Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism

Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism - Vox

[T]the speakers ... overwhelmingly agreed that a central part of “national conservatism” involved opposing allegedly divisive cultural change wrought by mass immigration.

There’s an obvious tension in this project of building a conservatism that is simultaneously skeptical of cultural change caused by immigration and, somehow, inclusive of the largely nonwhite immigrants who are responsible for changing it. At times, it became too much to bear.

In a panel on immigration, University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax claimed that immigrants are too loud and responsible for an increase in “litter.” She explicitly advocated an immigration policy that would favor immigrants from Western countries over non-Western ones; “the position,” as she put it, “that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.” (She claims this is not racist because her problem with nonwhite immigrants is cultural rather than biological.)

Click to expand...

I read this last night and thought it was an interesting article. It's clearly written from a 'liberal' perspective, but it really describes in clear terms the problem with "nationalism" in general and what amounts to in practice if not in theory 'white nationalism.'

The quote above by Amy Wax is part of a larger one in which she says what she's after is 'cultural' nationalism, and that race isn't relevant. The problem, as she points out in that quote, is that when you do that you favor whites and disfavor non-whites. So on the ground, in policy, in attitudes, 'cultural' nationalism looks pretty much identical to the white nationalism that no one wants to claim.

Anyway, anyone interested in the 'liberal' concerns with the 'nationalism' movement, either for them or against them, can read what I though was a pretty good summary of it here.

Several people on the right have accused the Vox author of mischaracterizing Amy Wax's comments, so here they are in context.

Being a democracy, every person from another country and different background ultimately will affect our society, our government and our laws. It is the most simplistic logic that if people are intensely anti-secular, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, oppose many civil and human rights - that person will move our society, government and laws ever so slightly in that direction.

Bringing in uneducated and impoverished Somalians brings the values of Somalian culture, values and laws into our society, government and laws. That is how democracy works.

Accordingly, who we should allow in are those who MOST are aligned to our core values, laws, rights and accepted moral codes and concepts of freedom and rights - including equality.

joko104 said:

Being a democracy, every person from another country and different background ultimately will affect our society, our government and our laws. It is the most simplistic logic that if people are intensely anti-secular, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, oppose many civil and human rights - that person will move our society, government and laws ever so slightly in that direction.

Bringing in uneducated and impoverished Somalians brings the values of Somalian culture, values and laws into our society, government and laws. That is how democracy works.

Accordingly, who we should allow in are those who MOST are aligned to our core values, laws, rights and accepted moral codes and concepts of freedom and rights - including equality.

Click to expand...

And you continue your lies and posting of garbage.
Your post reflects absolute ignorance of history - the immigrants who first populated the US were mostly poor and uneducated folks from all over the world looking for a chance to work hard in a new world.
As usual, you need to educate yourself prior to posting lies and garbage like this.

joko104 said:

Being a democracy, every person from another country and different background ultimately will affect our society, our government and our laws. It is the most simplistic logic that if people are intensely anti-secular, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, oppose many civil and human rights - that person will move our society, government and laws ever so slightly in that direction.

Bringing in uneducated and impoverished Somalians brings the values of Somalian culture, values and laws into our society, government and laws. That is how democracy works.

Accordingly, who we should allow in are those who MOST are aligned to our core values, laws, rights and accepted moral codes and concepts of freedom and rights - including equality.

Click to expand...

This is the crux of the inability on behalf of liberals to understand that people are not the malleable clay that Marx said they were. We can't raise IQ with education. We can't impart our culture on immigrants whose cultures don't contain any similarities with ours.

Minneapolis is a perfect example of the inability of some cultures to assimilate. The Somalians living there prefer to keep to their own clannish neighborhoods, and are even at odds with the local African American community. One African American homicide detective said that it's virtually impossible for him to solve a crime if it occurs in a Somali neighborhood, because even though he has the same skin color as the people from that neighborhood, they consider him an outsider and refuse to speak to him. Race isn't the problem here, its culture.

