Jimmy Sengenberger

Radio Host · Speaker · Commentator · Nonprofit President

Nationally-recognized Radio Talk Show Host Public Speaker Political Commentator Nonprofit President

Debate Hour #3: Can a Buddhist support Trump? Nationalism & globalism

November 27, 2018 Seng Center Blog core teaching, globalism, nationalism

Greetings Fellow Citizens,

Here is the final hour (43 minutes) of our debate.  The discussion focuses on nationalism and globalism and I got a little feisty to mix things up.  Even Jimmy got involved thus adding to the conversation.  I conclude with a reminder of a core teaching of the Buddha.
Hour 3 Podcast Link:
No Buddhist Can Support The 5 Mindfulness Trainings 
& Support Donald J. Trump   
Views of Liberalism, Leftism, Conservatism, 
Nationalism & Globalism
Airdate:  11/24/18
[3rd HOUR]
JIMMY SENGENBERGER:   Saturday night is never alright for the third and final hour of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” because, well, it means we’re less than an hour away from the end of this edition of the program.  But never fear, we’ll be back same time, same place next Saturday night for more engaging, intelligent conversation Seng style, right here on 710 KNUS…
Alright, so very pleased to have in studio Dr. Rob Margesson, Associate Professor of Communications at Regis University, my alma mater, where he is chair of the Communication Department and the Director of the Forensic Debate Program.
 We’ve also got Dr. Marv Treiger on the line, retired psychotherapist, a Buddhist teacher, and a man who was so far to the left back in the day that he left the Communist Party because it wasn’t radical enough for him.  Now he’s a conservative Trump supporter and we have talked about his story at length in the past  so we won’t go over it again but it is a fascinating one. 
 And it’s great to have you both here.  And Rob, I want to get your thoughts on the Nationalism idea, because we heard Marv address that a little bit, we’ll hear him discuss it more in-depth.  But this is the concept that President Trump brings up, or a term that he brings up to describe himself, and you take some issue with it.  Why and what?
DR. ROB MARGESSON:   My problem – this is where the rhetorical scholar in me comes out, and maybe people don’t listen to the show to get a lecture on rhetoric but they’re going to get the short one.  You know, words have meaning beyond the dictionary definition that we attach to them, and you could look up the word ‘Nationalist’ or ‘Nationalism’ in the dictionary and it’ll, you know, reference, you know, patriotism, it’ll reference the belief that your country is superior to all other countries – a debate Jimmy and I can have another time, whether or not that matters —
SENGENBERGER:   Marv may want to bring it up, too.
MARGESSON:   Yeah, and that ~~ yeah —
[PODCAST 2:41]
SENGENBERGER:   Here’s the definition.  Dictionary – since you mentioned dictionary definition – “Patriotic feeling, principles or efforts; an extreme form of this is especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries”, so exactly as you described.
MARGESSON:   Yeah.  Yeah, I know my words.  But here’s the thing, you know, the term has, over the years, been weaponized by groups and individuals that use it to divide and conquer.  And I mean, again, this is kind of a hairsplitting argument here but I feel like the President of The United States should be aware of the language choices he makes.  When you look at Nationalist organizations, Nationalist political parties, in the United States and abroad, those parties use the term Nationalism as a means of creating an us-v.-them dichotomy.  So when you say, ‘I’m a Nationalist’, and there are countless Nationalist parties in other countries around the world, they are parties predominately built on the belief that there’s an ‘us’ and a ‘them’ and ‘we are right and they are in our space to destroy us and to do damage to our values’.
So, I find it, it’s a troubling term to use for the President of The United States especially one who has, whether he likes it or not, been kind of taken up as the darling of the Alt-Right, which I know he has dismissed any association with the Alt-Right, but they still absolutely adore him, and those are Nationalist groups, they define themselves as Nationalist groups.  So I just find it troubling that, that’s a word choice that is a dog whistle to those groups and a word choice that represents a long history of divisiveness and violence, I just would like our President to be more aware of the language he uses in a public setting.
SENGENBERGER:   Dr. Marv Treiger, what about that, the point that there’s a lot of historical meaning that comes along with this idea of narrative or rather Nationalism, a real history and a narrative that goes along with it?
[PODCAST 4:55] 
Dr. MARVIN TREIGER:   Well, that’s just simply a very one-sided way of putting things and really a very inaccurate one.  I would make the case that Nationalism is ~~ without Nationalism, we would have never created the extraordinary technological marvels, democratic institutions, we wouldn’t, the world wouldn’t be where it is today in its positive respects without Nationalism.  That all through Western History, there has been a battle between self-determination and national independence – on the one hand against tribalism, which is chaotic and horrific, and on the other side, against empire, which is over-weaning and dominant.  And this goes back, really you know, to the whole Protestant construction in the Middle Ages with the Treaties of Westphalia.  They were, on one hand, looked like religious wars, but they were actually wars where Protestant nation-states became established, rather than having a Holy German Empire, which, you know, as it, like, followed much later from the Holy Roman Empire.  