The fly in the ointment is the “Buy American” clause, which has already drawn protests from other heads of state. It states: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States.” It is hard to draw any meaningful distinction between this sentiment and that expressed by various groups of British workers in recent weeks. In his wise overview of the economic crisis prepared for the General Synod, Dr Malcolm Brown warned that “recessions can provoke a growth of nationalist sentiments. . . We can expect the far-right, politically, to exacerbate community tensions and probably make electoral gains on the back of the downturn.” Dr Williams returned to this theme on Tuesday, warning of the “very high risk” that financial stringency will lead to political extremism.
Home › T19 Categories › * Culture-Watch › A Church Times Editorial: Obama falls into nationalist trap
A Church Times Editorial: Obama falls into nationalist trap
7 comments on “A Church Times Editorial: Obama falls into nationalist trap”
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
“….financial stringency will lead to political extremism.”
And, of course, political extreemism must be dealt with in some extreem ways….
Don
PS One man’s extreemism is another man’s orthodoxy.
I will have to do some checking but am fairly sure that this clause was struck from the bill do to world pressure on obama. If American taxpayers provided the funds why should they not be the prime beneficiaries? If there’s going to be a barbeque shouldn’t the farmer who provided the pork be invited? I guess the “world†never read The little red hen.
The British author of this finds the nationalist threat coming from the “far right.” I don’t know enough about the British Nationalist Party to know if he’s correct in the British context. But this “buy American” clause clearly comes from the far left now in charge of the American government. This administration’s programs are leftist utopianism; increased government regulation of more aspects of life is authoritarianism; and we can expect the censorship of dissent which legislators are already beginning to talk about.
If the prevailing political force is “far left extremism”, then shouldn’t it seem reasonable that the system needs a countervailing “far right extremism” in order to find some moderate equilibrium? Or put another way, when you push too far, expect some resistance.
Bot really, I think Katherine is onto something in #3. In the USA, protectionism (it’s not necessarily nationalism is it?) tends to be a union-driven ideal, generally associated with the socialist left on the political spectrum.
Buy American? When the prices are reduced to a decent economic level. The foreign imports are beating the socks off of American cars and I might add so are a lot of electronic imports. Open up the cover and what do we see stamped on the circuit board “.. made in China (or a number of other off shore countries)…”
When the leftists in congress come out in favor of “buying american” you can bet the unions are pulling the strings. The same unions that have destroyed the US auto industry and whose ideological soulmates now control both houses of congress and the White House.
Ludwig von Mises called this one decades ago when he pointed out that socialism will invariably lead to nationalism as constituents demand their confiscated capital be spent on things they, not foreigners, produce. We’re just seeing that in motion.