As Americans we believe that all men are endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. That is to say these rights are inherent and cannot be taken away by another man. .

Your post starts with a questionable premise that most Trump supporters don't truthfully share, and have actively worked against throughout this country's sordid history.

[A world without borders is great in theory.

As Americans we believe that all men are endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. That is to say these rights are inherent and cannot be taken away by another man. Obviously, that's an abstract concept that doesn't always work from a practical standpoint as is illustrated very clearly just by looking at slavery.

The idea of inalienable rights does not exist without the Constitution and enforcement thereof. If we are "citizens of the world" we have no Constitution and are thus subject to the whims of the latest dictator who has seized power.

Obama seems to believe that "American exceptionalism" doesn't exist. But make no mistake, your rights, in as much as you have any, are inextricably tied to America. They don't exist under some ambiguous global system. When I hear a really smart guy like Noam Chomsky decry American exceptionalism I wonder if he is aware that it's the very exceptionalism that he is decrying that allows him to decry it.

When I hear a really smart guy like Noam Chomsky decry American exceptionalism I wonder if he is aware that it's the very exceptionalism that he is decrying that allows him to decry it.

PASS!!

I'm not really talking about Trump here, but I think you're wrong in saying "most" Trump supporters don't believe it. The discussion is larger than Trump. Where do our rights come from as "citizens of the world"? A world without borders is great in theory.

We just spent 8 years with the next potus calling the current one illegitimate because of his race, hypocrisy running rampant largely (or bigly, if you will) by those now calling for "fairness " although just 10 days ago MANY of them stood shoulder to shoulder with folks calling for armed revolution and their lack of belief in the system.

We just spent 8 years with the next potus calling the current one illegitimate because of his race, hypocrisy running rampant largely (or bigly, if you will) by those now calling for "fairness " although just 10 days ago MANY of them stood shoulder to shoulder with folks calling for armed revolution and their lack of belief in the system.

Chomsky came to talk to our class in grad school--it was pretty damn cool.

He is aware of that--he has to be--so he's using it to his advantage.

My quibble with Chomsky is that he is too macro. It's hard for Americans to get the moral energy going to care about the other. And vice-versa. I'm pissed that we're bombing a number of nations, but I need a friggin' job. Still, it's good to read (summaries of!) what he says, because it challenges me to get over myself.

As Americans we believe that all men are endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. That is to say these rights are inherent and cannot be taken away by another man. Obviously, that's an abstract concept that doesn't always work from a practical standpoint as is illustrated very clearly just by looking at slavery.

The idea of inalienable rights does not exist without the Constitution and enforcement thereof. If we are "citizens of the world" we have no Constitution and are thus subject to the whims of the latest dictator who has seized power.

Obama seems to believe that "American exceptionalism" doesn't exist. But make no mistake, your rights, in as much as you have any, are inextricably tied to America. They don't exist under some ambiguous global system. When I hear a really smart guy like Noam Chomsky decry American exceptionalism I wonder if he is aware that it's the very exceptionalism that he is decrying that allows him to decry it.

It seems like you are talking about two different things. Nationalism vs. the American system/code of laws. Nationalism is more of a feeling that your nation usually meaning people sharing a similar language and culture is superior to others. It's why "Deutschland über Alles" lays claim to most of Europe. Nationalism is mostly based on feeling and emotions. It's almost a collective self-esteem and feeling of superiority over "others", and, yes, it's pretty immoral.

The Constitution is far more scientific. The creator may have "granted" us these rights, but it's more of a guiding system to an idealized society.

I began reading a book of his about the Palestinian- Israeli conflict a few months ago. He has some interesting positions about the conflict. "MANY" would not agree with the positions that he has taken about the origins of said conflict

[ If there are no shared values, then we're not really a nation at all, but rather a bunch of people residing on the same continent.

seems sort of where we are now.

seems like there are a couple americas.

seems like that's common in the West in this age of migration, though. (USA, UK, Deutschland, France, Scandinavia, Austraaaaaaalia, etc.)

By nationalism in this context I meant, is it moral to have the world divided up into nations?

But if we're looking at it from your perspective above, obviously, with regard to America, we all come from somewhere else, so the thread tying us together has to be shared values rather than a common ethnicity or even language. If there are no shared values, then we're not really a nation at all, but rather a bunch of people residing on the same continent.

(or bigly, if you will)

Where do our rights come from as "citizens of the world"? A world without borders is great in theory.