@goat I also don't actually believe what we call modern history is applicable to actual modern today. Calling 1850 modern, is an argument. But not one that necessarily works in 2026.
I substantially disagree with your whole point. Understanding one’s self identity and interest, and then negotiating or forming relationships based on that is vital for successful negotiations and relationships. This is true for people, entities, and nations. This isn’t to say you become stubborn and refuse any compromise. You also need to understand compromise can and would serve your self interests. This takes a strong understanding of your interests. This is the basis for most successful treaties and international agreements. Those who refuse compromise, like many of today’s politicians, do so because they don’t have the self-confidence to know when to yield. This is the heart of Rubio’s point. Your example about Spain and others is not nationalism. It is selfishness.
Norway is one of the most nationalistic countries on the planet. It hasn’t started a war since the Vikings.
Greek in origin.
Greeks were very nationalistic. There were Spartans, Athenians, and others.
The various city-states were of Greek people culturally but not collectively a Greek political nation.
You’re trying to rewrite history.
He's confusing tribalism with nationalism.
Focusing on dome of Rubio’s points…
There are a lot of definitions of nationalism and part of my problem with Rubio‘s speech is he’s mixing them up (or together at least). Not sure what yours is here…Norway is one of the most nationalistic countries on the planet. It hasn’t started a war since the Vikings.
Edit: The US needs to think long and hard about who our real enemies are. Russia and China top the list. Islam in a Zionist problem but not a world problem. Just ask Indonesia and Pakistan.
First, calling for "skyrocketing" defense budgets across Europe isn't a strategy for peaceful independence; it is a recipe for military aggrandizement.
No it’s not. It’s called preparation. It permits meaningful negotiations instead of meaningless capitulation. Somebody said once “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.”
Second, by explicitly contrasting Western heroes with Middle Eastern "martyrs," Rubio shifts from a healthy civic patriotism into a troubling pro-Christian, anti-Muslim cultural bias.
Time to understand and admit that Islam and Western Democracies are fundamentally incompatible. There will never be one world. I guess you can call that anti- Muslim bias if you want, but that platitude serves no purpose. Once we admit this basic truth, then perhaps progress can be made towards serving the various interests.
Rubio is trying to suggest that the West can "rise again" as a united culture...but only by pursuing individually selfish goals. That's just not the way things work, and it's not anything to do with modern reality;
I agree with your second half here but to Rubio’s focus is more on “uniting” the West militarily to fight their common (non-Christian) enemies.
The first half of his speech, thanking Greece, is buttering them up to tell them to buy “skyrocketing” amounts of weapons.
@jdb should be all over Rubio like a bee on honey.
I have been a fan for a while. I think he would be a huge upgrade from what we have and while partisan, will be much less polarizing than the last two administrations, Vance, Newsome or whomever else is nominated on the other side.
But the fact that he's the best choice makes it too convenient for him to ever win.
Greek in origin.
Greeks were very nationalistic. There were Spartans, Athenians, and others.
The various city-states were of Greek people culturally but not collectively a Greek political nation.
You’re trying to rewrite history.
He's confusing tribalism with nationalism.
What were the nations of that period?
I substantially disagree with your whole point. Understanding one’s self identity and interest, and then negotiating or forming relationships based on that is vital for successful negotiations and relationships. This is true for people, entities, and nations. This isn’t to say you become stubborn and refuse any compromise. You also need to understand compromise can and would serve your self interests. This takes a strong understanding of your interests. This is the basis for most successful treaties and international agreements. Those who refuse compromise, like many of today’s politicians, do so because they don’t have the self-confidence to know when to yield. This is the heart of Rubio’s point. Your example about Spain and others is not nationalism. It is selfishness.
The examples I gave were quintessential, textbook cases of nationalism, and you unfortunately seem to keep resorting to the same fallacy: flatly denying the accepted definition of terms.
Regardless, your response is entirely irrelevant to my point, which was simply that nationalism and Western unity are incongruous goals. Rubio clearly makes the argument that individual Western nations seeking to achieve nationalistic goals is somehow the best way to unify the broader Western culture, but he gives no explanation for how this is supposed to work. The closest we ever came to a global, united Western culture on this planet, during the Cold War, specifically required a rejection of nationalism (which was fine, because it suited everyone's taste post-WW2).
I think you are right. I actually started my original response with "That's not how things work today" then I had to rewrite it when I realized I'd started littering my response with historical analogies. But I agree that 2026 is a wholly different world than even more recent "modern" eras, and the lessons learned then may not be easily transferrable. Still, if someone is going to try to make the argument that CO.H is making in this thread, I'm going to need to see the math before I believe it will work, because it seems unworkable on its face to me.@goat I also don't actually believe what we call modern history is applicable to actual modern today. Calling 1850 modern, is an argument. But not one that necessarily works in 2026.
the Cold War, specifically required a rejection of nationalism
I think NATO was a nationalistic effort