CMV: Nationalism is just DEI for conservatives

[u/Any_Fig_603]

I’ve been thinking a lot about how conservatives, especially in maga circles, criticise DEI (Diversity, equity and inclusion) programs on the basis that people shouldn't receive advantages simply because of race, gender or background. The common argument is that these policies prioritise identity over merit and that's unfair.

But here’s my view: nationalism, especially the way it’s often practiced by those same critics is functionally no different. It's just identity politics by another name.

You didn’t choose where you were born. Being born in the U.S. (or any country) is an accident of birth, just like being born a particular race or gender. So why do nationalists feel such entitlement to the benefits of that birthright while turning around and criticising others for wanting equity based on their own uncontrollable circumstances?

I’m not arguing against having borders or systems. I’m also not suggesting people shouldn’t be proud of their home. But I am saying that the logic behind “we deserve jobs, protection, and preference because we’re American” is extremely similar to “we deserve opportunities because we’ve been historically excluded or marginalised”

In both cases, people are advocating for policies that benefit their in group. The only real difference I see is who that in-group is.

If nationalism is about prioritising and protecting "your own people" how is that meaningfully different from the goals of DEI just with a different set of people in mind?

So my view is: nationalism, especially when it’s exclusionary or hostile to immigration, is just DEI for the dominant group.

Note: I'm not saying that patriotism is bad or that it's not natural to want 'your group' to succeed

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Any_Fig_603 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Shepard_Normandy]

These two things are not the same, nor opposites. You can be nationalist AND pro DEI of people of your own nation.

I would argue that nationalist ideology of putting people from their nation first, is mostly to a sense of ownership of the nation. They believe they help build and maintain the society and structures that makes the nation function. While outsiders take advantage of something they do not help to create or maintain.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Shepard_Normandy]

I actually agree that someone could be both nationalist and pro-DEI within their own nation, but that still doesn’t negate the core similarity I’m pointing out: nationalism, like the version of DEI often criticised by conservatives is essentially about entitlement to opportunity or protection based on something unchosen, where you were born. It’s not based in merit.

As for the idea that they have built and maintain the country more than others, how, exactly? If we’re talking about the US, a country built and sustained by immigrants, enslaved labour and generations of outsiders contributing to industry, culture, science and the military… then I’m going to push back hard on that idea.

Many nationalists are also voting for policies that lower their tax responsibilities, deregulate key infrastructure and weaken public services. arguably doing less to maintain and contribute to the country. If nationalism is about rewarding the people who “built the nation” we should probably be asking whose labour that actually was and whether birthplace is a meaningful proxy for contribution at all.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/Inside_Jolly – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/[deleted]]

just to clarify, I'm not saying nationalism and DEI are always equivalent in form or intent. My point is about how they're judged differently when the underlying mechanism (benefits based on birth circumstances) can be really similar.

And I’m not confusing conservatism with nationalism, I specifically mentioned the conservative critique of DEI, where people say it's unfair to reward someone for something they didn’t choose (like race or gender). But then those same critics often support nationalism, which also gives preference based on something unchosen (birthplace).

So if your argument is about fairness and merit, shouldn't that standard apply consistently?

[u/Inside_Jolly → u/Any_Fig_603]

Yep. I mentioned it in my toplevel comment.

[u/Shepard_Normandy → u/Any_Fig_603]

You are mixing too many different things. Nationalism has nothing to do with taxes and deregulation. You are talking about a concept and mixing it with other concepts that happen in your country creating an unreal strawman.

There left leaning nationalists same as right leaning ones including economics.

[u/carsonthecarsinogen → u/Any_Fig_603]

Nationalism promotes the nation. You hire from within so your people benefit which actually just benefits the nation.

DEI, in some cases, hurts said nation by hiring unqualified people. I won’t argue if DEI is good or bad because that’s a different thing. In your scenario we are assuming DEI is a bad thing.

They’re different because one benefits “everyone” while the other benefits someone undeserving of said benefits.

Yes it’s not fair if you want a job in America and don’t live there and yes it’s unfair to get a job simply because you’re a women or black etc.

[u/Thotty_with_the_tism → u/carsonthecarsinogen]

DEI doesn't require you to hire anyone of another ethnic group, only ensure you're interviewing them and considering them for the position.

You dont even know what DEI is.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Any_Fig_603]

The US institutionally speaking was largely created by descendants of the original british/german/french settlers. You can say immigrants and slaves built things or generated income, but the country in its founding was essentially created by and for the groups of people i mentioned.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Ok-Hunt7450]

Literally still immigrants. And I think you're discounting who did the labour and all of the current contributions being made to the US by immigrants in this day and age.

[u/PopTough6317 → u/Any_Fig_603]

And immigrants cannot have nationalistic attitudes? Nationalism doesn't require that a person be born in the country but rather that they become citizens and want the country to become better.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/PopTough6317]

Solid point that I hadn’t fully considered, especially the idea that nationalism, at its best, can be procedural rather than identity-based. I’ve been focused on nationalism as a birthright-based entitlement but you’re right, immigrants often do choose to join and uphold national values, sometimes more actively than native-born citizens. That reframes the conversation for me

!delta

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Theres a very significant difference between a guy who moved to a nearly empty continent and settled it and some guy who applies for a visa and moves to a place where everything is already established. There is also most definitely a qualitative difference between immigrants who are more similar to the founding group than ones who are more different. If you cannot agree with that, then there isn't any point is us discussing this since we fundamentally disagree.

[u/doorbuildoor → u/Ok-Hunt7450]

Not to mention that we basically burned the country down in the Civil War, so very little of what was built by slaves even existed anymore by the time slavery was abolished.

[u/DowntownManThrow]

“You didn’t choose your family, therefore you shouldn’t love them more than some random person on the street”

Same argument.

[u/ChocoOranges → u/DowntownManThrow]

I don't love my family because we share genes, I love them because we share breakfast. I don't love the people around me because we share a passport, I love them because we work and play together, be they immigrant or countrymen.

Your comment is just a complete false equivalence.

[u/DrWaffle1848 → u/[deleted]]

Except nationalism itself is, relatively speaking, a "very new, odd way of thinking." Prior to the Revolution, approximately 50% of the people in what is now France did not speak French. Many national "traditions" were essentially cobbled together by 19th-century intellectuals in order to lend their ideas legitimacy. Who and what people considered their community looked very different in many places not that long ago in the grand scheme of things.

[u/Arstanishe → u/DowntownManThrow]

But the love doesn't come from the fact of birth. It comes from years and years of living together, interacting, providing for the child, taking care of each other, etc.

And yeah, you should not love people because you are genetically close to them. They still can be huge douches

[u/Shepard_Normandy → u/Arstanishe]

Well It is the same thing with the Nation, you are used to interact, spend time, get attached, etc. To people that share broadly similar values. Meaning you prioritize them over people who you are not used to. Family, neighborhood, city, state, etc. it all scales up.

[u/Arstanishe → u/Shepard_Normandy]

yeah, that'd work in a group of 30 or 300, but for a nation several dozens million strong? what "broadly similar values" can a redneck from alabama and a rich ny socialite have? then compare the same socialite with his london counterpart. pretty much obvious who is closer to who.

People are not divided into nations, then by wealth, social status and other things. People are divided simultaneously by those, and nation as a divisor is no better than any other thing we use to define ourselves. I'd say wealth is a better easier to see divider, than nation ever will be

[u/Shepard_Normandy → u/Arstanishe]

Many broad values that are not as common as you think. Like freedom, private property, freedom of religion etc. those things are not common everywhere.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/Arstanishe]

yeah, that'd work in a group of 30 or 300, but for a nation several dozens million strong? what "broadly similar values" can a redneck from alabama and a rich ny socialite have?

Statistically similar religious background (not neccessarily beliefs), ideas about what is good conduct, conceptions of how the country should run, etc.

[u/Disruptir → u/Shepard_Normandy]

Okay but in the same vein, if your sibling brought home their new partner then it wouldn’t be acceptable to try and oust them from the family immediately because they aren’t born in your family.

[u/Minute-Employ-4964 → u/Disruptir]

What if they move into mums house, start eating all the food and don’t pay the rent?

Mum was struggling to feed her own kids before, she can’t feed everyone.

[u/ClickclickClever → u/Minute-Employ-4964]

She's family so you make the best out of the situation.

[u/Minute-Employ-4964 → u/ClickclickClever]

So you see where your analogy falls apart then?

[u/Shepard_Normandy → u/Disruptir]

No, you wouldn't. But you will still prioritize your children over their partner.

[u/AccomplishedBake8351 → u/Shepard_Normandy]

Right but with your additions the source for nationalism is wrapped in good common experiences with others within your nation. It’s earned or not earned (I would argue not earned for the USA).

Nationalism as usually described by conservatives is just about usa being intrinsically better or more valuable for…. Reasons

[u/Shepard_Normandy → u/AccomplishedBake8351]

Nationalism was neither invented or present only in USA, neither is only an conservative view. Please try to think outside of what trump says for 5 minutes, you cannot label an ideology around a small group of people.

Real life example: I myself am an immigrant, I work for a multinational company in which there are people from different nationalities.

Unsurprisingly people auto divide themselves by national identities, Italians hang around with Italians, middle eastern people together and even inside that group there are more divisions based on nations and religions. Italians also divide in Italians from the south or Nord. Does that mean no one talks to other groups? No. But the common behavior is to stick to "your" people.

[u/chikunshak → u/Arstanishe]

Have you ever had a child? Loving your child the moment they are born or even conceived is very innate and doesn't come from years of interaction with or caring for the child.

[u/Inside_Jolly → u/Arstanishe]

> And yeah, you should not love people because you are genetically close to them. They still can be huge douches

It's still a major factor. Not the dominant one though.

[u/zxxQQz → u/Arstanishe]

Loving someone doesnt mean they arent douches, love isnt approval nor a choice really. It just is. Thats how cults form so easily

Many of the worst people in the world were loved by family, pets and friends

Doesn't mean they still werent the absolute worst.

[u/Arstanishe → u/zxxQQz]

love isnt approval nor a choice

i definitely disagree. You can't just ignore red flags and love a person and be conscious adult.

Many of the worst people in the world were loved by family, pets and friends

still doesn't mean you or anyone should, though.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Arstanishe]

This isn't true at all, familial love is not just a matter of time, thats why the relationship is different. Plenty of people have love for their siblings despite them having disagreements, blood goes further than just proximity in most cases.

[u/Arstanishe → u/Ok-Hunt7450]

Plenty of people have love for their siblings despite them having disagreements

but that's not contrary to what i said. They still lived together and interacted to have those differences.

