I apologize that it took me as long as it did to respond to you, Yankee.
I think that if you use nationalism to describe the Founding Fathers you stretch the term to make it almost meaningless. Let me offer a comparison. In the 1870s, Otto Von Bismarck took the German states which had never been unified and created a new country: Germany. The entire basis of that country was that nearly everyone who was in it was German. The reason that the largest German state, Austria, was left out was because it had a large population which was not German (Austria-Hungary). THAT is a primary historical example of nationalism. And every country in Europe was essentially the same: Poland was created because it consisted of Poles. Finland was created because it consisted of Finns. And so forth. Switzerland is one of the only countries that comprises different ethnicities in nearly equal numbers (French, German, and Italian), yet Switzerland was formed by geography and not based on ideas.
Now the United States began with a founding document which, for the first time in history, stated that all men were entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These ideas of course were not original to the Founding Fathers, but they were the first to proclaim it as a reason for statehood, which in effect was a different reason than ethnicity (which had been the only reason, outside of conquest, for any state that had ever existed up to that point. So I reject the notion that our Founding Fathers were nationalists; they were the opposite.
No apologies. This is going to be a long discussion.
I don't think I stretch the term at all. Your focus on the German state is an interesting one, and one I hoped you would make because the parallels of 19th century Germany and 21st century Britain are interesting at the moment if you are willing to see the EU system as similar in practicalities to what the Germanic people dealt with in the 19th century. Bismark's unification wasn't something that occured in a vacuum. Ther German state was in de facto formation for years and through various treaties and wars and alliances. Bismark's plans came from a growing desire of the germanic people to remove french influence and control over their respective communities.
But almost immediately after that unification there were problems with culture, religion, society and even language within the germanic state, such as it was. To argue that the unifiaction of Germany is completely different than the unification of the American colonies is forcing yourself into a set of examples to meet your conclusion without looking at the matter as a whole.
The uniqueness of the American state is something that we don't disagree on. It was a remarkable feat. But the nation state that was born through the Revolution, codified by the Articles of Confederation and perfected by the Constitution was very much a nationalistic enterprise. The nationalism was one of shared experience, shared common goals, shared language, shared religion and shared economic principals. There were devils in the details, sure, but the American colonies were very much a nation and very much a nation state thereafter, making its founders nationalists. It was created because it consistes of Americans - mainly British subjects, French subjects, some spanish, some Dutch, merchants, farmers, slave owners, aristocrats and people looking to make a better and more lasting fortune for themselves in a land unconquered by European noblemen for centuries but the very reason that the revolution was fought was because collectively the founders wanted to be treated as full British subjects with all the rights and responsibliites of Englishmen. That is a common cause. That is a common people. That is nationalism.
The founding document you refer to, the Declaration of Indpendence, proves the point. Read it. It is not some baseless attack on king and country and a call to revolution because the founders didn't want a nation - it was a laundry list of complaints against the King of Britain because he refused to treat the colonists as his loyal subjects like they wanted. The language of the Declaration is the language of Nationalism.
When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for ONE PEOPLE. This was not a throw away line. This was the point. America was a nation that was going to take it's own destiny itself because it's king wouldn't. Everyone has to memorize in school the secondary reason for the Declaration as stated by Adams and Jefferson - We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But no one memorizes the explaination of that statement.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. This is the language of a nationalist. Our government will be instituted by us - the American people. It's just powers will come from the consent of the governed - us. We the people. The very reason that the Constitution starts with, We the People of the United States, is to codify the fact that they are collectively, with all their differences, one people. One nation. Created one nation state. The founders of this country were very much nationalists. They are without question the most successful nationalists in all of human history (in my opinion). But they were very much nationalists.
And in that nationalism is not an evil. It is not a wrong. And your reason for not liking it in your first response is the very defeat to your argument. Your very first reason for opposing nationalism in your list is that Jews suffer at the hands of militant nationalism. While the statement is true it also shows your bias. It's not that you don't like nationalism, it's tat it ihas effected you in such a way that you disapprove of. We write how we think. That is the most important point for you to make. It's not a personal weakness of yours, it's just a fact. You chose that first for a reason. Because what you define as nationalism has hurt your people. But that also makes the opposite true - you would be ok with nationalism if the Jews weren't the victims of it. Again, not a weakness but the very essence of humanity.
As to our response to my question on the Senate of the United States and the primary system you miss the point. You want California to mean more for a reason. I know what that reason is and so do you. You might be unable to type it or admit it because you are smart enough to know that it is a selfish reason, and is based in language of nationalism, elitisim and all the other isms that become in a polity. California should mean more because it's bigger, it's better, it's more "American" it's more open to different people, it's economy is larger, it has more natural resources, it's more tolerant. And you live there. It is your sub set of nation. Of course you want your people to matter more. We all do. And that is the point. You, a Californian, don't want Iowa to control your political destiny every four years. You, a Californian, don't want a Senator from Delaware to have the same power your Senator does (unless of course they happen to agree on everything because you are more than willing to attack right wing Senators in Delaware either in office or running for it, but don't seem to attack that much the liberal Senators from Rhode Island, or Vermont, or Wyoming). Again, becaue if they agree with you - if they fit into your definition of the state and how it should operate then you are ok with them. Because they think like you. They act like you. They believe like you. And they will further the causes that you want furthered.
That is nationalism on a small scale inside a nation state that is based on nationilism to begin with. Because it holds your group - in the way you define your group - together. And that, to bring us full circle back to the wiki definition is the very heart of what nationalism is. So let's now take the second part of the original definition -
This can be expressed as a belief or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with or becoming attached to one's nation.
A belief or political ideology. In and of itself this isn't to controversial, is it? That belief or ideology expresses the desire for a shared group to protect the significance of itself. I've already touched on how the Declaration and the Constitution do just that for this country. The significance of the desire to break the bonds of loyalty to the British crown resulted in one people joining together in their common goal to be an independent country. We the people expressed that with a political ideology - all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that to secure these rights government are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. So, therefore, We the People, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty do ordain and establish this Consitution
FOR the United States of America.
Our founders were nationalists. Our country is a nation-state. We are a nation. We are one people. Americans. There are differences in every facet of life but there is a common ........ struggle, belief, goal, vision, dream. Call it whatever you want. And in that we are no different than the other 210 or so other countries in the world for the most part - we certainly are no different than the people in western Europe. French, German, British, Dutch, Austrian, Turk, Greek, Sweed, etc etc etc. We can do the mental gymnastics of saying that borders are artificial creations of powerful men that really don't mean anything, but they do. There are common people in those borders. Common goals. Common everything. With variations and differences to be sure. No people speak with one voice amonst every member of the tribe, city, state, nation. Not even the Nazi's got every German on their side.
So, now that I believe that I have shown the basics of what nationalism is, attacked your bias in opposing it when you define solely by your terms even using Wiki as cover, and shown that our country is very much a nation state with nationalistic founders setting down a nationalistic governmental system, the question next becomes - is it necessary for a nation state to express it's perceived self importance through political ideology? Should a people be attached to its nation through some kind of structure? What is the point if in creating that structure they will ultimately come to grips with the fact that there are others, not like them, that want to take up space in their nation?