Anything that seeks to be universalist is in danger because that’s the opposite of Nationalism.  As the presumption and arrogance and imperialism of universalism.  This is the main danger facing the world today, not Nationalism.  So, for example, Thích Nht Hnh, by the way, uses the term, “Trainings represent the Buddhist vision for a global spirituality”.  Now, why use the word, ‘global’?  Why not just say, ‘human spirituality’?  Because there’s this whole globalist phenomena.  So, right now, Nationalism is counter-posed to Globalism.  And Globalism is all kind of fuzzy and it’s utopian, and the truth of it is that all the steps that move toward that kind of universalist, toward a One World Order, which would be the ultimate nightmare for human beings, those steps in general are problematic and harmful to beings.  The European Union is a perfect example of that.  Not having clear borders there or here is another really good example of that.  The key is national independence, self-determination and not superiority – one has to wonder about some of these dictionary definitions in fact – not superiority but pride in who you are and what you have to offer to your people and to the world —
SENGENBERGER:   Although, Marv —
TREIGER:   — if they’re interested in receiving it.
SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, well Marv, though, if we say, The United States of America is the best country on earth – which is a statement I’ve said many, many times and I believe – isn’t that, in essence, a statement of superiority of the United States?  That we are a better country, but maybe it is because of our values and the principles and the structure of our government, not because of some kind of, you know, racial or ethnic superiority but because of what it means to be American?
TREIGER:   Well, I think the classic word has been, ‘exceptional’ —
TREIGER:   Rather than, ‘superior’.  And ‘exceptional’.  And I think there’s a key distinction in that, you know.  It’s what you fill the container with that matters.  And to me, what is exceptional about us?  And that is, I believe, we took National Independence to another level.  Up til then, it had tended to be based almost exclusively on ethnicity and so had a strong biological basis.  We brought forward National Independence on the principle of certain ideas with which if one agreed to them, assimilated them, lived by them, made you an American.
TREIGER:   And so, people moved from being hyphenated to just being plain American.  And that I think is the core of our exceptionality.  Now, would we like to see other nations and peoples imitate that?  Maybe, maybe not.  It’s not up to us to decide for them what is the best.  And Liberal Internationalism is all about trying to do that.
TREIGER:   The Liberal Imperialist Vision of the Neoconservatives is exactly about that and unfortunately it fails.
[PODCAST 9:58] 
SENGENBERGER:   Alright.  Rob, I’d love for you to respond to what Marv said but I also want to read a quote from an op-ed that earlier this month was written by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.  He said, “President Trump is right to embrace the label ‘Nationalist’, because a true American Nationalism isn’t about a National identity based on race, religion or ethnicity.  Instead, it is based on our identity as a nation committed to the idea that all people are created equal with a God-given right to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness”.  Choose where you want to go with that.
MARGESSON:   Well, that’s triage, right?  That’s Rubio coming out and clarifying because even he recognizes that that term itself is a dangerous term, it’s a loaded term, it’s a term that has a history and so Rubio, bless his soul, decides, I’d better get out there and clarify for The President of The United States that the type of Nationalism he isn’t talking about is the type of Nationalism that most people —
SENGENBERGER:   I actually think you tend to be right about that, even if I don’t ~~ that I think Trump maybe should explain it a little bit more.  But what about Marv’s points —
MARGESSON:   Well, but —
SENGENBERGER:   — about the idea of Nationalism?
TREIGER:   And also, Rob, how do you know that’s what Marco Rubio thinks?
MARGESSON:   Well, Jimmy, sides with me [laughing].
SENGENBERGER:   Well, I [cross-talk] triage —
TREIGER:   How do you know that?
MARGESSON:   I’m guessing, I guess, you know that’s my guess —
SENGENBERGER:   It’s an assumption he made and I think it’s more likely the case than not, Marv.  But either way —
TREIGER:   Well, I disagree with both of you.  I mean, this is very presumptuous.  The point is he was ~~ he’s saying what he believes —
SENGENBERGER:   Oh, I agree.  I wholeheartedly agree with that.
TREIGER:   And he believes that Donald Trump is basically right about Nationalism.
SENGENBERGER:   Yeah, I agree with that.
TREIGER:   Now, if he seeks to explain it better, that’s another matter —
SENGENBERGER:   That’s what I think was the case.
TREIGER:   Then I wouldn’t call that a triage —
SENGENBERGER:   Well, okay.  I don’t agree with the language of ‘triage,’ but the central premise that he was trying to expand on the point to clarify things I think makes sense, but I definitely believe that Rubio stated things that he believes.  But I want to let Rob get this last minute-and-a-half before the break.
MARGESSON:   Um, yeah, I mean, the word, ‘triage’ seems kind of harmless to me, but that’s okay.  We’re talking about the same basic premise, that I believe Rubio felt obligated to clarify something, not because ~~ well, because, going back to my original argument, that the term, itself, ‘Nationalism,’ has a history and has a very recent history, now in the United States with the rise of these so-called Alt-Right – the Right probably doesn’t like that term, so call them what you will.  But we’re seeing these Nationalist organizations start to spring up in the night —
