We Need Militant Nationalism

[X_4AD_84]

The Nationalism I refer to is not based on:
- Ethnicity
- Political Party
- Race
- Sex
- Sexual orientation
- Nationality of origin

Or any other personal characteristic.

It is based solely on a deeply held belief in formative principles and a life long commitment to defend and uphold the US Constitution.

Imagine the formations which are possible based on this type of Nationalist concept. We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians and others who do not believe in:
- Rule of law (and specifically, the Anglo-American constructs inherited from English Common Law)
- Human Rights
- The Scientific Method
- The "Arrow of Progress" described in this Forum by Bob Butler.
- Equal Opportunity
- And other classically American freedoms and positive rights

There are among our great land promising Arch Generals who are not caught up in the dark, negative patterns we have witnessed latterly in the 2016 Election and in or around the Trump Administration, White Nationalism, Duginism, Alt-Right, etc.

The ability to marshal greatness is not limited to any particular political group or set of them. There is an element in the human spirit which can align with marshaling of the good tenets of human progress and natural rights.

Let us begin the process.

[Warren Dew]

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-26-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

The Arrow of Progress features human rights, equality and democracy.  I'd say the Constitution (including amendments) says a lot about these things.

Granted, the scientific method doesn't directly touch on government.  Scientific methodology is not the sort of thing that one enforces by law.  This doesn't mean you don't go astray if you put concerns of wealth and political doctrine ahead of the truth science yields.

A "Citizen' Army" could be the militia, all fit males of military age. Hey, I'd let the ladies play too.  The skeleton of it is still on the books.  Thing is, making it a real force, using it as anything but an abstract idea, would require a threat to the nation that only such a large massive available everywhere group could meet.  I don't see such a threat developing at the moment.  I don't anticipate people will be eager to give up weekends to train up for a threat that doesn't exist.

Me, I have no desire for traditional 20th Century Communists in the mold of Lenin, Stalin or Mao.  They destroyed human rights and equality while building a new elite ruling class and applying bad idealistic book theory on the economy.  That resulted in disaster.  The arrow of progress is intended to identify and reject such pretenders.  Now, Marx did ID well some of the great problems with the West regarding concentration of wealth in a capitalist class that dominates political decision making.   That part of Marx I can applaud.  Alas, violent revolution is just apt to put the most brutal authoritarian strong man in charge.  We are very fortunate that our founding fathers were very skeptical regarding tyranny, in creating all sorts of protections against it.

Of course, one possible threat that could restore the militia as a citizens army is a government that has embraced the capitalist elite ruling class interests to the extent that they depreciate the needs of the People.  The way things are trending, it could happen.  Still, one would have to make sure somehow that whomever leads the militia is more like the founding fathers than the 20th Century communists leaders.  The key is checking the influence of whomever is leading, in inducing the violent to care for everybody.  I'd rather do it with principles that bullets, but you don't always get what you want.

Anyway, we've eventually got to try direct vote networked democracy.  Representative democracy has gotten us far, but the representatives almost inevitably come to see themselves as part of the elite.  They rule for the elite, not for the People.

I just watched Charlie Chaplin's final 'Great Dictator' speech, over on the other thread.  Nice speech.  Nice principles.  The trouble is finding leadership that believes in the principles rather than just using them cynically to acquire power.

[Eric the Green]

(05-26-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

The bill of rights? Not "positive" enough fer ya?

Maybe Mr. X meant democratic socialists, like those in Italy that call themselves communists.

"Progress" might not be stated in the constitution perhaps, specifically, but it was written in the "age of enlightenment," in which the idea of progress was created. Thus far, changes made to the constitution in its history have mostly advanced progress.

[Bob Butler 54]

Just repeating myself here… We need something. I’m not sure it should be called ‘Militant Nationalism’. Perhaps? Maybe it should be?

Two of my core political documents are the American Declaration of Independence and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first has equality, rights and happiness as gifts from God, with governments established to distribute them, with a right to rebel if the governments don’t do their job. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights gets a bit more specific on what might be necessary for equality and happiness. These include food, shelter, clothing, medial care and retirement planning.

I don’t see this as simply pie in the sky abstract philosophy. If people haven’t got a reasonable path to these things, they are apt to rebel. That’s not just Enlightenment ideals and post World War II euphoria. Miserable people rebel. One path to preventing rebellion is respecting and supporting those among us who have least. If you don’t try to pull people up, they’ll try to drag you down.

