* It’s really impressive how much out-of-control outrage the elite can get gin up over an argument that is so empty.
What is actually wrong with nationalism? What is wrong with citizens of a country seeking to keep the country mostly intact with respect to its peoples and culture?
I’ve asked that question in any number of places. I’ve never received what I would call a rational response.
The elites have many smears they use for nationalism — nativist, xenophobe, racist, bigot. But, apart from these entirely emotional terms, what is the argument against nationalism?
Their “arguments” always end where they start: with scare mongering, with pretending that any nationalistic attitude is and must be a precursor to hate and fascism. But on what rational basis can they possibly leap to such extraordinary conclusions? Were the US and England fascist, hate-filled countries until we had massive immigration? In the US, were the years between the closing down of immigration in the 1920s and its opening up in the 60s an ongoing devolution into authoritarianism and hate? Weren’t they instead a time a time when The Common Man was celebrated, a time of increasing prosperity for all and enfranchisement of all groups?
Really, what’s the argument? Why are the elites always reduced to talking about “fear of the other” (is there a more childish, or superstitious expression?), and “hate”, and other boogeymen of their own manufacture when the subject of nationalism comes up?
* Funny, whenever I’ve used the word “cosmopolitan” in the sense that the globalists like to think of themselves, I’ve been accused of using an old anti-semitic slur. Apparently, according to every single Jewish person I’ve ever had encounters with, “cosmopolitan” was an old code-word for “Jew”, slightly more noxious than calling someone a dirty kike or putting parentheses around their name. Perhaps I’ve just been dealing with the wrong Jewish people.
* I’m told it is a horrible anti-semetic slur now. This, of course, by Jews who tell me that any time I oppose anything any Democrat wants to do that I’m a Nazi or worse. (How the fuck I’m supposed to be worse than a Nazi I don’t know, but they insist upon it.) I guess that by saying “cosmopolitan” I’m micro-aggressing against them, because I might slip “rootless” into the conversation somewhere. You know, like saying “niggardly” is the same thing as calling for slavery.
* I guess it depends on how you define sophisticated. Ross distinguishes between a surface cosmopolitanism and a deeper one, but one could argue Obama is more of a deeper cosmopolitan, having lived in places like Indonesia, rather than having just been a tourist.
And I’m sure Obama could speak knowledgeably about the latest cultural phenomena.
But years ago, Steve wrote about Obama’s skill at articulating the arguments of his opponents. I think that’s less true today, as the Overton window has shifted to include more antagonistic opponents. I’m sure Obama could articulate, say, Marco Rubio’s views. But not Trump’s.
A temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration isn’t something Obama would be comfortable batting around in the salons of Georgetown. It’s something he’d dismiss with a “wrong side of history” or a “It’s not who we are”.
Same with Trump’s views on trade or immigration in general. So, in that sense, Obama isn’t sophisticated. As most cosmopolitans aren’t.
