Nationalism or patriotism?

Written By: - Date published: 11:00 am, November 4th, 2016 - 39 comments
Categories: nz first, winston peters - Tags:

winston peters grinning

Last weekend I attended a Winston Peters rally.

Clearly the things he does well, he does as smoothly as his wavy silver hair. It’s easy to describe him as a mixture of old-National and old-Labour, meaning: from a time before our nation-state was made weak. There’s a hazy conception he holds between patriotism and nationalism, which we last observed as a fluttering pulse when we voted to reject John Key’s flag and keep the current one. We implied in that vote that the old concept of the state and nation still meant ….. something.

Since the 1984-1990 reforms, nationalism and patriotism about New Zealand have receded into a haze that regains focus only around Olympic games, ANZAC or or Waitangi Day, or the New Zealand Navy 75th anniversary moments. It’s now rare.

But the conceptual distinction is still very important to the rest of the world, especially now. To me, a nationalist is concerned with the sum total of a country’s interests as they are expressed through its instruments of power and their collective imaginative force: taxation, armed forces, law – and order, sports, state ownership, etc. Whereas a patriot, to take George Orwell’s line, is: “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on to other people…”

The former is now faint here. The latter, strong and getting stronger.

Nationalism is faint because the muscle of public interest and instrument is rarely used or expressed here: barely a need for an armed forces, average at any sports that matter, crime other than violent crime now negligible, few remaining public commercial interests, and a largely unused flag.

But the world constantly reinforces our patriotism for us: overseas-based kiwis are coming home, millionaires want bolt-holes as ‘distance looks our way’, tourism and its image economy of calendars and websites multiply legion, and immigration drives ahead. The world gets us. And generally we are proud of it. That is the music of globalisation.

While there are many good examples of nationalist nostalgia growing across developed countries, that’s no longer New Zealand’s trajectory. The public here are not clamouring to renationalise anything, or vastly expand the public service, or stop immigration or tourism, or double our armed forces. There is no nationalist surge in NZFirst or Labour popularity to signal it either. Unlike Australia, the UK, France, or Trump,nationalism here is a stale and stunted politics.

National, party of the nation, prefers patriotism. It has no need to turn citizens against foreigners, minorities or immigrants. Free trade and globalisation and open borders are their orchestrated continuum.

So I’ll admit, Winston up close is smooth as a Balvenie 30 year cask, funny, and with a passionate nationalism that was good for the first half hour. But then I scrolled through the phone as he talked, read the fresh unemployment and growth stats, inbound immigration and investment rates, appreciated how anti-Trump and anti-Brexit we generally are here, looked over to Auckland’s Waitakere forest, and realised how much I will keep my patriotism, and feel not much loss for nationalism.

39 comments on “Nationalism or patriotism? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. keepcalmcarryon 1
    4 November 2016 at 11:31 am

    I feel quite different, Advantage.
    To me the heaving masses who celebrate their patriotism only on ANZAC day or when the Allblacks win (how many of them know jack shit about rugby?), while voting for the current neoliberal politcal establishment, are the worst kind of hypocrites.

    To claim some sort of deep pride in what our nation stands for while also standing for selling of state assets, worsening income inequality, foreign ownership, domestic and child abuse and child poverty and imported cheap labour shows what hollow people we are becoming. But yeah celebrate rugby, how many cows we can run per square hectare, auckland house prices listen to jackass Hosking and just dont think too much eh.
    The saddest thing to me is that things are going to have to get really really bad before true patriotism stirs and we build this country back in to the egalitarian society it is supposed to be.

    Dont care if that makes me nationalistic or patriotic , just lose the neoliberal pretend to give a shit about standing for anything except yourself wankery.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      4 November 2016 at 12:43 pm

      +1

    • Well Fed Weta 1.2
      4 November 2016 at 8:33 pm

      And yet the policies implemented by NZ have delivered international accolades.

      https://nz.news.yahoo.com/top-stories/a/33092396/nz-a-model-for-prosperity-think-tank/#page1.

      • keepcalmcarryon 1.2.1
        5 November 2016 at 12:23 am

        That investment firm think tank (Legatum) has some interesting methods of generating data doesnt it:
        “There’s good reason to be skeptical of the index’s rankings. Much of the data derives from opinion polls, which are inherently subjective and difficult to compare across countries, and some of it has nothing to do with prosperity.

        For example, one measure of economic prosperity is whether residents “have confidence in financial institutions.” Last year, only 48 percent of Americans expressed such confidence, compared to the 61 percent global average. But the notion that America’s financial institutions, however serious their problems, are in worse shape than those of most of the rest of the world is ridiculous. Confidence is relative.”

        “Another problem is that the index treats the vague notion of “social capital” as crucial for prosperity. One of the alleged measures of “social capital,” in turn, is how many residents “attended a place of worship in [the] past week.” But that’s an asinine measure of prosperity. By that “standard,” Islamists who plot daily in mosques to murder Americans and Israelis would top this portion of the rankings.”

        That said, there are truly some great things about this country we live in. Absolutely none of them are due to globalisation and the neolibs.

        • Well Fed Weta 1.2.1.1
          5 November 2016 at 1:21 pm

          The relatively high standard of living we enjoy, and the accolades we are receiving, are at least partly due to the economic direction we chose as a nation from the mid 1980’s, however you define it.

  2. Stuart Munro 2
    4 November 2016 at 12:11 pm

    There are many sides to nationalism.

    A negative side, that is crudely nativist, or wants, like Putin, to acquire neighbouring territories by force. A side that says ‘my country right or wrong’.

    And an enlightened side, that celebrates the unique culture that any nation has. That views the nation as a perfectable institution and seeks to leave it better for succeeding generations.

    Then there is a prudent neutral side that states our ability to resolve the problems of the world is proportionate to our size and that domestic public interest must in most cases outweigh global goods like unrestricted movement of persons or capital.

    We could use less of the first and more of the last two.

  3. Gabby 3
    4 November 2016 at 12:16 pm

    I’m patriotic. You’re nationalistic. She’s xenophobic.

  4. Draco T Bastard 4
    4 November 2016 at 12:41 pm

    The public here are not clamouring to renationalise anything

    Did you see how much we didn’t want to sell our power assets?

    IMO, if Labour said that they were going to get them back and renationalise telecommunications they’d actually get quite a lot of strong support.

    or stop immigration or tourism

    Really?
    Have you noticed that even National has now reduced immigration?
    Have you noticed that people really are getting pissed with tourism?
    Have you noticed that people really do think that we need to stop selling off NZ to foreigners?

    “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

    And that is the type of patriotism that National engages in and it always undermines the nation in favour of the dictators and capitalists.

    • Puckish Rogue 4.1
      4 November 2016 at 2:37 pm

      “Did you see how much we didn’t want to sell our power assets?”

      I don’t think NZers care as much about as you think they do, its easy to sign a petition but the voters had the opportunity to stop the sales by not voting National back in

      But when it came down to it NZ voted in National and partial asset sales rather then vote Labour and keeping the assets

      • Red 4.1.1
        4 November 2016 at 3:42 pm

        That’s not reality well Draco reality anyway

      • Stuart Munro 4.1.2
        4 November 2016 at 3:47 pm

        See how many stand up for you if an incoming government jails the asset thieves.

        Wouldn’t be many.

        • Puckish Rogue 4.1.2.1
          4 November 2016 at 3:54 pm

          Seeing as it how its never going to happen, ever, I don’t think I’ll worry about it too much (the dividends are good but I’d rather they used the money to buy back shares)

          • Stuart Munro 4.1.2.1.1
            4 November 2016 at 4:10 pm

            Never is a long time PR.

            An honest government would make things as uncomfortable for you as this government has made it for honest citizens.

            • Puckish Rogue 4.1.2.1.1.1
              4 November 2016 at 4:30 pm

              Tell you what Stuart why don’t you start with Labour and everyone that profited from their selling 100% off of assets first and then look at those that profited from the Partial sell down

              • Stuart Munro …
                4 November 2016 at 5:07 pm

                Better to do it all at once – no messing about.

                Then we can get on with building a brighter future without scumbags conspiring to steal public assets.

      • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3
        4 November 2016 at 5:02 pm

        I don’t think NZers care as much about as you think they do, its easy to sign a petition but the voters had the opportunity to stop the sales by not voting National back in

        They also had the option of telling National that they didn;t want to sell the assets which they did but National sold them anyway. 70% voted against asset sales in the referendum. And that held right across the polls from before to after the election.

        The fact that National then sold our assets against public wishes just proves that we don’t actually have a democracy but a dictatorship.

        But when it came down to it NZ voted in National and partial asset sales rather then vote Labour and keeping the assets

        The people of NZ voted for National as government AND to keep the assets.

        • Chuck 4.1.3.1
          4 November 2016 at 5:18 pm

          Second-lowest of the five Citizens-Initiated Referenda held so far…

          And then you have this problem…

          “And beyond the spin war over last night’s result, Labour-Greens face the thorny problem that it’s hard for them to demand National be bound by the asset-sales result when the left has ignored referenda results – such as the smacking verdict – when they don’t go its way.”

          https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/english-claims-victory-sorts-referendum-voters-say-no-asset-sales-ck-150063

          • Draco T Bastard 4.1.3.1.1
            4 November 2016 at 5:38 pm

            The smacking verdict should not have gone to referendum in the form that it was in as it was a leading question. I still think that the people who let it through should have been fired for incompetence. And do recall that National also ignored the smacking referendum.

            But, yeah, Labour has ignored referenda before but that isn’t an excuse for National to do so. It’s a reason to make referenda binding, to ensure that leading questions don’t get asked and to make voting compulsory.

          • adam 4.1.3.1.2
            4 November 2016 at 7:55 pm

            I always thought you were a bit off Chucky, but now we know you think it OK to beat children. What a winner.

            Plus, I’m glad the majority were over ruled on that one. The lies and b.s that came from you lot to protect the bullies and assailants of children was bloody sickening. Mind you the defenders of selfishness can never give an inch ah Chucky, especially when good people point out a broken laws that let thugs beat children.

            Crime of the century that, changing the law so parents could no longer beat their children black and blue – then call it reasonable. Good on ya Chuck, good to know you like beating children, makes what you say, make more sense.

            • Well Fed Weta 4.1.3.1.2.1
              4 November 2016 at 8:29 pm

              Was the change in law designed to stop people beating their children? If so, it failed. Miserably.

            • Chuck 4.1.3.1.2.2
              5 November 2016 at 9:09 am

              “I always thought you were a bit off Chucky, but now we know you think it OK to beat children. What a winner.”

              I am a little concerned for you adam…by all means reply back and present your point of view and logic why something I say is in your mind not right.

              But just posting dribble, making up stuff…I would like to think you are better than that.

              “Good on ya Chuck, good to know you like beating children, makes what you say, make more sense.”

              I think that says it all adam…get some help mate.

              • adam …
                5 November 2016 at 12:42 pm

                Did I hit nerve Chucky, so you do support the beating of children?

                You said in your post you support the smacking referendum, just pointing out it makes you look like…

                • Chuck …
                  5 November 2016 at 1:08 pm

                  “You said in your post you support the smacking referendum, just pointing out it makes you look like…”

                  Look like what adam?

                  And please point to where I said anything about supporting the referendum…

                  “Did I hit nerve Chucky, so you do support the beating of children?”

                  No you did not hit any nerve, as my response back to you was about you getting some help.

                  It is really sad and disappointing that in order to attack me, you resort to making allegations that I beat children.

                  • adam …
                    5 November 2016 at 2:46 pm

                    Come on Chucky I don’t support laws to beat children, I’m just pointing out you do by calling it anti-smack legislation, (by the way Key voted for that law change) it was Muppet’s like you who opposed it.

