Comments on: Clarifications http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/14/clarifications/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=clarifications n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: A particularist patriotism « Upturned Earth http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/14/clarifications/comment-page-1/#comment-10061 A particularist patriotism « Upturned Earth Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:12:29 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/14/clarifications/#comment-10061 [...] A particularist patriotism April 17, 2008, 9:12 am Filed under: conservatism, patriotism, war | Tags: Bill Kauffman, ChrisJones, Clark Stooksbury, Daniel Larison, Daniel McCarthy, democracy, First Amendment, George W. Bush, inerventionism, Iraq war, Kelley Vlahos, nationalism, neoconservatism, rootlessness, Woodrow Wilson, World War I Apropos of the recent debate between the Daniels about patriotism and nationalism, this column by Bill Kauffman (via Clark Stooksbury) is a must-read: … just as one cannot love the “human race” before one loves particular human beings, neither can one love “the world” unless he first achieves a deep understanding of his own little piece of that world. America is not, as the neoconservatives like to say, an idea: it is a place, or rather the sum of a thousand and one little, individuated places, each with its own history and accent and stories. A politician who understands this will act in ways that protect and preserve these real places. A rootless politico will babble on about “the homeland”–a creepily totalitarian phrase that, pre-Bush, was not applied to our country. [...] [...] A particularist patriotism April 17, 2008, 9:12 am Filed under: conservatism, patriotism, war | Tags: Bill Kauffman, ChrisJones, Clark Stooksbury, Daniel Larison, Daniel McCarthy, democracy, First Amendment, George W. Bush, inerventionism, Iraq war, Kelley Vlahos, nationalism, neoconservatism, rootlessness, Woodrow Wilson, World War I Apropos of the recent debate between the Daniels about patriotism and nationalism, this column by Bill Kauffman (via Clark Stooksbury) is a must-read: … just as one cannot love the “human race” before one loves particular human beings, neither can one love “the world” unless he first achieves a deep understanding of his own little piece of that world. America is not, as the neoconservatives like to say, an idea: it is a place, or rather the sum of a thousand and one little, individuated places, each with its own history and accent and stories. A politician who understands this will act in ways that protect and preserve these real places. A rootless politico will babble on about “the homeland”–a creepily totalitarian phrase that, pre-Bush, was not applied to our country. [...]

]]> By: John http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/04/14/clarifications/comment-page-1/#comment-10012 John Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:58:40 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/04/14/clarifications/#comment-10012 I tried a few times to write something about this exchange, but came up repeatedly short. I wanted, though, to pass <a>this</a> along, from that strange David Frum post complaining that the Douthat and Salam book wasn't about what it wasn't about: <blockquote>Nor do they have enough to say – and here is the second thing to which I wish they had given a more detailed answer – about how the GOP should express its <b>nationalism</b> in a post-Iraq political environment. White working-class voters are not as conservative as they are often represented on issues like abortion. (Even among whites without a college degree, prochoicers still outnumber prolifers.) The conservatism of the white working class is first and foremost a <b>nationalistic</b> conservatism – and given the well-known opposition to the Iraq war of one of the two coauthors, it would have been especially interesting to hear from him on that subject. Yet <i>Grand New Party</i> neglects foreign and security policy entirely. <b>[my emphasis]</b></blockquote> Perhaps this way of speaking of nationalism is just its own kind of tendentiousness, but it seems to me to go some way to answering Dan's request for a "sense, other than the purely tendentious, [in which] George W. Bush and his neocon cronies [are] 'nationalists'". I tried a few times to write something about this exchange, but came up repeatedly short. I wanted, though, to pass this along, from that strange David Frum post complaining that the Douthat and Salam book wasn’t about what it wasn’t about:

Nor do they have enough to say – and here is the second thing to which I wish they had given a more detailed answer – about how the GOP should express its nationalism in a post-Iraq political environment. White working-class voters are not as conservative as they are often represented on issues like abortion. (Even among whites without a college degree, prochoicers still outnumber prolifers.) The conservatism of the white working class is first and foremost a nationalistic conservatism – and given the well-known opposition to the Iraq war of one of the two coauthors, it would have been especially interesting to hear from him on that subject. Yet Grand New Party neglects foreign and security policy entirely. [my emphasis]

Perhaps this way of speaking of nationalism is just its own kind of tendentiousness, but it seems to me to go some way to answering Dan’s request for a “sense, other than the purely tendentious, [in which] George W. Bush and his neocon cronies [are] ‘nationalists’”.

]]>