There is an old cliche about patriotism and nationalism being different things. It's gone a bit out of style these days, but I think it ought to be revived, because it is an important point. I know no better summary of the issue than that of Orwell from his Notes on Nationalism:
"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 or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly—and this is much more important—I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Nationalists may be patriotic, even jingoistically or chauvinistically ultra-patriotic, and yet a patriot need not be a nationalist. There are also many nationalists who hate their country and most of the people who live in it.
I think the ultimate distinction is that to be patriotic involves loving a place. Patriotism can be love of one's city, or region, or country. It can be made exclusionary, but can also be cast in a broad and inclusive fashion that draws different groups together in a shared sense of civic duty. Nationalism, on the other hand, I think derives ultimately from tribalism. It's not about the place in which one lives, but about the group of people with which one identifies. Particularly, it is given to framing the world as a harsh, zero-sum competition for land and resources between contending tribes which can only be resolved by force and violence.
When one listens to nationalist speeches, like Mr. Rubio's, they often complain about internationalism and globalism and about organizations like the European Union or the United Nations. These are those "dangerous delusions" of one human family. Yet what is the substance of their complaint? They believe that internationalism is a lie that other tribes are using to exploit them. They think that cooperating and working internationally just gives other tribes an advantage in the competition, at the expense of their own tribe. So quite naturally, they also think their tribe should respond in kind.
This is the fallacy of selfishness in action. They believe that to maximise their own self-interest, they must maximise their selfish behaviours. But when all parties maximise their selfish behaviours, ultimately this harms everyone's self-interest through increasing conflict. What is actually in your self-interest, and that of your tribe or your country, is to build cooperation, which is founded on trust, which requires the wisdom to refrain from short-sighted selfish behaviour. Unrestrained selfishness just leads to fights between selfish individuals.
So too with nationalists. Because if they achieved all their desires, if they dismantled globalism and internationalism and broke up all the organizations like the EU and the UN and so on, and "restored" a world entirely of sovereign nation-states and hard borders ruled by dedicated nationalists in every country, what would be the inevitable result? The nationalists would immediately start fighting among themselves, nation against nation, and the strong preying upon the weak as in the old nationalist wars of the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe.
I despise Trumpism and all 21st century fascisms for many reasons: To a Canadian, it threatens my country. To a thinking person, it is brutish stupidity. To a person who tries to be moral, it delights in cruelty. But among all those other reasons, there is this: Its aspirations, its beliefs, its "moral" (or immoral) framework of understanding the world, all act to promote bloodshed and war.
What happens to these people, like Rubio, when the door closes and they’re alone? What do they think about? Do they imagine themselves as ingenious operators manipulating the mob to gain power? Do they earnestly think they’re doing good in the world? Do they cry themselves to sleep? I’m genuinely curious.
My kingdom for these people to read one (1) book. Or bring Maurice Bowra back from the dead and put him in a room with Marco Rubio for five minutes. The way he would wither.
Like Alcibiades, Maricito ascended to the Parthenon, but noble Athena unmasked him before her temple and showed this wannabe Pericles to be nothing more than a day-old pastelito left out in the sun.
“…Achilles, who is offered the choice to return home and live a long and peaceful life – but chooses instead to remain at Troy and perish in pursuit of eternal glory.”
This is not in the Iliad, but it is in the film Troy. CQFD.
There is an old cliche about patriotism and nationalism being different things. It's gone a bit out of style these days, but I think it ought to be revived, because it is an important point. I know no better summary of the issue than that of Orwell from his Notes on Nationalism:
"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 or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly—and this is much more important—I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
Nationalists may be patriotic, even jingoistically or chauvinistically ultra-patriotic, and yet a patriot need not be a nationalist. There are also many nationalists who hate their country and most of the people who live in it.
I think the ultimate distinction is that to be patriotic involves loving a place. Patriotism can be love of one's city, or region, or country. It can be made exclusionary, but can also be cast in a broad and inclusive fashion that draws different groups together in a shared sense of civic duty. Nationalism, on the other hand, I think derives ultimately from tribalism. It's not about the place in which one lives, but about the group of people with which one identifies. Particularly, it is given to framing the world as a harsh, zero-sum competition for land and resources between contending tribes which can only be resolved by force and violence.
When one listens to nationalist speeches, like Mr. Rubio's, they often complain about internationalism and globalism and about organizations like the European Union or the United Nations. These are those "dangerous delusions" of one human family. Yet what is the substance of their complaint? They believe that internationalism is a lie that other tribes are using to exploit them. They think that cooperating and working internationally just gives other tribes an advantage in the competition, at the expense of their own tribe. So quite naturally, they also think their tribe should respond in kind.
This is the fallacy of selfishness in action. They believe that to maximise their own self-interest, they must maximise their selfish behaviours. But when all parties maximise their selfish behaviours, ultimately this harms everyone's self-interest through increasing conflict. What is actually in your self-interest, and that of your tribe or your country, is to build cooperation, which is founded on trust, which requires the wisdom to refrain from short-sighted selfish behaviour. Unrestrained selfishness just leads to fights between selfish individuals.
So too with nationalists. Because if they achieved all their desires, if they dismantled globalism and internationalism and broke up all the organizations like the EU and the UN and so on, and "restored" a world entirely of sovereign nation-states and hard borders ruled by dedicated nationalists in every country, what would be the inevitable result? The nationalists would immediately start fighting among themselves, nation against nation, and the strong preying upon the weak as in the old nationalist wars of the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe.
I despise Trumpism and all 21st century fascisms for many reasons: To a Canadian, it threatens my country. To a thinking person, it is brutish stupidity. To a person who tries to be moral, it delights in cruelty. But among all those other reasons, there is this: Its aspirations, its beliefs, its "moral" (or immoral) framework of understanding the world, all act to promote bloodshed and war.
Someone may simply have told Rubio, third-hand, about Harvey Mansfield's treatment of _thumos_.
What happens to these people, like Rubio, when the door closes and they’re alone? What do they think about? Do they imagine themselves as ingenious operators manipulating the mob to gain power? Do they earnestly think they’re doing good in the world? Do they cry themselves to sleep? I’m genuinely curious.
Both he and Vance spoke very clearly about Trump before they jumped on his train.
My kingdom for these people to read one (1) book. Or bring Maurice Bowra back from the dead and put him in a room with Marco Rubio for five minutes. The way he would wither.
Little Marco living up to his nickname.
Like Alcibiades, Maricito ascended to the Parthenon, but noble Athena unmasked him before her temple and showed this wannabe Pericles to be nothing more than a day-old pastelito left out in the sun.
“…Achilles, who is offered the choice to return home and live a long and peaceful life – but chooses instead to remain at Troy and perish in pursuit of eternal glory.”
This is not in the Iliad, but it is in the film Troy. CQFD.
I think it’s reasonable to say that this is also little Marco trying to stake out his corner in the 2028 primaries.