                    And again you have not said you don’t oppose child beating or laws to let that to happen – what up Chucky are you a child beater, do you feel guilt?

                    Yes, it’s an attack – that how politics works, you say somthing stupid, I get to attack you for your stupid remark.

                    And quite frankly anyone who called it anti smacking legislation is way beyond stupid at this point – into the realms of complete retardation.

                    Time to actually act like grown ups, and not beat child, or allow others to beat children because of loop holes in the law.

                    Time to stop calling it the anti-smacking laws.

                    • Chuck …
                      5 November 2016 at 3:13 pm

                      adam you are grasping at straws…

                      “I’m just pointing out you do by calling it anti-smack legislation,”

                      So once again…Where did I say that??

                      “And again you have not said you don’t oppose child beating or laws to let that to happen – what up Chucky are you a child beater, do you feel guilt?”

                      Yet again making allegations that I beat children…

                      “Yes, it’s an attack – that how politics works”

                      So if I call you a paedophile that’s ok too??

                      BTW its not ok…as it would be lowering myself to your level adam.

                    • adam …
                      5 November 2016 at 9:23 pm

                      Seriously Chucky, it was a question that needs answering at this point, you are doing nothing but deflecting and I’m quite worried. Especially as you now seem to be talking about child sex as well.

                      Seriously scary stuff Chucky.

                      You should really read your own posts Chucky — “such as the smacking verdict”

                    • Chuck …
                      6 November 2016 at 8:46 am

                      “You should really read your own posts Chucky — “such as the smacking verdict”

                      You are an idiot adam…that was a “quote” from the link I supplied.

                      And further the discussion was not about the smacking referendum, rather it was that both Labour and National ignored referenda in the past.

                      I thought at least you would have worked that out after the second or third attempt.

                      But you just kept on digging that hole deeper for yourself buddy.

                      And here’s the link again adam, next time don’t type when stoned.

                      https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/english-claims-victory-sorts-referendum-voters-say-no-asset-sales-ck-150063

                    • adam …
                      6 November 2016 at 3:12 pm

                      I don’t believe in stoning people, only hard right religious nuts would do that.

                      So you not taking responsibility for you actions, sheesh what new from a rwnj. Talk the talk, but cant walk the walk.

                      It’s a simple question you seem to be avoiding, over and over. So lets phrase this as simply as possible. Do you beat children or support the rights of those who do?

                      Wow, I think were up to five times asking this, failure to answer will be deemed as a yes from you.

                    • Chuck …
                      6 November 2016 at 3:32 pm

                      “Wow, I think were up to five times asking this, failure to answer will be deemed as a yes from you.”

                      Believe anything you want to adam…end of the day you are just making shit up.

                    • adam …
                      6 November 2016 at 4:22 pm

                      Chuck the conspiracy theorist who will smack children – even those he meets on the street – That fit you Chucky? We should call you that now, as you won’t say you support the removal of a legal loop hole which allowed parents to beat there children.

                      Or Chucky the Slap Conspiracy?

      • Ad 4.1.4
        4 November 2016 at 5:09 pm

        Aye.

        Read those 2014 votes and weep.

      • Doogs 4.1.5
        5 November 2016 at 8:33 am

        Wasn’t the main issue prompting voters. Most middle classers were after self interest which Key pandered to up to the hilt. People looking after their own interests don’t give a damn about national assets. They swing with the tide to get what they can out of it.

        • Stuart Munro 4.1.5.1
          6 November 2016 at 4:41 pm

          I imagine a few thought, because there’d be a referendum, that Key the thief might do as he was told. Key was too greedy though – Winston got a bunch of support because of it I’m sure.

  5. Well Fed Weta 5
    4 November 2016 at 8:25 pm

    Excellent post. Nationalism is, by definition, an extreme for of Patriotism. It is, in a sense, a level of sentiment that overlooks the many failings of a nation and considers it great in spite of itself. Patriotism loves ones country despite those failings, and if anything, seeks to improve the nation to be even better.

    We have much to be proud of as NZ’ers, and yet there is much more we can achieve.