Nationalism

[myp]

Then the question should be what was the nature of the relationship and what influence did Ayers have. How can that be demonstrated?

Well that is what the whole controversy is about- how much impact did Ayers have on Obama?

No. Because he did nothing until it became public. Then of course the guy was dismissed.

He saw it when it went public too though. The employee was a ghost writer and Paul had not seen the issue until it was published.

I'd be willing to bet that Rand Pauls relationship with this guy was much stronger and longer then any relationship that Obama would have had with Bill Ayers. I'm sure he spent more time with him.

The incident with the racist writer was with Ron Paul and not Rand, unless we are thinking about two different things. I would beg to differ in that Ron Paul spent more time with a ghost writer than Obama did with Ayers. Ayers was in his personal life, the ghost writer was just one of many employees- I would say that it is quite possible that Obama was closer to Ayers than Paul was to his ghost writer, not that the comparison really matters either way.

I'm sure. But why not? Why would they hesitate in their support for Civil Rights?

I don't think they feel the need to because it hasn't been brought up much- not many people have brought it up, including the big name Democrats because I think people realize that what Paul may have said does not necessarily reflect upon the entire party. If the RNC was blamed for it in the media, then I can almost guarantee a statement of clarification on their part. The old adage, "why fix something if it's not broken" applies.

 

[adagio]

Well that is what the whole controversy is about- how much impact did Ayers have on Obama?

He saw it when it went public too though. The employee was a ghost writer and Paul had not seen the issue until it was published.

The incident with the racist writer was with Ron Paul and not Rand, unless we are thinking about two different things. I would beg to differ in that Ron Paul spent more time with a ghost writer than Obama did with Ayers. Ayers was in his personal life, the ghost writer was just one of many employees- I would say that it is quite possible that Obama was closer to Ayers than Paul was to his ghost writer, not that the comparison really matters either way.

I don't think they feel the need to because it hasn't been brought up much- not many people have brought it up, including the big name Democrats because I think people realize that what Paul may have said does not necessarily reflect upon the entire party. If the RNC was blamed for it in the media, then I can almost guarantee a statement of clarification on their part. The old adage, "why fix something if it's not broken" applies.

>" Well that is what the whole controversy is about- how much impact did Ayers have on Obama?"<

And??? the answer is....what?:unsure:In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

>"He saw it when it went public too though. The employee was a ghost writer and Paul had not seen the issue until it was published."<

Ahh,.,,the ignorance excuse. I didn't know about the guy who was working for me. Plausable deniability.

>"The incident with the racist writer was with Ron Paul and not Rand, unless we are thinking about two different things."<

You're right it was. I suppose that we could claim like father like son as if that's a logical thing to say. Not that I buy that idea, but considering that Ron Paul and Rand Paul share the same ideological beliefs, and the issue that is being raised has to do with the civil rights act, I would think that Rand Paul might be a bit more carefull about how he positions himself.

>"I would beg to differ in that Ron Paul spent more time with a ghost writer than Obama did with Ayers. Ayers was in his personal life, the ghost writer was just one of many employees- I would say that it is quite possible that Obama was closer to Ayers than Paul was to his ghost writer, not that the comparison really matters either way."<

Obama had no more personal relationship with Ayers then I have with you. Ayers was not in his personal life. They didn't "hang out together" as Sarah Palin implied. It makes for really explosive political ammo though doesn't it?

>"I don't think they feel the need to because it hasn't been brought up much- not many people have brought it up, including the big name Democrats because I think people realize that what Paul may have said does not necessarily reflect upon the entire party. If the RNC was blamed for it in the media, then I can almost guarantee a statement of clarification on their part. The old adage, "why fix something if it's not broken" applies"<

But that's just it. the Republican Party's relationship to the black community is broken and has been for years. Why is that? Democrats get 95% of the black vote. The Repub conventions are almost entirely white. The TeaBaggers are almost entirely white. That might be a tipoff that all is not well with their relationship with the black community. In my view it has to do with the conservative domination of the party. Conservatism is too receptive to racists. It really isn't about Republican or Democrat. It has more to do with conservatism and liberalism. Those that opposed Civil Rights in 64 were Conservative Democrats and Republicans. The party affiliation was irrelevent. Conservatives opposed it no matter what party they were with. I don't think a Republican platform can come out and condemn racism since the party is owned by conservatives that find it acceptable.

 

[myp]

And??? the answer is....what?:unsure:In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue."

It is not an appeal to ignorance, but a fair question. I think it is important to question any iffy part of a potential leader because in the end they will be making decisions that affect us all. Now I'll admit that I have not read too much about the whole Ayers thing, so personally I have not made up my mind one way or another. However, I do think it is good that the media questions the potential relationship just as I feel it is good that the media questions Ron Paul's potential relationship with his staffer.

