Will Obama be the most nationalist prez ever?, Let's look at history...

A quick look at history first. And, the first rule of philosophical debate = let's define our terms.

By a 'historical nationalist' leader I mean a type of leader who either identifies himself with his country(ok, her country too, all you feminists out there!) or his/her country with him/herself to such an extent as to be aggressive, even to the point of war, in the pursuit of his/her country's interests.

Now, on the surface this seems to suit Ole George far more than the liberal, or progressive if you like, Barack Hussein Obama. (before anyone starts the flamethrower, may I mention that I have lots of friends, including some very close ones, named Hussein?)

But there is this thing called history....

Let's start with Asia first, and work our way around to the USA...

The two greatest nationalists of China... Genghis Khan and Mao Zedong.

And yet they were not pure Han Chinese. Genghis was a Mongolian. Mao was a Hunanese = to most Chinese, that's just a step away from being a foreigner.

In modern times in Asia, look at the man who is the loudest and longest voice of Malay nationalism. Dr. Mahathir Mohammed. The man who insisted on Malaysia for the Malays.

But he is only half Malay...the other half - his father - came from INDIA.

Let's move to Russia, halfway between Europe and Asia. The most virulent nationalist of modern Russian times was Iosif Dzughashvili ... better know as Stalin.

But Stalin was not a Great Russian - he was a GEORGIAN.

On to France. The greatest of French military heroes and nationalists....

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.

But Napoleon was NOT French. He was a CORSICAN.


Ireland? The most nationalistic of all modern Irish politicians....Eamon de Valera. As you can see from his name, he was a full fifty per cent SPANISH. (Maybe that's why he hated the British so fiercely)


And the man who personifies British nationalism, Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, had a mother....called Jennie Jerome...one hundred per cent AMERICAN.

And finally the most terrible nationalist of all. A Man who plunged the world into war so that the world, especially the jews, should die that Germans would live and have living space - lebensraum in German. A man who breathed, lived and died for German nationalism.

Adolf Hitler the Fuhrer of Germany...

Hitler the German rabid nationalist...

Hitler who was really Schicklgruber the AUSTRIAN.


So now we have President-elect Obama. The half-Kenyan.

Of course, all this can be easily dismissed as just coincidence. And who is to say that the scoffers of crazy Foxy aren't right?

But there is, as I said in the beginning, a little thing called history.

Now let the impassioned debate begin!!!

Um, it matters more what they do... not where they come from. Just because they all have that same distinction of being foreigners rising to power and employing radical realpolitik and fascist ideals, doesn't mean Obama is destined to follow the same trend. All of the people you mentioned had larger personal issues that lead to the things they did, I doubt their birthplace was a leading factor...

Plus there are hundreds of dictators who come to power in their own homelands. Extreme nationalism has extreme appeal to all people. How better to win over the people than appealing to the common identity they all share? Just look at Ba'athism for example.

I think Obama's different then those examples because some of them (Stalin, for example) came to the country they came to prominence in after their formative years and then started a rise to power. Obama was born here and just happened to have a non-American ancestry.

Obama's even been criticized for his percieved lack of Nationalism (Not wearing a flag pin, not putting his hand over his heart during the Anthem, etc.)

Oh, there are many different types of nationalism - some even masquerading as anti-nationalism. You don't have to wave the flag and shout "USA forever" to be a nationalist!

For example, you can fiercely believe that the ideals of the USA must be the world's ideals, and where evil men are persecuting these ideals by force and corruption, the USA should step in...

And let's not forget the old saying "There is no conservative more conservative than the liberal who's just been mugged"

Jimmy Carter began a liberal foreign policy, too - until he was mugged by Brezhnev and the Ayatollah.

Hmmm....I shall be making a longer post on this later. In the meantime, ruminate on this.

Hey, how's it goin'.

You boys fight it out. I'll be sittin' on the sidelines watchin' with some popcorn. And beer.

Ah, Cyclone, now if Brillo and Hermit and Belnor were here....that would be something....


*sigh*

What? You want me to pick my liberal intellectual hammer and smash it across your conservative intellectual shield? Fine, I'll bite.

First. With most of the dictators/politicians you mentioned, they saw their adoptive homeland be corrupted and destroyed by outsiders - Hitler to Germany's weakening after WWI, Churchill seeing Britain bombed back to the damn Stone Age, Mao to the Western-backed Nationalists, etc. To believe Obama would venture down the same road would be admitting that America has been gutted by outside forces. Not saying we haven't taken hits, but we're still nowhere near those points.

Also, those changes in powers came either from a massive war, or between massive wars. We're not in a massive war. Two engagements a war not make.

You do have some points, though. Several of those changes in power or nationalist leaders followed a weak, decrepit, corrupt, and shallow government that was more interested in itself rather than its people. I'd argue Mr. Obama is certainly in that position.

And soft power often does crumple under hard power. Often, but it's not guaranteed.

Brilliant history lesson (I gets to learns stuff about nationalists now! To the library!), but I don't think you're applying it too terribly well. Those men came into power often times bringing the promises of war and greatness to their defeated nations. In fact, other than the trains running on time, that was Hitler's entire platform. (And by damn, he did!)

Obama's rhetoric doesn't seem to include much of that. His display of patriotism (the outward displays, like flags and crap) is modest. His speeches come in front of small flags, not flags so huge, the fabric could be used to clothe a family of ten for a year.

Just his rhetoric, granted. That could change. But I don't believe it will. 'Sides, the Joint Chiefs would have him strung up if he declared war on....uhm....who would he declare war on?

He COULD declare war on the massively corrupt governments of Zimbabwe and Kenya, for instance. He's already broadsided them verbally.

Of course your intelligent post calls for a much longer and thoughtful post than this, which I will do as soon as the Professor returns...

^v^

A Western power intervening in Africa, save for an impotent peacekeeping force?

I'll believe it when I see it.

The USA's history shows that it is a crusading nation, Stargazey. Whether the crusade was of the right OR the left.

True, but traditionally the left has had less of a a crusading mentality then the right and Americans irregardless of party tend to never pay much attention to the atrocities in Africa. Or if they do, they tend to not do much about them.

See: Rwanda
See: Darfur
See: Congo

True, but traditionally the left has had less of a a crusading mentality then the right and Americans irregardless of party tend to never pay much attention to the atrocities in Africa. Or if they do, they tend to not do much about them.

See: Rwanda
See: Darfur
See: Congo

I'm not one to speak much in there but I do have to agree with Gazey on this one. I've seen much corruption in Africa that the US simply looks the other way on. Don't get me wrong, I know we can't fix everything everywhere....but Africa seems to be a Dont look there kinda place.

Well according to physical anthropologists, we're all African at the source aren't we?

...I'm still waiting, Foxy.