Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Nationalism’

In Opposing War with Russia, Tucker Carlson Champions the Hard-Won Truths of Putting American Interests First



Tucker Carlson monologue on Russia

Arecent Tucker Carlson monologue questioned the relentless narrative insisting Americans must compulsively side with Ukraine against Russia in their conflict.

“We are potentially on the verge of a land war in Europe aimed at extinguishing democracy and sovereignty, and the American right wing is on the side of ethno-nationalist authoritarianism. That’s where we’re at,” tweeted President Obama’s former speechwriter Ben Rhodes, who coined the phrase “DC blob,” in reply to Carlson without a hint of irony.

Another Democrat operative, who allegedly worked with the Ukrainian embassy to dig up dirt on President Trump, tweeted that Carlson should be prosecuted as a foreign agent. To top it all, President Obama’s former Russia hand quite literally called for war against a nuclear rival to ensure the sovereignty of Ukraine, a proposition unthinkable during Cold War bipartisanship, when the first instinct was to ensure great power equilibrium and avoid mutually assured destruction.

They are not the only ones. A recent New Yorker profile makes it clearer than any:

Vladimir Putin presents himself to his citizens and to the world as the standard-bearer of a modern counter-enlightenment. He has declared liberal democracy ‘obsolete,’ a political arrangement that has ‘outlived its purpose. One of his historical role models is said to be Alexander III, a reactionary tsar in the Romanov dynasty who instituted draconian restrictions on the press, sought to ‘Russify’ his multi-ethnic empire, and mobilized against internal and external threats. Four years ago, Putin expressed his deep admiration for the tsar while visiting the Crimean Peninsula, a substantial and distinctly unthreatening parcel of Ukraine that Russia invaded in 2014 and has occupied ever since.

A Rabid Response to the New Right’s Power

There is a palpable panic at Carlson arguably driving the GOP towards a more pre-war conservatism. It’s even being hysterically termed Putinism and Russia First” by some commentators. Michael McFaul, Obama’s Russia ambassador, was vocal on Twitter arguing that opposing Russia is a moral duty of anyone who opposes “imperialism,” alongside both prominent liberal theorists and second-tier neoconservative internationalist gadflies.

There has also been relentless fearmongering about Carlson, authoritarianism, and nationalism. Some have gone so far as to bizarrely tag Carlson a “comrade,” which is absurd because Putin’s Russia is far more Christian and conservative than the increasingly secular West.

“Why is it disloyal to side with Russia but loyal to side with Ukraine?” Carlson asked, provoking commentary noting Putin murders dissidents. Yet the world is full of rulers who murderously abuse power—for example, by sending drones that kill non-combatants and children.

It cannot be a matter of American patriotism to send U.S. troops to die for evils in other nations, or United States must attempt to police the entire globe. Experience has shown that is practically impossible and deeply damaging to U.S. national interests.

Thus in recent years, the ascendant New Right has led a bipartisan push for a more restrained foreign policy, one predicated on cutting down on foreign entanglements (termed as foreign policy realism in academic circles) especially from the Middle East, pushing Europe to spend a lot more for its own defense, and focusing more on domestic issues, as well as the rise of China. Carlson is perhaps the most prominent voice of that school in the right and has consistently opposed needless foreign confrontation, especially over Iran and Russia.

Matt Walsh and Sohrab Ahmari recently also opposed further confrontation with Russia over ensuring democracy and rights in Ukraine, as this conflict does not directly threaten the American landmass or way of life. Prominent next-gen Republican lawmakers and foreign policy leaders, such as Adam Laxalt, Bernie Moreno, J. D. Vance, Blake Masters, and Peter Meijer also often voice more realist rhetoric.

Is It America’s Job to Change Other Nations’ Regimes?

This realignment has also included questioning whether the ascending conservative foreign-policy realism in America, based on a narrow definition of national interest, is compatible with progressivism. Progressivism, as John Mearsheimer noted, is by definition universalist, radical, and revolutionary.

Mearsheimer wrote, “because liberalism prizes the concept of inalienable or natural rights, committed liberals are deeply concerned about the rights of virtually every individual on the planet. This universalist logic creates a powerful incentive for liberal states to get involved in the affairs of countries that seriously violate their citizens’ rights. To take this a step further, the best way to ensure that the rights of foreigners are not trampled is for them to live in a liberal democracy. This logic leads straight to an active policy of regime change, where the goal is to topple autocrats and put liberal democracies in their place.”