Ahh,.,,the ignorance excuse. I didn't know about the guy who was working for me. Plausable deniability.

But in the end it is possible no? No one can read Ron Paul's or any other leader's mind, so at a certain level we have to use our knowledge to believe what makes sense to us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- I personally think that Paul is not a racist.

Obama had no more personal relationship with Ayers then I have with you. Ayers was not in his personal life. They didn't "hang out together" as Sarah Palin implied. It makes for really explosive political ammo though doesn't it?

As I said earlier, I am not completely familiar with the whole Ayers controversy, so I am not leaning one way or another. Of course it makes for political ammo, but that does not necessarily mean it can't be true. Any bad publicity makes for political ammo, but that does not mean all those things are made up just for the politics.

But that's just it. the Republican Party's relationship to the black community is broken and has been for years. Why is that? Democrats get 95% of the black vote. The Repub conventions are almost entirely white. The TeaBaggers are almost entirely white. That might be a tipoff that all is not well with their relationship with the black community. In my view it has to do with the conservative domination of the party. Conservatism is too receptive to racists. It really isn't about Republican or Democrat. It has more to do with conservatism and liberalism. Those that opposed Civil Rights in 64 were Conservative Democrats and Republicans. The party affiliation was irrelevent. Conservatives opposed it no matter what party they were with. I don't think a Republican platform can come out and condemn racism since the party is owned by conservatives that find it acceptable.

I would say it isn't about conservatives or liberals either because even those two groups have vast differences in them in both interpretation and what they believe in. I am all for looking at the individual and his/her beliefs and positions as opposed to an entire groups. There is no doubt in my mind that there are racists who identify themselves as Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, totalitarians, conservatives, liberals, or whatever other group. Anyone who denies that is just blinding themselves.

It should also be noted that being racist against non-white people is just as bad as being racist against white people. Voting for someone because of their skin color is racist as is setting quotas for racial minorities, etc.

 

[adagio]

It is not an appeal to ignorance, but a fair question. I think it is important to question any iffy part of a potential leader because in the end they will be making decisions that affect us all. Now I'll admit that I have not read too much about the whole Ayers thing, so personally I have not made up my mind one way or another. However, I do think it is good that the media questions the potential relationship just as I feel it is good that the media questions Ron Paul's potential relationship with his staffer.

But in the end it is possible no? No one can read Ron Paul's or any other leader's mind, so at a certain level we have to use our knowledge to believe what makes sense to us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- I personally think that Paul is not a racist.

As I said earlier, I am not completely familiar with the whole Ayers controversy, so I am not leaning one way or another. Of course it makes for political ammo, but that does not necessarily mean it can't be true. Any bad publicity makes for political ammo, but that does not mean all those things are made up just for the politics.

I would say it isn't about conservatives or liberals either because even those two groups have vast differences in them in both interpretation and what they believe in. I am all for looking at the individual and his/her beliefs and positions as opposed to an entire groups. There is no doubt in my mind that there are racists who identify themselves as Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, totalitarians, conservatives, liberals, or whatever other group. Anyone who denies that is just blinding themselves.

It should also be noted that being racist against non-white people is just as bad as being racist against white people. Voting for someone because of their skin color is racist as is setting quotas for racial minorities, etc.

>"There is no doubt in my mind that there are racists who identify themselves as Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, totalitarians, conservatives, liberals, or whatever other group. Anyone who denies that is just blinding themselves."<

I really don't think so. I think that conservatives and liberals are really different species of thought. You can see it in just about everything, but you would have me think that on this crucial subject which pretty much defines liberalism, that there are liberal racists. If there are, then they aren't liberals. A liberal would have to purge race from his being to be a liberal. There are simply too many issues that cross into civil rights areas for a person to harbor racist tendencies which would be at odds with so many different areas of legislation. A conservative on the other hand has a history and ideology that maintains existing institutions. It's a heirarchal system of thinking and has it's roots in class distinction and aristocracy. There was nothing liberal about slavery or Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Act was opposed by conservatives from both parties. Not liberals from both. I think you could be a Republican without being a Racist, but if you were a racist you'd be more at home in the Republican Party then the Dems. Repubs would overlook it. Dems would purge it from thier ranks.

 

[myp]

I really don't think so. I think that conservatives and liberals are really different species of thought. You can see it in just about everything, but you would have me think that on this crucial subject which pretty much defines liberalism, that there are liberal racists. If there are, then they aren't liberals. A liberal would have to purge race from his being to be a liberal. There are simply too many issues that cross into civil rights areas for a person to harbor racist tendencies which would be at odds with so many different areas of legislation. A conservative on the other hand has a history and ideology that maintains existing institutions. It's a heirarchal system of thinking and has it's roots in class distinction and aristocracy. There was nothing liberal about slavery or Jim Crow, and Civil Rights Act was opposed by conservatives from both parties. Not liberals from both. I think you could be a Republican without being a Racist, but if you were a racist you'd be more at home in the Republican Party then the Dems. Repubs would overlook it. Dems would purge it from thier ranks.

