Against the New Nationalism

[EasyAce]

Individual autonomy is not the cause of our problems and state autonomy is not the solution
By Stephanie Slade
https://reason.com/2020/02/24/against-the-new-nationalism/

"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism," George Orwell wrote in 1945. "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" . . .

. . . (I)t's worth asking whether a revived nationalism can, in actual practice, resist corrosion.

There is little in history to instill optimism on that count and nothing to suggest that those who would take hold of a newly burnished nationalist ideology plan to use it for liberal purposes. Whether or not they intend as much, [National Review editor Rich] Lowry et al. are empowering a dangerous anti-individualism. National sentiment may be necessary and good, but nationalist policy is coercive by definition—a rejection of the very cultural values that make America worth loving in the first place.

. . . By insisting that authentic nationalism respects the right of other peoples to rule themselves, they're able to tidily conclude, as Lowry does, that the "constant source of war throughout history isn't nationalism but its opposite: the quest for dominion." If nationalism does go wrong, it must be because it was "tainted with malign influences."

A simpler explanation is that nationalism is unstable: It easily decays into something hazardous, marked by military aggression abroad, an obsession with purity at home, or—as with the Third Reich—a toxic combination of the two. Even if such a transmutation doesn't happen in 100 percent of cases, the history as Lowry himself presents it should hardly assure readers that a nationalist revival would be a beneficent force in the world . . .

. . . There can be no doubting that the nationalist project—not just in my telling but in the minds of the people undertaking it—involves a coercive imposition of national unity on the country. Consider the difference between encouraging people to "buy American" out of a sense of solidarity and enacting protectionist policies that raise prices for everyone, whether they like it or not . . .

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I got about 10-12 paragraphs into that, and still couldn't figure out where the author was trying to go with her article.  There's a pretty basic format to follow when you're trying to make an argument to help orient the audience:

1)  Tell them what you're going to tell them;

2)  Tell them;

3)  Tell them what you told them.

Some people refuse to do that, and instead choose to make their argument as if they're writing a mediocre mystery that's supposed to keep you guessing.  Give all this background and detail, and only much later actually make clear the real issue.  So, like most readers of such a book, I gave up before getting very far into it.  And I still don't know what point she was trying -- eventually -- to make. 

[truth_seeker]

"1)  Tell them what you're going to tell them;

2)  Tell them;

3)  Tell them what you told them."

Learned such pointers in Journalism as a 17 yr. old freshman, and working with engineers, accountants, managers, executives in business.

There is nothing that blocks a business career, like inability to beconcise, tsummarize, prioritiize, in writing and in speaking.