It wasn’t all that long ago that the president told the United Nations General Assembly, “The free world must embrace its national foundations. It must not attempt to erase them or replace them. The future does not belong to globalists, the future belongs to patriots.”
USA TODAY ran the headline, “Trump’s embrace of controversial label sparks an uproar.” But then it seems that no matter what the president does it sparks an uproar from someone, somewhere. The truth is, I believe the Left lives in a perpetual state of outrage when it comes to the president.
Upon hearing the president’s comments French President Emmanuel Macron openly condemned nationalism, saying, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism by saying our interest first, who care about the others. By putting our own interests first, with no regard for others, we erase the very thing that a nation holds dearest, and the thing that keeps it alive—our moral values.”
Understandably, many Europeans associate nationalism with fascism and Hitler, probably because they allowed this hateful ideology to rise undeterred right under their noses 80 years ago, but do the president’s words, “We believe that when nations respect the rights of their neighbors, and defend the interests of their people, they can better work together to secure the blessings of safety, prosperity and peace,” sound like something from Mein Kamp? Nationalism within the context used by President Trump means putting our country first. It means promoting American interests with the expressed aim of maintaining our individual sovereignty while holding to the notion that all nations should be able govern themselves free from outside interference. And isn’t that just a sidestep from patriotism, which can be defined as national pride and the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to one’s homeland along with an alliance or kinship with other citizens who share the same sentiment?
Far left New York Times’ ope-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof uses Charels de Gaulle’s infamous quote to deride the president’s declaration that he’s a nationalist, to wit: “Patriotism is when love of you own people come first, nationalism is when hate comes first.” Then as if on cue, CNN host Don Lemon opined that the president knows exactly what he’s doing when he uses the “coded language” of nationalism because what he’s really referring to is “white nationalism.”
What is it about the Left that they cannot formulate cogent arguments without playing the race card? Why does this perverse distortion of race in America still dominate the media? And why does the Left continue to inject race into every argument? I can only speculate because I don’t live in the dark nether world of left wing activism—but I can make an educated guess. It’s all about silencing opinions they disagree with, which has been a tactic of the Left since Saul Alinsky. And when your ideology cannot debate, reason, or convince, what other options are there except to denounce, denigrate and race-bait?
Racism or Nationalism?
Is it racist or nationalistic to adopt immigration and trade policies that are in America’s best interests? Is it racist or nationalistic protect our selves by limiting the number of people we allow into this country from Middle East nations known to support terror? Is it racist or nationalistic to believe and act upon the notion that without secure borders we don’t have a country? And is it racist or nationalistic to believe that immigration needs to be controlled, ordered and legal?
I’m certain there are progressives with smoke coming out of their ears as they read this because they “know” the president is a racist. Never mind the fact that they have no evidence, because from a progressive perspective, those of us who believe gaining entrance to the United States is a privilege and not a right must either be racists or white supremacists because in the collective minds of progressives, there can be no other alternative.
So to those who do not see the benefits of genuine nationalism I ask that they consider the following:
- Should Americans have the sovereign authority to decide who comes into this country?
- Should the president first weigh the needs of Americans before the needs of foreign workers?
- And just how much emphasis should be put on assimilation—do we still embrace the notion that’s been a cornerstone of our republic for nearly 250 years, E Pluribus Unum, “from many, one,” or has “diversity” become the magic elixir of the future?
Quote of the day: “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination. It will honor the rights of every nation to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. All we ask is that you honor our sovereignty in return”—President Donald J. Trump