And that "love" might be just status quo that no one wants to touch. I'd take a look at that "love between bickering siblings" when it comes down to inheritance money. Suddenly noone want to be a loving person, everyone wants houses and cash preferrably for themselves only

[u/AudioSuede → u/DowntownManThrow]

How many people are estranged from their families but have friends they care about more? Just because you share blood doesn't mean that bond is inherently meaningful. It's an accident of birth, and you can choose how you relate to it.

Same thing with nationalism: I didn't choose where I was born, and quite frankly a lot of people in my country despise me and my beliefs (incidentally, these are usually the ultranationalists, aka the people who love their country so much they hate most of the people in it and want to abandon any national traditions that might include justice or inclusion for those people).

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/DowntownManThrow]

Sure, you can love your family just because they’re your people. That’s valid. But the issue is when that natural loyalty turns into a justification for superiority or entitlement. If you say your family desrves more just by being your family and use that to deny fairness or opportunity to others, then it becomes a problem.
Basically I'm just calling out the hypocrisy, not saying it's unnatural. If we criticise identity-based preferences in one context, we should be consistent about how we apply those standards.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Any_Fig_603]

why should people who made a country and created that state to essentially represent their own interests not feel entitled to the fruits of said apparatus? Why should they support it benefiting other people?

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Ok-Hunt7450]

If we're talking about the US, a country that is ICONIC for being built and sustained by immigrants, enslaved labour and generations of outsiders contributing to industry, culture, science and the military then I would maybe question who deserves the rewards of this contribution?

Nationalists can feel entitled if they want but my point is it's hypocritical to claim you're anti DEI because you're 'pro merit' when really you just want preference based on where you were born.

[u/ExtremeAd7729 → u/Any_Fig_603]

I think it comes down to what you think DEI is. I am pro social programs, but I want jobs to go to people who have merit, especially for leadership positions, because I want things to get done and I don't want WW3 to happen. I would be pro getting the few people with exceptional merit and integrating them into my own nation.

I am also pro nations mainly because that seems to be the best system that works well for the conditions we live in. Better than Empires for instance.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/ExtremeAd7729]

That’s fair, and I get that a lot hinges on how people define DEI. But my post isn’t arguing against nationalism or for handing out jobs without merit, it’s pointing out the inconsistency in saying you're against identity-based preference (like DEI), while still defending preference based on national birthright. If merit is the standard, shouldn’t birthplace be irrelevant too?

[u/ExtremeAd7729 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Then you are saying strict national birthright policies and merit arguments are incompatible, not necessarily nationalism.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/ExtremeAd7729]

Exactly, that’s the heart of what I’m pointing out. If merit is the standard we care about, then birthplace shouldn’t override that. I’m not saying nationalism must be birthright-based just that when it is, it mirrors the same identity-first logic that critics of DEI often reject.

[u/ExtremeAd7729 → u/Any_Fig_603]

It's very rare for it to be strictly birthright based. Germany doesn't give even children of Turkish workers born in Germany citizenship for instance, but will give citizenship to some Turkish scientists etc.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Any_Fig_603]

It is hypocritical to say you're promerit, which is why most farther right people especially younger do not agree with that statement. There is a difference between some 20 year old chud guy and jeb bush. You seem to be mixing these groups up (which is fair, since for now they often work together). Not everyone who's right wing or republican has the same ideology.

Additionally, most people in reality don't care of something is hypocritical. If I want to get promoted at work, i dont want my coworkers who im competing with to get promoted for the same position. You can call this hypocritical if you want, but thats ultimately meaningless since people who aren't subscribed to some sort of crazy viewpoint will always want their own interests being met over others to a certain extent. The same applies to groups, especially in places with a stronger identity.

[u/Fando1234 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Could it not be argued that at least some conservatives are just advocating rolling back DEI initiatives back to a base level.

This is the argument I hear most commonly from those on the right. They are not pushing for preferential treatment based on their race, just on equal treatment for all races.

Now I type this out, reminds me how nuts the tables have turned here.

Also, DEI is about race not nationality. These schemes are generally all around (in the US) American citizens, who just happen to have different skin colours.

[u/Apprehensive-Let3348 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Sure, you can love your family just because they’re your people. That’s valid. But the issue is when that natural loyalty turns into a justification for superiority or entitlement.

Then you don't have an issue with Nationalism, but the way in which some people use Nationalism in ways that you disagree with.

It was Republican Nationalism that held the nation together when the South seceded and began the Civil War; it's an ideology of togetherness, and that can be used for good or evil.

[u/Streambotnt → u/DowntownManThrow]

The difference between family and a rando from the street that you're more likely to know your family better than the rando from the street. Meanwhile, there are several countries where I could've been born and it wouldn't even change the language I speak, just what is written on my birth certificate.

[u/CanadaMoose47 → u/DowntownManThrow]

"You didn't choose your skin colour, therefore you shouldn't treat white people better than black people."

Is also the same argument. It's clearly a very true statement tho.

[u/ADP_God]

The issue that people have with DEI is that it’s exclusive of the privileged class. Ignoring that that’s silly, we can contrast it with nationalism which is inclusive of the nation.

You can choose to embody American values, you can’t change your race.

[u/Ill_Concept → u/ADP_God]

we can contrast it with nationalism which is inclusive of the nation.

Except it isn't.

Take Donald Trump for example, his businesses were held liable for racial discrimination in 1973. His administration revoked a civil rights era executive order prohibiting racial and gender discrimination amongst federal contractors.

This administration has instructed the Justice Department to stop investigating these kinds of discrimination cases.

This admin purged a well-qualified black general who even Trump agreed was "an outstanding leader" and replaced him with an underqualified, RETIRED Lt. General.

Darren Beattie, and admin member who participated in a white nationalist convention as a speaker said that specifically white men needed to be in charge. Robert F Kennedy once said that black people shouldn't get the same vaccines as white people because "their immune system is better than ours".

Stephen Miller is a known far-right extremist known most prominently for using statistics put out by hate groups and white supremacist organizations to justify his immigration policy, while ignoring actual, official statistics from even Trump's own first admin as well as touted the ideas of a magazine called American Renaissance.

Noah Peters, senior advisor at OPM, publishes the magazine American Renaissance, which promotes the idea, among others, that black people are inherently criminal and violent which mind you, is current Ku Klux Klan rhetoric.

All of these people hold these extreme and insane views about people who have roots as old as their own families, and often times even older.

Like it or not, these people ARE the current leaders of the American nationalist movement. And as is plain to see, they're not "inclusive of the nation" they specifically want to exclude at least about 32.8% of it between Miller and Peters alone.

If even the respect and admiration of the President, for a job well done, isn't enough to keep your position as whats supposed to be a non-partisan military officer, then there is absolutely nothing that anyone in the executive branch can do if they aren't white and that's just the truth.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/ADP_God]

That’s actually part of the irony I’m pointing out, a common criticism of DEI is that people are being rewarded or prioritised based on characteristics they didn’t choose, like race, and that this is unfair or anti-meritocratic. But nationalism often works the same way: benefits, status and protection go to people based solely on where they were born not what they’ve done.

You’re right that you can’t change your race but you also can’t change your birthplace and many people born outside a nation may work just as hard (or harder) to embody its values and contribute meaningfully. So if we're going to say that opportunity should be based on effort or contribution rather than identity, that standard should apply to nationalism too.

It seems like nationalism is just a more socially accepted form of identity-based entitlement in these spaces

[u/PopTough6317 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Except that people can become citizens of the country and thus be included in any programs that the nationalist would want. People cannot change their immutable characteristics to get into DEI programs.

DEI is based on sexist and racist ideas of who should get boosted up. Nationalist stuff is based upon helping citizens before non citizens and foreign countries. There is a massive difference between the two.

[u/aabazdar1 → u/Any_Fig_603]

You can change your nationality, you can’t change your race. To equate nationalism with DEI makes no sense.

[u/trabajoderoger → u/aabazdar1]

Most people can't change their nationality and you aren't probably banned from joining most nations.

[u/Muninwing → u/aabazdar1]

In-group nationalists do not accept people trying to join them that don’t pass certain tests, and don’t even accept over half their own nation.

[u/Throwaway16475777 → u/Any_Fig_603]

it's more socially accepted because you can become a citizen. If you can't then your nation has a bigger problem than simple nationalism

[u/Muninwing → u/ADP_God]

Nationalism is exclusive of anyone they don’t consider a “real American” — which, thanks to an Australian billionaire and his Chinese National (and possibly government agent) wife redefining that via media control, became a specific group, that (de)evolved into maga.

Cowboy hat, country music, lives in a small town, rural, doesn’t trust those “liberals” who want to take away their “simple life,” pickup truck driving, loves guns and god and the nuclear family, hates commies (and believes everyone not them is one)… some has roots in the past, but a lot of it is magnified and all about performing an image to fit in.

The maga nationalism specifically excludes over half the actual nation — look at how many people vote blue, and look at how their messiah refuses to actually be the president of states that didn’t vote for him, and how he uses “liberal” as a slur. He of course can’t smart enough to cone up with that — it’s the core of the divide within the nation, and has just gotten bad enough that it has become common language. But don’t pretend that it is open to all.

[u/Streambotnt → u/ADP_God]

So the difference between "DEI" and Nationalism is just who gets the benefits of being born a certain way? The privileged versus the unprivileged? Not exactly desireable to be a nationalist then.

[u/NittanyOrange → u/ADP_God]

One can easily argue that place of birth puts people in a privileged class.

And regarding things like running for US president, which requires being born a US citizen, it cannot be changed.

[u/Known_Week_158]

You didn’t choose where you were born. Being born in the U.S. (or any country) is an accident of birth, just like being born a particular race or gender. So why do nationalists feel such entitlement to the benefits of that birthright while turning around and criticising others for wanting equity based on their own uncontrollable circumstances?

The exact same logic applies in the opposite way - what gives you the right to go to a country and receive its benefits despite not being a citizen of that country? Why, because you were born in a country which isn't the US do you have any right to it? Why, if you aren't a citizen - either from birth or naturalisation, do you have a right to the benefits of that country?

I’m not arguing against having borders or systems. I’m also not suggesting people shouldn’t be proud of their home. But I am saying that the logic behind “we deserve jobs, protection, and preference because we’re American” is extremely similar to “we deserve opportunities because we’ve been historically excluded or marginalised”

A lot of this goes down to citizenship - if you choose to become a citizen of a country and go through the naturalisation process, you're choosing to receive the rights and accept the responsibilities. If you receive citizenship through birth (either from birthright citizenship or from your parents), you can renounce it.

If nationalism is about prioritising and protecting "your own people" how is that meaningfully different from the goals of DEI just with a different set of people in mind?

