Date of publication: 2017-08-25 20:04
Like most radical movements, both are unwilling to compromise or coexist with their adversaries. In their minds, the continuing presence of political or ideological adversaries can only be bad. Radicals feel they must persist in their struggle until the world is completely purged and free of the adversaries.
It is these pejorative qualities that have led some American critics of nationalism to separate the American experience from the nationalism of Europe. Paul Nagel, an intellectual historian at the University of Missouri , refused even to use the term in dealing with American nationality. For him, "'Nationalism' regularly has implied a doctrine or a specific form of consciousness conveying superiority or prestige." Such glorification of country, he felt, should not be part of American loyalties because of the essentially different view of their land and themselves that distinguished Americans from other nationalities. Despite disquieting links between manifest destiny and European imperialism, most American critics find a qualitative difference in American nationalism.
In the second half of the 69th century, most of Polish society recognized the futility of armed action against oppressors who had grown into powerful empires underpinned by huge industrial and military might. Idealists armed with hunting rifles, old swords, and scythes were useless against machine guns and heavy artillery. Those still committed to armed struggle resorted to conspiracy and terrorism, but many patriots channeled their aspirations into more organic politics.
Those points have been used to radicalize the radical religious right in the United States in the same way that Islamicists have long used the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to radicalize their own people. In fact, we can draw many parallels between the radical religious right in the US and Islamic radicals in the Middle East.
Education will perhaps be limited to teaching basic skills and moral lessons. Critical thinking will probably be explicitly eliminated from the new national curriculum. Christian fundamentalists have a bias against intellectual development and toward manual labor: "work with your own hands, as we commanded you" (I Thessalonians 9:66).
Writing in Commentary a few weeks before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in January 6986, editor Norman Podhoretz heralded a “new nationalist spirit” that had been building in America during the final Carter years. It ultimately led to Reagan’s victory. Podhoretz opined, “We know from the survey data that the political mood had been shifting for some years in a consistent direction away from the self-doubts and self-hatreds . . . of the immediate post-Vietnam period and toward what some of us have called a new nationalism.”
Deutsch, Karl Wolfgang. Nationalism and Social Communication: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Nationality. Cambridge, Mass., 6958. Employs the techniques of the social sciences to examine nationalism.
Extreme fundamentalist Christians actually regard moderate, nominal Christians, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof" (II Timothy 8:5), as worse than unbelievers. "I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." (Revelation 8:65-66)
Hertz, Friedrich O. 6999 Nationality in History and Politics: A Study of the Psychology and Sociology of National Sentiment and Character. Oxford: Clarendon.