In this analysis though, you are making two assumptions:

1) That all those who identify themselves as conservatives and are racists, are "actual" conservatives and those who are racist and consider themselves "liberal" are not "actual" liberals.

2) That liberals are always forward thinking and conservatives are more for the status quo.

That is not always true, but more importantly what "liberal" means to one person, may mean "conservative" to another. From what you have written here, I think you might consider me somewhat liberal as well, although I am not completely sure on what you identify as liberal. This is just one of the reasons that I don't like these monikers either and again just like to look at individuals and their stances on the issues. The definitions for "conservative", "liberal", "libertarian", and the like have been changed and interpreted so many times, that sometimes they do the opposite of what they are meant to do in that they decrease clarity instead of increasing it.

Both assumptions are arguable and without them, there isn't much of a case.

 

[adagio]

That's a good post. I'm not sure I agree with it all but I liked it. I ran into a guy who was a mathematician on another forum who has been tracking conservatism and liberalism for the past ten years and came up with an interesting theory which I thought made sense and ties into what you just said. He made the case that an active position on things is indicative of liberalism, and a passive ( laissez faire )position is conservative. In other words, decisions such as going to war are actually liberal even though most liberals would object. A decision to not take action in regards to a war would be conservative. That any time the government intercedes in any way in our lives...it's a liberal action. The opposite would be conservative.
One of the more striking issues was the Terry Sheivo case. The congress and the president wanted to interfere in that issue and the support for doing so came from the conservatives in congress even though that would be a liberal interventionist position to take. The opposition to government interference which would be totally conservative was maintained by the liberals in congress. Completely opposite of what they claim to be.

Another issue strangely would be tax cuts. This would seem to be a conservative position, but again any government "action" which impacts our lives would be considered an active of liberal role by the government. Opposition to that would be conservative.

The logical extremes of these positions would be that total government control of our lives would be totalitarian and actually liberal. The extreme conservative laissez faire position would reduce us to the couch potato and a state of anarchy where the government is completely absent and we do nothing about anything.

When we get into our car to go to the store it is a liberal activity because we are taking an active position. When we sit and do NOTHING, it is a conservative position.

As you point out.....in a case by case situation we tend to be conservative or liberal according to the situation. I think it's an interesting look at things and seems to make a lot of sense. It also tells us much about our congressmen,

 

[myp]

It certainly is an interesting subject and there is no doubt that it has an immense impact on the political world. The definition that he describes I would consider more of the dictionary definitions of the two words. They are in line with the non-political definitions of the two words.

When it comes to something like tax cuts, some may use that definition to still justify tax cuts as conservative since technically, if there was no action to begin with, those taxes wouldn't have been there in the first place. But, I know what you are getting at- I just don't see conservative and liberal defined exactly like that in the political sphere. If they were, conservatives would be for no change and liberals for all change.

 

[Dirk]

If they were, conservatives would be for no change and liberals for all change.

Could i mention this is another time for one of these word things? Alright, let me see...

Conservative: Member of the Conservative Party (UK/Canada)

Conservative: Resistant to change

Conservative: Political ideology based on tradition, family, and championed by writers such as Edmund Burke

Conservative: (US) Political ideology based on tradition but involving elements of classical liberalism

Liberalism, by the way, is a set ideology. It is not related to left wing thought at all. However, its more recent application is as pluralistic progressives.

 

[el canadiano]

It should also be noted that being racist against non-white people is just as bad as being racist against white people. Voting for someone because of their skin color is racist as is setting quotas for racial minorities, etc.

Even then, it's true that the African-Americans or even other Americans of African/Carribean hertiage have voted Democrat, even if it wasn't Obama. 80% of them voted John Kerry.

 

[myp]

Even then, it's true that the African-Americans or even other Americans of African/Carribean hertiage have voted Democrat, even if it wasn't Obama. 80% of them voted John Kerry.

Which also doesn't make it right. It is still stereotyping and leads to ignorant decisions. One of the arguments against have any political parties at all...

 

[el canadiano]

But really, stuff like that really comes down to how the parties reach out to them. In Canada, most immigrants would rather vote Liberal (centrist) or NDP (labour, centre-left) than Conservatives because the Liberals really reach out to them more than the conservatives do.

 

[myp]

But really, stuff like that really comes down to how the parties reach out to them. In Canada, most immigrants would rather vote Liberal (centrist) or NDP (labour, centre-left) than Conservatives because the Liberals really reach out to them more than the conservatives do.

That does not mean that every candidate stands for what the party stands for (especially in the States) or that those candidates will represent what those people stand for. It is still ignorant collectivism and it is still prevalent.

