I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter

Re:I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter by poof131 on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @11:22AM (#16859144)

The problem is how those words have been coopted. While “nationalism” can be associated with nation state horrors of the twentieth century, the true alternative hasn’t really been been examined. The ideal is a global community, but the reality is much more a drift back into tribalism (i.e. company over country, or I and my Brother against my Cousin [1]). Tribalism is apparent in the growing intensity of intra-nation political conflict. Nationalism was an advance despite its flaws. Certainly the right kind of globalism would be best but we don’t seem to be there yet.

And populism can be defined as “support for the concerns of ordinary people”. [2] Is this a bad thing? Would we prefer our politics be for the rich or for the companies? Populism too has an association with reactionary movements, but what is the alternative? A platonic corporate king to rule us all? Democracy is inherently populist. It is ugly. But it is better than all other forms of governance. It feels in general that we “ordinary people” are being divided by those who favor companies over countries and in reality favor their own power and wealth over sharing power with others. Nationalist populism seems a better alternative than corporate oligarchy.

[1] https://eppc.org/publications/i-and-my-brother-against-my-co...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=populism

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter by pjc50 on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @11:47AM (#16859408)

The distinction has to be between exclusive ethno-nationalism and more inclusive forms of civic nationalism. It can't just be for "ordinary people", it has to be for everyone, with a minimum level of rights protected by law. That's how we avoid collapsing back into ethnic cleansing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter by Bartweiss on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @02:45PM (#16861127)

> It can't just be for "ordinary people", it has to be for everyone, with a minimum level of rights protected by law.

Nicely put.

Around the Iraq War, I remember some clever cynic pointing out that while we might 'export democracy', it's still democratic for 51% of the people to vote to murder the other 49%. Or perhaps more commonly, to vote for a permanent dictator from the 51%. The fundamental advance of a healthy government isn't (just) democracy, it's a bedrock of inalienable or hard-to-alienate rights.

The recent talk about the 'paradox of liberalism' has been interesting, but it's all felt a bit misguided to me. There's a real question, sure, but the entire fight between "let intolerance go unchecked" and "be intolerant of intolerance" was a false dichotomy. The missing alternative is liberalism within boundaries - setting some threshold of behavior which isn't permitted, and can't be permitted by any minor political swing.

(Arguably what we were having was a debate about where to set those boundaries, but if so I wish we could actually say that.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I was Zuckerberg’s speechwriter by Bucephalus355 on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @08:32PM (#16863628)

Nationalism and Populism are words that are constantly reinvented and reused.

One example is that “Populism” means quite different things in US vs Latin America vs EU. In US it’s always had this agrarian, rights of the farmers, Jeffersonian element to it that distrusts big business. In Latin America, it’s about taking on the permanent plutocracy of the landed rich, and in the EU...it’s often just a euphemism for neo-Fascism-lite.

[ Parent | on HN ]