SMTA said:

And you continue your lies and posting of garbage.
Your post reflects absolute ignorance of history - the immigrants who first populated the US were mostly poor and uneducated folks from all over the world looking for a chance to work hard in a new world.
As usual, you need to educate yourself prior to posting lies and garbage like this.

Click to expand...

You do know, having an outburst like that. Only shows that it's you who reflects absolute ignorance.

JasperL said:

Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism - Vox



I read this last night and thought it was an interesting article. It's clearly written from a 'liberal' perspective, but it really describes in clear terms the problem with "nationalism" in general and what amounts to in practice if not in theory 'white nationalism.'

The quote above by Amy Wax is part of a larger one in which she says what she's after is 'cultural' nationalism, and that race isn't relevant. The problem, as she points out in that quote, is that when you do that you favor whites and disfavor non-whites. So on the ground, in policy, in attitudes, 'cultural' nationalism looks pretty much identical to the white nationalism that no one wants to claim.

Anyway, anyone interested in the 'liberal' concerns with the 'nationalism' movement, either for them or against them, can read what I though was a pretty good summary of it here.

Click to expand...

So it's not going to be addressed that they're ripping Wax's statement, entirely out of context?

Here's something that is fast reaching a dead end, right now, in real time:

The end of immigration as a "big shiny distracting thing" that a candidate can throw around as a weapon to bludgeon other pols with.

Right now, mass protests are breaking out IN MEXICO, against migrants from Central America.


Mexico recently pledged to help the US by keeping a large number of immigrants in country while they wait for asylum.
Meanwhile in Washington, Trump is moving to cut the asylum quota to ZERO.
This "swift move" now leaves MX holding the bag and smoking the exploding cigar, and the Mexican people aren't having any of it.

Name a single time in human history where handing another nation a flaming pile of dog crap didn't come back and hit that country (and other countries) later.

Part of the reason we're even witnessing such an explosion of migrants from Central America stems from us handing El Salvadorians and Hondurans flaming bags of dog crap back in the Eighties. Of course that also had a negative effect on Guatamalans, too.
Notice I didn't say "the ENTIRE reason". The people we supported back then were a boon to our interests and simultaneously very destructive to a lot of ordinary people. It was beneficial to a very small tightly knit handful of super-elites and to no one else.

We gained absolutely NOTHING in all our dealings with Central America. Specifically, our pretend war against drugs actually turned out to be a CIA pipeline to BRING MORE drugs to America, at the behest of the administration.
Simply put, we are looking at the children and grandchildren of the unholy unions we helped to foster down there.

And now we're about to hand Mexico a gigantic flaming bag of dog crap, and we think it won't affect us.
Yeah, right.
Way to go, Trumpers.

Oborosen said:

So it's not going to be addressed that they're ripping Wax's statement, entirely out of context?

Click to expand...

I directly addressed this charge at #2, and posted her comments in context so we can all read them for ourselves.

In my own discussion, I also tried to give her comments their intended meaning. If you think I didn't, you can explain how if you want.

joko104 said:

Being a democracy, every person from another country and different background ultimately will affect our society, our government and our laws. It is the most simplistic logic that if people are intensely anti-secular, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, oppose many civil and human rights - that person will move our society, government and laws ever so slightly in that direction.

Bringing in uneducated and impoverished Somalians brings the values of Somalian culture, values and laws into our society, government and laws. That is how democracy works.

Accordingly, who we should allow in are those who MOST are aligned to our core values, laws, rights and accepted moral codes and concepts of freedom and rights - including equality.

Click to expand...

Not much there to comment on, except that you don't like Somalians apparently, but all those charges have been leveled at Italians, Irish, Poles, Jews, Japanese, Chinese, and many more throughout history and somehow they all contributed to society, and we accept them as "real" Americans now while at the time they were hated and despised by many.

New era, new minorities to hate. Same as it ever was.

joko104 said:

It is the most simplistic logic that if people are intensely anti-secular, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, oppose many civil and human rights - that person will move our society, government and laws ever so slightly in that direction.

Click to expand...

Joko just described the people making laws in Alabama.