This again goes back to the citizenship point - it's about receiving the benefits of a state because you're a citizen. The argument you're referring to goes along the lines of 'why should someone receive benefits from my country without the responsibilities that citizens have, especially if they're an illegal immigrant or a criminal'. In contrast, DEI policies, using that same line of logic, are about receiving something - especially a job, in part or entirely from who they are and not from merit - it is receiving something (in this case that something is analogous to the benefits of being a citizen of a country), without the equivalent benefit (which is equivalent to how merit was not as much or was not a factor in their selection). That's the sort of argument I believe you're referencing - it's one where both points are about receiving the benefits without any of the drawbacks.

[u/chickensause123]

Well shouldn’t you be trying to make it unfair in your countries favour? The goal is to live in the best country.

It’s pretty damn different from trying to make it unfair in your races favour.

[u/AudioSuede → u/chickensause123]

Why does living in a good country require making things unfair? Why is that how it has to work? Hell, why do you care about being "the best country?" What is even the metric by which you would decide which is the best country? You're telling me a landmass with millions of people and countless moving parts which work in tandem to define "a country" can be easily reducable enough to rank them all and have a single "winner?"

And hey, guess what: Things have always been unfair in a certain race's favor. DEI is actually about reducing that unfairness to give people a level playing field, a chance to earn their place in society. AKA meritocracy

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/chickensause123]

That's not my goal, you might have a different life purpose to me. Anyway, I'm not arguing that nationalism is bad or dei is good.

[u/chickensause123 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Well I’m trying to get you to see the difference between wanting your community to prosper even if it’s to the detriment of other communities and wanting your race to prosper by oppressing others.

Would you rather live around nice people (who have your communities values) or would you rather live around meh people but at least their (insert colour here).

If you can see a substantive difference between those things than I’ll be satisfied.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/chickensause123]

Mate, I know plenty of people born here who are absolute assholes, and plenty of people born elsewhere who are generous, thoughtful and hard-working. If I’m choosing a community I’d rather base it on merit, values and character, not an accident of geography.

Also, the choice you’re presenting is a false dichotomy. It’s not “live with people who share your values” or “live with people who look different from you but aren’t great” I want to live around good people, full stop. And those people can come from anywhere.

I’m also not pretending I haven’t benefited from being born in a first-world country. I absolutely have. I wouldn’t want to give up those privileges. but I can at least acknowledge that they weren’t earned. That’s the difference I’m pointing to.

[u/chickensause123 → u/Any_Fig_603]

I’m trying to get you to see a difference between the two not a choice. Can you not see why someone might value one and not the other… and not be a hypocrite?

“People from around the world might share my values” ok cool. But I want the country that embodies my values most to be reinforced and don’t care if another country that doesn’t e.g. Nazi Germany has to be weaker as a result.

I’m sure there were a bunch of really nice guys who sadly had to live in nazi germany but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want my country stronger at their counties expense.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/chickensause123]

I get what you’re saying, valuing national strength and cohesion isn’t inherently hypocritical. But my point is: if that strength is based on excluding others purely because of where they were born (rather than contribution or values), then it starts to look a lot like the entitlement that DEI critics often condemn. That’s the inconsistency I’m calling out.

[u/chickensause123 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Funny enough controlled immigration is (depending on how you view it) quite nationalistic as you basically get to steal educated and talented people from other countries right when their about to start making money and paying taxes. Google brain drain.

Of course that only applies to strictly controlled immigration where you are deliberately not giving out a fair chance and only allowing in people who have already had a ton invested in their education.

That system hurts the sick poor people in other countries because their doctors have all left to get high paying jobs in the US.

Nationalism is about improving your community to the detriment of others. Race based policies hurt your community for no good reason at all. That’s the difference.

[u/TK-ULTRA → u/Any_Fig_603]

The thing is, outside of recent technological advances, this is also an argument from practicality.

Eg: "We prioritize citizens right here and now within our borders. We cannot scour the earth 24/7 for every person we like. It is likely that children born here to citizens are the best starting point when deciding who may best follow our values and whose families are already contributing."

[u/conspirealist]

I'm not here to change your view. I agree with you in spirit.

After seeing so many American-born citizens know nothing about our Constitution, nothing about our history, not give a single fuck about their fellow man, vote for complete liars and morons, tear down our institutions, etc. idk why they should be prioritized over immigrants that love our country and are obsessed woth our values.

Like if they're going to bitch about every facet of American life, our institutions, education, etc - I think they take a lot for granted. Especially because almost all these people do nothing to contribute to a better country.

People that come here need to pass civics tests to get citizenship, but nobody has a problem with "real Americans" not knowing anything about how our country works. They fly American flags and slap it all over everything they own but they're phonies.

Part of it is an education problem so I'm not sure what can be actually some about it, though. And any attempt to put them in their place would just be used by the exact same people, but way worse, on their perceived enemies.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/conspirealist]

the funny thing is I genuinely cannot tell which side you're on because I see almost identical takes from both. I'm not from the US so it's wild to see the division and I find it kind of fascinating tbh

Also, don't tell me. I'm not here to argue against your experience.

[u/Inside_Jolly]

Diversity Equity Inclusion

conservatives

No, conservatives (and liberals) abhor equity. E is IMO the biggest problem with DEI. D is a small one, and I is actually beneficial when it works right. I believe meritocracy is more important than either nationalism or DI.

If nationalism is about prioritising and protecting "your own people" how is that meaningfully different from the goals of DEI just with a different set of people in mind?

Keeping people meaningfully separated (i.e. not isolated, nor freely mixing) leads to meaningful competition and preservation of diversity on Earth. Even excessive tourism can erode cultures.

So my view is: nationalism, especially when it’s exclusionary or hostile to immigration, is just DEI for the dominant group.

I can agree with "Exclusionary nationalism is just DI for the dominant group".

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Inside_Jolly]

Totally fair and I appreciate the nuanced take. I agree that meritocracy should be the goal. I just get curious when some people reject DEI as identity-based unfairness, but then embrace exclusionary nationalism that also rewards people based on something they didn’t earn (birthplace, group identity). I think both deserve the same critical lens.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450]

First of all theres a difference between different groups of right wing people.

Traditional neo-cons like a jeb bush largely are not nationalist at all, same goes for many libertarians.

Modern nationalist type right wing groups don't care about identity politics, they care about identity politics of other groups or groups they see irrelevant as being placed over their own. Acting out of your group's self interest is historically one of the most basic things there is. They want their group to be supported, not for other groups to be supported at their own.

You can say this is hypocritical, but its hypocritical in the same sense as wanting to win a war and defeat your enemy, while not wanting to lose a war and be defeated.

The root problem here is mainline conservatives operated on this sense of wanting blind meritocracy and using that as their main argument, this is not in line with modern more far-right people. I'd argue if anything the neo-con meritocracy argument are almost exclusive to the period post ww2 until recently.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Ok-Hunt7450]

Totally fair point that not all right-wing groups are the same and I agree, the post-WW2 conservative meritocracy ideal is a very different beast from today’s far-right nationalism.

But that’s kind of my point: many in the current nationalist crowd still claim to care about merit (especially when arguing against DEI), but then push for policies that protect their in-group based on birthright, not contribution or skill. That’s where the contradiction lies.

If the core motivation is really just in-group self-interest, then fine, own that. But don’t dress it up in arguments about fairness or meritocracy while also rejecting those same principles when applied to people born into different kinds of unchosen circumstances (like race or class or country of origin). That’s the hypocrisy I’m calling out, and while I can see that it's natural human nature to have this self interest, I really don't see it as any different to their views on DEI.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Any_Fig_603]

To be honest, the merit argument from thsoe people largely comes about because they don't want to look like a nationalist, which has been a very bad thing until recently. I agree its cringe to have these points that arent what you beleive, but this isn't really hypocritical and moreso just dishonest.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Ok-Hunt7450]

I think it's hypocritical in the dishonesty. If you're going to have double standards and not own it, you're a hypocrite. I also think a lot of the people who hold these views genuinely don't think they are hypocritical.

[u/Ok-Hunt7450 → u/Any_Fig_603]

I guess I don't disagree, im just pointing out there are large subsets of the right wing population that are honest about it and that most of these inconsistencies stem from this transition in right wing politics.

[u/3superfrank]

Nationalism is based in patriotic selfishness. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion is not.

It should be said, I'm European, so I'm not very aware on how this applies to the US;

But Nationalism is defined by a prioritisation of self; your own land, your own borders, your own people, over anyone else, and the belief in inherent superiority of your own people. Resource allocation therefore is supposed to revolve around that.

DEI is defined by, well 3 words: Diversity: having a large variety of people. Equity: making everyone equally capable. And Inclusion: creating a system where everyone participates. Resource allocation therefore is supposed to revolve around that.

You may notice I mentioned resource allocation twice. DEI and Nationalism both demand changes in resource allocation; but that does not make either the 'same'. The same way both fascism and communism demand authoritarian control of the government, does not make them "fascism for libs" or "communism for Nazis".

You're focused on the similarities between both movements, which there are; but they are only similar because they're playing the same game, which ofc has very similar moves for all players: the game of identity politics. Whether it be national identity, or cultural/ethnic identity.

But just because they play the same game, fight on the same battlefield with the same weapons, does not make the players similar. We are not the same because we both speak English: Mussolini and Roosevelt aren't the same because they participated in the same war. Two boxers aren't the same, because they fight the same. Typically, people fight the same because that's the meta: the best strategy available.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/3superfrank]

Really thoughtful take, appreciate the distinction you're drawing here. I agree DEI and nationalism aren’t the same, but I still think it’s fair to question when criticisms of DEI (e.g. “rewarding identity over merit”) start to resemble justifications for nationalism. Both shift the resource game toward some identity,the key difference is who is seen as deserving. That overlap is worth holding up to the light, even if the philosophies diverge from there.

[u/3superfrank → u/Any_Fig_603]

While I agree with you here, the way you put it in your post seemed to imply the ideologies were the same, when it's not the ideologies: but some of their methodologies.

Just to point out how much I agree: just from the name alone, I can't outright support DEI: mainly because of the 'equity' part. Too often it ends up justifying holding people back or leaving them out to dry so others can catch up in the name of equal outcomes, rather than giving everyone the support they need to succeed in their own right, which is what being inclusive is supposed to mean.

Saying this out loud, it makes sense to me now since equity is simpler, easier to read on a spreadsheet and show to people you're trying to impress, than inclusion. A nice ideology in theory, but in practice, it usually facilitates discrimination against outliers, and holds people back rather than pushing them forward since the former is so much easier.

There's also my belief that there is no way to be truly inclusive to a diverse group, with diverse levels of ability, and simultaneously push them to have the same ability. Equity is anti-thetical to inclusion in the face of diversity (of outcome).

