13 Comments

Thank you for this excellent discussion, Dr. Measheimer. I would have liked for the notion of patriotism vis-a-vis nationalism included in the presentation because you mentioned that nationalism could have a very dark side. Regardless, your explanation of how nationalism is needed to make liberalism work made a lot of sense, although there seems to be an underlying tension between the notion of individual rights and the simultaneous need to have a sense of community in order for the liberal nation-state to function. I guess it is an example of "gemeinschaft" versus "gesellschaft".

Expand full comment

John,

A big newish reality of our world is the power of corporate plutocracy which transcends nation states. You and the rest of us need to theorize how to regulate that power. It can’t be done piecemeal by individual states. Liberalism and nationalism are both unsuited to dealing with these transnational fiefdoms.

Charles

Expand full comment

A feeling of nationhood is a love for one's home. With it, we are more than mere cogs in a parasitic economic system. This is one of the reasons why the elites militate against it.There may have been a time when disseminating Western values was a good idea. However, in its current degenerate guise, I would rather that the West does not infect the rest of the world.

Expand full comment

He claims that our many middle eastern wars were carried out with good intentions and it's intent was to spread liberal democracy, is more then absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does he also feel our wars in the twentieth century were also driven by good intentions, or that the CIA who were responsible for the deaths of some 6 million people by the end of the 20 century was driven by good intentions, as it overturned governments, killed heads of state and started wars?

This is the way Chris Hedges sees it and many who others as well as most if not all involved in the anti-war movement see it.

"The politicians and shills in the media who orchestrated 20 years of military debacles in the Middle East, and who seek a world dominated by U.S. power, must be held accountable for their crimes."

Power is what motivated our wars, not good intentions or spreading democracy. Good grief.

And it was not more or less over when white, protestant America accepted the Irish, since the Italians and Poles and all people who didn't come from the west or north of Europe arrived here. I had I Italian family who said if they went into non-Italians neighborhood, German neighborhood, glass bottles were thrown at them and the shattered glass splashed off the side walk and cut them.

Expand full comment

Meh.

Social hierarchy always exists in groups of humans, especially in the US, which is the most culturally diverse and thus dynamically distinct Nation State on the planet.

Whether or not we choose to shine a light on that FACT through any particular prism of Theory, REGARDLESS of any flavor that lens may be.

To make ^ this simple:

the US is the location where the worst treated individual elements of the world have come to find opportunity beyond that which would have been possible anywhere else on the planet.

As corrupt as it is, the Anglo American establishment of the last 200 years has led to the most peaceful and prosperous time in history for the WORLD as a whole.

Collectivism, regardless of the flavor- has a massive, 120 year long, proven, documented and repeated history of failure... intellectually, economically, and morally so.

Collectivist ideology MURDERED upwards of 150 million citizens of the globe during the 20th century.

Add the deaths of revolutions and wars to that calculation and the numbers are astronomical.

The scorecard of history is undeniable, regardless of however many sockpuppets, bots or operatives will attempt to claim otherwise.

Expand full comment

I very specifically question his claim that the motivation for our Middle Eastern wars were motivated by our good attentions. No, It was a neocon backed agenda, no secret, with the sole purpose of a do over in the Middle East that was to our liking and to disempower those countries. We are also willing to kill millions and displace many millions more. We are also capable of using Ukrainian lives in the hundreds of thousands to being down Putin, as we used the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to bring Russia to it's knees, however there we succeeded. We are a country that is feeding weapons to Israel to implement a genocide. No one is questioning the upside of the US but I'll be damned if I'm going to leave the downside blanketed in lies.

Expand full comment

"To make this simple: the US is the location where the worst treated individual elements of the world have come to find opportunity beyond that which would have been possible anywhere else on the planet." Do you think Blacks would agree with that statement? Many in South America came here to find sanctuary, yes, but maybe if we hadn't exploited South America for our own interests and the interests of the elites, they may have found home very acceptable.

Expand full comment

Thank you -- two states in Palestine with East Jerusalem the capital of Palestine.

Expand full comment

How does Israel fit in the definition of a Nation? Israel defines Judaism as the ‘Glue’ that defines the Nation. This automatically excludes non-Jews, which includes the 20% Arab Muslims and Christians.

Expand full comment

I find it really interesting that sports can be a manifestation of Nationalism. On that particular area, I believe the Arab world has a large sense of Nationalism as a whole. This was manifested in a huge way when Morocco was playing in the FiFa World Cup. One wonders how things would be different if it were not politically divided as per the colonial powers and wars of the last century

Expand full comment

Gus.... Sports fanaticism illustrates the essence of groupthink in a social context. Fandom can be extrapolated from that of a team or city, upwards to Nationalism for one’s State and even globalism. It’s all dependent upon the context and the information available to the individual.

Regardless of the moral implication, human tendency is to form competitive tribes and it is always present.

The challenge for modern humanity in the present is to choose to evolve beyond the limiting constraints of the past.

Expand full comment

I am not sure how Liberalism applies to when facts are being the points of discussion. Opinions about subjects can differ but how can one apply it if you are looking at a dog and someone else says it is a cat?

Expand full comment

An opinion is formed based upon a number of informational factors available to the person forming said opinion- lived experience being the strongest.

Language is expression of opinion. When one says ‘dog’ or ‘car’- anyone who hears the words automatically picture a dog or a car.

For everyone, including the speaker- subjectivity arises. It’s a picture of a poodle and a VW, for others it’s a pit bull and a Ford- dependent upon lived experience or other input.

The word is the same, the meaning is subjective.

Therein lies the true power of linguistics- the MEANINGs we attach to words when communicating.

This is why re definition of terms is so dangerous in the post modern era.

Expand full comment