Extreme nationalism does not end well. Just ask Italians, Germans or Spaniards. Ask the British about Brexit. Now we see the far right on the move in Europe.
Closer to home nationalism is being embraced by millions of Americans who support an unabashed nationalist for President.
Where do we hope to go with this? I think it’s a fools trip.
Patriotism is desirable, of course, but in the 21st century making the leap to nationalism can be a problem.
Here’s an analogy that might help: Think of patriotism like cheering for your favorite sports team in a healthy competition. You want your team to win, but you also appreciate good sportsmanship and respect the other team. Nationalism would be like saying your team is the only one that deserves to win and the other teams are all inferior.
Virtually every country needs other countries, each country has unique value to itself and other countries, strengths and weaknesses.
A robust national identity can fuel isolationist tendencies. A nation consumed by a sense of self-sufficiency and a desire to preserve its unique character might be more inclined to withdraw from international entanglements.
I find it disturbing that one presidential candidate is seen as ending wars, but at the same time is a confirmed nationalist and populist, and isolationist to some extent. The way to avoid conflict is engagement other countries at all levels, not standing apart.
Have we learn nothing from the mid twentieth century and its aftermath?
If there was ever a time to be engaged throughout the world, this is it.
For instance, the early 19th century witnessed a period of American isolationism, partly driven by a burgeoning sense of national identity and a desire to avoid the complex web of European politics.
Today we see a similar ideology being proposed, driven in large part by immigration.
David Leonhardt NYT 6-12-24
“The recent elections for the European Parliament are the latest sign of the political potency of immigration. The elections’ biggest winners were right-wing parties that promised to reduce the flow of migration.”
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
The problem is a lack of assimilation. It might take a generation or two before your family is truly accepted but it’s when someone holds onto their past instead of the future opportunities that trouble arises. You want to be accepted in France? Stop “being” Syrian. Learn French and the French culture. Eventually it should work. But if you cling only to other Syrians (which is much easier to hang out with people like you) do you really think the French will suddenly love and accept you? The burden is on you, not them.
This happens all the time here, too. People want a better life so they leave the mega urban city to a new location with less crime, more services and/or opportunities and better schools. But then they don’t try to assimilate to the new area. They bring their old problems (typically involving unemployed men) with them and cling to similar people. Changing locations isn’t the answer. But assimilating to the new area is.
Californians flee to Texas but they don’t want to be Texan, they want less taxation and are fleeing some societal ills. They want to be the cool liberals they were, but in some else’s backyard who don’t readily accept them. Then wonder why can’t they have it all? A lack of assimilation!
I don’t think it was a coincidence that my clan truly became prosperous as a result of world wars: they stopped, they forbid, German from being spoken in the house. Sure, they kept their old friends but they assimilated to the rest of the “English.” They broadened their opportunities. They put it on themselves to change instead of thinking they shouldn’t have to.
Agree or not, this was an interesting perspective of American values: https://youtu.be/U4pIVFuislw?si=SdivF1qiRrgjvczR
LikeLike
Not surprising to read of the results in Europe–could even see Macron of France replaced as he called for elections last week.
This is what the result of allowing people to flood into your country–it changes the culture and dynamic of the country as well as it costs very large sums of money.
In this country were we told it was a hoax made up by Faux News–don’t believe what you are seeing–sort of like Biden’s recent public appearances where he stares off into the horizon and the Italian PM comes to fetch him–
“Nana, please come join us cake is being served.” Don’t believe what you see because he is sharp as a tack in private meetings we are told by his media pals.
Remember when we were much younger and we were told about visiting a foreign country. Be careful we were told as they have an image of us as “ugly Americans”–coca cola drinkers–ice cubes–cold beer–cameras going off all the time—an arrogant attitude.
Countries have cultures and folks need to respect them and when millions pour in from around the world it’s like a fuse being lit. The Europeans have had enough and democracy works.
Those who told us illegal immigration was not an issue and if you think it is then you are a racist / bigot. They might look at themselves and wonder if they might have gone too far.
LikeLike
I think that’s what they said about the Irish and Italians. Only now they are black or brown. What if the illegals were legal?
LikeLike
Quinn, by your accounts the Europeans should be filthy rich because immigrants solve all problems. They diversify the populace, do all the jobs that need to be done, and pay taxes galore. They create new jobs. Yet I read that the economies in Europe aren’t keeping up with the US currently. What is the hold up? The immigration surge in Europe preceded ours and should be working.
LikeLike
I hope you are kidding. Otherwise it’s a rather foolish remark.
LikeLike
if the illegals were legal then what’s the issue?
did your ancestors and Connie’s come here legally or illegally?–mine came legally–whatever the law was they followed–my wife’s parents who settled in North Bergen had sponsors and landed first at Ellis Island.
you somehow confuse legal and illegal–personally I think immigrants are great–we need more and not less–but legal (legal guns/legal drugs/ obey the law) — recent CBS survey says 60%+of Americans want illegals deported–we have come to this because we have looked at these folks poring across the border and done basically nothing–in fact we have encouraged them by lack of enforcement.
just saw on FAUX News the border being breached in San Diego area but by a large delegation from China–the word is out that just show up and you are in–there is no vetting, there’s nothing, as China is not going to give any information on any citizen to US Border Patrol.
8 ISIS terrorists crossed but were found in NYC–Philly–LA–how many are still here? why are they here?
It’s a giant mess and folks know exactly who to blame–whether it is enough to make a change at the top is another issue–
LikeLike
Mine came long before there was an Ellis Island, Connies through Ellis.
I understand your point, but legal or illegal designation for the great majority it would be the same people.
LikeLike
Well said, your instincts are spot on. It is America who has benefitted the most from the post WW2 international order which has brought so much prosperity and progress. And it is America who will suffer the most if Trump is elected again and ends up destroying our alliances. We can only contain the China-Russia axis with full engagement and cooperation with our allies in Europe and Asia, and even then it may not be enough. Anyone who thinks America can just be self sufficient and abandon the rest of the world is naive.
LikeLike
Why do you think the encirclement of the globe with American troops is such a grand thing? Why do you think meddling in affairs of countries and regions that have no connection to us is a good thing. Most congress people can’t find places on the map that we are itching to get involved with or more likely involved with. Yet you want them to give the President a free hand to squander young lives of our military there. I know Lockheed Martin wants the business but there are more peaceful ways of earning a living than the military industrial complex. No, I can’t accept your view at all. Trade with but don’t fight with the world.
LikeLike
Who said anything like that? How do you come to that conclusion? “ Engaged” doesn’t just mean fighting, but involved, talking, dialogue.
LikeLike
The current position of the US is encircling the globe with troops. The fallback position has been to intervene whenever something happens whether it materially affects us or not. What you wrote had all the appearance of continuing that position. if you didn’t mean that, then it wasn’t apparent to me. If you meant dialogue, talking, trade and so on I can agree to that.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I meant dialogue, engage with people.
LikeLike