Varieties of Nationalism: From Benign to Malignant

The word ‘nationalism’ is widely used, and too often carelessly used. Reflection reveals that this word can refer to a variety of things, from a beneficial and peaceful sentiment to an aggressive and warlike passion.

The evil version of “nationalism” is a value system in which the existence, growth, and power of the nation-state is the ultimate value, outranking other potential values like family, justice, duty, honor, religious faith, art, or friendship. This evil type of nationalism can lead to combat and hostility, because if the nation-state is the ultimate value, then anything or anyone else can be sacrificed for the good of the nation-state.

As historian Jill Lepore writes, the evil form of

nationalism is often thought of as what happens which a nation-state demands extraordinary sacrifices from its people — especially by participating in wars of aggression — and, requiring their consent, asks for that sacrifice in the name of the nation. The more outrageous the war, the harder it is to gain that consent, the more grotesque the depiction of the nation’s enemies.

By contrast, the good version of “nationalism” is not only salutary, but it is even necessary for a peaceful global community. This form of nationalism is a fondness for one’s own nation, and the ability to objectively see the achievements and contributions of one’s own nation. Importantly, such peaceful nationalism also allows the individual to appreciate the contributions and achievements of other nations. This type of nationalism leads to peaceful international relations because it allows each nation to have respect both for itself and for other nations.

The term ‘nation-state’ merits definition: a state is a clearly demarcated geographical territory with its own government. In common language, a ‘state’ is what we often call a ‘country.’ A ‘nation’ is an ethnic group — a group which shares a language, or a culture, or a shared narrative history, or a way of life, or artistic traditions like clothing, music, and food. A ‘nation-state’ is when a nation and a state are coextensive, i.e., when they are the same thing.

Notably, it is sometimes debated as to whether the United States is a nation-state. It is a state in any case; but the question is posed as to whether there is enough of a common culture to merit calling the United States a nation. Those who argue that the U.S. is not a nation point to the diversity of religions, languages, and cultures within the territory. Those who say that the U.S. is a nation point to commonalities which universally join the citizens: bluejeans, hamburgers, a fondness for cars (the ‘automobile lifestyle’), popular sporting events, popular music, etc.

The reader will decide for herself or himself.

So it is, then, that learning to have a fondness for one’s own nation, and to appreciate the achievements of one’s own nation, is not necessarily a warlike sentiment. It is, however, a necessary perspective for creating a peaceful community of nations: wholesome friendships between countries can be formed only by those nations with a healthy appreciation for both themselves and for other nations.

Tolerance as a Foundational Value for Political Liberty: What Tolerance Is, and What Tolerance Isn’t

In any society that hopes to succeed in maintaining a government of freely-elected representatives, and in any society that hopes to recognize the dignity and value of each and every individual human life, tolerance is a necessary precondition. Yet the meaning of ‘tolerance’ is blurred and made ambiguous by inexact usage.

Tolerance is allowing individuals to have and express various points of view, and especially those which are at a variance with one’s own. Tolerance is permitting beliefs and opinions to be presented and promoted.

A simple example suffices: in an imaginary town, Mr. Jones and Mr. Miller are both candidates, hoping to be elected mayor. Each candidate has his own group of supporters. The citizens who support Mr. Jones, however, acknowledge the right of other citizens to support Mr. Miller, and reciprocally, the supporters of Mr. Miller recognize the right of other citizens to advocate for Mr. Jones.

This is already obvious from the various republics with which the reader will be acquainted.

The question becomes unclear, however, because of slogans and political rhetoric which uses a variety of words: “welcome, affirm, support, accept, celebrate.” These words point to something different than tolerance.

This can be seen in example. Civil society expects the supporters of one candidate to tolerate, or allow, the supporters of a competing candidate to live unabused and free to express their allegiances. The supporters of Mr. Jones for mayor tolerate the supporters of Mr. Miller, and vice versa.

But civil society does not expect the supporters of one candidate to “welcome, affirm, support, accept, or celebrate” campaigns and advocacy for a competing candidate. Such an expectation would be the very opposite of what is understood to be a democratic society. A free society does not ask individuals to surrender their opinions and views; rather it asks merely that they tolerate the existence of competing views, and contend with those competing views in a respectful disagreement.

Thus the public should reject the perpetual call for voters to “welcome, affirm, support, accept, and celebrate” some political viewpoint. The citizens should, on the contrary, “tolerate and allow” diverse viewpoints.

The reader will transfer this principle and apply it to the controversial questions and “hot-button” issues of the current time.