JasperL said:

I directly addressed this charge at #2, and posted her comments in context so we can all read them for ourselves.

In my own discussion, I also tried to give her comments their intended meaning. If you think I didn't, you can explain how if you want.

Click to expand...

Trying to give them their intended meaning, can be damnable in of itself. Her suggestions in context are just as fine as they are and the article doesn't even give voice to that.

That is my issue. Vox has done this time and time again, mostly to suit their own means. Had anyone else covered this, I'd give it more premise. But as it stands, they're not doing any of this in good faith.

joko104 said:

Being a democracy, every person from another country and different background ultimately will affect our society, our government and our laws. It is the most simplistic logic that if people are intensely anti-secular, sexist, xenophobic, intolerant, oppose many civil and human rights - that person will move our society, government and laws ever so slightly in that direction.

Bringing in uneducated and impoverished Somalians brings the values of Somalian culture, values and laws into our society, government and laws. That is how democracy works.

Accordingly, who we should allow in are those who MOST are aligned to our core values, laws, rights and accepted moral codes and concepts of freedom and rights - including equality.

Click to expand...

The US is not now and never was a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with democratic elections of our representatives. We have always been a melting pot of races, cultures and religions. That is who makes us who we are. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness.

Do you have a problem with values that are not those of Archie Bunker? Maybe you would support a 3/5 of a vote for people who aren't old, white, male, evangelical bigots who commonly wear sheets?

Lisa said:

The US is not now and never was a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with democratic elections of our representatives. We have always been a melting pot of races, cultures and religions. That is who makes us who we are. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness.

Do you have a problem with values that are not those of Archie Bunker? Maybe you would support a 3/5 of a vote for people who aren't old, white, male, evangelical bigots who commonly wear sheets?

Click to expand...

Suggesting that your opponent is a racist... yeah. That's a sound way to lose any sort of debate.

Lisa said:

The US is not now and never was a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with democratic elections of our representatives. We have always been a melting pot of races, cultures and religions. That is who makes us who we are. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness.

Do you have a problem with values that are not those of Archie Bunker? Maybe you would support a 3/5 of a vote for people who aren't old, white, male, evangelical bigots who commonly wear sheets?

Click to expand...

Archie Bunker? How old are you?

I read somewhere that when they conducted a poll they were stunned to find that an overwhelming majority of Americans generally agreed with Archie Bunker. BUT, what, specifically about Archie Bunker are you referring to? I'm not familiar with the show. only general impressions said about it. I saw a funny clip of him talking about handing out guns for airline flights.

Lisa said:

We have always been a melting pot of races, cultures and religions. That is who makes us who we are. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness.

Click to expand...

People who recognize that we are a diverse nation and that the diversity is a strength tend to reject that we are or should be a "melting pot". Your first and third sentences above seem to be at odds?

Lisa said:

Maybe you would support a 3/5 of a vote for people who aren't old, white, male, evangelical bigots who commonly wear sheets?

Click to expand...

Slaves never got 3/5 of a vote. They didn't vote at all.

Oborosen said:

Trying to give them their intended meaning, can be damnable in of itself. Her suggestions in context are just as fine as they are and the article doesn't even give voice to that.

That is my issue. Vox has done this time and time again, mostly to suit their own means. Had anyone else covered this, I'd give it more premise. But as it stands, they're not doing any of this in good faith.

Click to expand...

How is my comment "objectionable?" How is me providing extensive context to her comments objectionable? I don't know what else you could possibly want, unless you're looking for an excuse to dismiss them.

Maybe you can explain this for me: "The problem, as she points out in that quote, is that when you [adopt "cultural distance, the effect of that is you] favor whites and disfavor non-whites. So on the ground, in policy, in attitudes, 'cultural' nationalism looks pretty much identical to the white nationalism that no one wants to claim."

JasperL said:

Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism - Vox



I read this last night and thought it was an interesting article. It's clearly written from a 'liberal' perspective, but it really describes in clear terms the problem with "nationalism" in general and what amounts to in practice if not in theory 'white nationalism.'