Consider the relentless number of tweets by a section of the commentariat about Western support for ensuring LGBT-favoring laws in Ukraine, and Mearsheimer sounds prescient. Whatever these people are, their constant revolutionary and internationalist rhetoric would make Leon Trotsky blush.

Our Job Is to Govern Ourselves First

Foreign policy realism, on the other hand, enacts a grand strategy based on amoral narrow national interest, one formulated by early American statesmen from George Washington to James Monroe to John Quincy Adams. If it ever comes back as an administrative principle, then it will become the domain solely of the right.

The aversion against great powers and spheres of influence is an egalitarian instinct claiming all states are equal, regardless of any other variable. This instinct is by definition unnatural and revolutionary. It defies geography, aggregate power, history, and most importantly, narrow nationalism.

Believing that “History” is progressive, and therefore acting on it to liberate everyone everywhere and promote rights and democracy, then becomes part of an inflated American national interest. The side that does not believe in nation-states or nationalism cannot by definition side with a narrow interpretation of national interest.

It’s Natural to Defend Yourself

Carlson is increasingly influential because he sides with something very natural: a human urge to be a nationalist, and therefore opposed to a relentless and crusading global revolution, whether promoting a borderless Marxism or an equally borderless liberalism.

The ascendant New Right believes in peace through strength, and a very narrow Jacksonian definition of nationalism, in which Europeans pay for their own security and Americans only come at the last moment if things go wrong. In this view, China is a far bigger threat to American prosperity and its land-mass than Russia or Iran will ever be, and defending porous American borders matters a lot more to Americans than Ukrainian borders.

The other side, a duopoly of Never Trump neoconservatives and liberal-internationalists, wants to continue to allegedly ensure human rights across the globe while neglecting the way of life at home. It may be a noble goal, but ultimately it’s one that the majority of Americans and an overwhelming number of conservatives are tired of after 30 years, thousands of lost lives, and trillions of dollars in deficits.

The instinct for promoting a global revolution to promote LGBT rights, liberalism, and feminism is as radical an instinct as it can get, and that argument is increasingly opposed by a majority of Americans who simply don’t care enough to spend blood and treasure in places they cannot spot on a map.

Self-Government Means No Country Is Too Big to Fail

When Rhodes and McFaul yell about defending human rights in Ukraine, and Carlson and others on the right remind everyone of American failures in pursuing such an unlimited global policy, it’s important to rethink the priors and understand the re-alignment in foreign policy is complete. Powerful realist voices on the left such as Matthew Duss, Stephen Wertheim, Tulsi Gabbard, and Rep. Ro Khanna notwithstanding, it is becoming increasingly clear that true restrained foreign policy realism is connected to a very narrow form of nationalism, and that is fundamentally a reactionary and therefore conservative concept.

Second, as I wrote recently, “selling” such foreign policy, even to a very instinctively nationalist electorate like America, means talking in a language that most people will get. Carlson (and Donald Trump, for that matter) connected with the normal crowd, arguing about the futility of sending their sons to die for Ukraine, Afghanistan, or Libya. That has more impact than a bunch of Foreign Affairs Snapshots.

This recent debate on Ukraine, therefore, has brought forth troubling questions for those trying to sell oxymoronic “progressive” foreign policy realism, which took a hell of a beating in the last few weeks.

Dr. Sumantra Maitra is a national-security fellow at The Center for the National Interest; a non-resident fellow at the James G Martin Center; and an elected early career historian member at the Royal Historical Society. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, and can be reached on Twitter @MrMaitra.


Three MAGA-Hat Wearing Brits Drop Truth Bomb On Media’s Claim of Trump ‘Dividing’ People

Written by Wes Walker on June 4, 2019

To hear the Media(D) tell it, these people shouldn’t exist — then again, they also predicted that Hillary had a ‘99% Chance of Winning’ 2016.

These guys just met.

One is a black guy with a British accent, and at least one of the other two is Scottish.

They’re all wearing MAGA hats, and they had to set the news correspondent straight about who is REALLY dividing people, and (more importantly) how.

Nationalism, they explain, isn’t a dirty word either. At least not what THEY mean by it. It brings people of very different backgrounds together by their common interests. Not RACIAL interests, but patriotic ones involving a flag that has — in many cases — been hundreds of years, in the making, usually with heroic stories of those who stood and fought under that flag to energize that patriotic spirit.

