Why we need a President who is an American nationalist.

The left were aghast when President Trump declared that he was not a ‘globalist,’ but an American ‘nationalist.’

In a lengthy response to a reporter’s question, Trump appeared to give his own definition to the word, arguing that it refers to how the United States interacts with other countries on trade and other issues.

“For many years, other countries that are allies of ours . . . they have not treated our country fairly,” Trump said, pointing to U.S. contributions to NATO and what he described as trade deals in which the U.S. has been “duped” by other countries. “So in that sense, I am absolutely a nationalist, and I’m proud of it.”

In simple terms, Mr Trump stated that he is going to look out for American interests first, and that, for an American President, that is the way it should be.

“Never Trumper” Max Boot (see the first link) wrote:

The word “nationalism” in modern America has often been preceded by a troubling adjective: “white.” Troubling, that is, if you believe in America as a multicultural democracy bound together by shared ideals, not by shared blood. Trump insists that his evocation of nationalism is not a code word for “white supremacy.” “No, I never heard that theory about being a nationalist,” Trump told reporters. He insisted that he is simply “somebody that loves our country.” But if that’s the case, why didn’t he just say so? Trump gave the game away at a Houston rally where he admitted, “We’re not supposed to use that word,” suggesting he knows exactly how toxic nationalism has become in the modern world.

Significantly, Trump preceded his declaration of nationalism with one of his trademark rants against “globalists” – “A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly not caring about our country so much,” he said. Who are these villains who want America to suffer? Trump didn’t name anyone, but it’s a safe bet that he has in mind someone like George Soros, a Jewish billionaire who Trump supporters blame for everything from the caravan of Central American immigrants to the anti-Kavanaugh demonstrations. You know who else engages in this kind of anti-Semitic conspiracy-mongering? Trump’s fellow nationalists: Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, and the Law and Justice Party in Poland. Like Trump, they also revile the press as the “enemies of the people.”

Did you catch that? The Washington Post columnist decided that President Trump’s own definition concerning what he meant by nationalism wasn’t good enough, and that Mr Boot was the proper one to define it for him. “It’s a safe bet that he has in mind someone like George Soros,” Mr Boot wrote, apparently channeling Professor X’s telepathic abilities, and telling us what another man really thinks.

We have previously noted just how much of a faux conservative Mr Boot really is, and while there really are some conservatives who could not bring themselves to vote for Mr Trump, and I’m thinking about Patrick Frey, who writes as Patterico here, it was Mr Boot, individually, who said, “I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump.” While I might laugh at such hyperbole by a college sophomore, Mr Boot was born in the Soviet Union, coming to the United States at age seven, when his parents were allowed to emigrate in 1976. No one with degrees in history and diplomatic history, and with Russian Jewish nationality, knowing Josef Stalin’s anti-Semitism, could ever make such a statement lightheartedly.

What led me to this discourse? Nationalism seems like a pretty good idea to me, when I see what the ‘globalists’ are doing:

Defaming Prophet Muhammed not free expression: ECHR

Such defamation could stir up prejudice and risk religious peace, says European Court of Human Rights

October 25, 2018

STRASBOURG: Defaming the Prophet Muhammed “goes beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate” and “could stir up prejudice and put at risk religious peace” and thus exceeds the permissible limits of freedom of expression, ruled the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on Thursday, upholding a lower court decision.

The decision by a seven-judge panel came after an Austrian national identified as Mrs. S. held two seminars in 2009, entitled “Basic Information on Islam,” in which she defamed the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage.

According to a statement released by the court on Thursday, the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had pedophilic tendencies, and in February 2011 convicted Mrs. S. for disparaging religious doctrines.

She was fined €480 (aprox. $547) and the costs of the proceedings.

“Mrs. S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming, in essence, the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013,” it said.

“Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.”

On today’s ruling, the ECHR said it “found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

There’s a bit more at the original, but, basically, the ECHR said that freedom of speech in Europe does not extend to hurting anyone else’s feelings. If ‘globalism’ means, among other things, sharing the political, cultural and social norms of the lily-livered Europeans, then no thank you, I’ll stick with good, old-fashioned American nationalism.

I might have ignored that story, were it not for just that kind of thinking on the part of the American left, with political correctness rampant, and speech codes being enforced on our university campuses. When New York City publishes a list of ‘gendered pronouns,’ saying that:

  • Asking and correctly using someone’s pronoun is one of the most basic ways to show your respect for their (sic) gender identity.
  • When someone is referred to with the wrong pronoun, it can make them (sic) feel disrespected, invalidated, dismissed, alienated, or dysphoric (or, often, all of the above.)
  • While many people use the wrong pronoun by mistake, sometimes people use the wrong pronoun intentionally to hurt or disrespect TGNC (transgender and gender non-conforming) people. Repeatedly being misgendered can be a source of great distress.

Legal guidance from the New York City Commission on Human Rights now sets civil and employment penalties for purposefully ‘misgendering’ someone, meaning that the City is trying to limit people’s freedom of speech over possible hurtfulness.

This is why American nationalism is so important; not only have the supposedly sophisticated Europeans gone all #Snowflake on individual rights, but the left in America is attempting to follow in their footsteps.

There’s no question about it: Donald Trump is an [insert slang term for the rectum here.] But if being all squishy politically correct and globalist is the alternative, then an [insert slang term for the rectum here] nationalist, someone who will stand up for American interests and values, is just what we need right now.
Cross-posted on The First Street Journal.