The quote above by Amy Wax is part of a larger one in which she says what she's after is 'cultural' nationalism, and that race isn't relevant. The problem, as she points out in that quote, is that when you do that you favor whites and disfavor non-whites. So on the ground, in policy, in attitudes, 'cultural' nationalism looks pretty much identical to the white nationalism that no one wants to claim.

Anyway, anyone interested in the 'liberal' concerns with the 'nationalism' movement, either for them or against them, can read what I though was a pretty good summary of it here.

Click to expand...

Why is it that liberal socialist progressives don't believe the evolution of mankind?

Why do nations exist?

Why did the evolution of the human race lead to the creation of Nation States?

What was the purpose and why did mankind create borders and the means to defend them?

It seems this new extreme left has no connection to the history of mankind, and it reject evolution, which is surprising.

Do they not realize that at no time in recorded history did peoples of all types and cultures live together peacefully in borderless lands?

Lisa said:

The US is not now and never was a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with democratic elections of our representatives. We have always been a melting pot of races, cultures and religions. That is who makes us who we are. Our diversity is a strength and not a weakness.

Do you have a problem with values that are not those of Archie Bunker? Maybe you would support a 3/5 of a vote for people who aren't old, white, male, evangelical bigots who commonly wear sheets?

Click to expand...

The difference being that immigrants use to assimilate into American culture, before anti-American leftists concocted their multiculturalism nonsense in the 1970s. Now they flat out refuse to integrate into American culture, preferring to keep the culture they left behind in their former country. Including those antiquated and oppressive cultural values, like how the majority of middle-eastern countries treat women. They bring thier 12th century mentality into the US, refuse to assimilate into American society, and refuse to even acknowledge the founding principles of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The days of the US being a "melting pot" ended 40 years ago with the multiculturalism of the anti-American left.

We already know the kinds of people the "Progressive" left want to import - anyone willing to kill Americans en masse. Which is why they were so keen when Obama promised to import tens of thousands of Syrian terrorists into the US.

JasperL said:

Trump and the dead end of conservative nationalism - Vox
I read this last night and thought it was an interesting article. It's clearly written from a 'liberal' perspective, but it really describes in clear terms the problem with "nationalism" in general and what amounts to in practice if not in theory 'white nationalism.'

The quote above by Amy Wax is part of a larger one in which she says what she's after is 'cultural' nationalism, and that race isn't relevant. The problem, as she points out in that quote, is that when you do that you favor whites and disfavor non-whites. So on the ground, in policy, in attitudes, 'cultural' nationalism looks pretty much identical to the white nationalism that no one wants to claim.

Anyway, anyone interested in the 'liberal' concerns with the 'nationalism' movement, either for them or against them, can read what I though was a pretty good summary of it here.

Click to expand...

The Bible tells us that in the last days of life on earth without Jesus men will gather themselves together under a world leader whom they will worship as God. Somewhere between now and that time American nationalism must be ended.

ocean515 said:

Why is it that liberal socialist progressives don't believe the evolution of mankind?

Why do nations exist?

Why did the evolution of the human race lead to the creation of Nation States?

What was the purpose and why did mankind create borders and the means to defend them?

It seems this new extreme left has no connection to the history of mankind, and it reject evolution, which is surprising.

Do they not realize that at no time in recorded history did peoples of all types and cultures live together peacefully in borderless lands?

Click to expand...

:lamo



Why don't you go ahead and answer those questions yourself. We could all use a good laugh.

Master Debator said:

:lamo
Why don't you go ahead and answer those questions yourself. We could all use a good laugh.

Click to expand...

Driving a Dodge, are we?

Master Debator said:

:lamo



Why don't you go ahead and answer those questions yourself. We could all use a good laugh.

Click to expand...

Why would I feed someone like you?

If you weren't threatened by the answers, you'd try yourself.

marke said:

Driving a Dodge, are we?

Click to expand...

I'm not dodging. Those questions are phrased in a way to sound rhetorical. If Ocean wants us to discuss these things he can give his answer first.