There is talk about entering a post scarcity economy. We’re producing well enough stuff to go around. Technology helps us get what we need while less human labor is required to produce it. And yet we’re still using scarcity economy structures. The less equal among us haven’t got what they need, and there aren’t enough solid jobs for them to earn it. More effective manufacturing can produce stuff without calling for sufficient labor. While this is common knowledge in some places, the practical political work for the voters to understand and correct certain things hasn’t really started.

On the flip side, the conservative side, the language of inequality and freedom is being turned upside down. It is tyranny and oppression to work for equality. There is a right, supposedly, to create ever greater economic and social inequality. It is OK to fight for privilege and deny basic sustenance in order to maintain and increase an absurd wealth gap.

I don’t see or seek absolute equality, with everybody in the world being guaranteed equivalent income. There are going to be elites for the foreseeable future. I would not seek to knock the few out of their penthouses, but I would make sure that the many can get into the ground floor.

And a good part of the problem is tribal morality, if you can call it morality. Some care so much for their own wealth and privilege and so little for others who don’t share their racial, national, cultural, social, gender or other identity. It is no longer polite to openly advocate privilege and prejudice, but in cutting taxes to the wealthy while cutting services to the unfortunate, one can see we are not moving in the direction of the hypothetical post scarcity economy. And it isn’t just dollars and cents in play, it is attitudes, privilege and prejudice.

A tad more equality please.

[Eric the Green]

(06-14-2017, 06:09 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Amidst much dark news today, a shining light.

The SBC have voted to condemn the Alt Right scum.

A small but important step.

Acronyms strike again.

SBC....

Southern Baptist Convention??

[Odin]

Liberals are reclaiming patriotism from the right

[Warren Dew]

(05-27-2017, 05:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

The bill of rights? Not "positive" enough fer ya?

The Bill of Rights is all about negative rights - the right not to have the government quarter soldiers in one's house, not to be unreasonably searched, not to be forced to incriminate oneself, and generally not to have the government interfere in one's life in more than very limited ways.

Positive "rights" - the "right" to life, the "right" to food, the "right" to have a nicer house than one's next door neighbor - positive rights are nowhere to be seen in the Bill of Rights.  The government isn't generally allowed to take those things away from one, but it isn't generally allowed to take things away from other people to provide those things to one, either.  If you want those things, you have to provide them for yourself, and not depend on the government to provide them, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.

[Galen]

(07-02-2017, 09:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-27-2017, 05:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

The bill of rights? Not "positive" enough fer ya?

The Bill of Rights is all about negative rights - the right not to have the government quarter soldiers in one's house, not to be unreasonably searched, not to be forced to incriminate oneself, and generally not to have the government interfere in one's life in more than very limited ways.

Positive "rights" - the "right" to life, the "right" to food, the "right" to have a nicer house than one's next door neighbor - positive rights are nowhere to be seen in the Bill of Rights.  The government isn't generally allowed to take those things away from one, but it isn't generally allowed to take things away from other people to provide those things to one, either.  If you want those things, you have to provide them for yourself, and not depend on the government to provide them, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.

The libtards can't handle this concept.  It interferes with their concept of omnipotent government.  Their religion is statism and the state is their god.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 02:14 AM)Galen Wrote:

(07-02-2017, 09:37 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-27-2017, 05:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(05-26-2017, 10:14 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: We could have a Citizens' Army that includes everyone from Communists to Constitutional Conservatives. The only exclusions would be for Totalitarians

So your manifesto relies on internal contradiction?  Communists are totalitarians, after all.

Nor does the Constitution have anything in it about the scientific method, the arrow of progress, or positive rights.

The bill of rights? Not "positive" enough fer ya?

The Bill of Rights is all about negative rights - the right not to have the government quarter soldiers in one's house, not to be unreasonably searched, not to be forced to incriminate oneself, and generally not to have the government interfere in one's life in more than very limited ways.

Positive "rights" - the "right" to life, the "right" to food, the "right" to have a nicer house than one's next door neighbor - positive rights are nowhere to be seen in the Bill of Rights.  The government isn't generally allowed to take those things away from one, but it isn't generally allowed to take things away from other people to provide those things to one, either.  If you want those things, you have to provide them for yourself, and not depend on the government to provide them, as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned.

The libtards can't handle this concept.  It interferes with their concept of omnipotent government.  Their religion is statism and the state is their god.

You can find better examples of both positive and negative rights in the Four Freedoms.  Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are traditional negative rights, limiting the power of the government and guaranteeing that nobody can take certain things away.  They represent a larger set of traditional negative rights.  However, that leaves Freedom from Fear and Freedom from Want.  These aren't in the Constitution and are only hinted at in the Declaration of Independence, but can stand as good examples of positive progressive rights.

