The National Review: Kevin Williamson: 'The Nationalism Show'

Source:The National Review- "President Trump greets supporters at a Make America Great Again rally in Wheeling, W.Va., September 29, 2018."

Source:The New Democrat

I think Kevin Williamson nails what a Nationalist is in this paragraph here:

"To the extent that 2016 vintage nationalism has produced a policy agenda at all distinguishable from the old Republican stuff, it is anti-capitalist and anti-liberal: in favor of trade restrictions and suspicious of big business, especially banks, anti-immigration, anti-elitist, longstanding tendencies to which American populists from William Jennings Bryan to George Wallace and Ross Perot have been stubbornly attached. That these represent an orientation toward the actual national interest is not obvious: Tariffs function mainly as a sales tax on American consumers and as a crutch for certain U.S.-based firms that wish to be protected from foreign competition. There is more to a nation than its economy, but markets are national institutions, too, and far from the least important of them. Hostility toward these does not serve the nation, even if it serves the interests of some of the nation’s people."

From The National Review

From Wikipedia

"At a rally for Sen. Ted Cruz in Houston, President Trump said a "globalist" is a person "who wants the globe to do well, frankly, but not caring our country so much." He went on to say there is an "old-fashioned" word that he embraced: A "nationalist."

From CBS News

Source:CBS News- President Donald Trump: in Houston Texas last year. 

"Nationalism is a political, social, and economic ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example."


Let's be clear: ( to paraphrase Bernie Sanders ) nationalism and patriotism are not the same things. A Patriot is someone who loves their country and what it stands and what the people stand for and believe in. The national values that his or her country believes in. A Nationalist or Tribalist loves their corner of the store ( so to speak ) their faction of the country, the people that they share common political, cultural, religious, ethnic, and racial values with. People who look, talk, act, have a similar if not identical lifestyle as they do. Donald Trump, is not a Conservative or a Patriot: he's a Nationalist and if there is anything at all you can that you can take his word on it's that he's a Nationalist. He's proven that ever since he not just started running for President back in 2015, but you could go back to 2011 when he championed the birther movement.

If Donald Trump loves anyone other than himself, it's his family ( perhaps not his wife ) but I'm willing to grant that he actually loves his kids. And perhaps he loves his voters and supporters in the media that basically serve as his Office of Propaganda and the Trump Information Agency. What's called Fox News is the closet thing that we've ever had to state-run media in America and hopefully we never any closer to that. But Donald Trump doesn't love America and what America stands for. He doesn't see America as the beacon on the hill the shining city on the hill. ( To paraphrase Ronald Reagan ) He doesn't believe in pluralism, liberal democracy, checks and balances. He believes that he can do whatever he wants simply because he's Donald Trump and the President of the United States. Which is how we know that he's not a Conservative and even a Republican at least in the sense as someone who believes in Republicanism.

The National Review: Kevin D. Williamson: 'FDR's Nationalism Presaged Donald Trump's'

Source: The National Review- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd POTUS, Progressive Democrat 

Source: The New Democrat

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to offend, but Kevin Williamson's who I tend to respect at least politically, has nationalism and progressivism, mixed up with a what I call unitarianism and not the religion, but in governmental sense.

Source: Wall Street Journal- Donald J. Trump first Nationalist POTUS 

The United States unlike the United Kingdom and like the Federal Republic of Germany is a federal republic. We have decentralization of governmental power in America. We have checks and balances, as well as branches of government. National, state, and local, and in many cases Americans tend to live under two local government's. County and city and if you live in the City of Los Angeles, or in Chicago, to use as examples you know exactly what's that life. Since the City of Los Angeles is part of Los Angeles County and Chicago is part of Cook County.

Source: IZ Quotes- Truer words have never been said than what Sydney J. Harris said here

In a country that has a unitarian government or is a unitarian state like Britain, most of the governmental power, but not all is centralized with the national government in London. The U.K. Government runs the education system for Britain, as well as health care and health insurance for the entire country. Whereas in America each state even city, county has their own public education system and make their own governmental decisions for all other local matters that go on in their local jurisdiction and state.

President Franklin Roosevelt, was neither a Nationalist or a Unitarian when it came to government policy. The man led us along with our allies through World War II and saved the European Jews from ethnic destruction from the German Nazis. If he was a Nationalist, we would've stayed out of Europe and perhaps Japan as well, especially if he were truly a Democratic Socialist who didn't believe in government force and a strong military during World War II.