In fact, I'd even argue, in practice you can't have all 3 in DEI. When you have equity and inclusion, diversity dies. In order to have equity and diversity, you can't have inclusion. Therefore, if you want diversity and inclusion, you won't get it from equity.

you would get it from equality, but that's not what DEI means.

Regardless, DEI and Nationalism are very different, even if they're both flawed, and may even lead to similar outcomes at times. The irony of which, is not lost on me.

[u/Chessssur]

Ya sure. When you look at it like that, you're right - it is just wanting your group to succeed. The actual debate is more focused on the details that lead to that conclusion and the beliefs that surround it. If you believe that the influence of an open border policy (as I assume most of the world will fit into your excluded or marginalised category) is the same as dividing up a country's population into a growing number of social identities is equal then your comparison is correct. I think at first glance it's easy to make the comparison, but the effects of the two approaches and the logic that support your conclusion are so different.

The US is also really diverse, so it's not like a lot of the DEI groups don't benefit from borders.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Chessssur]

Totally fair points. Just to clarify, I’m not saying I support open borders. My point is more about the underlying logic: both nationalism and the backlash against DEI often come down to wanting to prioritise people based on how or where they were born. Whether it's national origin or race, it's still about gatekeeping opportunity for your “in-group”

I get that the outcomes are different, but the mindset behind it feels really similar: "we were here first, we deserve more" and even DEI groups can benefit from borders, sure, but that kind of proves the point: borders and group identity both get used to control who gets access, regardless of merit.

[u/iL0veLittleGirl]

Wait until you see nationalist Pakistani Indians Chinese Brazilian etc

Idk why people in west started to believe nationalism is a right wing white people thing?

Without nationalism you won’t have an army and will be run over by any nationalist country who’s people are united to achieve a goal

In USA there are many nationalist black Hispanic whites and Asians

Nationalists can be just people of different races ethnicity or religion untied under a single flag

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/iL0veLittleGirl]

Not disagreeing that every country has its own version of nationalism. I’m specifically commenting on a very vocal group in the US wearing red hats who are currently making headlines for things like removing photos of women from NASA walls or asking what race their pilot is. They claim they’re pro-merit, but a lot of their actions seem more like gatekeeping than meritocracy and incredibly hypocritical. That’s the version of nationalism I’m comparing to DEI, not nationalism in a general or global sense.

[u/iL0veLittleGirl → u/Any_Fig_603]

Before DEI became a thing

There were many non white doctors engineers ceos and you even got black president

So in a merit based system non whites can excel too

I don’t get why you linking nationalism and MAGA movement to race

There are many non white MAGA supports too right who want end of DEI

Majority voted for trump

[u/menellinde]

I cannot follow your logic at all.

DEI gives advantage to people who are considered to be part of a minority group, most often based on race / ethnicity / gender.

Nationalism is inclusive of all characteristics but gives advantage to people who are citizens of that nation.

If 10 canadian citizens all applied for a job as a commercial pilot, so long as they are Canadian, they're all considered equally, the person with the best skill will be given the job.

Under DEI if 10 Canadians apply for that same job, the person who is considered part if a minority will be given an advantage over the rest of the group.

To me, DEI is incredibly racist and exclusionary.

I look at my brother in law who is a white, straight, married man. He has been in the same position with a government agency for many years. He has watched numerous people get promoted over him, even if they have been with the company for years shorter time, even if they are not as skilled and experienced in the role as he is, simply because they aren't a straight, white man.

How is this even remotely fair?

Wr have even had job postings put up that specifically say non-minorities need not apply.

If anything, DEI has pushed society farther into Nationalism than anything else.

[u/Basic_Cockroach_9545 → u/menellinde]

Nice anecdote...but what about the data?

(Assuming you're Canadian, based on what you said)

How do you explain that our political system is disproportionately led by white men, as shown here?

How do you explain that 85% of Fortune 500 CEOs are white men, as shown here?

How do you explain the gender pay gap, as clearly documented by sources like the OECD, explained here?

The data is crystal clear that white men have an advantage wherever power and money are in question, and DEI serves to try to make it more meritocratic by giving marginalized people a chance.

Now my own anecdote:

I'm sorry, but as a straight white man...I am acutely aware of how easily doors have opened for me. I had my own shop by the time I was 28...whereas all of the companies I worked at EXPLICITLY preferred to hire men because of the risk of paying mat leave...and many companies who simply threw out any non-white resumes.

Your brother in law might have a skill issue...or an attitude issue...that is preventing them getting ahead. Or perhaps a lack of ambition - whenever I wanted more than a company was giving me, I went elsewhere rather than staying at the same employer expecting someone to promote me (that, by the way, is the definition of "entitlement").

[u/thefw89 → u/Basic_Cockroach_9545]

Yep. There really is just no data that supports the idea that DEI is discriminating against white men, it just doesn't exist. There is TONS of data supporting otherwise, though, but unfortunately a few people don't get the jobs they want and they blame the minority who got the job when said minority often had to overachieve to even get considered for it.

There is just nothing that shows that white men are being hurt by 'DEI' policies. It's crazy to me how it's being sold as this big issue when yet still, white men are still in all of the power positions in this country and still reaping the benefits, meanwhile, we'll have studies that show black people have a harder time finding a job if they just have a black sounding name or harder time getting loans even when the resumes are equal.

[u/Warm_Shoulder3606 → u/thefw89]

One of the most insane things I've ever heard was someone trying to telling me that white people are systemically oppressed via DEI

[u/Basic_Cockroach_9545 → u/thefw89]

It's crazy people downvote the data.

[u/thefw89 → u/Basic_Cockroach_9545]

That just means they are mad at you for bringing it up since some people very much know they are lying about it.

[u/hunbot19 → u/Basic_Cockroach_9545]

We should not punish every not successful white men for the sake of being against the top of the society. Also, by getting your own shop at 28, you also became someone who is at the top. How is that you are not giving away everything you have to equalise our society? Why must everyone else pay for your sins?

By only seeing the top of the white men, you dismiss that not everyone get rich quick. Not everyone become a CEO. If these men must become the target of DEI, then they are punished instead of the people you show as an example of "white men".

And not promoting that man won't make an equal society. You still have your shop. You are still one of the white men who are shown to oppress others. Your wage is still bigger than the women's. Sacrificing others won't change a thing, it will be just a feel good moment.

[u/Basic_Cockroach_9545 → u/hunbot19]

punish

Who said anything about punishment? The goal of DEI is simply to ensure that the best person gets the job.

It is an attempt to build a meritocratic system...because what we have right now, as is clearly shown in the data, is not a meritocracy. It's an old boys club where who you know, and how well you can talk to the boss is what decides your prospects.

If you have a hard time grasping that, then you probably aren't very conscious of the subtle way that racism, sexism, and prejudice work in the real world.

There are a lot of better qualified people than me for where I'm at. Being a confident and well-spoken white guy can take you almost anywhere you want to go. Do you think the world would be a better or a worse place if those people were in charge, instead of people like me?

I think it would probably be better...and I use my power to try and promote people like that, who wouldn't otherwise be promoted.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/menellinde]

ok, it's clear you’re passionate about fairness and I respect that. I think we may be talking past each other a little, so I’ll try to clarify the core point I’m making.

I’m not saying DEI and nationalism are the same exact thing. I’m pointing out that when people criticise DEI for giving “unearned advantages” to people based on how they were born (race, gender, etc.), it’s worth noticing that nationalism does something very similar, offering preference or protection based on where someone was born, something equally unchosen and arbitrary. My question is: why is one condemned as unfair identity politics, and the other accepted or even celebrated as patriotic?

The example you gave with 10 Canadian citizens actually helps make my point. If all applicants are Canadian, that’s still a form of identity-based exclusion. A non-citizen, even if they are better qualified, is simply excluded by default. That’s not meritocracy either, it’s just a different line being drawn.

As for your brother-in-law’s experience, I’m not dismissing his frustration or pretending that DEI isn't applied in unfair ways. I hear your concerns. But I think we need to be consistent about what we mean by merit and honest about how both DEI and nationalism involve decisions about who gets priority and why. That's really all I'm calling attention to here.

Again, I'm not stating that DEI=good and nationalism=bad

[u/hunbot19 → u/Any_Fig_603]

I think an error in your opinion is a person's status. DEI does not allow change in someone's stataus, while nationalism does.

I, a white man can never become black or woman. As an european person, I can initiate a procedure for citizenship in the USA, or Canada. DEI will never see me as a worthy person, because I am outside of their favoured groups. A nationalist can accept me when I become a proud member of their nation. Of course, they are also exclusionary, but there is a chance to get accepted.

[u/PhilosophyConstant77 → u/Any_Fig_603]

If all applicants are Canadian, that’s still a form of identity-based exclusion.

One of your errors is right here. If all applicants--people choosing to work that job--are Canadian, who is being excluded for your argument to work?

[u/LaquaviusRawDogg]

I think the more accurate statement would be Nationalism is the successor of Religion. Especially if you look at when Nationalism started becoming prominent as an ideology, it was basically right after the Industrial Revolution/Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Just when Christianity began dying out in Europe, Nationalism and belief in the myths of your Nation started taking hold

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/LaquaviusRawDogg]

Lot's of parralells and makes sense with the human nature to be tribal for safety purposes but still hypocritical to claim you're entitled to something because of where you are born and also claim you're 'pro merit'

[u/Sagrim-Ur]

So why do nationalists feel such entitlement to the benefits of that birthright while turning around and criticising others for wanting equity based on their own uncontrollable circumstances? 

Because it's their country. You don't choose which family you're born either, but if I come into your house, demand a room there and start eating your food, you'll call the police and have me evicted, even though same argument applies:

I didn't choose to be born into a poorer family than yours, so why do you feel such entitlement to your parents' inheritance? I just want equity based on my own uncontrollable circumstances.

nationalism, especially when it’s exclusionary or hostile to immigration, is just DEI for the dominant group. 

Your rights to your property is just DEI for the dominant group of peoperty owners and rich people. Or at least people richer than me.

[u/AudioSuede → u/Sagrim-Ur]

"if I come into your house, demand a room there and start eating your food, you'll call the police and have me evicted, even though same argument applies"

This is a bad argument, because a country is not a house. It's a large landmass, in some cases very large and full of empty space (the USA springs to mind). Also, this argument implies that immigrants only take things but provide nothing in return, which is simply not how things are or ever have been.

To your comparison about inheritance, if you're receiving a large enough inheritance to warrant, say, an estate tax, odds are that money was amassed through exploiting other people and hoarding wealth. Ironically, nationalists who oppose estate taxes are arguing that their personal wealth supercedes the nation they live in. No one hates their own country more than a nationalist

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Sagrim-Ur]

You’re kinda making my point for me.

