• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you be patriotic and a globalist/internationalist at the same time?

Can you be patriotic and a globalist/internationalist at the same time?

  • Yes(please explain)

    Votes: 7 46.7%

  • No(please explain)

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • Total voters
    15
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Can you be patriotic and a globalist/internationalist at the same time? This is a yes or no poll question.


I say no you can't because part of patriotism is loyalty to one's own country and that means protecting your nation's sovereignty. There is more to patriotism that saying I support the troops and waving a flag around,those things are meaningless if you are trying to sell this country out to globalism.

Alot of these republicans today seem to think you are patriot as long as you wave a flag and saying I support the troops and that's it. Selling jobs down the river to China, allowing foreign countries and foreign companies to run your ports and allowing millions of foreign nationals to invade your country is not patriotic and is severely disloyal to your country. Tossing the salad of businessmen with no loyalties to any country and selling your nation's sovereignty down the toilet is about as patriotic as selling nuclear secrets to a country we are at war with.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Since you are merely feigning retardation/complete stupidity I will humor you. Here is a basic definition.

globalist definition | Dictionary.com
the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
Click to expand...

That was completely unnecessary. The definition you gave is only one of many, and not the first that came to my mind. I thought more along these lines

Source [Wiktionary | globalism]
1. An ideology based on the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered.
2. A socio-economic system dedicated to free trade and free access to markets.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the differing definitions can completely change one's answer. By the definition you posted I would say no. By the definition I posted I would say yes
 
Last edited:
Is always preserving your country's sovereignty the best thing for your country?

This seems to be the vital assumption in James's argument yet he provides no evidence to support that it is valid.

For instance, if global warming is indeed true and we refuse to abide to treaties which limit our emissions and the world's climate goes to Hell resulting in massive extinctions of plants and animals, massive destruction of coastal cities and widespread famine, are we better off? I'd say no. Surrendering some sovereignty is not always the worse outcome for a country. Another example is that of the weapons treaties which have directly reduced the spread of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Did we surrender some sovereignty? Quite a bit. Did we end up better for it? I'd say so. Free trade has required the US to surrender quite a bit of sovereignty. And yet we enjoy as a nation cheaper products with higher quality with free access to sell our goods in other parts of the world. We limit our freedom of action (well, we use to) in deals with other nations to limit their freedoms of actions. Not having Russia throwing its military around all of the time is good for us even as it limits our sovereignty.

More sovereignty does not equate to better outcomes nor does less sovereignty equate to worse outcomes.
 
Globalism makes good economic sense, as any economist worth his salt will tell you. The more we eliminate barriers to trade and barriers to immigration, the more free the market becomes, which in turn creates prosperity.
 
Kandahar said:
Globalism makes good economic sense, as any economist worth his salt will tell you. The more we eliminate barriers to trade and barriers to immigration, the more free the market becomes, which in turn creates prosperity.
Click to expand...

Wait, what?

You don't like paying more for inferior goods Kandahar? :2wave:
 
Kernel Sanders said:
That was completely unnecessary. The definition you gave is only one of many, and not the first that came to my mind. I thought more along these lines

Source [Wiktionary | globalism]


As you can see, the differing definitions can completely change one's answer. By the definition you posted I would say no. By the definition I posted I would say yes
Click to expand...

Precisely the point I was making.
 
It also depends on what version of patriotism you are referring to. Is it the "love for one's country" version or the "you're either with us or against us" version that has been popular as of late?
 
EgoffTib said:
It also depends on what version of patriotism you are referring to. Is it the "love for one's country" version or the "you're either with us or against us" version that has been popular as of late?
Click to expand...

I'll give you 3 guesses: Jamesrage subscribes to which brand of patriotism? ;)
 
I think it's possible to be both yes.

Reason being is that you can be a nationalist but still want all other nations to cooperate with each other. Which can effect a globalist type of world. Yet have seperate countries to which you can be proud of and still fight for the rights of said nation.

To an extent this is shown in America along the lines of race. There are many who believe that all races are equal and should be equal under the law. No one race is better or worse than the other. And each are accorded their own history and cultural value. And many people respect each of those histories/cultures. Yet each person within a race can be proud and "for" their race without being racist. The same can be done for Nations.
 
You can have a football team whilst still supporting football.
 
Sure you can.

There are certain things you can preserve, in a nationalistic sense, that don't adversely affect things on a global scale, such as your national language, your own borders, etc...

But when you talk economically, preserving nationalistic views can be damaging. In a good free market economy, not only do we create new jobs, we get rid of or destroy old ones. When the cost of doing business in our country outpaces what a consumer is willing to pay for a product, the free market dictates that the overhead costs must be reduced, thus it becomes an old job. The free market, is like water, its always on the move and will always take the path of least resistance. The only way to keep the water "fresh" is to allow it to keep moving. If you force the water into a situation where it cannot go anywhere, it becomes stale and full of dangerous bacteria, and eventually, dries up.
 
EgoffTib said:
It also depends on what version of patriotism you are referring to. Is it the "love for one's country" version or the "you're either with us or against us" version that has been popular as of late?
Click to expand...

nationalism definition | Dictionary.com

2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

snip..


. the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals
 
It seems like the consensus is that because globalism benefits our country in the grand scheme of things, it does not come into conflict with the concepts of patriotism or nationalism even if we have to deal with other nations in the process.
 
If "patriotic" is being obedient and voting for the two Party Socialist Corporate Sponsored system--yes your patriotic to the Global-Internationalists; with that you take a vow to be told on what to like, consume, desire and where and what you will work and live.

