Imprimus: American Citizenship is Eroding

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 months ago to Culture
17 comments | Share | Flag

This does say much of that people already know, perhaps offering a bit more detail to the underlying reason.
SOURCE URL: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/american-citizenship-eroding/

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ mshupe 9 months ago
    Hanson is one of the most rational and learned commentators out there, but I don't think he embraces objectivist principles. He mentions the take over of higher education and student debt, but doesn't talk about the root cause. The take over was easy because media and government were already owned by progressives who are rebranded communists. The student debt is a symptom of the corruption funded by the progressive government monopoly over fiat currency.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ TheRogue1000 9 months ago
      Why in heaven's name do we continue to "honor" that movement as Progressive. It's a typical flip of truth. I refer to them/it as Regressive Party and it's supporters, Regressives. It's true in that they wish to drag us back to the beginning of the 20th century when the communists took over Russia and began their 70 to 90 year attempt to take over the world. Though the name has changed, the efforts have not. REGRESSIVE PARTY, DAMN IT!!! Rand would certainly agree today!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ mshupe 9 months ago
        Agreed, and if you repeat a lie often . . . . The fact is that its a label they assigned themselves that stuck, and its no different than any of the bucolic sounding legislation Congress dreams up. The Affordable Care Act? Jesus! But when you use that moniker people know it means Obozocare, but Obozocare is not widely accepted.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 9 months ago
    "Today many condemn the idea of nationalism by connecting it to race hatred (e.g., white nationalism). But historically, the modern nation-state has proven uniquely suitable to preserving individual rights. The American nation in particular was successful in uniting individuals of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and creeds into one people based on shared principles, a unique physical space, and a common national story. Our nation is the best example in human history of positive nationalism.
    The key to this benign nationalism is American citizenship, based on an understanding of American exceptionalism and formed by the American melting pot. But today, our citizenship is eroding and, along with it, American nationalism in the positive sense is disappearing."

    It is one of the major tasks of global interests to destroy nationalism b/c it presents a challenge to their abusive and destructive drive to weaken the bond between people enabling them to stand together for a common goal and defy being enslaved by outside forces.

    It is a major issue in the EU which is hell-bent to destroy nationalism of the member countries using all kinds of tools in the process. Countries with strong national identity resist the replacement of natives with African migrants and the elimination of Christians to benefit Muslims.

    Nationalism is NOT a white supremacist privilege. It exists across the globe and nations in Africa are equally defending it just as nations in South America. It is only the global left which is making it a white supremacist issue b/c it is convenient to paint it in those colors.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 months ago
      Nationalism is a red herring. It's a nonsense term because in order to understand what it means you have to look at the principles of the nation to which one is referring. American nationalism is the culture of independence, hard work, law, respect, equality, and opportunity - terms which Democrats and the self-appointed elite despise. They prefer the nationalism born of the communist revolutions where loyalty isn't to immutable ideas but to individuals as leaders. Is nationalism a flag with a person's face on it like Che Guevara or Mao Tse Dong or a symbol of greatness like Old Glory?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by ewv 9 months ago
        Nationalism is collectivist, not a "red herring". The whole point of rejecting the rise of contemporary nationalism in this country is that it puts the nation above the rights of individuals, as for example in economic protectionism. Trump is no individualist and neither are his more anti-intellectual supporters. Being for what America in particular used to stand for as based on the rights of the individual is not "nationalism".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 9 months ago
          'Nationalism is collectivist'. Correct. 'It puts the 'nation' above .. individuals'.

          But which individuals? Nationalism can refute the 'rights' of illegal entrants to be equal to those of legal residents.
          Should a fetus have rights, animals? The answer is yes, but this yes does not mean equal. Sentient creatures have rights to be respected, in law, but such rights are to be appropriate. The fashion now is for collectivism to put rights of illegals above that of legals, (eg. welfare and licenses without qualification or test).
          If there are rights, you need some kind of government to protect/enforce those rights (of property, enforce contracts..) otherwise you may claim there are rights but they will exist only in your head.
          For that you need jurisdiction, thus borders, and enforcement of those borders.
          Further, some kind of collective is essential for survival, collectives destroy anarchists.

          (Whether or not my argument is presented coherently, it does not demolish but modifies ewv's thoughts which do not deserve automatic down votes)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 9 months ago
    Thanks for the informative article. Not all the members of the Gulch visit or subscribe to such news sites. This info is much appreciated. The article is correct in that Tribalism is growing in the US. It is occurring at the local level besides nationally. What is very unsettling is the incessant attacks our history and the caucasian race. This growing racial divisiveness is being pushed by leftist white politicians, who are also pursuing reparations for other ethnic & racial groups. Colleges and University professors are rewriting American history by publishing their version of that history.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bill54 9 months ago
    There is more than one application of the term nationalism of course. Todays American nationalism is similar to but yet quite different than the European term. Most commonly used here as America first in application to commerce rather than political thought. Wow! I'm really in the weeds now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by exceller 9 months ago
      "Wow! I'm really in the weeds now."

