Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
turningrite

Macron and Trudeau gang up on Trump

Recommended Posts

It was creepy to listen to Macron and Trudeau gang up on Trump, even if only tangentially, during the weekend's WWI remembrance events in Paris. To me, both of them seem to be happy shills for corporate globalism while Trump at least acknowledges that it is the legitimate and primary role of elected governments and leaders to promote and protect the interests of their own people.

Trump admits that he is a "nationalist," albeit the meaning of that term has been altered by supposedly high-minded progressives to falsely imply an association with neo-Nazi sympathizers and the alt-right. But when soldiers were sent to fight in the very war(s) world leaders were commemorating in Paris were they not inspired by love of country? Wasn't the notion of 'king and country' a rationale for Canada's war efforts and didn't the French fight for 'la gloire de la France' - a notion American and British Commonwealth forces ultimately helped to sustain? In fact, how many times have we heard that Canada's identity was forged by its war efforts and sacrifices? Now, though, feckless politicians like Trudeau and, presumably, Macron appear to believe that there are enterprises other than national interest more crucial to global progress. The basic problem with their position, I believe, is that it negates the nature of democracy itself, which at this point in history is definitionally nation-state based. There is no such thing as global democracy and there is unlikely to be any such thing in the foreseeable future. If we give up on the notion of nation-state based democracy, are we not effectively giving up on democracy itself.

And I don't understand the concerns Macron and Trudeau raise about populism. If populism is defined as the assertion of popular will, why is it necessarily a negative thing? Isn't it a good thing that every so often governments do as they believe their country's citizens want them to do? Trudeau is an unrepentant elitist, and probably not a very bright one at that. But I thought Macron had more common sense. Oh, he says patriotism is fine, but nationalism apparently is not. Huh? The online definition of patriotism is "vigorous support for one's own country" while the online definition of nationalism is "patriotic feelings, principles or efforts." It looks to me like Macron is simply trying to be clever in opportunistically attacking Trump. Principles have little or nothing to do with it. Trudeau, though, is a mouthpiece for his usual hobbyhorses although I suspect he understands quite little about the agenda he's really promoting.

No wonder Trump was so disconnected from the weekend's events in Paris, which seemed to intended as a public relations exercise by politicians who are promoting a pernicious and deceptive agenda.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right in that the media is twisting the term "nationalism" to mean something dark and ominous. They do so at their own eventual peril. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Here's some of the word-twisting that the media tries to sucker us with.....Global Warming has morphed into the almost-anything Climate Change, CO2 emissions are now pollution, Carbon Tax is now either a fee or a levy - and now if it's not a Kumbaya Globalism - it's the dark forces of nationalism. The Trump phenomenon is not complicated - just start listening to The People. That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats.

Edited by Centerpiece
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau is a harmless putz with his own family's domestic problems/history with Quebec "nationalism"...preaching to Trump is laughable.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last real Frenchman died in a trench around Verdun like a rat in a cage.

What is left is the dregs. 

Quebec, too, similar issues...historically filled with the French elites (voyageurs & homesteaders aside) that fled the head choppy days of The Revolution for the safer climes of New France (note their flag). Not your best examples of sticking to yer guns.

It's laughable for the French to preach anything seeing the USA and pals had to rescue them twice from the Bosche in recent history.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Good to note that the definition you link states that "patriotism is similar [to nationalism] insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority." The qualifying approach leaves open the possibility that patriotism too can involve an attitude of superiority, thus rendering debatable any substantial difference between the two words. This contrasts with Macron's overblown statement on the weekend that "nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism." How so, Mr. Macron? It's not as though the patriotic French never convey an attitude or impression of superiority, right? Who'd even imagine it?

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Patriotism is similar insofar as it emphasizes strong feelings for one’s country, but it does not necessarily imply an attitude of superiority.

Indicating that Nationalism does promote superiority. 

Once you start deeming yourself superior to others simply because of the place you were born or your racial makeup you're going down the path to a bad place. 

Clearly Trump's supporters like that he deems Americans a notch above the rest of the world. But when you trash the alliances that have allowed peace to reign for approaching 80 years then you're going to raise the ire of many.

I believe Trump wants this, he's successful when he's got an enemy, whether it be democrats, the French or people dying in a fire in California. 

Edited by Boges
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea olde socialist/commie equality of outcome...one world government...no need for elections. Our intellectual betters...socialists, not surprisingly...pulling the levers on our collective behalf's...from their gated communities patrolled by armed guards.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Yea olde socialist/commie equality of outcome...one world government...no need for elections. Our intellectual betters...socialists, not surprisingly...pulling the levers on our collective behalf's...from their gated communities patrolled by armed guards.

Like Mara-Lago? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boges said:

Like Mara-Lago? 

 

Wherever folk's like yourself dream of pulling levers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

 

Indicating that Nationalism does promote superiority. 

Once you start deeming yourself superior to others simply because of the place you were born or your racial makeup you're going down the path to a bad place. 

