Cosmopolitan elites.


The Hollywood crowd and the Democrat establishment consider themselves to be “cosmopolitan elites.” They really think that they “can teach the world to sing in peaceful harmony.” Maybe they should “buy the world (including the people of Aleppo) a Coke.” That should solve all of their problems.

They want to join President Obama, who, when speaking in Berlin in 2008, identified himself as a “citizen of the world,” Or, as Hillary Clinton said, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders…”

They cannot reconcile with the notion that President Trump wants to halt immigrants from dangerous countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days. They conveniently forget that Citizen of the World, Barack Hussein Obama, placed a six-month ban on all refugees from Iraq in 2011 after a refugee was linked to the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq.

[Source: ‘America First’ Is Not a Threat but a Promise, by Michael Barone]

“Cosmopolitan elites” despise the notion at the center of the movement that brought Donald J. Trump to the presidency. The notion is actually a crucial conviction: that our nation exists to serve its citizens. They think this “xenophobia.”

That freer and fairer trade and intelligent immigration policy are, on balance, good for America is not what is at issue here.  [From the Barone article] (Cosmopolitan elites) have become more comfortable with their counterparts in other countries — the people they see at Davos and Bilderberg — and more out of touch and uncomfortable with large masses of their countrymen.

In response, many of their countrymen… see “the cosmopolitan elite as near treasonous –people who think it is morally questionable to put their own country, and its citizens, first.” 

The left wants to ascribe any form of nationalism as akin to Nazism. They forget that Churchill, Roosevelt and de Gaulle were nationalists. They forget that nearly all postwar American presidents (who built and maintained our treaty alliances and trade regime) were nationalists. The left forgets a LOT OF THINGS!

[From the Barone article] A healthy nationalism includes respect for other healthy nationalisms. Trump pledged “friendship and goodwill” with other nations and conceded “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”

“We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones,” he said, “and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism.” Unless one assumes the verb “reinforce” was carelessly chosen, that doesn’t sound like a renunciation of the NATO alliance or our responsibility to defend fellow members against attack.

Cosmopolitan elites fail to grasp the truth, that healthy nationalism based on “America first” points toward a less polarized, more inclusive country – not the opposite. It is the group think “identity politics” of the Democrat Party that has broken our national identity and point at me as they intone in unison, “Deplorable person.”

Roy Filly

Advertisements

About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Cosmopolitan elites.

  1. starchildsf says:

    “Healthy nationalism” (from the Barone article) is an oxymoron, like “healthy racism”. There is nothing healthy about putting the interests of nation-states (read: governments) ahead of individual rights. Yes, it’s true that people like Churchill, DeGaulle, FDR, and the post-WWII U.S. presidents were quite nationalist (what federal politician *isn’t* tainted by nationalist ideology?). They were also quite socialist (yes, even Churchill – see e.g. https://mises.org/library/real-churchill), and held other backward ideas that have since become discredited. In this they were not so unlike most of their contemporaries, so as with the slaveholders Washington, Jefferson, etc., it’s not entirely fair to measure them by today’s standards. But neither should we overlook their serious shortcomings – and when it comes to understanding and defending liberty, none of them was a Thomas Jefferson.

    The argument that Trump’s 90-day immigration restriction is just following in the path of policies embraced by Barack Obama is more or less true. But it’s a very strange way to defend Trump from someone who regularly excoriated Obama! Two wrongs don’t make a right; Obama was wrong to restrict freedom of movement on the basis of nationalist discrimination then, and Trump is wrong to do it now.

    As I pointed out in a response to another of your blog posts Roy, nationalism is itself a form of “identity politics”! Yes, it seeks to make the U.S. less polarized by de-emphasizing internal differences, but in much the same way that individuals like Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton have sought to unify African Americans by railing against white racism: Create an artificial but politically convenient unity by exaggerating and demonizing a “foreign” threat or “enemy”. Arbitrarily shutting people out on the basis of where they were born is NOT “more inclusive”!

    You too Roy are clearly “uncomfortable with large masses of (your) countrymen”, to use the phrase you quote describing the “cosmopolitan elité” – you say that they engage in “group think” and “point at me as they intone in unison, ‘Deplorable person'”, that they have “broken ‘our’ national identity” (i.e. threatened the identity crucial to your form of identity politics!). Surely you can’t tell me with a straight face that you are *comfortable* with people you characterize in such terms? I’d say you are out of touch with them, and feel more comfortable with your conservative counterparts in other countries – but you find it difficult to fully acknowledge this, because it runs counter to the ideology of nationalism which says you are supposed to side with “your own” people (i.e. “Americans”) and put them first!

    • Roy Filly says:

      As far back as maps have been drawn, they have lines that divide what humans consider “ours” versus “theirs.” Even before maps tribal groups violently defended their “hunting grounds.” Nationalism is a human trait deeply imbedded in our DNA and no amount of socialist, libertarian, progressive, altruistic jibber jabber can change it.

      • Starchild says:

        People have been murdering each other forever too, Roy. Does this mean we should just accept murder as “a human trait deeply embedded in our DNA” and dismiss arguments against murder or efforts to curtail it as “altruistic jibber jabber”?

        Nationalism is certainly an extension of primitive, tribal parochialism, but it is not quite as innocent or harmless. When tribal groups sought to keep members of other tribes out of “their” hunting grounds, the tracts of land being thus sequestered were relatively small. Nothing the size of most U.S. states, let alone the size of the U.S. as a whole. A tribal group lacking good lands for hunting due to being excluded from areas claimed by other tribes could usually migrate en masse and find new unclaimed hunting grounds elsewhere. Also, primitive prehistoric tribal groups had little or no government as we understand the concept (reference on this point, “The World Until Yesterday” by Jared Diamond), and thus their practice of excluding non-members of a tribe from certain lands was not serving to empower a vast, bureaucratic State engaged in robbery, rights violations, and running the lives of those subservient to it on a massive scale.

  2. Starchild says:

    On Trump’s purported 90-day immigration restriction, do you really think he’ll be content to roll it back after 90 days? Care to make a friendly wager on that? 🙂

    • Roy Filly says:

      Absolutely, if, of course, there is a rational ability to vet refugees from those nations. Otherwise, he’d be a fool to rescind it.

      • Roy Filly says:

        And by the by, recent poling shows that by an eight-point margin, a (48 percent) plurality of Americans are in favor of the action Trump took, with 41 percent opposed. That number includes the support of nearly one-in-four Democrats, a plurality of independents, and a large majority of Republicans.

  3. Roy Filly says:

    Wow! Where do you get your ideas from? Oprah Winfrey?

    That nearly any human being would kill another human being is, indeed, deeply rooted in our DNA – as deep as deep can go. I will SURVIVE and you will not. Samuel Adams: The duty of self-preservation, the first law of nature.

    Arguing to “end murder” is pure Democrat jibber jabber. One can only punish the offender.

    • Starchild says:

      Straw man argument. I was never suggesting we can succeed in *eliminating* murder, nor do I think we can prevent people from holding and acting on parochialist sentiments! As you say, they are kind of hardwired into us. However we *can* forbid using the power of the State to discriminate against people on the basis of nationality, just as we forbid murder, and impose consequences on those who violate these rules.

      • Starchild says:

        Admittedly, I could have phrased my initial example of murder better, to make clear I was not suggesting murder could be ended, only that it should be verboten. I guess I assumed you would give me credit for not being dumb enough to suggest the total elimination of murder as a realistic policy goal! (Maybe at some point in the future if superhuman level AI with capabilities beyond our comprehension is achieved, but that gets into science fiction territory!)

  4. Starchild says:

    An artful dodge! 🙂 The 90-day restriction was rationalized on the implicit premise that a completely water-tight means of vetting immigrants could be designed and implemented in 90 days, but that was never realistic. I think the strategy all along was to get something in place and then try to keep extending it indefinitely, as is often done with other Big Government initiatives like new tax measures or new spending authorities.

    The polling you cite is sort of meaningless, because it excludes most of the stakeholders. If the poll had been conducted so as to include not just current residents, but also people who wished to migrate to the United States, I contend that the results would show overwhelming opposition to Trump’s unconstitutional action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s