If Patriotic means the Constitution, being a globalist/internationalist isn't Patriotic, and at some degree traitorous.

America is presently Socialist, be that the GOP like Socialist McCain, Socialist Bush; sure we can argue who is less or more Socialist. But Socialism is American as Apple pie.

YouTube - Socialism-As American As Apple Pie
“The income tax is a twentieth-century socialist experiment that has failed. Before the income tax was imposed on us just 80 years ago, government had no claim to our income. Only sales, excise, and tariff taxes were allowed.”

Alan Keyes
Click to expand...
 
2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with devotion and loyalty to ones country, so long as its not blind devotion and loyalty.

5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
Click to expand...

There are simply some issues that should be the common interest of all nations IMO. Not everything mind you, but there are some basics that, if we all were to embrace them, things would be much better off. I enjoy the diversity we see around the world that has arisen from different cultures. But there is no reason we should admire the architecture and history of a land, while it currently oppresses its people.


. the doctrine that nations should act independently (rather than collectively) to attain their goals
Click to expand...

The problem with this, is that it is idealist. If everybody did it, it would work. But the "independent" nations would be at a disadvantage against the ones who work collectively towards a goal. Michael Jordan was great, but even he could not be competitive against 5 players, by himself.
 
Parrots Of Marauders

"Parrots Of Marauders"
Kandahar said:
Globalism makes good economic sense, as any economist worth his salt will tell you. The more we eliminate barriers to trade and barriers to immigration, the more free the market becomes, which in turn creates prosperity.
Click to expand...
Good economic sense for whom?

Offshore outsourcing bolsters profit margins for the greed of corporate conglomerates by subverting anti-trust laws.

Offshore outsourcing diminishes: national self determination, domestic infrastructure, domestic affluence, domestic productivity, domestic earnings, domestic tax base, and therefore innovation and self reliance.

Offshore outsourcing therefore destroys the spending multiplier (ln) by removing the presence of capital which would be spent a multitude of times to pay for cursory services.

Immigration? :roll:
 
Hatuey said:
It seems like the consensus is that because globalism benefits our country in the grand scheme of things, it does not come into conflict with the concepts of patriotism or nationalism even if we have to deal with other nations in the process.
Click to expand...

If your country stops producing its own goods by outsourcing their manufacturing, doesn't adequately secure their own border, let anyone just come across the border, lets other nations and foreign companies run their ports, lets other countries manufacture weapons for us and many other things then it is obvious that globalism/internationalism conflicts with patriotism/nationalism since it does not benefit us.
 
I can't call myself a "patriot" for many reasons. I do not subscribe to a love of my "nation" as many people do. I would not die to uphold the "honor" of my nation, nor would I kill for that "honor".

That being said, I am decidedly loyal to the people of my nation. I would fight for their saftey and security. I think at some point, our nation, and especially those in charge of it, has forgotten where it's loyalties should lie: with the people. Instead our nation has decided to expand it's authority in such a way to actively ignore the interests of the people in order to achieve globalistic goals.

I think that we have been trained to become loyal to the symbolic representations of "nation", such as the pledge to the flag, instead of being trained to care about the people of that nation.
 
jamesrage said:
If your country stops producing its own goods by outsourcing their manufacturing,
Click to expand...

Which goods are these? Those produced by private companies such as cars? Or those which are produced elsewhere for a cheaper price? Unless the government is producing them then they are by no means the country's goods. They are the goods sold by private citizens or companies which you have 0 control over where and who produces them.

doesn't adequately secure their own border,
Click to expand...

Your opinion

let anyone just come across the border,
Click to expand...

Your opinion

lets other nations and foreign companies run their ports,
Click to expand...

And what exactly is 'unpatriotic' about something which has been going on for centuries? Do you get angry when the wrapper for your McDonalds is made in China? Private companies operating ports is nothing new. The larger the operator the more trade that can be done through a port. This benefits America. Just because you think that being American gets you a free pass does not mean everyone else does. Merit over nationality =/= unpatriotic.

lets other countries manufacture weapons for us and many
Click to expand...

The U.S. is the world's top weapons EXPORTER so I don't know where you got this from.

other things then it is obvious that globalism/internationalism conflicts with patriotism/nationalism since it does not benefit us.
Click to expand...

Really? Globalism has been in full force for 50 years. How exactly has it not benefited us considering we're still the world's ONLY superpower?
 
I think the OP's original post makes clear that the globalism he was addressing wasn't merely tearing down trade barriers and I think that because he uses the word internationalism which I interpret to mean a deference to international institutions and international groups and a preference for tearing down national borders in favor of international governance.

Such a deference and preference inherently requires abandoning a nation's national character, values, and most importantly, it's national institutions. And that, I think, necessarily means abandoning your patriotism.
 
Pretty much a nationalist and patriot here. Unfortunately, nationalism has had its political definition changed to something than it once was before. It used to mean the interests of the nation of the USA. The nation represented the people. It meant we put the USA first and the rest of the world second and that included our economics. You could be a nationalist and still pursue a strong globally diverse economy.

Globalism isn't merely economics but has reached into our political views as well. The UN and its continued attempts to overshadow federal and state laws in the US is a good example.
 
Keorythe said:
Globalism isn't merely economics but has reached into our political views as well. The UN and its continued attempts to overshadow federal and state laws in the US is a good example.
Click to expand...

Really. Which attempts would those be? Please name one UN resolution that the US is forced to abide by, without the consent of our federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom