Why MAGA Is a Bad Thing

[joe1776]

I don't know why I would need to do that, in those cases. There's group pride and there's pure arrogance. Not much use making up excuses for the latter.

Well, I thought while you were making up excuses...

At any rate, I'm willing to let unbiased readers decide which explanation makes more sense, yours or mine.

 

[joe1776]

Countries absolutely should compete.

OK, we have a basic disagreement on that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with making America great again and wanting to show ones pride and solidarity with kin minded people.

Things like entitlement and the like tend to be non exclusive, and applies to just about any group or individuals who feel they are owed or expected to benefit with something or other that they presently don't have or possess.

What time period in America are you referring to when you say that America should be made great again? MAGA implies that America is not great at the moment and was great in some other time period in history. And how did America degrade to the state that it is in now from the time it was great?

I know that it was used in the 1940's by a republican Senator but even then, what time period of America was he referring to?

 

[Samael_Khan]

The problem is that the east was never really de-nazified. Now we have "die Linke" (remnants of the former SED) and the "AfD" which is a conglomerate of right-wingers, unteachable neo nazis and many east Germans who really didn't like the "real socialism" and switched over to the other extreme.
But "die Linke" is now a respected democratic party and the AfD is slowly dissolving from inner conflicts.

Ironically "die Linke" means "the Left" (using Afrikaans to interpret this. In Afrikaans "Links' means left).

 

[joe1776]

It's that "again" part that is bothersome. Because that again includes a past where many of us had fewer rights. Worse pollutions. An economy that worked fewer people than it works for now. America has always been about taking steps forward. "Again" means we go backwards.

Humanity seems to be on a march toward equality, the US included. Some people liked the world better when inequality was more fashionable.

 

[Samael_Khan]

More people should have seen it earlier. "Mein Kampf" was already out and for anyone to read. Hitler was in prison for the Munich Putsch. All the signs were there.

I don't think that it is that simple. Hitler capitalised on the suffering working class who already had deep seated prejudices against those Hitler didn't like. He was just a more extreme reflection of what the average uneducated German already thought and he converted their fear and resentment into a weapon.

The same thing happened since 1910 in South Africa, when white Afrikaaners were suffering and the Afrikaaner political leaders weaponised their fears and prejudice to form a White Supremacist government. There was also a link between the two nations as The New Order and Ossewabrandwag were Nazi parties in South Africa formed because of the same discontent.

 

[joe1776]

You are conflating nationalist with ultra nationalism. If the Germans were saying that all Germans, devoid of race, gender etc, should have pride in their country then that would have been OK. But they were Ultra Nationalist, which means that the viewed a select group in their country as only German, the pure race, based on racial lines and excluded all others from being German, and consider the true Germans better than everybody else. This lead to the oppression of many people. Thinking that the pure race is superior to all else in culture and biology is very different to having high national self esteem.

While I agree that, within any movement, there are all levels of commitment, I don't feel obligated to blame only the extremists when the entire group has embarked on an unworthy cause.

 

[Samael_Khan]

They started two world wars. So, it's understandable that they should be looked at with suspicion. From what I've read, they've learned their lesson. They've moved away from nationalism.

I think that the hypocrisy here is that people are suspicious of Nazi Germany but not suspicious of Japan even though Japan rise in the beginning of the last century up until WW2 involved atrocities, such as the slaughter of a lot of Chinese people. It is a PR issue I think. Japan has made a strong effort to make themselves endearing to the world and cultural exportation has been very successful on their part especially with regards to the gaming and anime exports. Germany on the other hand, because of their culture, still have the stereotype of being cold and efficient, much like the Terminator.

 

[Regiomontanus]

You are conflating nationalist with ultra nationalism. If the Germans were saying that all Germans, devoid of race, gender etc, should have pride in their country then that would have been OK. But they were Ultra Nationalist, which means that the viewed a select group in their country as only German, the pure race, based on racial lines and excluded all others from being German, and consider the true Germans better than everybody else. This lead to the oppression of many people. Thinking that the pure race is superior to all else in culture and biology is very different to having high national self esteem.

You don't see that today on the far-right? I see a difference in degree not kind.

 

[Heyo]

Ironically "die Linke" means "the Left" (using Afrikaans to interpret this. In Afrikaans "Links' means left).

That's correct. And it isn't ironic. "Die Linke" is pretty much what it says on the label, an old style, socialist workers party. They used to call themselves PDS, party of democratic socialism, before fusing with an other workers party WSAG. (Not to confuse with the SPD, social-democratic party.)

 

[Samael_Khan]

While I agree that, within any movement, there are all levels of commitment, I don't feel obligated to blame only the extremists when the entire group has embarked on an unworthy cause.

I agree with you on that. So to me, the idea that White Supremacists are supporting Trump, as if he is promising THEM a better future in their minds, is a sign that Trump sympathises with them, which is a problem. They wouldn't be supporting someone who is against their interests.

This also says a lot about those non White Supremacists who support Trump, because certainly they have overlapping sympathies with the White Supremacists, and don't make a big enough effort to distance themselves from the White Supremacists and ostracise them from the group. For instance, why is it that at Charlottesville there were those on the left protesting against the White Supremacists but no Republicans? One would think that many republicans would side with the left to oust the Neo Nazis from having any influence.