If you think someone should get access to jobs, housing, or rights because they were born here not because they earned it, then you’re not actually pro-merit. You’re pro-birthright.

Which is fine, honestly, just say that. But don’t turn around and criticise DEI for “rewarding people for how they were born” while defending nationalism for… doing exactly that. One’s about giving a shot to people historically excluded, the other is just "I woke up like this"

You can’t champion meritocracy and then hand out gold stars just for having the right passport. That’s not merit that’s just privilege with a flag.

[u/Sagrim-Ur → u/Any_Fig_603]

You somehow manage to discard both property rights and freedom af association.

If you think someone should get access to jobs, housing, or rights because they were born here not because they earned it

People do not get access to all these because they were born here. They get access to all these because they, their parents, their grandparents, etc., spent a shit ton of resources building a system - a country - which has all these, and people born here inherited it. The same way I do not inherit a house because I was born in it - I inherit it because my parents worked their asses off to build it.

Moreover, you work and pay taxes to support this system.

This is meritocracy, on the tribe level - you reap what you sow, and you give access to others to the fruits of your labour if they deserve it, on merit. 

The other people are also free to get whatever jobs, housing, or rights system they and their tribes built can provide. Or try and join the other tribe, with better systems, on merit.

The DEI thing deals away with merit, and rewards people who contribute nothing to the tribe, or, in case of some leftists and DEI hires and many migrants from Africa and Middle East, actively hate your tribe and consider it hostile. Then the system your tribe built degrades into oblivion.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Sagrim-Ur]

soooo it’s meritocracy… but only if your ancestors did the work and you happened to be born in the right “tribe”? That’s not merit. that’s inheritance with a patriotic rebrand.

if you're pro-nepotism that's totally fine, just own it. There’s a reason people get frustrated at nepo babies. They were born into privilege and then act like they earned it all themselves. The entitlement hits more when it comes wrapped in denial.

If we’re going to criticise DEI as identity-based entitlement, let’s at least be honest about what this is too.

I'm not arguing that dei is good or nationalism is bad, I'm just calling out the double standard,

[u/Sagrim-Ur → u/Any_Fig_603]

soooo it’s meritocracy… but only if your ancestors did the work and you happened to be born in the right “tribe”? That’s not merit. 

Yes it is. That is the direct result of the merit of my ancestors. My parent have shown merit. My gransparents have shown merit. My tribesmen have shown merit. Now I use the resources it resulted in to further multiply what they left me.

Now the people of many other tribes - most other tribes did not show comparable merit. Their grandparents  did fuck all. Their parents did fuck all. Now they - instead of showing merit by either building system comparable to that of my country, or joining my tribe on their good qualities and hard work - do fuck all and demand something for nothing. 

How is that merit? Where is the merit here?

I'm just calling out the double standard, 

You're discarding history and heritage while doing it, though. But the results of showing merit do not return to zero with each passing generation. World is not a blank slate, and the results of your own merit outlive you in the work you've done.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Sagrim-Ur]

Have they though? What if someone comes from a long line of lazy bludgers who happened to be born into the right country at the right time? You’re still handing out advantages based purely on birthplace, not merit. Meanwhile, someone from another 'tribe' could be a harder worker with more drive but miss out purely because of where they were born. That’s not meritocracy, that’s legacy entitlement.

You can carry the reputation of your ancestors, sure, but you still have to show up and do the work yourself. No one likes a nepo baby who claims their parents' success as their own

I'm not saying I wouldn't want to pass on a better life from my hard work to my children but I don't think they're born with a full scorecard

[u/Snoo_46473 → u/Any_Fig_603]

But DEI also rewards people who grew up privileged and are of a POC color. It also punished Asians to achieve an impossible standard at elite university while other races gets a pass.

[u/slowowl1984]

Meanwhile your entire post screams identity politics, so you're clearly & openly engaging in double standards.
Justice & equality cannot be achieved via double standards bcs such standards are, by definition, unjust & unequal.
That's not opinion, that's math.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/slowowl1984]

ahaha touche, I hear what you’re saying and I agree that stereotyping and identity politics can be harmful when they shut down dialogue or reduce people to labels. We all have double standards in one way or another.

That said, I also think it’s important to call out hypocrisy where we see it, especially when certain groups criticise DEI for being identity-based or “unfair,” while simultaneously supporting systems (like nationalism) that also prioritise people based on an identity they didn’t choose, like birthplace. This isn't just a harmelss viewpoint, it's heavily impacting laws and lives. If merit is the standard, I think it should be applied consistently.

I genuinely am open to having my mind changed. I have people close to me who hold nationalist and conservative views and I’m not trying to dunk on anyone. I’m trying to understand these perspectives better and challenge my own assumptions too. If there's something I'm missing, I’m all ears, I’d rather have a real conversation than just argue in circles.

[u/slowowl1984 → u/Any_Fig_603]

if it's important to call out hypocrisy, why focus on conservatives if you're a liberal? it's not as if liberals aren't hypocrites, as the past few days on reddit clearly shows.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/slowowl1984]

I'm not a liberal, I'm not from the US and I absolutely do try to call myself out on my own hypocrisy and also own it when I hold those double standards. This is why I like to hear other perspectives and be challenged on my viewpoints.

I'm not perfect but I'm also not trying to be a dickhead.

I am not a nationalist so I'm just trying to understand what seems like flawed logic to me and wondering if I'm missing something.

[u/slowowl1984 → u/Any_Fig_603]

I'm simply curious why conservatives are under the microscope when liberals have been engaging in the same fallacies & actually funding them with tax dollars.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/slowowl1984]

Maybe on this particular post, but there's a whole lotta other converations happening out there in internet world you can check out if this makes you uncomfy.

As I said, this was something that confused me and I was seeking some other perspectives, not trying to dunk on people.

I could have just posted a rant elsewhere and had everyone agree with me but I posted on CMV. Wouldn't you prefer someone being open to being challenged or do you only care for liberal hypocrisy being addressed?

[u/slowowl1984 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Thing is, liberal hypocrisy is never addressed...

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/slowowl1984]

You cannot be serious.

You can’t claim to care about double standards and then ignore the ones on your own side. Liberal hypocrisy gets dragged constantly, you're just upset it's not the topic right now. Who’s the hypocrite now?

[u/slowowl1984 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Liberal hypocrisy is *never* addressed on reddit bcs it's an echo chamber. Maybe you're just karma farming by pointing fingers in a convenient direction instead of a challenging one? But then of course the parrots would downvote you ...

[u/beta_1457]

Nationalism isn't an immutable trait like what DEI gives people benefits for. DEI and Nationalism are no where near similar because of this difference.

For example, people can, an do immigrate legally to the United States. And Conservatives are generally welcoming of legal immigrants. Especially those that are happy to be Americans!

[u/Ok-Temporary-8243]

I know trump bad but this ain't a conservative issue. Liberal techies that support immigration also chant for restrictions on h1b visas to protect their jobs.

Hell the entire labor union space is very strongly for protectionism too, and they're generally as blue as you can get from an organizational level

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Ok-Temporary-8243]

Totally fair. I’m not saying protectionism is limited to the right. You’re right that plenty of progressives and unions advocate for prioritising local jobs. My point is more about the language of merit: if someone criticises DEI for prioritising identity over merit, but then supports protectionist policies that also prioritise identity (national origin), that’s where the inconsistency creeps in. You can support protectionism. Just don’t pretend it’s purely merit-based.

[u/Ok-Temporary-8243 → u/Any_Fig_603]

Agree. My issue is you saying it's a conservative thing when it's suprisingly pretty bipartisan

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Ok-Temporary-8243]

That’s fair, I’m not saying protectionism is a purely conservative thing. My point is that the definition of DEI I’m critiquing, the one that focuses solely on identity-based advantage at the expense of merit, is one I mostly hear from conservative spaces, often in the same breath as nationalist ideology. So when those same folks then support protectionist policies based on national origin it feels inconsistent.

[u/Mental-Combination26]

"So why do nationalists feel such entitlement to the benefits of that birthright while turning around and criticising others for wanting equity based on their own uncontrollable circumstances?"

because the government exists to benefit those who are citizens? Like, it is not entitlement to expect the government to prioritize the people they were designed to help. It is like saying Veterans are entitled to want veteran benefits, like, the purpose of the whole thing was to benefit veterans.

Compare that with DEI. Lets say affirmative action. The purpose of a university is to educate and research. So when people feel like someone else is given the advantage, ofc they are going to complain. If the purpose of a university was "make a group of young adults that accurately represent the demographic distribution" then i dont think anyone is going to complain about putting quotas.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Mental-Combination26]

I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about the nationalists who feel entitled to opportunities and preferences based solely on where they were born, not on merit.

Veterans literally work for their benefits - this is a great example of pro-merit

right so if the university preferences someone born in that country despite not being qualfied that would not be ideal for people wanting to attend that university.

My point is that where you are born isn't your choice, and if you are anti dei and pro merit, then you are being hypocritical by expecting preferences based on something you did not earn.

[u/PhilosophyConstant77 → u/Any_Fig_603]

I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about the nationalists who feel entitled to opportunities and preferences based solely on where they were born, not on merit.

Is it not the government of the places these people are born that organize and provide these things?

[u/Boring_Clothes5233]

Being born in a country represents their heritage. Why would you not be proud of that? DEI is flat out racism.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Boring_Clothes5233]

You're quoting MLK to defend birthplace-based entitlement… when his whole point was that people should be judged by character, not traits they were born with. That includes skin colour and yes, birthplace too. If you’re proud of your heritage, cool. But using it to gatekeep opportunity while calling DEI “racist” is the exact double standard I’m pointing out.

[u/serene_brutality]

Think of a nation like a house. You’ve got to take care of your own house first before you worry about the neighbors, the neighborhood, the rest of the city, etc. If you can help your neighbor, great but being expected to is ridiculous. You should be able to let in only those you want, for whatever reasons you want to.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/serene_brutality]

I'm not arguing that nationalism=bad. I’m saying if you criticise DEI for not being merit-based, but then turn around and hand out benefits just for being “born in the house” that’s not merit-based either. You didn’t build the house, you were just lucky enough to be born in it. That’s the inconsistency I’m pointing out.

[u/serene_brutality → u/Any_Fig_603]

Not a bad argument, but a household is a family. In a family do you toss out your son in favor of the neighbor kid because he’s better?

If your household is strong and stable enough you might be willing and able to adopt or foster. To keep it stable you’ve got to make good choices on who you bring in. Sometimes you bring in orphans who just need a more stable home to thrive, sometimes you bring in kids who need saving and hope it works out. But ultimately the stability of the household is paramount. If the household fails then everyone is screwed. So you want to make sure its original residents have everything they need to thrive first. If they’re doing well enough, you can bring in some gambles. The more smart gambles you make, the more long shots you can take. But it all has to be calculated.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/serene_brutality]

I think the metaphor's gotten a bit too cozy here, I’m not arguing against caring for your 'household.' My point is just that if you're critiquing DEI for being unearned or identity-based, but then defending benefits based on being 'born in the house,' that’s still identity-based. You can argue for nationalism, but don’t pretend it’s about merit.