Admiral Horatio Nelson’s victory at Trafalgar…

The Defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo…

A hard-won victory in not one, but TWO World Wars…

The UK sprang from a culture so rich and stable that THREE of the SEVEN G7 Nations share that heritage.

They SHOULD love their country. Of course they should. They SHOULD want to defend its institutions — as we do ours. That’s what patriotism is all about, a positive sense of ‘nationalism’

MAGA-thinking’ (if you were to call it that) doesn’t flow from a desire for other countries to be somehow diminished. That’s petty Zero-Sum-Game Thinking. And it’s typical of the Left’s endless ideology of envy. It’s for losers. No. It’s something else entirely. And these foreign-born Trump fans seem to have it figured out.

MAGA-thinking’ is about letting other nations chart THEIR own course as they and their citizens best see fit, while America chart ours in the way WE think best for OUR people. And so far, we’re happy with the course our President has been charting.


Wes Walker is the author of “Blueprint For a Government that Doesn’t Suck”. He has been lighting up since its inception in July of 2012. Follow on twitter: @Republicanuck

Is it Nazi-like to be a nationalist?

Authored by Dr. Michael L. Brown – Guest Columnist | | Monday, November 12, 2018

URL of the original posting site:

Michael BrownFrench President Macron argues that “nationalism” is a betrayal of patriotism. But when President Trump uses the term, he’s saying no to a potentially dangerous globalism and yes to policies that put American interests first.

Should “nationalism” be encouraged? Is it simply a matter of putting your own country’s interests first and of saying “no” to an unhealthy globalism? Or is it a path to xenophobia, following in the footsteps of the Nazis? Or, perhaps, is it simply a matter of perception, the word “nationalist” meaning one thing to one group and something entirely different to another group?

On October 22, at a rally in Houston, TX, President Trump said, “A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can’t have that.”

He continued, “You know, they have a word – it’s sort of became old-fashioned – it’s called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, okay? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. Nothing wrong. Use that word. Use that word.”

Not surprisingly, his comments created quite an uproar.

After all, there’s a reason the word is not widely used today in a positive sense. Being a “nationalist” is often associated with White Supremacist movements in America, with anti-immigrant xenophobia, with harsh attitudes against people of color. “People like you don’t belong in our nation!”

Not only so, but the term “Nazi” is simply short for “National” in German. The Nazis were the National-Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei in German). In fact, it was hyper-German nationalism that led to both World Wars, as this Wikipedia entry correctly notes:

“Aggressive German nationalism and territorial expansion was a key factor leading to both World Wars. Prior to World War I, Germany had established a colonial empire in hopes of rivaling Britain and France. In the 1930s, the Nazis came to power and sought to create a Greater Germanic Reich, emphasizing ethnic German identity and German greatness to the exclusion of all others, eventually leading to the extermination of Jews, Poles, Romani, and other people deemed Untermenschen (subhumans) in the Holocaust during World War II.”

Trump and MacronThis history was certainly in the mind of France’s Prime Minister Macron this week when he took issue publicly with the exaltation of nationalism (with Trump and Valdimir Putin clearly in view).

Speaking on the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I, he said, “Old demons are reawakening, ready to sow chaos and death. History sometimes threatens to repeat its tragic patterns, and undermine the legacy of peace we thought we had sealed with the blood of our ancestors.”

He added, “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others’, we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values.”

What are we to make of this?

On the one hand, we could review the semantic history of the words “patriotism” and “nationalism,” but that would prove very little for at least two reasons.

First, people tend to think with their hearts, not with a dictionary.

Second, much depends on how a person uses the words in question. What, after all, was their intent?

When it comes to the perception of minorities in America, the word “nationalism” can have many negative connotations. The same holds true in Europe, where an unhealthy nationalism led directly to tens of millions of deaths.

On the other hand, even within Europe, countries like Hungary have pushed back against the increasing loss of national identity in light of Islamic encroachment. As Reuters reported in May, Hungarian Prime Minister “Viktor Orban said on Monday the main task of his new government will be to preserve Hungary’s security and Christian culture, sticking to his nationalist policy to keep out migrants and fend off what he calls foreign meddling.”

For this he has been widely criticized by many European leaders (not to mention liberal leaders worldwide). But are his policies that different than the European nations which have instituted burka bans? Or Chancellor Angela Merkel’s determination that immigrants must learn German to receive benefits? Or Switzerland’s ban on building on minarets, dating back to 2009?