Scaling Down: Preparing for Smaller Wars

In January 1950, President Harry Truman requested the Department of State and the Department of Defense to jointly compose a document regarding U.S. objectives in both diplomatic and military concerns. In April, he received the report, a top-secret document titled NSC-68.

This document remained classified until 1975, but is now available to the reading public. It shaped much of American strategic and geopolitical thought throughout the 1950s and 1960s. It addressed both strategy and ideology.

NSC-68 also included references to the nation’s founding texts from the 1700s, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers.

The report’s authors were concerned to distinguish between, on the one hand, massive wars of annihilation on a global scale, and on the other hand, smaller regional conflicts:

The mischief may be a global war or it may be a Soviet campaign for limited objectives. In either case we should take no avoidable initiative which would cause it to become a war of annihilation, and if we have the forces to defeat a Soviet drive for limited objectives it may well be to our interest not to let it become a global war.

It was therefore incumbent upon the United States military establishment to be prepared for both types of conflict. But the U.S. military in 1950 was not ready, as author Russell Weigley writes:

NSC-68 suggested a danger of limited war, of Communist military adventures designed not to annihilate the West but merely to expand the periphery of the Communist domains, limited enough that an American riposte of atomic annihilation would be disproportionate in both morality and expediency. To retaliate against a Communist military initiative on any but an atomic scale, the American armed forces in 1950 were ill equipped. Ten understrength Army divisions and eleven regimental combat teams, 671 Navy ships, two understrength Marine Corps divisions, and forty-eight Air Force wings (the buildup not yet having reached the old figure of fifty-five) were stretched thinly around the world.

It would not be fitting to respond, e.g., to the Soviet blockade of Berlin by unleashing America’s nuclear arsenal. Although some military strategists in the late 1940s saw the atomic bomb as the answer to nearly any tactical question, it was now becoming clear that America should have a full conventional force as well.

The Air Force atomic striking force, embodied now in eighteen wings of the Strategic Air Command, was the only American military organization possessing a formidable instant readiness capacity. So much did Americans, including the government, succeed in convincing themselves that the atomic bomb was a sovereign remedy for all military ailments, so ingrained was the American habit of thinking of war in terms of annihilative victories, that occasional warnings of limited war went more than unheeded, and people, government, and much of the military could scarcely conceive of a Communist military thrust of lesser dimensions than World War III.

So it happened, then, that in June 1950, when North Korea attacked South Korea, the United States was in possession of large nuclear arsenal, but a barely serviceable - if at all serviceable - infantry. The United States was prepared for global atomic war, but the Soviet Socialists chose smaller proxy wars - Korea, Vietnam - and even smaller military maneuvers to quell uprisings - Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Prague 1968.

America’s brief romance with the atomic bomb was over. By the mid-1950s, it was clear that the United States needed a full conventional force alongside its nuclear arsenal.

This would require a bit of a scramble to make up for the years in the late 1940s during which the conventional forces were allowed to languish. The Korean War included a U.S. Army which was underfunded and undersized.

In the postwar decades, the United States needed to have both a strategic nuclear force as well as sufficient conventional forces in the traditional Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

Understanding Obama: Part 05

Examining the policy actions of the Obama administration is a good way to understand the logic driving them. Statements are often politically calculated and tailored to a specific audience, but actions are usually ideologically calculated and tailored to serve an agenda rather than an audience.

The Obama administration enacted policies by introducing its legislative agenda into Congress, by interpreting standing legislation, by executive order, by selective enforcement of various regulations, and by other methods.

As the idiom says, one can “connect the dots” and find the underlying patterns which drove Obama’s decisions — underlying patterns which are often in tension with verbal expressions of his agenda.

It was the distance between his rhetoric and his actions which caused many African-American voters to become disillusioned with Obama: far fewer Black voters supported him in 2012 than in 2008.

Black ideologues were vocal in their disappointment with Obama: “Obama’s presidency didn’t lead to Black progress,” comments Jason Riley. “Obama’s call for quiet, individual soul-searching was a way of saying that he had no answers,” writes Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor. “Obama’s careful assessments of the political landscape are wrong,” remarks William Darity.

American-American voters had detected the operational doctrine which was behind the seemingly inspirational speeches.

Obama’s words didn’t match his deeds. Or, as many pundits commented, the agenda is not the agenda. The agenda presented in Obama’s words was not the agenda which motivated his deeds.

Black voters were disappointed because Obama failed to deliver meaningful progress to them. Obama’s operational agenda was not about African-Americans.

The operational agenda which drove the Obama administration’s decisions was about decreasing personal political liberty and individual freedom; it was about a net transfer of wealth away from U.S. citizens and into other countries; it was about lowering the diplomatic, economic, and military status of the United States relative to other nations; it was about taxation to place money in the hands of the government instead of in the hands of ordinary citizens; it was about consolidating regulatory power in the hands of the government.

The practical ideology behind the actions of the Obama administration was not about healthcare, although healthcare was often the excuse for amassing more power to the government; it was not about education, although education was often the excuse for accruing more regulatory power to the government; it was not about the environment, although the environment was often the excuse for the government’s confiscation of private property; it was not about racial equality, although social justice was often the excuse for higher taxes to enrich the government.

African-American detected the disconnect between Obama’s words and actions. That’s why fewer Black voters supported him in 2012 than in 2008.

One example is seen in Obama’s relationship with the media. Much of the media - what is called the “mainstream media” - had supported Obama in the 2008 election. Yet the White House didn’t treat them kindly, despite the many favors which they’d done for Obama.

Obama, of course, spoken grandly about the freedom of the press. But his actions contradicted his words: he avoided press conferences, and held fewer of them than presidents either before or after him. While praising the idea of a free and independent press, he undermined and obstructed journalists and created obstacles for their work, as David Limbaugh writes:

At a presser in May 2010, reporter Les Kinsolving asked Gibbs a question that elicited applause from his fellow reporters: why hadn’t Obama held a press conference since July 2009? Instead of answering the question directly, Gibbs made rude, snide, and condescending comments purporting to define what a press conference is. About a week later, CBS’s Chip Reid tried to ask the elusive Obama a question immediately following his signing of the Freedom of Press Act. Obama haughtily declared, “I’m not going to do a press conference today, but we’ll be seeing you guys during the course of the week.” Reid said the irony of asking Obama a question just as he signed the Freedom of Press Act was too rich to resist, describing it as a way of “expressing frustration from the press corps because Obama does so little in the way of press conferences and answering questions from us.”

Obama’s aloof persona - his clumsy and clunky attempts to be folksy fooled nobody - revealed that he did not understand or trust ordinary American citizens. From the age of ten onward, he was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents; his grandmother was the vice-president of a bank, and could afford to make sure that he never attended a public school, and that he was enrolled only in exclusive private schools.

His detached demeanor betrayed his approach - he was concerned to do something to voters, not for them; he sought to rearrange the social, political, and economic order, not to identify with the members of society. David Limbaugh notes:

Perhaps the most maddening aspect of Obama’s cavalier lifestyle is that it all comes at the expense of the taxpayers to whom Obama preaches the virtue of frugality. He and the first lady jet in style from city to city and country to country, scolding the wealthy for not paying their fair share and for offending all of us with their private jets. We the people, it seems, are expected to simply accept our fate — which, on our current trajectory, is national insolvency — and not ask why the same man who stirs our resentment against more wealthy Americans enjoys a lifestyle on par with European royalty — all financed by our own hard work. Obama himself need not worry about our future debt crisis, since he’ll be collecting a generous presidential pension. For the sake of the rest of us, we should get him collecting that pension four years early.

Obama’s deeds and lifestyle revealed the underlying ideology which motivated his policies. He was not interested in education, healthcare, the environment, or creating truly equal opportunities.

The topics which Obama presented as his central concerns - healthcare, the environment, education, racial justice - turned out to be mere facades. He used these topics to obtain votes and to persuade the general public to go along with his plans.

Behind the facade of those noble-sounding words lurked his true agenda: decreasing individual liberty and personal freedom; a net transfer of wealth away from U.S. citizens and into other countries; lowering the diplomatic, economic, and military status of the United States relative to other nations; taxation and higher taxes to enrich the government and to place money in the hands of the government instead of in the hands of ordinary citizens; consolidating regulatory power in the hands of the government; amassing and accruing more regulatory power to the government; and the government’s confiscation of private property.

Understanding Obama: Part 04

Although historians should not attempt to psychologically analyze the individuals of the past, they nonetheless can investigate a person’s childhood for clues about the factors which shape a person’s character, thoughts, and motives.

The poet William Wordsworth’s statement remains true even if often repeated: “The child is the father of the man.”

In the case of Barack Obama, one of the themes of his childhood is abandonment. His father abandoned him and his mother quickly after he was born - so quickly, in fact, that young Barack had no memories of his father. He was raised, then, primarily by his mother and by his maternal grandparents.

Eventually, his mother would have a series of other men in her life, none of whom, however, assumed any type of paternal role in Barack’s life.

Obama only saw his father once, at the age of ten.

The pain of having been raised without a father made a deep impression. “I only remember my father for one month my whole life, when I was 10,” Obama said in a television appearance. The pain of abandonment motivated him to try to be a good father:

His absence, I think, contributed to me really wanting to be a good dad, you know? Because I think not having him there made me say to myself “You know what? I want to make sure my girls feel like they’ve got somebody they can rely on.”

Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was his primary caregiver. She was greatly aided by her parents. Obama’s maternal grandmother was the vice-president of a local bank, and had both wealth and influence to support young Barack. She was able to pay for exclusive private schools, so that Obama didn’t attend public schools. He never attended a public school in the United States, and attended an exclusive public school in Indonesia for one year. The rest of education was in private schools.

His formal education began in a Roman Catholic school, St. Francis, in Indonesia, which he seems to have attended for the first three grades of elementary school. Real estate agents in Indonesia organized a special public school for wealthy families; Obama attended that school for one year.

The rest of his education took place in the United States. He attended prestigious private school in Hawaii for grades five through twelve. The school had very few African-American students. As a high school student, Barack went to parties for nearby university students, because he wanted to meet other Black people. For the same reason, he sometimes socialized with people at Hawaii’s military bases.

In fairness, it should be noted that, although historians routinely cite Obama as the first ‘Black president’ or the first ‘Africa-American’ president of the United States, it is perhaps more accurate to list him as the first ‘biracial’ president. He wrote that his mother was as “white as milk,” and that his father was as “black as pitch.”

After high school, Obama went on to study at three exclusive private institutions: Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard.

Obama’s early years were shaped by the fact that his father abandoned him, by the fact that the series of men who moved through his mother’s life did not provide any paternal stability, and by the fact that his grandparents financed his life of exclusive privilege in private schools. This meant that Obama could not relate to that which African-Americans call their “Black experience.”

Subsequently, Obama’s notions of race were rather abstract and academic, which led to some clumsy and clunky moves by his administration, as David Limbaugh writes:

The expansion of race preferences in school admissions is a key goal of the Left, and this administration has worked hard to further it as well. In March 2010, the Obama administration filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions. In the brief, the administration advocated preferences not just at the university level but also from kindergarten through high school: “In view of the importance of diversity in educational institutions, the United States, through the Departments of Education and Justice, supports the efforts of school systems and post-secondary educational institutions that wish to develop admissions policies that endeavor to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in accordance with [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision upholding the use of preferences by the University of Michigan law school].”

From the time that young Barack was around ten years old, he was raised primarily by his maternal grandparents. His mother travelled widely and globally, while he remained at home in Hawaii.

With various men, she entered into a series of relationships, none of which lasted long. It was the grandparents who provide a sense of stability for Obama during his childhood and teenage years.

From his early childhood in Hawaii, to his middle childhood in Indonesia, to his late childhood and teenage years back in Hawaii, Obama was surrounded by people who were white American, Indonesians, Japanese, Chinese, Polynesian, and Hawaiian - but not Black. He was in many situations the only African-American.

His childhood playmates and teenage friends were of every race and ethnicity except Black. This must have shaped his self-perception.

Because his maternal grandmother was the vice-president of a bank, he was accustomed to a world of wealth and privilege. His standard of living and his social circles were above average. This may have made it difficult for him to empathize with those who struggle financially; one example, as David Limbaugh writes, was Obama’s interaction with California’s farmers:

One of the biggest, yet least publicized outrages in recent memory is the Obama administration’s assault on California farmers. Environmental regulations purporting to protect endangered species of fish resulted in tens of billions of gallons of water being diverted away from mountains close to Sacramento and into the ocean, greatly exacerbating drought conditions and ruining hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland - a crushing blow to California agriculture.

Obama’s persona has been characterized as cold, distant, and aloof. His attempt at being folksy are clumsy and affected. His manner was shaped by the fact that his father abandoned him, by a lifestyle of privilege among elites, and by the fact that his family kept him apart from his Black peers.

Between Obama’s election in 2008 and his reelection in 2012, the number of African-Americans who voted for him declined. What did they perceive about Obama?

Understanding Obama: Part 03

Historians are often tempted to speculate about the internal mental states of individuals - what a person thought, believed, or wanted. But historical methodology general forbids such speculation.

In reviewing the presidency of Barack Obama, then, a historian may only consider Obama’s recorded words and actions. Such only such verifiable evidence can count was what Obama may have thought, believed, or wanted.

Analyzing Obama’s words, the reader can conclude that he engaged in a political tactic of moving his agenda forward by leveraging it against an identified political opponent. The metaphor of lever is accurate: the negative pressure created by Obama’s attacks on various groups was equal to the forward moment it generated for his goals.

He created energy for his proposed tax reforms by accusing “lobbyists” and “special interests” of having manipulated the tax code - this, despite the fact that Obama, as a self-described “community organizer” had been both a lobbyist and a representative of special interests.

Same technique is seen in his effort to reduce incentives for employers to move jobs out of the United States, as historian David Limbaugh writes:

Obama’s assault on the private sector began early in his term. His main tactic was pitting people against people and groups against groups with unprecedented stridency. He couldn’t just push for a “fairer” tax system; he first had to vilify lobbyists, “special interests,” the wealthy, and corporate America. When he called for an end to tax breaks for U.S. corporations doing business abroad, he blamed “a broken tax system, written by well-connected lobbyists on behalf of well-heeled interests and individuals.”

Obama was not successful in his attempt to motivate companies to move jobs or capital invests back into the United States.

Consistently, he demonstrated that he did not like, understand, or trust the country, its people, or its Constitution. His efforts manifested a lack of respect or esteem for the ordinary citizen of the United States. As a self-identified progressive, his actions displayed an ideology in which government experts override the ballots of the voters.

Obama’s expertise, however, failed to deliver. Even when much of his agenda was put into place, either by legislation, or by executive order, the results were disappointing, as David Limbaugh reports:

President Obama has repeatedly acknowledged that he expects to be judged on his economic performance, and that if he does poorly the people will not re-elect him. So let’s take a look at his record. On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law his $868 billion dollar stimulus bill, promising it would “save or create” — a ludicrous, immeasurable metric — 3 to 3.5 millon jobs by the end of 2010 and keep employment below 8 percent. In fact, unemployment greatly exceeded that the entire time, often surging past 9 percent.

The Constitution orchestrates a system in which decision-making is deliberately slowed, and in which the power of the government is limited. Laws tells citizens what they may not do, but the Constitution tells the government what it may not do.

Obama’s vision of government tolerated no limits. In his inaugural speech in 2009 , he claimed that the government could “heal the planet.” He could not endure a worldview in which government was limited so that society could act freely, and so that individuals could enjoy their personal political liberty.

Indeed, in some cases, Obama’s ideology called not only for government to overrule individual liberate and the organic functioning of society, but even for the diminishing of society. To that end, his policies were in some cases designed to reduce the standard of living in the United States.

Typically, a leader is expected to act in the best interests of his nation. Yet Obama was willing to inflict hardship on American voters, as measured by rising prices, falling wages, lower per capita net worth, and government-created shortages of various commodities.

A Quicker Way to Become a U.S. Citizen

The United States continues to be the most popular country in the world for immigration. People leaving other nations are more likely to travel to the U.S., and settle permanently there, than to any other nation in the world.

These immigrants often eventually desire citizenship, and are eager to find a way to accelerate that process.

According to journalist Stewart Smith, “every year, more than 8,000” people who are not U.S. citizens join the U.S. military. This represents a fast track to education, employment opportunities, better incomes, and eventual citizenship in the United States.

Recruiters find that “there is great interest from all over the world from foreigners wanting to serve in the United States Military.” Individuals want to join the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard for a variety of reasons — educational opportunities and improved income among them — and “they know it can be a pathway to citizenship.” Smith adds that military members often “have an expedited process.”

Put simply, “a non-citizen can enlist in the military,” and “can go to the U.S. military recruiter of the branch of service” she or he might desire — like citizens, non-citizens can choose from among the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard — and also, National Guard and Reserves.

The government has procedures “to allow military members from foreign countries to have an accelerated path to citizenship.” Smith explains the details: “In 1990, in the early days of Gulf War One, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive order which allowed any military member (active duty, Reserves, or National Guard) to apply for citizenship, without any residency requirement. This saves the military member five years” as compared to other applicants “for citizenship.” In other words, “the military helps” the applicant to “accelerate the process.”

Smith goes on to summarize: “Since July 3, 2002, under special provisions in Section 329 of the INA, President Bush signed an executive order authorizing all non-citizens who have served honorably in the U.S. armed forces on or after Sept. 11, 2001, to immediately file for citizenship. This order also covers veterans of certain designated past wars and conflicts. The authorization will remain in effect until a date designated by a future presidential executive order,” and is in fact still in effect.

In many cases, not only can a member of the military be on a fast track to citizenship, but her or his spouse can receive similar benefits, as Stewart Smith explains:

Special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) state: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may expedite the application and naturalization process for current members of the U.S. armed forces and recently discharged service members. Qualifying military service includes serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and National Guard. In addition, spouses of members of the U.S. armed forces who are or will be deployed may be eligible for expedited naturalization. Other provisions of the law also allow certain spouses to complete the naturalization process abroad.

The exact text defining these benefits is found the U.S. Code, at 8 USC 1440.