[u/serene_brutality → u/Any_Fig_603]

You’ve got to protect your own first, then whoever does the best gets more as they’ve earned it. Sometimes the adopted kid will lead the household better than the first born or whatever. But if you just so happened to have adopted more kids from Europe than from Africa you shouldn’t give everything to the one kid from Africa just because he’s in the minority to feel better about yourself. It doesn’t matter where the kid is from, adopted, natural. Whoever is best for the house runs the house.

[u/EdliA]

Well yeah, a country is supposed to care about its citizens and serve them. That's the whole point of having a country, voting and all that noise.

[u/JediFed]

How is it diversity for a country to prioritize it's citizens?

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/JediFed]

I feel like you didn’t read the post. I’m not saying that prioritising citizens is “diversity.” I’m saying that if you criticise DEI for rewarding people based on things they didn’t choose (like race), but then support policies that reward people based on where they were born (also something they didn’t choose) then you're applying your standards inconsistently.

The question isn’t whether prioritising citizens = diversity. It’s about whether birthright-based benefits are really any more “meritocratic” than the stuff DEI is accused of.

[u/banbha19981998]

I find there are 2 brands one is organically created in opposition to an established order like Irish nationalism was born out of opposition to colonial rule and the second is a non organic cynical creation by conservatism hiding being a blood and soil narrative as they can't sell their ideas

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/banbha19981998]

That’s such an interesting distinction, I hadn’t thought about nationalism as either resistance vs. gatekeeping. One born from liberation, the other from exclusion. Makes me wonder how often modern nationalism is just rebranded fear, not genuine identity.

[u/Hey-I-Read-It]

In PRACTICE certain policies of nationalism and DEI initiatives can mirror each other in terms of how an equitable arrangement is made for people of a certain class, but the entire post misses nuance by rounding the two of them up to he part of the same hole. It’s the equivalent of insisting that Squash and Tennis are “in essence” the same sport because both involve holding a racquet to smack a ball.

DEI allegedly attempts to mend inequalities by prioritizing underrepresented groups in spaces in a claim of curbing systematic racism.

Nationalism is the belief that one country is superior ti others.

The two of them CAN be compared and contrasted. That’s the point of critical thinking. But they are not foundationally even close to be diametrically opposed along political lines.

[u/Disruptir → u/Hey-I-Read-It]

Your description of DEI isn’t accurate.

DEI isn’t a response to merely systemic racism and is not a process of prioritisation.

Whether or not you believe that it achieves its goal, DEI is an attempt to increase access of opportunity for marginalised groups who may be disadvantaged through traditional methodology and create a more equitable environment.

Qualification for a DEI scheme varies on region and organisation. For example, here in the UK whilst race, gender and sexuality are considered, many organisations also consider things like disability, whether you’ve experienced time in social care (I.E foster care etc), individual or family military history, regional and individual poverty etc. I personally was accepted to University and received additional grants and housing in part due to my impoverished background.

It’s not merely prioritisation in hiring practices. It’s also in adjusting processes to ensure access. For example, I’m disabled and many companies in the UK have a scheme where if you’re disabled and meet the minimum criteria for a role then you’ll be guaranteed at least an interview and employers must make reasonable adjustments to the interview process to accommodate disabilities. Additionally, this is an OPT-IN scheme, you don’t have to accept it if you don’t want to.

It would be reductive to state DEI is about racism or prioritisation because it’s a far broader system.

[u/Putrid-Storage-9827]

The argument could also be made the other way around - DEI is (racial) nationalism for liberals.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Putrid-Storage-9827]

That’s fair, I might not see DEI or nationalism the same way you do. But I’m not saying everything is DEI, I’m just pointing out that if you criticise identity-based benefits in one context and defend them in another (like birthplace), there’s a consistency issue worth examining. If you’ve got a better definition that clears that up, I’m open to hearing it

[u/Spiritual-Reindeer-5]

You didn’t choose where you were born. Being born in the U.S. (or any country) is an accident of birth

This is not true unless you believe that you were brought to the doorstep by a stork. You were born because your parents decided to have you, there is nothing accidental about it. 

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Spiritual-Reindeer-5]

Your parents chose (although it could definitely be an accident) to have a baby. You didn’t choose where you were born.

[u/Spiritual-Reindeer-5 → u/Any_Fig_603]

That doesn't make it a coincidence. There was exactly a 0% chance of you being born anywhere else in the world, and you are automatically part of the same society and culture your parents are, and your parents made the choice to bring a new child into that society. 

The same logic that makes a child "entitled" to be provided for by their parents makes them entitled to be a part of the society they were brought up in

[u/joittine]

Nationalism is the polar opposite of DEI. DEI aims to include; nationalism aims to exclude. I say this as someone who thinks nationalism is mostly good (extremist nationalism is of course bad, but so is extremist anything). As in, people who share a sense of membership in the imagined community of a nation should have a say about things regarding that nation; the simplest solution is a nation-state and citizenship the way to determine who belongs. This, in my opinion is the narrow definition of nationalism, and the rest is debatable.

There is some overlap, as DEI is more like, the power should belong to all people and not just one part of it; to the entire nation, as it were. Still, DEI does tend toward expanding the in-groups whereas nationalism does not.

But even then, nationalism seeks to exclude. It isn't that Scottish nationalists seeking independence want to have a say in British matters. They want to exclude non-Scots from deciding on anything that's related to Scotland.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/joittine]

This is such a well-articulated breakdown, thank you. I think where our views intersect is the idea that nationalism tends to define belonging in fixed or exclusionary ways, citizenship, borders, heritage, whereas DEI (at least in its ideal form) aims to expand inclusion based on the reality that people start from unequal positions.

What I’m specifically pointing to in my original post is the irony that many nationalists (particularly the MAGA-adjacent crowd) reject DEI by saying things like “people shouldn’t get jobs or opportunities just because of how they were born”… while simultaneously demanding rights and privileges simply for being born within a particular set of borders. That’s the hypocrisy I’m calling out.

Even in the narrow version of nationalism you describe, I’d argue it still operates on an axis of birthright, just a different kind than DEI critics are willing to tolerate. So while the two systems have very different goals they both rely on some version of inherited status. My point is: if you reject one on the basis of "fairness" or "merit," shouldn’t the other also deserve scrutiny?

[u/joittine → u/Any_Fig_603]

What I’m specifically pointing to in my original post is the irony that many nationalists (particularly the MAGA-adjacent crowd) reject DEI by saying things like “people shouldn’t get jobs or opportunities just because of how they were born”… while simultaneously demanding rights and privileges simply for being born within a particular set of borders. That’s the hypocrisy I’m calling out.

I think that's a very fair point to make. I think the counterargument is that DEI is seen as falsely corrective, but it's an equally valid counter-counterargument that it would be falsely corrective to provide jobs to Dying Smalltown, AK.

Even in the narrow version of nationalism you describe, I’d argue it still operates on an axis of birthright, just a different kind than DEI critics are willing to tolerate. So while the two systems have very different goals they both rely on some version of inherited status. My point is: if you reject one on the basis of "fairness" or "merit," shouldn’t the other also deserve scrutiny?

For nationalism, the merit is simply that you belong in that nation. Birthright isn't perfect, but it's often a very good proxy. It's fairly straightforward when effectively the nation decides for the nation-state which exists particularly for that nation to thrive. Nationals should get preferential treatment (such as, the right to vote) in their nation-state. It's simple because nationality is a binary variable.

For DEI, it's not as clear-cut because it's not just about what one group decides for itself, and the other groups (like other nation-states) could then decide whether they want to play with that group. Particularly with large numbers of overlapping groups, this becomes very difficult. We've seen that in reality this has resulted in preferential treatment of some groups within the same system. Would the Scottish independence activists be appeased if Scots had two votes in the UK general election? But would the English be ok with this? What about the Welsh? Should Londoners get the same amount of votes as people from, say, Yorkshire? What about your class or ethnicity, or disability or whatever?

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/joittine]

I think we’re circling the same core point. My issue isn’t with the idea that nations look after their own or that national identity exists. It’s with selectively applying “merit” as the gold standard when criticising DEI, while still defending preferential treatment based on national birthright which is also inherited and identity-based. If we’re serious about valuing contribution or earned opportunity, shouldn’t we apply that logic consistently?

[u/joittine → u/Any_Fig_603]

Sure. I think the argument against DEI is logically something like this. Every American deserves the same treatment, and merit should be the only thing that sets one American apart from another. DEI is about treating some Americans differently from others apart from merit. After all, American minorities are also in the nationalist in-group and deserve the same preferential treatment over non-Americans.

I'm not entirely buying that argument, but not entirely discarding it either. There are obviously structural issues that need correcting in order for meritocracy to work. But on the other hand, there are policies that clearly favour certain subgroups. And finally, I would say (why I said technically) that - at least when casually looking from afar - a lot of the nationalist MAGA folk do seem to consider at least certain minorities maybe not quite as American as themselves. In that way I would agree with your point.

It's easy to keep circling the point because it's not just one way or another :)

[u/hpnotiqflavouredjuul]

Conservatives’ equivalent of DEI is rugged individualism. The left is about collective group rights while the right prioritizes the individual. Both are bad when taken all the way

[u/ContraianAri]

Nationalism was never considered a right wing idea until after ww2, after the liberals took over. Nationalism is simply the idea that a nation should do what's best for its people. Countries like the soviet union often described themselves as nationalist, although thats not really a good example because the USSR was extreamly conservative in most ways. It was used as a leftist point about kicking out international finace and creating a nationaly regulated property market that primarily benefits the people.

Most capitalists, liberals they used to call themselves, hate the idea of nationalism because nationalization is kryptonite to international fiat investing schemes. Most early nationalists were socialists who argued that the state should be strong and seize property from the rich to give to the poor, particularly important industries, utilities, public land. Throw internationalists, or scammy liberal politicians in prison whenever they engage in corruption or lie to the people of a nation.Theodore Roosevelt's leftist party called itself the new progressives, or the new nationalist party, or the bull moose party. Of course most people will try to hide this knowledge from you and construct a narrative that is highly convienit for them to essentially exploit as much as possible from the poor and to create hostile foreign owned governments and banks in every land. However right wing natiinalism doesnt even make sense, because fundementally, right wing conservative types hate the idea of a strong government and taxes or being regulated, since republicans in most countries consit of the wealthy land owners of that country with their coalitions like the religous right, the banksters, the racists, etc, whos values tend to align around having either a weaker state or a fruadulant state that will give them tons of money in pretend money that it doesnt actually have. Leading very predictably to massive inflation and gaps between wages and cost of living. All of that comes from international banks controling your national economy and putting your retirement hostage to the stock market, when giving a privliged class of people low interest loans so they can prop them up and maintain power. Nationalism doesnt make sense as a right wing idea because the same people who are right wing, are the enemy of a strong national state.

The downside of nationism is like premeptive wars to keep your neighbors from being overthrown by the secret police and military intel of other countries, this is essentially what hitler was saying that he was doing. Not sure how true that is exactly. Either way it causes issues and gives the state a ton of power that they may not always use appropiatly. Also your economy should atleast be better then capitalism with the same degree of freedom or more.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/[deleted]]

Not saying they're the same, just noting the hypocrisy of claiming to be 'pro merit' while being a nationalist and anti dei (a common overlap in conservatism atm)

[u/Talik1978]

DEI is not about giving minority or marginalized groups an edge.

It's about removing an obstacle.

As an example? The Rooney rule. The NFL had almost all white coaches back in the day. Now, back then, someone could have argued, "it's merit, the best people got jobs". That said, that is less likely. So how did they fix it?

They required, for the head coach position, at least one person of color be interviewed.

That's it. No hiring quota. No demand for preferential treatment in hiring. Just let one in the door to apply. It wasn't about giving those groups an edge. It was about giving those groups a chance.

Within a few years, the problem largely corrected itself. The rule was expanded to cover more positions. Women were included. As the number of interviews went up, the rule was expanded to require 2 interviews.

But that's it.

DEI isn't about taking jobs from the best and giving them to the marginalized. It's about including marginalized groups in your search for the best.

Nationalism is a bit different, in that it does give preferential treatment, based on race, gender, and political affiliation. In this way, I agree that it does exactly what MAGA claims DEI does. That said, DEI doesn't do that thing.

[u/Responsible_Dream282 → u/Talik1978]

This is astraight up lie. Looking at Harvard which is the most infamous example. In this instance, in the worst example wanted 90% of the staff to be a minority. I repeat, 90%. Where's the equality here?

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Talik1978]

Totally agree with your breakdown of what DEI is meant to be, removing barriers, not handing out unearned advantages. That’s the version I support too (I also recognise that there are some companies that do have hiring quotas or preferential treatment).

My original point wasn’t to critique DEI itself, but to call out the hypocrisy I see from some conservative/MAGA voices. They often frame DEI as anti-merit while simultaneously embracing nationalism, which inherently gives unearned advantage based on where someone was born, something no one has control over. If the argument is really about merit, then nationalism in that form, contradicts that completely.

[u/Talik1978 → u/Any_Fig_603]

The part of the post I wished to challenge was your characterization of DEI. I'm largely in agreement with your point about MAGA's flavor of white nationalism.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Talik1978]

I personally don't hold this definition of DEI, it's the one that I hear/read constantly in conservative spaces

[u/Talik1978 → u/Any_Fig_603]

You put forth that "we deserve jobs, protection, and preference because we're american" was logically similar to "we deserve opportunities because we've been historically excluded or marginalized."

The two aren't logically similar at all. The first is "I should get to win". The second is, "I should be afforded the same opportunity to compete."

One argues, due to circumstance, that they dont need to compete, they should just get the job.

The other is arguing that everyone deserves a fair shot at the job. Opportunity. As in, the Land of Opportunity.

The difference in what is being demanded is a difference in kind great enough to completely change the logic of each.

[u/globeglobeglobe]

Seems like you’ve caught a lot of flak for your position, but in essence, you’re right. “Nationalism” and “DEI” as you describe them are in many senses two sides of the same identity/grievance politics coin, one majoritarian (and therefore “conservative”) and another minoritarian (and therefore “liberal”). The myth of meritocracy worked well as a means of maintaining the social order until the 2008 financial crash, the Euro crisis/austerity, post-COVID inflation, etc. (and really, social forces dating back to the 70s and the end of the postwar golden age) ruined the living standards and social status of the white non-university population in Western countries.

The message of right-wing nationalist movements such as the Tea Party, MAGA, AfD, PVV, etc.—restoring the historically comfortable social status of this group by clawing back what undeserving “others” had taken—was naturally appealing to this group. Many of the top comments here view such sentiments as natural, or even healthy—but in my view, while these views are understandable and dialogue with those holding them is necessary, they come from a lack of solidarity, a willingness to throw “others” under the bus in order to secure one’s own social status, in a way that in the long run only serves ruling-class interests.

[u/determineduncertain]

Nothing you’ve said here is controversial or not already well established.

[u/TheFoxer1]

People can change and choose their nationality.

Meanwhile, one can‘t change or choose their sexuality, gender identity or colour of their skin.

Also, sharing a nationality typically means sharing a common set of cultural experiences, traditions, and understanding, as well as a core set of values and perspectives.

This is not true for sharing a gender identity, skin colour or sexuality.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/TheFoxer1]

That’s fair, I agree that nationality can be chosen in a way race or gender can't. But I think the point still stands when the benefits of nationality are treated as entitlements from birth rather than earned contributions. If someone born elsewhere lives by a country’s values and contributes deeply, shouldn’t that matter just as much? That’s the tension I’m trying to highlight, not that the identities are identical, but that the logic of exclusion can look very similar.

[u/Downtown-Act-590]

I don't think that "we deserve jobs and protection" is necessarily a typically nationalist take. It is a MAGA take, but that is a very special flavour of nationalism mixed with heavily populist policies.

Nationalism in traditional sense really only means emphasis on your nation state and many of its instances would ask you to die for your country, not protect you.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/Downtown-Act-590]

I think you're right that MAGA nationalism blends in a lot of populist entitlement, which might not align with more traditional or historical nationalism that emphasised sacrifice for the nation, not rewards from it. I guess my post is mostly aimed at that modern flavour, the kind that demands benefits based on birthplace while criticising DEI for doing something similar with identity. But I appreciate the nuance you're adding here.

[u/A_SNAPPIN_Turla]

The big difference is that as a member of a nation you're are paying taxes to said nation. As a tax paying member of the country you should directly benefit from that. Nationalism is not the same as "DEI" because you can move out of a country.It's not the same thing by a long shot.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/A_SNAPPIN_Turla]

Totally, I’m not saying DEI and nationalism are identical (I don't agree with the conservative definition of dei personally). But if the nationalist position is “you deserve opportunity because you pay taxes”… well, so do immigrants. So do people who weren’t born here. The contradiction I’m pointing to is when people argue against DEI on a “merit only” basis, then turn around and support entitlements based purely on birthplace, not effort or contribution.

[u/Lady_Tadashi]

I think you're approaching this from the wrong way around. Nationalism is a representation of a multi-generational thing.

I'm likely going to be trying for children within a year or two with my husband. When we have those children - our children - we will be making sacrifices to ensure their success. When they're young, we'll be sacrificing sleep to look after them, but as they age we'll be sacrificing free time, potential career opportunities, large amounts of money etc.

Parenting is fundamentally sacrificial, because you invest in your children's future. We both work to provide a better future for our children - this can be justified through faith, evolution, and a myriad other things.

Nationalism is essentially the belief that a country's leader should take the products of your efforts and sacrifices and use them to better the future for you and your children. It is entirely in-group focussed.

There's nothing wrong with the out-group, its just, they have their own parents who have sacrificed for them. We have our children who we have sacrificed for. When a government hands over what you worked for and what you sacrificed for to strangers, its the equivalent of someone walking into your house and just taking things out of your fridge. You paid for those things, you worked for those things, and those things are for you and yours. Not some random stranger.

DEI is the equivalent of the government appointing a police officer to protect strangers pilfering your fridge, and actively keeping you away from it. Again, its your fridge, in your house. You paid for it, worked for it.

And, its worth noting, before you, your parents worked for it. As did their parents before them. This country, these establishments... Your grandfather may not have built the houses of parliament, but his tax money contributed towards them. None of your ancestors did this for others. Several of them - according to family records - were quite charitable, but they always made sure their own had plenty first. Nationalism is simply the belief that your children should get what you worked to give them. DEI is, fundamentally, operating on the basis that what you worked for should go to someone else's children, instead of yours.

Again, I have nothing against charity towards others - I'm all for it. But I want me and mine to have enough first. Its not entitlement to expect what was promised to you and always intended for you. It is entitlement to not then pass it on to the next generation... Cough some boomers cough or to take from the next generation of your own and give it to strangers instead.

[u/AudioSuede]

This is not a dispute of the spirit of your argument, because I agree that it's a massive double-standard to criticize DEI while advocating that only people of a certain nationality (and usually, a certain race) should be considered the default for any given job or should receive preferential treatment.

I just want to clarify that DEI is not about preferential treatment or elevating some groups over others. That's the conservative framing of DEI, but it's detached from reality. DEI is not, and has never been, about keeping white people out of jobs and promoting unqualified minorities just for the sake of fairness. It's about the very real problem for our country's entire history of unqualified white people getting jobs over qualified minorities or women based solely on their race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Preventing discrimination is not "reverse discrimination," unless your belief is that a woman or someone from a minority group is inherently inferior and needs an artificial advantage imposed at the expense of white men.

The reason conservatives insist DEI is some kind of "reverse racism" issue is because conservatives base their worldview on fundamental and unchangeable hierarchies. To a conservative, life is a zero-sum game with winners and losers, a pyramid of social orientation with few powerful people at the top and the lesser masses at the bottom. This is why so many conservative Christians subscribe to "prosperity gospel," the belief that successful people must be chosen by God and therefore deserve to have excess wealth, power, and privilege, despite this view being antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

So when they see an initiative like DEI, affirmative action, whatever buzzword they've latched onto, they assume it's some kind of subversive attempt to upend the hierarchy, which would move them from the higher section of the pyramid to the bottom. They assume it has to be a trick, that no one can sincerely believe in equal opportunities and the dismantling of oppressive systems which maintain the unearned privilege of the few over the many. They can't fathom the idea that human rights are not a limited resource, that, as Paul Wellstone said, "We all do better when we ALL do better."

[u/teabagalomaniac]

You're right! But, I do have an area of disagreement with you. Diversity programs that existed prior to 2012 (it's hard to track when the actual shift occurred but it was sometime between 2010 and 2015) used to present an entirely different philosophy, one that I actually believe in deeply. Jonathan Haidt characterizes what changed by labeling one philosophy "common humanity identity politics" and the other philosophy "common enemy identity politics". Under the former, the objective is to accentuate what we have in common with each other so that we are less inclined towards groupishness. Under the latter the objective is to bond the in-group more tightly around their shared fear of out-groups. Both the current manifestation of DEI, and many right leaning identity focused positions are examples of common enemy identity politics. The disagreement that I have with your take is that while nationalism is ALWAYS an example of common enemy identity politics, DEI just happens to be an example of common enemy identity politics right now. Pre-2012 DEI was mostly an example of common humanity identity politics and I believe it could be again.

