DiscussMormonism.com

Last week Trump described himself as a Nationalist, and in so doing created a line between Nationalism and Globalism. He is a Nationalist, because he puts America first. Globalists put the welfare of others before the welfare of out Nation.

The President proposes that you are either one or the other. This is a reflection of the way Trump sees the world: as a binary division between winners and losers. The United States is a winner, and we should not waste our time propping up countries that cannot take care of themselves. The idea that there can be a win/win for the good of the country and the good of the world does not seem to enter his thinking.

You can argue that every American President since FDR has been a globalist. I wonder how the history of the United States and the world would have been different had Presidents defined our nation's role from a more nationalist perspective. Imagine if the investments in the soft power of globalism had not occurred.

Imagine post World War II Europe without a Marshall plan. Imagine if we had not helped Japan rebuild. Imagine if all nations had this atomistic view of the World: No United Nations, no trade agreements, no treaties for commerce, shipping and fishing rights, etc.

I am not saying that all Nationalistic instincts are bad. The primary responsibility of a country is to take care of its own citizens. But the idea of nationalism and globalism is an either/or proposition is incorrect. There times when the interests of the nation and the interest of the larger world community can align. Past Presidents have understood this. Trump does not.

Geez. What an elitist. You’ve obviously never experienced the horror and persecution of transgender bathrooms, Hondurans, and people shouting “Happy Holidays!” at you.

I think most of are actually regionalists more than anything else. This wiki gives a nice summary of regionalism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalism_(politics)

This becomes rather apparent with red vs. blue in our country's political landscape. It's also one of the reasons why nation-states tend to balkanize. Globalism ignores this basic psychological function of the electorate while nationalism is an attempt at unity through common and easy themes. I don't think nationalism is any more scary than communalism, or socialism, or globalism, but it sure is a lot easier to manage.

- Doc

The idea that there can be a win/win for the good of the country and the good of the world does not seem to enter his thinking.

This is not at all how DJT explained this on Laura Ingrahm's show. DJT believes that the good of the USA is his first priority. He seeks for the good of the world as well. But his first priority and responsibility is to the people of the United States. He understands win/win situations very well. Not all situations are win/win in this world though.

There times when the interests of the nation and the interest of the larger world community can align.

Under your reasoning this must be true for every situation and it's not.

MeDotOrg wrote:Last week Trump described himself as a Nationalist, and in so doing created a line between Nationalism and Globalism. He is a Nationalist, because he puts America first. Globalists put the welfare of others before the welfare of out Nation.

The President proposes that you are either one or the other. This is a reflection of the way Trump sees the world: as a binary division between winners and losers. The United States is a winner, and we should not waste our time propping up countries that cannot take care of themselves. The idea that there can be a win/win for the good of the country and the good of the world does not seem to enter his thinking.

You can argue that every American President since FDR has been a globalist. I wonder how the history of the United States and the world would have been different had Presidents defined our nation's role from a more nationalist perspective. Imagine if the investments in the soft power of globalism had not occurred.

Imagine post World War II Europe without a Marshall plan. Imagine if we had not helped Japan rebuild. Imagine if all nations had this atomistic view of the World: No United Nations, no trade agreements, no treaties for commerce, shipping and fishing rights, etc.

I am not saying that all Nationalistic instincts are bad. The primary responsibility of a country is to take care of its own citizens. But the idea of nationalism and globalism is an either/or proposition is incorrect. There times when the interests of the nation and the interest of the larger world community can align. Past Presidents have understood this. Trump does not.

Exploiting others for our own self benefit does not somehow elevate the globalism above the us-and-them that is nationalism. "Rebuilding Japan" after the military bases are in place isn't an egalitarian world view whereas a rising tide lifts all boats.
As for the good of the country=good of the world, that is what nationalism sets out to accomplish, because a strong and successful nation is how the "world" gets influenced.... This is why 3rd and 4th world nations don't influence the tide at all.