To my mind, Freedom from Want doesn't imply economic equality.  It says nothing about the super rich not becoming super richer.  However, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25, it suggests a minimum floor level that assures a reasonable right to such things as food, shelter, clothing, medical care and retirement.  I'd strive to achieve this more through an inclusive economy rather than welfare or dole.  I don't want to pay taxes for welfare or a dole either.  Minimize that.  However, being able to find a job with a living wage is a healthy alternative to welfare.

With technology eliminating many jobs, it is becoming harder to sustain an inclusive economy. This is likely to become worse as other economic sectors collapse. Basic numbers such as hours per week and age of retirement will have to be looked at hard. Both were being adjusted freely through the New Deal era, but the 40 hour work week and retirement at 65 numbers have become such a tradition that thinking of changing them is hard. If an inclusive economy is combined with the new technology, at some point some folk will have to open their minds.

Nor is Freedom from Want unrelated to Freedom from Fear.  You can see Freedom from Want as a key element of the Cold War, or at the bottom of much of the Middle East instability.  Extreme want leads to political instability.  Governments should definitely care about their own people.  I'm not as thrilled with meddling abroad, notably with force.  One often does more harm than good.  However, having most of any population have a decent path to a healthy and sustainable life style takes a lot of tension out of a region.

But for this progressive, the notion of the government as a god is repugnant.  The government is not a goal in itself.  It is a tool to help the People.  As such, keeping its powers limited and focused on the welfare of the People is necessary and prudent.  There is a place for both positive and negative rights in achieving such goals.

And I definitely do not want to see government as a tool to aid and abet the wealthy.  This is a natural trend.  Those with power and wealth will seek influence in government to achieve more power and wealth.  It is nigh on inevitable, but a trend that should be fought with firmness.

I also see Freedom from Want and Article 25 as in opposition to tribal morality.  As long as one and one's group is free from want and getting freer all the time, tribal morality will suggest the heck with everybody else.  I see such "I've got mine, up yours" thinking as destabilizing.

I can't say these thoughts are central to every progressive, but the notion of progressives seeking power for power's sake sounds to me like a conservative straw man.  If an extreme partisan wishes to discredit extreme partisans of the opposite spin, he will embrace and often believe libel falsehood that makes the other group look bad but is far from truth.

[Eric the Green]

Warren has a point, now that I understand his meaning of "positive rights." Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and other Democrats and Greens, speak of health care as a "right." It's not one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

But it is alluded to, at least, in the Declaration of Independence, as the right to "life." And the preamble to the Constitution says the republic was established to promote the general welfare.

Progressives like me and others want to establish health care as a right. FDR's Four Freedoms also included Freedom from Want. So, we want "progress." It may be that these rights and freedoms are not spelled out in the Constitution. But the fact is that we can not always provide for the things we need by ourselves. The libertarian-economics meme of self-reliance insists anyway that there is no alternative.

We disagree, that's all. We think that the government of the people together has the right to require that it "take from others" (those who are rich enough to pay taxes) to give to those who need it and can't get it themselves, at least not right now. This way, a few people don't have to provide all the charity and the social infrastructure that benefits us all, while others don't provide any. And concentration of wealth and consequent power is lessened by taxes on the wealthy. And having social insurance means that help is there if I should ever need it. We are "stronger together."

So, the contest continues.

[Warren Dew]

(07-03-2017, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Warren has a point, now that I understand his meaning of "positive rights." Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and other Democrats and Greens, speak of health care as a "right." It's not one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

But it is alluded to, at least, in the Declaration of Independence, as the right to "life." And the preamble to the Constitution says the republic was established to promote the general welfare.

Progressives like me and others want to establish health care as a right. FDR's Four Freedoms also included Freedom from Want. So, we want "progress." It may be that these rights and freedoms are not spelled out in the Constitution. But the fact is that we can not always provide for the things we need by ourselves. The libertarian-economics meme of self-reliance insists anyway that there is no alternative.

We disagree, that's all. We think that the government of the people together has the right to require that it "take from others" (those who are rich enough to pay taxes) to give to those who need it and can't get it themselves, at least not right now. This way, a few people don't have to provide all the charity and the social infrastructure that benefits us all, while others don't provide any. And concentration of wealth and consequent power is lessened by taxes on the wealthy. And having social insurance means that help is there if I should ever need it. We are "stronger together."

So, the contest continues.