      I know what you mean.

      Hussein tried his best when he was railing against "American exceptionalism" which is a large part of American nationalism. He was/is part of the global swamp that has proven to be very lucrative for him. After all, how many community organizers wind up multimillionaires with an estate in Martha's Vineyard?

      Having said that, he came up with this brilliant phrase in one of his charades: " I am sure Greeks are just as proud of their country as Americans are." Using it as a justification that if other countries are proud, they should claim exceptional status as well.

      Nothing wrong with that, and the Greeks have every right to feel exceptional. I don't think we'll take issue with it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 9 months ago
    I found this article interesting because it represents a view that aligns exactly with mine in some ways and is opposite from mine in others. It meanders a lot, so maybe that’s bound to happen. I liked it, though, so thanks for posting it.

    The nation-state – I think of the nation-state as a powerful framework forgetting people to work together in groups larger than a village. Hanson says it’s uniquely suitable to preserving individual rights. I think it’s suitable for violating individual rights. USA was an exception when it was founded. I don’t think they should have called it a “nation” because the word nation comes from native, while the USA was founded on ideas of liberty. So when I hear “the nation of Japan” and “the nation established by the American Revolution,” I think of two distinct definitions of the word nation.

    Blurring the lines between residency and citizenship – I think this is a natural outgrowth of increased transportation and communication technology. Technology caused the nation-state to replace the city-state. Now the world-state is replacing the nation state simply because people easily move information, goods, and people over long distances, and we need legal frameworks to manage disputes and respect people’s rights.

    20 million Illegal immigrants – I agree with what Hanson says in the article completely. I think he may understate it. If we have important rules on the books and just ignore them (20 million people!), the law falls apart. People charged with administering them can selectively enforce them, destroying the whole purpose of the law.

    “To avoid a fragmentation of society based on racial and ethnic chauvinism takes an extra effort to keep the melting pot working. We’re no longer making that effort. Indeed, we’re doing the opposite, encouraging diversity rather than unity.”
    We don’t need to be melting pot on all issues, just the important issues of individual liberty. I regularly work with people from all over the world, with different languages and religions. There is no need to anglicize their names, as Hanson suggests, to be citizens here because we’re based on an idea. There’s a Japanese race, Japanese language, and Japanese nation, but there’s not US race, language, or nation in the nativist sense of the word.

    “Campuses have “safe spaces” that are reserved for people of particular races.”
    I think this is an unrelated issue that just happens to intersect with this issue. The same people who feel the need for racial safe spaces want safe spaces for people who disagree on religion and politics.

    “Third, the middle class, which had been encouraged and celebrated since the time of the American Founding, is now under sustained attack.”
    I think this is misleading and unrelated to immigration. Mutual trades makes everyone richer. “Middle-class under attack” refers to increased wealth disparity, which is the amount of wealth the rich have minus the amount the poor have. Wealth disparity has gone up since WWII, but all segments of society have gotten richer; it’s just the rich have gotten richer faster. So it’s not an undesirable development as Hanson portrays, but even if we do desire even wealth distribution, I think WWII was an anomaly. It was not the natural state the exists unless “the middle class is under attack.”

    “nullification of federal law through the creation of sanctuary cities”
    I think this is a huge problem. Not using force to keep willing sellers and buyers apart is a positive thing, but it can’t happen by ignoring the law. People in favor of openness and liberty in immigration should make our case to liberalize immigration law.

    “abolishing the Electoral College”
    This article really meanders. The Electoral College and having 2 senators per state worked to keep the country united at a time when states had different issues. Everything’s been homogenized, partly by federal overreach and partly by better transportation technology. So the original reason for these policies doesn’t exist. I’m not sure how they should be fixed. More and more I think we need a fix, something that places hard limits on federal taxes and intrusiveness. Maybe the states could be broken up into smaller regions that do have similar interests. It’s not an easy problem.

    “affluence combined with leisure paradoxically creates a laxity that leads to the kind of societal and institutional disintegration”
    Sometimes I think the US is like Rome. We’re heading from being the decadent Roman empire to being a reasonably modern country of Italy, which a nice place but not the center of a powerful empire. I don’t have the solution to that, but I think we should be focusing on being a republic and avoiding any appearance or mannerisms of empire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo