Earth's Last Best Hope for Peace
Patriotism, Nationalism, & The Destruction of Words
As I am sure everyone is now aware, at a ceremony commemorating the 100th anniversary of the ending of the First World War, French President Emmanuel Macron stated, “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism. By saying, ‘Our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what gives it grace and what is essential: its moral values.”
People have responded to President Macron’s comments in two quite interesting ways. The obvious response, apparently, is taking the President’s words as a verabl attack on President Trump’s America First Initiative, and his comments, at a campaign rally for Senator Ted Cruz leading-up to the U.S. midterm election:
You know what a globalist is, right? You know what a globalist is? A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can’t have that. You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It’s called a nationalist. And I say, really, we’re not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I’m a nationalist, OK? I’m a nationalist. Nationalist. . .Use that word.
The response that I find most interesting, (other than the President admitting that he is anti-globalization) however, is that President Macron’s comments have caused some people to rush to their dictionaries, trying to find the difference between Nationalism & Patriotism.
I have a dictionary.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
So, while they both have a support/devotion aspect, nationalism has a ‘detriment of the interests of other nations’ part.
Patriotism seems to be love your country and harm no one.
That was easy.
Problem solved.
No need for more discussion, right?
Grumble.
What is there to argue about? We have definitions for both of these words. Does President Trump, Floria State Senator Marco Rubio, and Wall Street Journal columnist Walter Russell Mead actually support the United States ‘even to the detriment of the interests of other nations?’ Do they not understand the definition of the word? Why, in his Wall Street Journal editorial, does Senator Rubio use the word Nationalism, but talk about Patriotism? Are these two words now interchangeable? (Who decided that?) Why are We the People buying in to this?
What we are seeing is not the normal, slow, evolution of language. (Any etymologists here?) This is not the rediscovery of a word, by a new generation, even when they use it incorrectly. ( Urban Dictionary?) We are actively witnessing what Orwell referred to as the ‘destruction of words,’ in his 1948 novel 1984. (Calm down, I am not going to ‘go-off’ on Orwellian conspiracy theory, I am merely quoting.)
“It’s a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well - better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word.
What follows is my letter to the editor, in response to Walter Russell Mead’s Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, Macron’s Faux Pas on Nationalism. The Journal chose not to print it; however, I felt it only right that I share it.
As I often say, words have meaning. I understand that the English language is an ever-evolving thing; however, we must not forget the power that our words have and never allow anyone to strip the English language (or us) of that power.