The President of France, Emanuel Macron, recently referred to our president as a nationalist. CNN has referred to him as a white nationalist, I’m not sure if there is a difference between a white or black nationalist or a white or black Democrat or Republican. The point however is, what is a nationalist? Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicuis from the University of Tennessee makes a very insightful definition. What he explains is that the state and the nation are two different things. The state is the government and the current borders while the nation is the people, their ethnicity, their traditions and their heritage.
This has been the case in western Europe and even more so in eastern Europe coming as a result of many wars. With each successive war borders changed many times with the result of millions of people being displaced, either by force or by immigration to escape tyranny. People’s nationalism stayed with them even after being forced to move. The U.S. never had this problem. Or country was built by emigrants, first from the British Isles than closely followed by a variety of Europeans. Our nationalism is our constitution. It was created by a mixture of people of a multitude of national origins to represent all people.
The writers stated it quite distinctly in the preamble when they started with the words “We the people”. Some would presume this is evil, believing globalism is the cure-all. Globalism and nationalism are not mutually exclusive. We can be for globalism if that means fair trade while at the same time being pro American.
This country has gained its place in the world by our national unity; this is not bad but inspiring. Today many want to divide us whether by color, national origin or gender. They say the constitution is obsolete and needs to change.
The first president to promote this was the progressive president Woodrow Wilson. They have been unable to change the constitution so they attempt to do it through the courts; this is the reason for their outrage. When Supreme Court justices are appointed that support the constitution it blocks the so-called progressive agenda.
Don’t be fooled by all the false rhetoric about an appointment, the true reason was that it supported the constitution versus progressive changes to the law, which is a responsibility of Congress not the courts.