In an op-ed piece on Fox News, Steve Hilton argued that Trump was right and Macron was wrong, writing that,

“Macron’s attack on President Trump was highly revealing. It lays bare the astonishing arrogance of the globalist ruling class who think it’s their moral duty to ignore democracy and instead run the world according to whatever makes life easier for the rootless and heartless global corporations that Macron and his gang of Davos elitists cravenly serve.”

And it is this mentality, quite obviously, which Trump is combating. He is saying no to a potentially dangerous globalism and yes to policies that put American interests first. In turn, a strong and healthy America brings strength and health to the entire world. And isn’t every national leader appointed by his or her people to put their own country’s best interests first?

It’s obvious that President Trump will not back down from the term “nationalist,” especially since he has come under criticism for using it. In fact, “nationalist” will now become a positive term for many of his supporters, just like “deplorables” became a term of honor, rather than shame, after Hillary Clinton’s infamous comment.

That means that the key thing will be to give the most positive definition possible, at the same time directly combatting xenophobia and racism. I would therefore propose this working definition for all who choose to use the term:

A nationalist is one who wants to see a strong and healthy America, to the benefit of every single citizen in our country, from every race and ethnicity. This, in turn, will contribute to a more stable, prosperous world.

Dr. Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book – from which some of the material for this article was excerpted and adapted – is “Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President.”

This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in ‘Perspectives’ columns published by are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network,, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Is It Wrong to Love My Country? Patriotism and the Bible

Written by Ed Vitagliano AFA Executive Vice-President | Tuesday, January 9, 2018 @ 11:06 AM

URL of the original posting site:

Is It Wrong to Love My Country? Patriotism and the Bible

It might seem shocking to some people that a concept like “nationalism” or “patriotism” would be controversial in America. However, when a country is as politically polarized as ours, everything seems controversial. A nation that is splitting apart into hostile and warring factions is going to argue about even the most basic ideas. 

These controversies intrude not only into family discussions around the Thanksgiving table but also into many church discussions in the Sunday school classroom. After all, Christians in America are Americans, too. 

Is it wrong for Christians to love their country? Can they be patriotic? Are such sentiments a manifestation of idolatry or, at best, a worldly attachment to a temporal entity? 

Of course, before we decide whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian to engage in it, we should make sure we understand what “it” is. 

The word patriotism has a long etymological history, dating back to the Roman republic. However, its current usage is fairly simple, meaning “love for or devotion to one’s country” (Merriam-Webster). 

Nationalism is a bit more complex. The word includes the idea of patriotism but begins with something even deeper: “a sense of national consciousness” (Merriam-Webster). In order to love one’s country, there first has to exist a something to love. There has to be a sense of “we” that is distinct from a sense of “them” – i.e., the people who aren’t “we.” 

Now that we have the basics down, let’s examine the key questions. In this process, I’m going to start small and work my way up to the concept of nationalism. 

The way we are 

Humans are social beings. Not only were we created for relationship with God, we were created to relate to other human beings as an expression of that primary affiliation. After creating Adam, God said in Genesis 2, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (vs. 18). 

Of course, the creation of Eve not only doubled the number of people on earth, it established an entirely new dynamic; the more individuals that were added to the human race, the more complex that dynamic became. Think of it this way: A single man shipwrecked on a deserted island is different than two men being shipwrecked. With two, suddenly it matters who makes decisions affecting, say, the supply of rainwater or food. Questions arise over issues like ownership of property or division of labor. And when one woman is added…well, you get the idea. 

So it is no surprise that, as communities of people in human history became larger, the complexity of relationships grew. Where customs might have sufficed when a group was small, laws became necessary when the group was large. The patriarch of a family might give way to a chieftain, in turn giving way to a king ruling through a bureaucracy. Etc. 

Now, inside these larger communities, there is a natural affinity for those with whom we are the closest. The tendency for most people is to give to those for whom we have a natural bond. This is why Jesus said, “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” (Matthew 5:46-47). Jesus understood that the human tendency is to be generous to family and friends. This is not evil; it is natural. This closeness is the glue that holds societies together. Love and compassion create a potent union between a husband and wife; the natural love between parents and children creates a powerful bond unifying the family; strong families produce vibrant communities; these larger groups generate a stable and thriving nation. 

No sane Christian asks the question, “Is it OK to love my family?” God designed us to love them. The teachings of Jesus assume that this is the way things naturally are, such as when He states that even the wicked “know how to give good gifts to [their] children” (Luke 11:13). This natural love is expressed by devotion, loyalty, and sacrifice. 

