it will see the right wing media beging to use this en mass.
Mr. Brooks, "Love for nation is an expanding love because it is love for the whole people. It’s an ennobling love because it comes with the urge to hospitality — to share what you love and to want to make more love by extending it to others"
Imagine if you change one word, nation, to humanity. It's a shame you and other neo-fascists can't expand that love to the world as Christ requires.
Nationalism refers to a type of superiority, our country is better than yours, etc. Not a positive message
The planet, Earth, will never advance with every country competing for limited resources. We kind of considered this in the post WWII era, up to Trump's election, when we are back to arrogance and ignorance
1
Mr. Brooks, this is nonsense. To illustrate, consider the NFL players who knelt during the national anthem.
If you consider them patriots for silently expressing their concern for the many unarmed black men who are shot by police, you are supporting our American freedom to peaceful demonstration.
If you are opposed to their expression on the grounds that they are somehow dishonoring the flag, a piece of cloth, you are a nationalist.
1
Messages of hope like this are great and most needed now. And by providing a positive and inclusive definition of Nationalism (American Nationalism), hope is provided, but "code" is ignored. When Trump says he is a Nationalist, he is not using your definition, and you do at least imply that by saying "how could he be a Nationalist when he speaks and sees himself as representing about half of the nation". But, let us not ignore Trump's definition, and when he uses that term - if he does it again - he is talking to that half of the people who are intently listening and looking for a signal to continue their exclusive ways, be it torch parades, chants of locking up those who oppose them, or encouraging further escalation of division. It is impossible to sweep that under the rug by a re-definition. American Nationalism as you describe it is one thing. Trump's definition of exclusion, fear and discord could not be farther from your definition.
Nationalism is a broad term and is interpreted and acted upon in some pretty sinister ways but David is on the right track.
I don.t know if we can ever succumb from the ME generation. It is deeply embedded and has gained traction with a sizable part of our population.It appears there is no nation focus. Every family ,tribe, organization,religion,etc. have created their own borders, mores and how they function with other group and individuals.
I am with you David but the mine field is extensive and is heavily populated.
"When we see the Earth from space, we see ourselves as a whole; we see the unity and not the divisions. It is such a simple image with a compelling message: one planet, one human race. We are here together, and we need to live together with tolerance and respect. We must become global citizens." -- Stephen Hawking. Of course we all identify with a place and people. In prehistoric times it was small groups of hunter gatherers. With the rise of civilization, it was the city -- Rome, Athens, Sparta. As recently as 157 years ago, it was individual states in America. Now it's the United States. But despite Mr. Brooks lack of imagination, it's time for all of us to identify with planet Earth and all its people -- a precious spaceship that carries the only known life in the Universe. If Gaia is destroyed because of our divisions, there is no future for humankind. It is time to heed Stephen Hawking's words.
2
Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks' dictionary definition of "nationalism" completely ignores the history of the the word (particularly some of the unique ethno-nationalism inherent in past American Nationalism) and why it has been anathema to politicians for decades. Many people try to distinguish "American Nationalism" from other forms of 'nationalism" (e.g. European) but there is much evidence to conclude there is very little difference.
It's a complicated subject, but I think Mr. Brooks is essentially whitewashing nationalism and dangerously endorsing something that can easily get out of control. I don't think many of the folks who are embracing the "American Nationalism" he's describing will be applying the nuance he's attempting to impart.
3
David Brooks may believe that his love of country is nationalism, but I prefer to look at the Oxford University definition: "Identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
This Oxford definition may explain Trumps desire to destroy all of our treaties with other nations. His brand of nationalism appears to focus on the phrase "to the detriment of the interests of other nations".
Could we have a worse president? Instead of working together with our allies and neighbors and others towards global peace and prosperity, he is cutting our ties of the rest of the world. Eventually, the result will be catastrophic!
3
Because I care about the globe first - the earth - the only home our species has, and because I care about humanity above the human created structure of nations - I contest your assertion that my heart has "been bleached". On the contrary - I see the one thing that ties us all together - the one place, my heart is larger and fuller than one nation.
I taught writing at the University of Memphis for some time. One of my favorite exercises was to ask students to give me a paragraph on "How big is your family?" Household only? Relatives? Next door neighbors? Those on the next block? In the city? state? nation? "Circle of friends" was the most common answer. Maybe this reflected age and undergrad conditions. Today it reflects angst and tribal conditions.
Great article about "belonging" and particularly the virtues that go with being an American.
As I get older, I definitely find myself connecting more deeply with humanity itself, rather than smaller groups. The cause of humanity, and worldly responsibility, is a far more important perspective than anything limited to geographical perimeters.
5
I understand the rhetorical hook of using 'nationalism' when what you seemed to be talking about was patriotism (as in 'love of country'). As we get more an more segmented into ideological niches pulling us together becomes harder. Suggesting 'extreme individualism'(whatever that means) and 'globalist' who have no love of place are the greatest threats is a serious deflection of what ails us. You finally come to the core of your essay when you talk about the idea (the myth) of America and the vision a patriot might hold in their heart. We are one people, a diverse people, with a truly revolutionary self governing ideal. I wish you had not used 'nationalism' as your continued hook and moved the concept over to patriotism and belief in an beautiful idea, even if is still to be realized. It is under threat as serious as ever in our history.