 

And you don't believe that patriotism leads to this very same place? I you don't, I think you're being naive. I think the main difference between patriotism and nationalism is that patriotism entails an overt emotional attachment to collective and place while nationalism, which can and generally does include patriotism, encapsulates the promotion of interests on grounds of collective and place. In this construct, patriotism serves to generate enthusiasm for the promotion of a people's or nation's self-interest, which definitionally amounts to nationalism. I'm not sure why self-styled progressives are so scared of the notion of self-interest as it's the basis of rational transactional behavior across a broad range of fields, not the least of which is neoclassical economics. In fact, identity politics is grounded in the assertion of collective self-interest, although progressives generally restrict application of the concept to promote the "disadvantaged" obtaining correctional and reparational concessions from what are broadly (and often inaccurately) cast as "privileged" communities and interests. So, everybody is essentially acting in one form or another on the basis of some form of collective self-interest. Why is it good for some and not for others? And how can emotional logic (patriotism) exclude transactional logic (nationalism) when from a collective perspective both are inextricably intertwined?

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Macron speech was cringe worthy.  Team Canada was obviously the all-star team in WW1, but the Americans came in and did a good job near the end.  It was the french (Foch) who put such harsh conditions through the treaty of Versailles and occupied Germany that many believe led to WW2 where Canada and the US had to rescue France for a second time in 25 years.  And without the US, there would be no NATO to speak of.  

Macron stood there in front of Putin, Merkell and Trump and decided to take shots at Donald Trump....and by extension the Americans...WoW!  I'm not gonna wave the US flag for them, but this was the absolute wrong venue for the French to school anyone about foreign policy.  

Edited by Hal 9000
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

The whole Macron speech was cringe worthy.  Team Canada was obviously the all-star team in WW1, but the Americans came in and did a good job near the end.  It was the french (Foch) who put such harsh conditions through the treaty of Versailles and occupied Germany that many believe led to WW2 where Canada and the US had to rescue France for a second time in 25 years.  And without the US, there would be no NATO to speak of.  

Macron stood there in front of Putin, Merkell and Trump and decided to take shots at Donald Trump....and by extension the Americans...WoW!  I'm not gonna wave the US flag for them, but this was the absolute wrong venue for the French to school anyone about foreign policy.  

 

Without the USA entering when they did, Ludendorff's Offensive would have likely succeeded. All the original allies...including us...were simply running out of both troops and ammo. Not to mention Russia was now sitting-out the war...freeing-up numerous German and Austro-Hungarian armies from the Eastern Front. 

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Boges said:

Now who's creating definitions out of thin air?

 

'Argumentum ad hominem'... i.e. you've now lost the argument. In any case, I'm simply raising well-understood concepts. In Western capitalist societies, the understanding of the logic and benefits of economic (i.e. transactional) self-interest goes back to Adam Smith. As for the collective part, well, you only need to look to Marx, who was a great diagnostician at the very least, for an understanding of class-identified collective interests (an idea that was corrupted in practice under Communism but in practice became the basis of the post-WWII mixed-market economy model in the West) as well as evolutionary theorists who've noted the strong tendency of human beings to form and associate with groups based on shared characteristics and interests. These ideas aren't difficult to find if you're really looking for them. They only become dangerous when group psychology veers into chauvinism, a characteristic that requires the emotional fuel of patriotism and/or identitarianism to succeed. Transactional (i.e. economic) nationalism isn't in its own right dangerous, but the culturally-grounded and emotional variation known as "white nationalism" may well be. But so too are other emotionally identity-driven causes.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, turningrite said:

'Argumentum ad hominem'... i.e. you've now lost the argument. In any case, I'm simply raising well-understood concepts. In Western capitalist societies, the understanding of the logic and benefits of economic (i.e. transactional) self-interest goes back to Adam Smith. As for the collective part, well, you only need to look to Marx (who was a great diagnostician at the very least) for an understanding of class-based interests as well as evolutionary theorists who've noted the tendency of tendency of human beings to form and associate with groups based on shared characteristics and interests. These ideas aren't difficult to find if you're really looking for them.

You made the initial argument that the Left was "changing" the definition of Nationalism and I simply pointed out that the long held definition of Nationalism is to hold ones nation supreme above all others, and IMHO that's not a good thing. Then you go on and change the definition of Patriotism as something that's not appealing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Left is certainly changing the meaning of nationalism.

Love of country now equals Hitler.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boges said:

You made the initial argument that the Left was "changing" the definition of Nationalism and I simply pointed out that the long held definition of Nationalism is to hold ones nation supreme above all others, and IMHO that's not a good thing. Then you go on and change the definition of Patriotism as something that's not appealing. 