The Christian is called to make sure he or she excels in this kind of love. For example, in the famous marriage passage in Ephesians 5: 25-33, husbands are commanded to “love their own wives as their own bodies.” This love is expressed when the husband “nourishes and cherishes” his wife; he is to sacrifice for her “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” 

The Bible takes this responsibility so seriously that Paul says, “[I]f anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8).

Drawing a larger circle 

In the same way, then, why would someone suggest that it is wrong to love one’s nation? Isn’t a nation merely an aggregate of thousands of families that naturally love each other? I am called to love my neighbor as myself (Mark 12:31). Do I draw the line in my neighborhood only, or expand it to include my nation

What does that love look like? Surely, it would include the vision and hard work necessary to better my nation and make it prosperous! If we were talking about building a business, would we even question such work? We would expect the founder of a business to have a vision, build it to last, protect it, and make it profitable. A business is a heart-and-soul endeavor, expressing the creativity God has placed in those fashioned in His image. 

This is not idolatry. In the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), for example, there is no rebuke of the servants that invested well and prospered the master’s business. In fact, the opposite is true. These faithful servants were praised.  So why is that different from Christians loving their nation and trying to build it the best they can? Are we not to glorify God in everything we do (1 Corinthians 10:31), at school, work, in marriage, family – and beyond? If love for family includes devotion, loyalty, and sacrifice, why shouldn’t it also include love for nation? 

The Bible makes clear that love for the people that make up someone’s nation is just as normal and natural as love for family. David showed concern for the spiritual life of his countrymen, whom he calls “my people (Psalm 59:11). The prophet Jeremiah mourns the fate of his countrymen as well, saying, “Behold, listen! The cry of the daughter of my people from a distant land” (Jeremiah 8:19).

Who can forget the powerful sentiments expressed by the apostle Paul, lamenting the rejection of Christ by unbelieving Jews: “I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites” (Romans 9:2-4). Paul did not think it a strange thing that his own heart broke for his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” nor that he would have sacrificed himself for their sake if he could have brought them to Christ. 

We are on solid biblical ground to assert that it is normal, natural, and pleasing to God that we love our country and the people in it and that we seek the benefit of those who live in it. 

Biblical limitations and expansions 

However, there are two additional, very important biblical considerations to take into account. 

First, God has set limits to human affection, prohibiting the exaltation of natural love to a place that supersedes love for Him. 

I said earlier that, not only were we created for relationship with God, we were created for relationships with other human beings as an expression of that primary affiliation. That is the proper order of things; reversing it is idolatry. 

In fact, Jesus made this a test of true discipleship, because natural bonds of love and devotion can tempt the Christian to spiritual infidelity. He said, “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me” (Matthew 10:37). The person who loves family more than Christ will eventually abandon Him; the person who loves Christ more than family will remain faithful, even when faced with family betrayal and death (vv. 21, 34-36). 

The same is true for love of country. The Christian must always love God enough to refuse complicity with national and cultural evil. How many white Christians, rather than standing against the evil of Jim Crow laws, instead embraced the wickedness of racism in the South? How many Christians in Germany embraced the hell-inspired nationalism of Nazism, rather than reject it because of devotion to Jesus? 

Second, God has called the Christian to go beyond the smaller circle of natural love to the unlimited circle of supernatural love. 

While there is nothing wrong – and everything right – with love for family and friends, this is to be enlarged in the Christian life by an ever-expanding generosity. Such love serves as an expression of God’s love. After all, divine blessing is motivated by unmerited grace. You don’t have to be a part of the “insider” group to receive from God. 

Jesus said the Father “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5: 45).

Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 5:46-47, that if Christians only love those who are close to them, “what reward do you have?” Unbelievers love those inside the smaller circle. If you only do the same, “what more are you doing than others?” What’s so supernatural about your life if you restrict your love to family and friends? What evidence is there that God indwells you? 

There’s even more. Jesus challenges His people to bless the people in the larger circle without thought of repayment! He said: “When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, otherwise they may also invite you in return and that will be your repayment. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:12-14).

Expanding this to our discussion of love of country, I think this means the Christian should consider helping even those outside the borders of their own nation. Certainly, this includes the preaching of the gospel in obedience to the Great Commission, but wouldn’t it also include giving aid to work that meets physical needs as well? I think it absolutely does. 

It would be strange to hear a Christian insist that we should not love our country, as it becomes clear in the New Testament that the love that characterizes the life of the Christian is not to have limits. That limitless circle would, by definition, include our nation – and beyond.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: