The problem with this exercise of going bonkers lies in its gross lack of consistency -- the general lack of critically calling out other instances of in-your-face nationalism; few, if any, reports, stories or expressions of similar indignation.

Certain corporate/trust-fund "media" caricatures are very long on criticizing nationalism in the US; silent or apologetic where it exists elsewhere, attempting painful intellectual gyrations and contortions to justify nationalism in others.

Examples abound. Chinese economic nationalism; South Africa's current racial nationalism as envisioned and implemented by the ANC, with its communist baggage; or Israeli nationalism, recently expressed through its "Nation-State" law, or on exhibition with its Wall.

So the "Build Bridges Not Walls" signs in Pittsburgh clearly have limited context; same with Washington Post stories.

Illustrating this hypocrisy in terms of immigration, there's Bill Clinton sounding very nationalistic in his "all Americans," "illegal aliens" and "criminal aliens" little chit-chat.

Caravans anyone?

Yet, we're all to think that language like this originates and resides solely with Trump. Could it be that The Donald acquired some of his border sensibilities directly from the immigration master himself . . . Bill Clinton?

Did Hillary name Bill as one of her xenophobic "deplorables"?

But as some try -- in true Bolshevik fashion -- to summarily purge nationalism, they use the semantic substitution tactic: patriotism good; nationalism bad.

This distinction was famously made by William F. Buckley Jr.: "I'm as patriotic as anyone . . . but there's not a molecule of nationalism in me." Of course, Buckley, CIA affiliations in tow, was keenly instrumental in discounting the old-time conservatives (e.g., Mr. Republican himself, Robert Taft).

What Buckley's Bolsheviks promoted was the poison of endless global adventurism, euphemistically characterized as "our responsibilities around the world."

So if Montenegro is somehow attacked, some soldier in Topeka, KS is duty-bound to run to its military defense. How patriotic.

Naturally, such an earthly undertaking requires a large supply of cannon fodder. So there's advertising and recruiting for the military.

Perhaps you've seen it: "For Our Nation. For Us All."

 

 

 

Nation? All? Sure sounds nationalistic, not to mention populist.

This cafeteria-style hypocrisy notwithstanding -- the convenient suspension of the Buckley doctrine in the military's cynical use of nationalism=patriotism/populism to get recruits -- the purging of "national" in favor of "patriot" doesn't work.

Like spouses' attitudes in a marriage, patriotism is more a state of mind toward a nation; but being patriotic while denying the nation is like saying: I love my wife, but I'm opposed to marriage.

Failing to uphold certain elements of nationalism can amount to an attack on the Constitution itself, as Supreme Court Judge Scalia outlined in 2012, echoing the 1758 Law of Nations.

For better or worse, people like Gandhi and Lincoln were nationalists; you can't admire them without somewhat embracing nationalism.

So this playing-off of "patriotism" against nationalism amounts to nothing but moral confusion; intellectual sophistry.

And while government/political decentralization is generally a worthy objective, nationalism can be a defense against genocide.