 

[Heyo]

Humanity seems to be on a march toward equality, the US included. Some people liked the world better when inequality was more fashionable.

I see the same - as a global, long term trend, with many bumps in the road, locally and on short terms.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You don't see that today on the far-right? I see a difference in degree not kind.

The far right I would consider Ultra Nationalists. The right I would consider just conservative (they could be on the right just for religious reasons for instance). I think a nationalist can also be on the left.

We could have a whole discussion on the far right as I have been looking into that for a while ever since I discovered that the far right in America is promoting the myth that there is a White Genocide in South Africa, just because white farmers have been killed, which is stirring up our White Supremacist ghosts of the past. So I have an invested stake in this fight.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's correct. And it isn't ironic. "Die Linke" is pretty much what it says on the label, an old style, socialist workers party. They used to call themselves PDS, party of democratic socialism, before fusing with an other workers party WSAG. (Not to confuse with the SPD, social-democratic party.)

I don't understand that because the left (which is socialist) is the egalitarian side of the political scale and the right is anti-egalitarian. Meaning that the more to the left is pro equality for people and the right is pro inequality. So the Nazi's (like die Linke) adopts an equality approach for their select tribe, but because they want to crush all those who are outside their tribe which would be support of gross inequality, they would be considered the far right. In fact there is an argument made that the National Socialists adopted the name but in reality were not socialist.

 

[Heyo]

I don't understand that because the left (which is socialist) is the egalitarian side of the political scale and the right is anti-egalitarian. Meaning that the more to the left is pro equality for people and the right is pro inequality. So the Nazi's (like die Linke) adopts an equality approach for their select tribe, but because they want to crush all those who are outside their tribe which would be support of gross inequality, they would be considered the far right. In fact there is an argument made that the National Socialists adopted the name but in reality were not socialist.

It's complicated. There are more levels to left-right then egalitarian vs. non-egalitarian. You can make people more equal by giving more rights to those who lack them or you can make them more equal by taking away liberties only the few enjoy.
You can see egalitarian as having equal rights and opportunities or you can make it about money.
And, yes, you can lie as the nazies did when they called themselves "socialist".

 

[Samael_Khan]

It's complicated. There are more levels to left-right then egalitarian vs. non-egalitarian. You can make people more equal by giving more rights rights to those who lack them or you can make them more equal by taking away liberties only the few enjoy.
You can see egalitarian as having equal rights and opportunities or you can make it about money.
And, yes, you can lie as the nazies did when they called themselves "socialist".

Ahh... That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I am just starting to get into political literacy so I have a lot to learn.

 

[Augustus]

There once was a time when nationalism was progressive.
The nation replaced the monarch as a sovereign. In Germany and many other countries nationalism widened the "tribe" from your local fiefdom to the country.
Europe is half on its way to replace the nation with the union, widening the tribe even more. But nationalism is still too strong and holding us back.

Nationalism was also, in part, offshoot of the Romantic tradition which was a response to the 'rationalised' industrialised society, utilitarianism and other post-Enlightenment trends that constructed 'modernity'.

With any trend comes an eventual reaction and rejection as it fails to be panacea to cure all ills.

Today, European integration is not being held back by the rise of nationalism in Europe, it is what is causing the rise of nationalism in Europe.

A nondescript 'European' identity with no real defining features, historical grounding or cultural touchstones cannot survive any real crisis. Something that survives only as long as it produces clear material benefits, is always on borrowed time.

"Widening the tribe" relies on increasing levels of abstraction that weakens the ties that bind. Scale destroys all eventually.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think that it is that simple. Hitler capitalised on the suffering working class who already had deep seated prejudices against those Hitler didn't like. He was just a more extreme reflection of what the average uneducated German already thought and he converted their fear and resentment into a weapon.

Hitler had support across the board. White collar or blue, educated or uneducated, Hitler had support that wast vast, broad, and varied. He basically capitalized on a great deal of social angst, economic turmoil, and a long established anti-Semitism that Nietzsche lamented and Wagner endorsed.

 

[Heyo]

Hitler had support across the board. White collar or blue, educated or uneducated, Hitler had support that wast vast, broad, and varied. He basically capitalized on a great deal of social angst, economic turmoil, and a long established anti-Semitism that Nietzsche lamented and Wagner endorsed.

The support was not by the majority, though. The NSdAP never got near 50% as long as there was competition. Hitler only rose to Chancellor through alliances with other parties.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hitler had support across the board. White collar or blue, educated or uneducated, Hitler had support that wast vast, broad, and varied. He basically capitalized on a great deal of social angst, economic turmoil, and a long established anti-Semitism that Nietzsche lamented and Wagner endorsed.

You know, with the way Hitler is taught in school (at least where I live) it was like unravelling the layers of how complicit people were in hate for their fellow man. First he was presented as this ultra evil Saturday morning cartoon villain. Then slowly the support around him started to be taught. More nuances, I guess.
A lot of disturbing implications that I didn’t think about at the time.