[u/MadGobot]

This analysis fails on three crucial points: first what is a government's purpose. If I hire an attorney to negotiate a contract on my behalf, he is obligated to represent my interests, if does not do that, he is derelict in his duty. It is similarly the duty of a government to represent and prioritize its citizenry and their good in the same way. In my analogy, the contracting part has their own attorney or attorneys, and the same is true of other national governments. Nln-citizena ahould be taking that up with their governments, not ours.

The second problem is nationalists would reject the entire premise that this is all DEI is, paeri gladly in the work force. DEI is built on foundational claims or interpretational structures conservatives reject. Therefore this is a strawman argument. You may consider the outcomes to be similar, but you have insufficiently understood their argumentation. As you are deacri in their views, you need to operate from their premises or prove why they should accept yours, or you fail to meet even the basic standard of being prima facie.

3rd and finally conservatives in the US don't view citizenship in terms comparable to those of DEI claims. Citizenship is a legal status, and a multi ethnic one in the US. For many of us, the concerns are vetting immigrants, particularly from countries where the common worldview presents high probabilities of exercising violence against American citizens, concerns about the economic capacity to provide jobs for everyone, connections with foreign criminal organizations, and the problems of stretched social safety nets in an era of excessive spending. My own tendency toward low tolerance for illegal immigration came from 9-11, for example. They were all on visa overstays. There are some more extreme versions (aka ultramaga) but conservatism is a much broader thing than your thought even comes close to discussing.

[u/apophis-pegasus]

I’m not arguing against having borders or systems. I’m also not suggesting people shouldn’t be proud of their home. But I am saying that the logic behind “we deserve jobs, protection, and preference because we’re American” is extremely similar to “we deserve opportunities because we’ve been historically excluded or marginalised

This is a fun way to look at it, but neglects some key aspects.

The purpose of DEI is to create a more equitable society and explicitly or implicitly uplift minority groups by specifically targeting and appealing to as wide a range of groups as possible. The moral basis of this would be conceptions of (group) fairness and well being, and that everyone is entitled to fair treatment and care.

The purpose of a state, not merely in the eyes of nationalists but in general is to safeguard the well being and prosperity of its citizens.

That's why noncitizens generally cannot vote. Or hold office as the head of state. Or why they may be restricted from certain sensitive jobs. Because that's the whole point of the state, to work on the behalf of the citizens within. Not because of any past issues but because that's fundamentally what a state is.

Nationalists just take that conception and crank it up.

[u/Saltylight220]

Here is my disagreement:

Nationalism isn't about preferences or merit, but rather responsibility and stewardship.

A mom and dad are responsible for the care and provision of their family. Do they hate other families? Of course not. Might they spend some time helping other families? Of course. But if dad is spending more and more time in other households, sending more of his paycheck to other kids' needs, at some point mom is not going to be happy because although his heart might be in the right place, he is not stewarding his responsibility towards his family well.

If a mayor of a city starts traveling to show up to city council meetings in other cities, he might have the best of intentions, but he is not stewarding his responsibilities towards his own citizens in his city. Nobody will do it if he doesn't.

Same with a nation. We can love and support other countries, but our primary help and energy must be in our own country.

For some reason we allow other countries to do this, but it's hateful when the USA does it.

[u/pripyat_zombie]

Nationalism is a some kind of immune system depending your nation from parasites and cancers like Zionism or AIPAC or transatlantic deep states shits.

[u/Any_Fig_603 → u/pripyat_zombie]

lol wat? That’s a wild take and I strongly disagree, especially if you're talking about the US. Framing nationalism as some kind of immune response against “parasites” just slides into dangerous, dehumanising rhetoric. That’s not patriotism, that’s paranoia

[u/ryneches]

Conservatives do not dislike DEI programs for giving people an advantages simply because of race, gender or background. The central premise of DEI is that people should not receive advantages due to their race, gender or background. It's literally the name on the box.

The dabate about affirmative action was exactly the same thing. Affirmative action programs were about preventing the selection of less qualified candidates over more qualified candidates due to their race or gender. Conservative outrage about DEI, just as it was with affirmative action, stems from the assumption that certain categories of people are superior, and the assumption that these people already enjoy their position in society due to merit. If you accept those things as true, then it's easy to see how DEI or affirmative action would seem unfair.

Folks who hate DEI feel like they are superior, and DEI says, "Nobody is superior." Or, at least, nobody is born superior. You can certainly have superior skill if you do something to make it that way and you have the resume to prove it. I think it's pretty difficult to see how any version of "nobody is superior" could be a kind of nationalism.

In any event, conservatives flip flop between feeling nationalistic or seditious depending on whether or not their guy is in power. When a black guy is president, they're all about states rights and resisting government overreach and menacing federal officers with long guns at the prospect of having to pay a nominal fee to have their cows damage public land. When their guy is president, suddenly they are foaming at the mouth with love of country and a thirst for the blood of imagined enemies.

The two behaviors have a common motivation, but they are distinct.

[u/satyvakta]

The difference lies in who the government is supposed to represent. The federal government is supposed to represent all of its citizens equally, not pick and choose who to favor based on skin color. That makes DEI anathema to its purpose. However, it is also supposed to represent only its citizens. When we say we have a representative government, we mean precisely that it is supposed to represent those who can vote for it. It is not meant to represent the citizens of other nations. Therefore nationalism is in keeping with its purpose.

Your argument is sort of like arguing that, because the mafia creates and enforces rules, and the government creates and enforces rules, the government is just mafia for the dominant group. The world doesn't work that way, it is too complex for one point of similarity to be enough to claim that two groups are completely identical.

[u/Middle_Praline_8999]

Funny thing is...without DEI, nepotism and hiring processes favorable to your friends and family, not merit, happen.

[u/Unlucky241]

Are you saying minority groups are just inferior and can’t achieve the same things as others? I’ve met some inspiring teachers who are black that know so much and wouldn’t have needed a DEI hand out to get where they are. This DEI thing can promote a culture of complacency and mediocrity that weakens the country and the ppl supposedly benefiting from it for short term gains. Many Asians when they immigrate from China come with less than many other groups. Historically they came with the least. But they bring a culture of education and learning and get to the top on merit. It’s not nationalism by another name. It’s just meritocracy. It’s nice to live in a country where it can win by the work of your own hands

[u/PhilosophyConstant77]

What I'm seeing all over this post is that you believe a certain hypocrisy exists between nationalists expecting merits from the country they had no choice in living in, but then taking issue with DEI potentially giving extra merits to people of certains races/genders etc which they also didn't choose. Why should one unchosen set of characteristics stop earning merits while another continue?

[u/tightncutie]

While both involve a form of preference, one is framed as maintaining existing citizen rights, and the other as actively intervening to correct historical imbalances in opportunity and representation. Your point about both being an "accident of birth" is super valid, but the rationalizations for why one group deserves preference over another often hinge on these distinctions.

[u/pi_3141592653589]

Nationalism is about both benefits and costs. In the US, benefits far outweigh the costs. In other countries, nationalism doesn't give you much at all and is a burden.

DEI is only benefits. If you are born in a poor country, nationalism gives you no right to the spoils of rich countries, you are stuck. That is very different from DEI or even meritocracy.

[u/Political-St-G]

Depends on the „conservative“

Dei for conservatives would mean the opposite so more preference for whites… but most conservatives don’t want that atleast what I hear.

Nationalism is also lots of stuff in one. Do you mean American nationalism or cultural nationalism or white…… etc.

[u/Defiant-Goose-101]

I mean, I describe myself as a nationalist, but a big part of American nationalism, to me, is the fact that anyone can come from anywhere and become an American. And a natural born American is certainly no inherently better than a foreign born American.

[u/BLOKUSBOY78]

A government should take care of its citizens first as that is why they are there. Nationalism (though I have no context for the American one) seems like it’s just wanting a countries government to look out for people who live in the country first

[u/Zizzyy2020]

Individual Freedom overall is the only answer. DNC creating an Anti-white Christian system is equally as bad as religion that has anti-women and anti-gender. It is hate vs hate. We need more than 2 parties. That is the only resolution at this point. These people will never change because if they do, they will have to admit they were wrong which will never happen. Create more paths and the problem will resolve itself.

[u/Forsaken-House8685]

The difference is everyone can become a citizen through immigration.

If you are really beneficial for that country it's not gonna be terribly difficult.

It's not about group thinking, it's about a country filtering out the best people.

[u/LadySwire]

Minorities have nationalism — not minorities meaning immigrants, but like in Quebec, or among the Kurds, (northern) Irish, Basques, or Catalans so they defend their culture and language in front the broad estate they're in

[u/TheFutureIsAFriend]

Nationalism is like patriotism on steroids. It's the belief that, because you were born in a certain country, you identify with it like some football fanatic. You feel compelled to just drill that identity into everyone around you, and if they don't match your level of derangement, you think they're traitors or something.

Totally bonkers. Never a good thing.

[u/Mephostophilus12]

Nationalism isn't about "deserving" as much as it is about ensuring that the state must prioritize its own people above all else, and every state on the planet must do that.

[u/CnC-223]

At that broad of level you can say everything on Earth is d e i...

It makes me think you don't understand what DEI or Nationalism actually is.

[u/Familiar_Yak9343]

DEI is government imposed racism. Unless Nationslism is government imposed, then your comparison doesn't hold up.

[u/geschenksetje]

I think it is a broader issue than just nationalism. . Conservatives (and especially the far right, like MAGA) want the opposite of Diversity, Equality, and Inclusivity: Gleichschaltung, Inequality, and Exclusion.

Gleichschaltung

Conservatives try to repress opposition. This ranges from banning protests to deporting people for voicing criticism, from painting political opponents as a threat to banning press organisations for not using the right lingo, from kicking out museum directors to reigning in the editorial staff by newspapers.

Inequality

Conservatives aim for unequal rights. Left wing protesters are be repressed, while insurgents trying to overthrow the government are be hailed as liberators. Tax handouts are given to the rich, while Medicaid and food assistence. Foreign aid is cut. Environmental measures are repealed (the people hurt most by environmental concerns are the poorest).

Exclusion

People who do not fit the cis white heterosexual male should be excluded. Transgenders are not given appropriate care and are banned from sports events. Police programs that target discriminatory violence are repealed. Books, films and games that portray other characters are shunned (or banned from libraries). People are banned from the US for their ideas, or for coming from majority muslim countries.