According to Wikipedia

"Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production."

President Franklin Roosevelt, was a Progressive in the true sense of the term. Someone who believed in progress and that progress could obtained through government action. That government could be used to promote and achieve progress in the country. He inherited the Great Depression and believed government should be used to help Americans through the Great Depression with things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, but that government could also be used to help us get out of the Great Depression and back to strong economy health. Pre-New Deal, there was no public safety net or a national infrastructure system of any kind and with President Roosevelt we saw the Federal Government pay for the financing of American roads and other infrastructure projects in America.

If FDR was a Unitarian or Socialist, he would've nationalized the public education system in and all public welfare policy would be complete run by the Federal Government. No more local public hospitals, because now the Feds would be running those hospitals, as well as public housing, no more private health insurance.

Under FDR the Federal Government got a lot bigger and spent more money than it did before especially as it related to the economy, but our National Security State was also created under FDR and we became a world economic, military, and diplomatic power under FDR. Because he was a liberal internationalist who believed in a strong America both at home and abroad. Unlike Democratic Socialists, who tend to be very dovish on foreign policy and national security. FDR, was a Progressive Democrat in the truest and best sense of the word, he did put limits on what government should do and try to do and who also believed in individual success in America.

The National Review: Amy Schumer & The Creepy Politically Correct Police

Source:National Review- Free Speech Advocate.

Source:The New Democrat

Cenk Uygur, from The Young Turks, who is about as far-left as someone on the New-Left can get in America, I believe had the best line in this video. When he said that political correctness makes actual racism and real racial issues look small and non-important. He used the boy who cried wolf analogy. Which is really what a lot of this is about. It is one thing to disagree with what someone said about this person, or this group, but it’s another to say that person is a racist, or what they said was racist. Especially when what they said is accurate and funny at the same time.

If someone, or a group of people, whoever the person is, or the group of people is, has an issue, or weakness and someone accurately points that out and does it in a humorous way, what does the target, or targets of the critique and satire have to complain about. All the comedian, or commentator is doing is making an accurate statement and doing it in a humorous way. Also if someone says something that isn’t true about a person, or group, are they bigot, or are they just wrong? I mean when people have problems with the truth and reality, that is when they need to either become alcoholics and escape reality on a regular basis, or improve themselves and work on their shortcomings.

If I say that a lot of Southern Anglo-Saxon Christian-Conservatives got stuck in a time machine and were taken out of the year 1952, when women stayed at home and served their men, gays were locked in the closet and African-Americans, were second class citizens and served as servants to Caucasians. And brought up to 2015 when all Americans were free and able to live their own lives and were no longer partying like it was 1952 and instead lived in the real world that is modern America, would that make me a racist, or anti-Christian, or would I just be stating a fact and using humor to do that? Well that statement is right and there’s humor there. So what do Anglo Christian-Conservatives have to complain about?

Now use that analogy about Saudi Arabia as a country. A very conservative Muslim country, to say the least, just as water is wet and the North Pole is cold. If I said that Saudi-Muslims were stuck in the 1500s and view women as property of men. Women , aren’t even allowed to show their faces and bodies in public, they are not even allowed to drive and I could go on, but it would be very depressing. Now if I say this, am I a racist for making fun of Middle Eastern people and am I anti-Muslim, for making a joke about Muslims, or am I simply just stating a fact? Well again what part of that statement to you disagree with. Of course that statement is accurate and even funny.

The whole political correctness movement and their political correctness warriors, sound like a bunch of con men and con women. They’re not political correctness warriors, but fascist bullshit artists. On Planet PC. You can make fun of Christians, especially if they’re Caucasian and Southern and rural. You can make all the accurate and inaccurate jokes about them that you want to, but if you say something that is funny and correct about non-Caucasian-Christians, even if you’re correct, they label you as a bigot. And try to get you shut down. You can make all the fat men jokes you want, unless that man happens to be a racial, or ethnic minority. But it you make a fat women joke, you’re a sexist. Unless that women is a right-winger.

Political correctness warriors, need to go back to The Valley, or San Francisco, or New York City and sit down and smoke a joint. Just don’t buy it from an undercover cop, unless you’re in Washington State, Colorado, or Maryland. And chill, as well as develop a sense of humor. And learn that Caucasians and Christians, aren’t the only people who can be made fun of in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people with all the diversity and liberal free speech protections that we have. Funny accurate jokes, aren’t bigoted. But they’re funny and accurate regardless of the people who they’re targeted at.