 

[el canadiano]

Well of course. What I really meant is that the Democrats really reach out to the minorities better, whether you (or I) like it or not. But who's to say you're not ignorant? In reality, we all are. Canada could be looked at multicultural, but are we really racism-free? Of course not. If you really wanted a good example, look at "residential schools." That was our racism at our minorities (in this case, our natives rather than the African-American slavery).

Going back to Nationalism though, I was born and raised in Canada and was brought up with a mixture of Chinese and Canadian Values. Really, I find they're one of (but not necessarily) the best values to follow, promoting stuff like diversity amongst other things. However, there are a lot of times where I have to put other values (primarily international) over ours. If I met a non-Canadian down the street and we talked about values, I have to realize his values are different. That's what the Cultural Mosaic idea is all about.

 

[thebossman]

I am a firm believer in Nationalism. Why? Because I think human beings haven't evolved to a stage where we can live without nations. There is no concept of global community though people love to use that word often to describe the minority of people who feel that the world is their home.

I am probably a very conservative person, but I think pride in one's country and one's culture is a very important and essential component of human life and is what gives meaning to our lives. Without this component, I think the world will soon turn into a uniform and boring place. Diversity will be destroyed and the predominant culture will prevail.

Nationalism is very important to preserve a particular unique group's historical, social and cultural attributes.

You can argue that nationalism gone extreme is bad and destructive, but so is a surgeon's knife (which saves life) in the hands of a murderer. Predominantly I believe firmly in the positive aspects of nationalism outweighing its negative influences.

 

[David]

I am a firm believer in Nationalism. Why? Because I think human beings haven't evolved to a stage where we can live without nations. There is no concept of global community though people love to use that word often to describe the minority of people who feel that the world is their home.

I am probably a very conservative person, but I think pride in one's country and one's culture is a very important and essential component of human life and is what gives meaning to our lives. Without this component, I think the world will soon turn into a uniform and boring place. Diversity will be destroyed and the predominant culture will prevail.

Nationalism is very important to preserve a particular unique group's historical, social and cultural attributes.

You can argue that nationalism gone extreme is bad and destructive, but so is a surgeon's knife (which saves life) in the hands of a murderer. Predominantly I believe firmly in the positive aspects of nationalism outweighing its negative influences.

Why can't an internationalist be nationalistic? There are many that wish to see the world united. Isn't that nationalism on a grander scale?

 

[thebossman]

Why can't an internationalist be nationalistic? There are many that wish to see the world united. Isn't that nationalism on a grander scale?

In my estimation, we haven't yet got to that level of evolution where we can see all human beings as one and that's the harsh truth.

Basic truth is that people are happier and more peaceful living with their own kind. Nationalism and national boundaries have protected the status quo and allowed people to flourish within that peaceful setup. Wars have been exceptions and mainly political in nature. Without nationalism, there would be more cultural conflicts and wars than we can even imagine.

If we truly had to evolve to that stage where we accept all cultures, I think it needs a lot of developments to take place. Until then Internationalism will remain a mere theory for the majority of the human race.

 

[jdsingle]

Why can't an internationalist be nationalistic? There are many that wish to see the world united. Isn't that nationalism on a grander scale?

They can. We had a discussion about this in my Political Systems and Ideas class. You can show nationalism for the Earth if you so choose, which, in effect would be internationalist. In my mind that is.

 

[digitalfanatic]

Well, I believe that this nationalism and patriotism won't be of any use if not taken to a next level! I mean let's put it to the test, you will find many who love their country, but only a few who can stand up for it!

 

[Dirk]

First - the Republicans have been making attempts to reach out to those of South American ethnic groups in California and the like. However, on an objective level, it is extremely regressive on all matters immigration.

Second - it is no longer practical or reasonable to say "keep to your own", or some pseudo-xenophobic crap like that.

Third - we need also to learn that while everything affects us, doesn't mean we need to interfere in everything.

Fourth - we need to start respecting and tolerating those that are different from us, and we need to start learning to work together, regardless of our perceived differences.

Fifth - do NOT let petty national pride get in the way of making positive progressive social change happen.

Sixth - do NOT let petty national pride get in the way of criticising your own country, Government, or social norms.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Is nationalism or patriotism a good thing when it is not taken to extreme levels?

There are a lot of negative opinions about nationalism, but I think it is a great thing when not taken to extremes. There is nothing wrong with loving your country. What does everyone else think?

Agreed. When a nation (cultural concept as opposed to state a political concept) fails to take pride in itself it loses cultural confidence and then slouches toward Toynbees observation that "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder."

Sixth - do NOT let petty national pride get in the way of criticising your own country, Government, or social norms.

Quite rather, pride should compell one to voice objection when government misbehaves.