February 27, 20179 yr What do nationalists want? I thought this was an interesting piece from one of the more thoughtful conservative voices out there. I thought it raised some questions worthy of discussion, which will hopefully be a diversion from the usual sniping and gotchya games. I'll add a few questions of my own: At least part of the support for “strong borders” and restrictions on immigration is to maintain or restore a national identity. How should one define this identity? Free trade has long been associated with capitalism (from Smith and Ricardo to Keynes and Friedman), and, until recently, strongly advocated by the Republican Party. Why will a return to mercantilism or an evolution to protectionist “fair trade" be better? The politics of nationalism were responsible for untold bloodshed in Europe (and its colonies) from the seventeenth century until 1945 (with the breakup of Yugoslavia as an exception). Why won't a reversion to nationalism lead to more great power conflicts? Obviously, I'm a skeptic, but I'm curious to hear the other side of things.
February 27, 20179 yr I want the illegal dead beats, gang members, drug dealers, convicts, etc out of America.
February 27, 20179 yr It is an interesting read, and the thought of a defining "culture" in the US is interesting and is very reminiscent of what we heard during the immigration surges of the 19th century.
February 27, 20179 yr What do nationalists want? I thought this was an interesting piece from one of the more thoughtful conservative voices out there. I thought it raised some questions worthy of discussion, which will hopefully be a diversion from the usual sniping and gotchya games. I'll add a few questions of my own: At least part of the support for “strong borders” and restrictions on immigration is to maintain or restore a national identity. How should one define this identity? Free trade has long been associated with capitalism (from Smith and Ricardo to Keynes and Friedman), and, until recently, strongly advocated by the Republican Party. Why will a return to mercantilism or an evolution to protectionist “fair trade" be better? The politics of nationalism were responsible for untold bloodshed in Europe (and its colonies) from the seventeenth century until 1945 (with the breakup of Yugoslavia as an exception). Why won't a reversion to nationalism lead to more great power conflicts? Obviously, I'm a skeptic, but I'm curious to hear the other side of things. Hopefully. We do have a couple of excellent debaters/analysts from both sides of the aisle here (I freely admit that I'm not one of them).
February 27, 20179 yr It is an interesting read, and the thought of a defining "culture" in the US is interesting and is very reminiscent of what we heard during the immigration surges of the 19th century. Do you mean we might be regressing? Oh my!
February 27, 20179 yr I want the illegal dead beats, gang members, drug dealers, convicts, etc out of America. What about illegals that do not fall into those categories?
February 27, 20179 yr First off I think I the term "nationalist" needs to be defined, and is the term very broad in spectrum or very narrow in scope.
February 28, 20179 yr Author First off I think I the term "nationalist" needs to be defined, and is the term very broad in spectrum or very narrow in scope. Good idea. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that nationalism is the belief there is an identifiable national identity connected to a specific territory and sovereignty over the territory is essential to supporting this national identity. I think that’s sufficiently broad and neutral enough to work here. If someone has a better idea then please add to it.
February 28, 20179 yr Good idea. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that nationalism is the belief there is an identifiable national identity connected to a specific territory and sovereignty over the territory is essential to supporting this national identity. I think that’s sufficiently broad and neutral enough to work here. If someone has a better idea then please add to it. By gosh if that's the definition then I pray that every single person in this country is a raving Nationalist.
February 28, 20179 yr I want our country first regardless of any other country. I am for helping people, but have any of you ever looked at the tax $$$ that are sent out of our country when we are $$$$$$$ in debt? What about taking care of business at home and then when we have all that straightened out we can help those that are our allies. We send $$$$$ to our enemies. Think about that. We need to get a handle on the illegal immigrant issue. I dont have that answer on how to do it fair cause if I did I would be in Washington. I am with Trump on alot of how he thinks about negotiating deals on a country by country basis. I am also with Trump on free trade tactics. We dont charge $ on any ones product coming in and they charge us? No way I am with that and any deal must be fair. Thats just a few things I want. Main thing I want is to see the country united again.
February 28, 20179 yr Author By gosh if that's the definition then I pray that every single person in this country is a raving Nationalist. Well, I could certainly come up with a more caustic definition, but I'm not sure that would foster much discussion beyond trading the usual barbs. So I went for neutral and hoped people would take a stab at the questions.
February 28, 20179 yr What about illegals that do not fall into those categories? If they are working and are a benefit and not a free loader then I really don't care. But I still feel those good illegal immigrants need a way to be a citizen.
February 28, 20179 yr Well, I could certainly come up with a more caustic definition, but I'm not sure that would foster much discussion beyond trading the usual barbs. So I went for neutral and hoped people would take a stab at the questions. Oh, well.
February 28, 20179 yr What do nationalists want? I thought this was an interesting piece from one of the more thoughtful conservative voices out there. I thought it raised some questions worthy of discussion, which will hopefully be a diversion from the usual sniping and gotchya games. I'll add a few questions of my own: At least part of the support for “strong borders” and restrictions on immigration is to maintain or restore a national identity. How should one define this identity? Free trade has long been associated with capitalism (from Smith and Ricardo to Keynes and Friedman), and, until recently, strongly advocated by the Republican Party. Why will a return to mercantilism or an evolution to protectionist “fair trade" be better? The politics of nationalism were responsible for untold bloodshed in Europe (and its colonies) from the seventeenth century until 1945 (with the breakup of Yugoslavia as an exception). Why won't a reversion to nationalism lead to more great power conflicts? Obviously, I'm a skeptic, but I'm curious to hear the other side of things. Securing the borders should be and is for our security. We are not the wild west anymore and settlers cannot come in from anywhere and not impact resources. Immigration should be measured and managed and without prejudice. It does concern me that immigrants in our past felt motivated to conform to the requirements of our past and today we take it upon ourselves burdening the taxpayers to accommodate those who won't. Free trade and fair trade are different concepts. The playing field is not balanced, and we are foolhardy...as we have been for many years...in believing that other countries will not act in their best interests when their policies are set. I lived in that world for 20 years seeing how profits were managed out of the US to the "fatherland", and very blatantly. Also, capitalization policies in some countries..ie. Japan...give a leg up to those companies to grow and penetrate markets even if it is at a loss for a number of years. The FTC was a paper tiger when companies such as SMC came in and cornered the American pneumatics market by dumping inventory, blanketing the country with sales people and selling good products at no margin. Few other companies would have the capitalization and tolerance from stakeholders to do that. The good news is that those companies open plants in the US, so we want to act wisely, but how much of the profits are going back to the parent company's home? Not that it is the best...I agree a clear vision that can be communicated to a strategy and divided into tactics is the best formula for success. What we have at this point is what we are not: trending closer to socialism, driving more government into our lives and pocketbooks, trying to be in the "popular euro crowd" by judging our successes on how the Europeans or any other part of the world thinks. (We are better off having their respect.) Lastly, what single vision could a candidate have an be elected on the national stage and be electable? The national electorate game is pulling in enough factions in the right places to win whether blue or red. Just my random thoughts.
February 28, 20179 yr The Nationalist position regarding free trade is the most confusing for me. It runs counter to literally everything the study of economics teaches. I truly can't picture any semblance of efficiency if ignoring comparative advantages. I understand the sentiment of providing for one's own and ensuring jobs at home, but if globalism is denounced I don't see much of a difference between a closed off economy and a state run one.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.