Historically speaking, nationalism put an end to colonialism, so can it be all bad? The 19th century, the so-called Age of Nationalism, ushered in the modern system that for better or worse has characterized the world order ever since. The UN Charter, for instance, is grounded in the principle of the right to the "self-determination of peoples," thus recognizing the legitimacy of the assertion of national interests. The failure of the left is to limit, misunderstand and misrepresent the concept of nationalism in order to characterize it as menacing or threatening. Meanwhile, and contradictorily, progressives promote minority-based identitarianism while condemning majoritarian politics. Realistically, the first concept obviates the legitimacy of the latter. Interestingly, many of those who champion minority-based identitarianism in Canada promote the maintenance of cultural practices and outlooks within minority communities that are often inherently majoritarian in their places of origin. Multicultural or minoritarian chauvinism, often blended with victimhood ideology, is something we criticize too little while we've become obsessed about whether nationalism, which progressives wrongly and conveniently associate almost exclusively with majoritarian chauvinism, is inherently wrong because it can lead to negative outcomes. So can a lot of things, like free speech, which is also crucial to the functioning of democracy. But we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. The alternatives to transactional or interest-based nationalism can and very well might be far worse, a reality that's seldom considered.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

The whole Macron speech was cringe worthy.  Team Canada was obviously the all-star team in WW1, but the Americans came in and did a good job near the end.  It was the french (Foch) who put such harsh conditions through the treaty of Versailles and occupied Germany that many believe led to WW2 where Canada and the US had to rescue France for a second time in 25 years.  And without the US, there would be no NATO to speak of.  

Macron stood there in front of Putin, Merkell and Trump and decided to take shots at Donald Trump....and by extension the Americans...WoW!  I'm not gonna wave the US flag for them, but this was the absolute wrong venue for the French to school anyone about foreign policy.  

France made a big mistake at Versailles insisting on penalizing Germany to the degree it did, but it was Germany which invaded France and Belgium, not the other way around, over 1.3 million Frenchmen died in WW1 and all of the western front was fought on French and Belgian soil, so is it really that surprising. Up to 85,000 French died during the Battle of France in 1940 so they didn't exactly role over then. I think the French take a lot undeserved flack from people who don't really know history.

The venue they spoke in was a Peace Forum with the stated purpose of finding ways to avoid further conflicts. I think Macron pointing out the dangers of nationalism was quite justified. We and the US have never had major wars between foreign powers fought on our own soil, the Europeans have had centuries of it. I'm not surprised if they have a different point of view from Commander Bone Spur.

 

Quote

French casualties in WWI. World War I cost France 1,357,800 dead, 4,266,000 wounded (of whom 1.5 million were permanently maimed) and 537,000 made prisoner or missing — exactly 73% of the 8,410,000 men mobilized, according to William Shirer in The Collapse of the Third Republic.

Were it not for the French in 1776, there would be no United States of America.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

Historically speaking, nationalism put an end to colonialism, so can it be all bad? The 19th century, the so-called Age of Nationalism, ushered in the modern system that for better or worse has characterized the world order ever since.

The19th century was a century of colonialism.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilber said:

The venue they spoke in was a Peace Forum with the stated purpose of finding ways to avoid further conflicts. I think Macron pointing out the dangers of nationalism was quite justified. We and the US have never had major wars between foreign powers fought on our own soil, the Europeans have had centuries of it. I'm not surprised if they have a different point of view from Commander Bone Spur.

 

Everyone was there to honour the WW1 veterans - of all sides.  I don't care you say, they were standing on ground that the Americans fought and died on to help liberate France, no one including Trump and the Americans deserved to embarrassed by Macron on that day.  Sure, slag Trump at the G20 or wherever, he can take it, but this was the absolute wrong venue - Macron should apologize - It was a dick move.

This is how you acknowledge a country that liberated you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Macron should apologize - It was a dick move.

It is now virtually impossible to accept leftist criticism of Trump from a moral position, because they demonstrate their morality depends entirely on a person's politics.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Everyone was there to honour the WW1 veterans - of all sides.  I don't care you say, they were standing on ground that the Americans fought and died on to help liberate France, no one including Trump and the Americans deserved to embarrassed by Macron on that day.  Sure, slag Trump at the G20 or wherever, he can take it, but this was the absolute wrong venue - Macron should apologize - It was a dick move.

This is how you acknowledge a country that liberated you.

 

 

This was a Peace Conference for the purpose as stated. It was the day after Remembrance Day. What better time to have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd think a peace conference would be a bad time to start a petty little pissing match - but no, not for the leftists.  Douche bags never miss an opportunity to take a poke at Trump.  If Trump said anything close to what Macron said, he woulda been slagged for causing division at a peace conference.  You people are so full of shit when it comes to recognizing divisive politics and I think you know it.

BTW - Putin was there, why is Macron such a pussy that he wont call out Putin?  The french make me sick!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

You'd think a peace conference would be a bad time to start a petty little pissing match - but no, not for the leftists.  Douche bags never miss an opportunity to take a poke at Trump.  If Trump said anything close to what Macron said, he woulda been slagged for causing division at a peace conference.  You people are so full of shit when it comes to recognizing divisive politics and I think you know it.

BTW - Putin was there, why is Macron such a pussy that he wont call out Putin?  The french make me sick!

The event ran from the 11th to the 14th and was held in Paris, The two most destructive wars in history were a result of early 20th Century nationalism. France and Russia both suffered bigly, far more than the US. Trump is a douche.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...