3
Like most Americans born in this country, I did not choose to be an American. It was an accident and fact of my birth. I do not regret this fact, and having visited nearly 50 other counties on earth, I certainly appreciate what being an American has to offer. On the other hand, I have chosen the place where I live, which is not the place of my birth. This choice for a home, taken in the context of the many other places I have lived, has resulted in my identity and sense of belonging. When asked where I am from, I specify this place, even though it usually requires further explanation, where saying I am an American would not. Today, if I need something to be done, I can call my county supervisor and have a reasonable expectation that my need will be tended to, or at least listened to. I feel the same about the majority of folks in my neighborhood, I certainly don't feel that I can have this same degree of attention from an official at the state or federal level. The fact is, the priorities of these "higher" officials generally do not reflect my own priorities, not at the state level, and most certainly not at the federal level. I often wonder how much of my life is impacted by those who are distant from me, and which political decisions truly trickle down to make any significant difference in my life. I can only conclude that there is little impact, and for that I am grateful.
David Brooks is a Progressive Patriot who truly understands the attributes and vagaries of Nationalism. Many people...do not. As we have seen in the age of Trump, some Trump supporters mistakenly cast their narrow concerns about the national and world economies and immigration as valid tenets of true Nationalism...at its’ core best. Sadly, they will not be reading this Opinion Piece by Mr. Brooks to help broaden their perspective.
David, in spite of your nuanced explanation of your different loyalties, and irrespective of the patriotism vs. nationalism debate, you still make artificial distinctions. It is perfectly consistent to take pride in being American while wanting to help others in the world to live in a more free, prosperous and healthy environment, just as it's possible to have a primary allegiance to your own family,, but spend time and money helping those other families who are less fortunate.
I'm a patriot *and* a globalist. Yes, we've sent jobs to Mexico, China, and other countries; we get cheaper goods, and uncounted millions are better off than they were - a far better result than billions in foreign aid we've shelled out in the past to regimes which prevent most of it from reaching the people we're intending to help.
But *my* America is the one where everyone has the right to equal opportunity and equality before the law ("All men are created equal"), the America of "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", the America of "the least of these my brethren" (yes, that includes immigrants), and of "liberty and justice for all".
On the morning after Trump's election, a Times columnist wrote that millions of Americans had just discovered that the America they thought they lived in doesn't exist.
And that is the crux of our current quandary. Does that America actually exist? If so, how can it be restored? Because if it can't, I'm no longer a patriot.
1
My wife and I unhesitatingly said state in answer to the question about what level of society we most identify with. California is increasingly becoming a “distinct society,” especially as Trump and his sycophants seek to destroy everything decent in the US as a whole. California is of course not perfect, but it is at least trying to improve poor people ‘a lives. California is trying to increase political participation not suppress it. At the same time, California is the world center of the US’ two most successful industries—information technology and entertainment.
I would like to be a US patriot, I’m not one who believes this country to be unremittingly evil (in that case why try to fix it?). But it’s a lot easier to love California right now.
1
Love has never been a word I throw around. It has been trampled and diluted by overuse and ubiquity on Facebook. Overreaching gush talk between friends and family also saws away at its meaning. Mr. Brooks' use of this precious word toward country devalues love even further, in my view. Right now, who, in their right mind, could "love" the USA? It is in tatters. Battles lines have been drawn and the divide between us expands with every headline. I do not "love" this situation, at this moment, in our history. What I would "love" is a path to feeling better.
Yes, I'm an American nationalist, too, though I prefer the term patriot, which I have come to define as someone who loves their country with a degree of humility.
My patriotism is simply criticism with a goal. It’s realizing that in order to effect improvements in my country, I must affirm my loyalty to American ideals but also participate in public discourse about the state of those ideals. It's realizing that to condemn America as a whole is to also condemn our artists, journalists, activists--anyone working to make America a better and more diverse place. I believe loving a country is vital to improving a country. As Dan Rather wrote in his recent book, “I see my love of country imbued with a responsibility to bear witness to its faults.”
1
All humans seem to have an instinctive need to belong to a larger group. As communications have improved, group identity has progressed from the village to the dukedom to the nation. - nobody was English or French in the 10th century.
Mr. Brooks identifies as being American not because he has carefully evaluated his choice before making it but because he was born here. Having found himself with this identity, and driven by the primal instinct to belong, he rationalizes it post-facto.
There's nothing wrong with that provided we recognize that people from all the other countries do the same, and that all the things we say about our national identities are myths, the purpose of which is to fulfill our need to belong by binding us to our group.
Fantasy can be healthy and fulfilling, but only as long as we don't forget it's fantasy and that all the other fantasists from all the other nations are playing the same game, driven by the same, shared, deeply human impulse.
Nationalism is not the ticket. To overcome 21st century obstacles we must add greatly to the 5 percent who identify with mankind rather than limited local and national identities. The grave problems we face—climate change, poverty, violence—do not respect national borders. We must diminish individualistic, segmented notions of ourselves and expand awareness to see ourselves as interdependent members of a single world community.
6