National Review: John Fund: 'Setting the Record Straight on John Fund'

Source:The New Democrat

What John Fund doesn't seem to understand or perhaps is ignoring, which is possible because he is a bright guy is that the Southern Democrats who blocked the civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s are Republicans today and would be Republicans today. They would probably be part of the Tea Party coalition or the Christian Right or both factions since they overlap. You can't be a Democrat today outside of maybe Mississippi and be against civil rights. You would simply not get elected even if you won the Democratic primary.

Of course Congressional Republicans in the 1960s voted in favor of civil rights more than Congressional Democrats. And if it wasn't for Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen who was the Republican Leader those laws never overcome the Southern Democratic led filibuster let alone become law. Democrats aren't denying the party's history against civil rights. What I'm saying is that is history and the party today is completely different from what it was during the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.

Back in the 1960s the Republican Party was still a conservative limited government low-tax party that believed in decentralizing government. But they also believed in civil rights which means equal rights for all Americans. And that part of the party is gone for the most part with a few exceptions in the Northeast and perhaps the Midwest. They inherited the Southern Democrats who are today called the Christian Right and the Traditional Values Coalition. Who believe Americans especially Caucasians have a right to deny access to people of different races when it comes to their own property.

National Review: Interview with Ralph Reed at CPAC 2014

Source:The New Democrat

The face of the GOP is really the religious right, the "get big government into our personal lives wing of the Republican Party." I wonder what the Conservative Libertarian wing of the GOP led by Rand Paul, Senator Mike Lee, Senator Jeff Flake, Senator Ron Johnson, Representative Justin Amash, and others think about that.  They have been working on getting big government out of our lives completely and not making the case that some big government is good.   

National Review: Charles Krauthammer: 'For God's Sake, Why Do You Have to Talk About That?'

Source:National Review- Fox News contributor and columnist Charles Krauthammer, talking about Governor Mike Huckabee.

Source:The New Democrat

"Krauthammer's Take on Huckabee: "For God's Sake, Why Do You Have to Talk about That?" 

From National Review

The easiest way for Republicans to lose the 2014 mid-terms and that would be for them to fail to win back the U.S. Senate and give Republicans a united Republican Congress at the least, is for their Far-Right to be leading their pack and brand and for them to look like they speak for the Republican Party. At least the GOP base and putting Republicans on the spot and having to take clear positions on what these radicals on the Far-Right says. And risk either having to offend the Far-Right or mainstream Republicans and Independents.

The Far-Right wants to talk about abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality in general, women’s place in the world, Hollywood, as far as outlawing or restricting all of these things in the world. While the rest of the country which is most of the country wants to talk about the economy, foreign policy, terrorism and civil liberties.

National Review: Betsy Woodruff,: 'Prison Reform Proven to be Very Transideological'

Source:The New Democrat

You want to save money on government and keep taxes down whether it is Texas or any other state, then stop sending people to jail or prison for simply using or possessing illegal narcotics. And instead send narcotics addicts to drug rehab at their expense where they can get off of these narcotics. Without a criminal record making it very difficult for them to get a good job. And allow for them to be able to move on with their lives and live productively. If you don’t include corrections to go along with defense and tax loopholes as it relates to government’s budgets, but you are talking about fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction, you are just talking about those things. And perhaps using them for political gain, but aren’t actually serious in addressing those issues.

National Review: Piers Morgan Tonight- Rudy Giuliani vs Wes Clark: 'Don't Mess With Rudy'

Source:National Review- General Wes Clark, debating Mayor Rudy Giuliani on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight.

"Rudy Giuliani demolishes Wesley Clark on Piers Morgan last night."

From National Review

This is of course a very slanted video from National Review, with Mayor Rudy Giulani throwing out a lot of at best half-truths as it relates to President Obama and Libya, without hearing General Wes Clark's response to them. But the Romney Campaign has been going in this direction in the last few days, because they know they are behind in the Electoral College, President Obama is poised to win it with Governor Romney unable to take the lead in Ohio except for maybe in the Rasmussen Poll that leans Republican. And the Romney Campaign unable to pickoff a state that Democrats tend to win in at least lately, like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin for President.

So what the Romney Campaign knows what they have been doing in trying to convince Americans in these swing States that Mitt Romney would make a better President is not working, so what they are doing now is trying to scare Americans into voting for Mitt Romney, because whatever positive message they may have about Mitt Romney is simply not selling in the swing states that they need to win.