That's what I like about you, Eric.  At least you can see the political and social landscape clearly.  You understand that the rights in the Bill of Rights are there to protect the people from the government, and "positive rights" require the opposite:  that the government "take from others", as you say, to accomplish its aims.  You even seem to be honest about the definition of "rich" that you want to take from:  those who earn enough money to pay taxes, which in reality is most of the "99%" as well as the "1%".

Even Bob understands the difference between the "negative rights" or liberties in the Bill of Rights and the "positive rights" of Progressivism, even if he doesn't necessarily see their inherent opposition.  X_4AD_84 is clueless, however.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 06:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Even Bob understands the difference between the "negative rights" or liberties in the Bill of Rights and the "positive rights" of Progressivism, even if he doesn't necessarily see their inherent opposition.  X_4AD_84 is clueless, however.

There is lots of inherent opposition about these days. In a time of extreme partisanship, each side will cling to principles that they elevate to nigh on absolute. In general, I will abhor the extreme partisan and try to find a balance in the middle.

For me, Freedom from Want in general and the medical aspects of it in particular are worthy goals. To the extent large groups are cut out of sustainable life paths and decent health care, you'll get unrest. I understand that the rich always want to get richer, that many are willing to place strangers in poverty and deadly peril for a chance at a larger yacht. I see nothing in either the positive or negative rights which guarantees the right to a larger yacht.

Equality, yes. Life, yes. Absurd wealth, no.

To me, this seems a time of unequal wealth. Well, to be fair, most times are times of unequal wealth. Those who have, gets. Those with wealth and power in one way or another will enhance their wealth and power to increase their wealth and power. In most any human culture, that is an unfortunate trend which to my mind ought to be fought. Most crises feature a conflict in which some wealthy privileged group wishes to sustain privileges which many believe are past their time. Kings rule? Slaves serve? The capitalist class dictates over all? No thank you. Equality was an important central virtue of the Enlightenment and should be remembered.

Both positive and negative rights have worthy goals and a place in government. Right now, I'm not worried about soldiers quartering in my home, being able to speak my say, nor being able to worship as I please. These and other negative rights seem secure for me and for most. I am worried about access to sustainable income for most to all, for access to health care for all, but not worried about the size of people's yachts.

Thus, right now, it seems that Freedom from Want needs the priority in seeking a healthy balance.

[radind]

Happy Fourth of July. May God bless the USA.

[Eric the Green]

May we recover the greatness of our country, which as Medal-of-Freedom-winning historian David McCullough reminded us tonight, depends upon us carrying on the unfinished Revolution, and continuing to improve it.

May we once again someday have honest leaders in charge of this country.

[radind]

The county remains hopelessly divided. I can only hope that we can  manage to discourage violence.

[Bob Butler 54]

I’ve a few more thoughts on positive rights, notably Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear.

We’ve been saying that these can’t be found in the Constitution.  They definitely can’t be found in the Bill of Rights.  However, large parts of the Constitution are dedicated to the military and to managing the economy.  These powers can and should be used to achieve the Four Freedom’s positive rights.  They founding fathers just didn’t think it necessary to specify how these military and economic powers should be used.  That might fall into the category of, “Well, duh…”.

Do we need constitutional amendments to ensure the government strives towards Freedom from Want and Freedom from fear?  I’d like to think not.  However, the military and economic powers of government are too often used to satisfy the greed of the wealthy, or to gain control of raw materials or markets abroad.  I’m beginning to wonder if we need make it clearer that the power of government is to be used for the People, not for the super wealthy.

[Marypoza]

(07-05-2017, 07:29 AM)radind Wrote: The county remains hopelessly divided. I can only hope that we can  manage to discourage violence.

-- agreed. That's my problem with this "citizen's army". That & it smacks of China

[Eric the Green]

(07-06-2017, 07:01 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 07:29 AM)radind Wrote: The county remains hopelessly divided. I can only hope that we can  manage to discourage violence.

-- agreed. That's my problem with this "citizen's army". That & it smacks of China

Welcome back Marypoza.

Trump's citizen army was specifically encouraged to be violent. Now he has the whole government and the Supreme Court to do his oppressive bidding against the protesters and the media he hates. There's "Chee-II-nah" for ya.

[radind]

(07-06-2017, 12:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 07:01 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 07:29 AM)radind Wrote: The county remains hopelessly divided. I can only hope that we can  manage to discourage violence.

-- agreed. That's my problem with this "citizen's army". That & it smacks of China

Welcome back Marypoza.

Trump's citizen army was specifically encouraged to be violent. Now he has the whole government and the Supreme Court to do his oppressive bidding against the protesters and the media he hates. There's "Chee-II-nah" for ya.

However, much of the violence is coming from the Progressive side.