SENGENBERGER:   They’re White Nationalist, though.  There is an arguable difference and distinction between the two —
MARGESSON:   But the term ‘Nationalist’ is attached to that ideology and the term ‘Nationalist’ is attached to a lot of repugnant ideologies. Ideologies that I’m sure we would all agree are very repugnant and historically that term has been tied to —
TREIGER:   Like ‘Americanism’?
MARGESSON:   I mean, the President can say, ‘I believe in American Exceptionalism’ and it would still be the same.  Your argument, every argument you made, Marv, would hold true.  He could say, ‘I’m a patriot first’, and every argument you made would hold true.  That is a problematic word choice that the President made.  That’s —
TREIGER:   So, are you not proud of our national independence and self-determination?  And do you not want it for other people as well?
MARGESSON:   I, yeah, I am proud —
SENGENBERGER:   You know what —
MARGESSON:   But I don’t define myself as a Nationalist —
TREIGER:   And do you want it for other people?
SENGENBERGER:   Let’s pause it right there, we’ve got to run to a break.  When we come back, we’ll let this exchange go on.  If you want to get in the conversation, please do… It’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”  On the line, Dr. Marv Treiger, in studio, Prof. Rob Margesson.  Stay with us.
[Commercial Break]
[PODCAST 14:41]
SENGENBERGER:   Coming back.  Beginning now, the best Christmas bumper music you’re going to find anywhere on that radio dial of yours.  Clarence Carter bringing us back with “Back Door Santa” as we continue, NewsTalk 710 KNUS, “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show.”  [pretend-sinister voice] Left-wing professor of Communication [chuckling] —
MARGESSON:   [laughing] [pretend-sinister voice] Radical Leftist —
SENGENBERGER:   — at Regis University —
SENGENBERGER:   Dr. Rob Margesson in here in studio.  On the line, Dr. Marv Treiger, the man, the myth, the legend, as well, himself, here on the program.  And we’ve got, joining in on this conversation about Nationalism, at (303) 696-1971 Tom in Greenwood Village.  Hey, Tom, good evening.  How are you?
TOM:   I’m well, thank you gentlemen.  And yourselves?
SENGENBERGER:   I’m doing well.  I think everybody here is doing pretty well, if I could speak on their behalf.  What’s on your mind this evening, Tom?
TOM:   This whole discussion to Nationalism is quite bothersome to me.  And I’m surprised ~~ I didn’t realize 710 had a safe space studio there as well, because —
SENGENBERGER:   Nothing wrong with differing views, Tom.  Let’s be —
MARGESSON:   [inaudible]
SENGENBERGER:   — let’s be, you know, accepting there.  We like intellectual diversity on college campuses, like Regis –
MARGESSON:   And I don’t feel [phontic] [cross-talk] —
SENGENBERGER:   Therefore, I think a little give-and-take is good here.  So please —
MARGESSON:   [Facetiously] I don’t feel safe here at all.
SENGENBERGER:   [laughing]
TREIGER:   [laughing]
TOM:   [laughing] Sure, but my question is, let’s look at the swastika.  There’s plenty of Hindu and Indian cultures that still use this, and Asian cultures that use this all the time.  It’s not offensive.  The swastika itself is not offensive, it’s the, how things are used.  And when you look at Nationalism, so loving our country is bad?  Wanting to put – yes, there are White Nationalists that are racist scumbags, that don’t really deserve the freedoms that they enjoy – but the idea of our country is we have freedom, so even if we hate these people, we have to still respect their right to feel the way that they are despite the fact that they’re scumbags, that that’s what makes the American experience wonderful.  And so, people that do love the country, you know, “Nationalist” doesn’t mean that we have racist views, that we think that we’re better than everybody else.  Again, it’s the context in which the word is used, and I just ~~ the whole idea that if you attach Nationalism to anything that you hate everyone other than White people and that, you know because there are people, you know, that were part of a group called The National Socialists —
[PODCAST 17:33]
SENGENBERGER:   Okay, alright Tom, your point is well-taken.  I want to let our “Snowflake-Rob” [chuckling] —
MARGESSON:   What? [chuckling]
SENGENBERGER:   — get in on the conversation here and respond to what you were just saying, Tom.  Go ahead, Rob.
MARGESSON:   Now, I’m – there’s a desk here between Jimmy and I, so I do feel safe, but, he can [phonetic] lunge at me.
SENGENBERGER:   [laughing]
MARGESSON:   But I don’t think he would, Jimmy likes me.  Again, look, I’m not saying that anyone who uses the term ‘Nationalist’ necessarily believes in racial superiority or all of the other hateful things that other nationalist groups ascribe to.  I’m simply saying that it is a problematic term for the President of The United States to use given its history.  That’s all.  And it’s not a ~~ do I hate America?  No, I don’t hate America, I’m a proud American citizen – Canadian by birth but became American – so I actually get to opt in, that’s how proud I am, right.  All I’m saying, it’s really not an incredibly complex argument, if you’re going to stand up in front of the world, choose your terms wisely.  There are other ways ~~ you can say, ‘I’m a Patriot first’, you can say, ‘I believe in American Exceptionalism’, I believe…’ I mean, it’s just a problematic word choice.  And again, I believe Rubio had to come in and clarify.  If it wasn’t a problematic word choice, I don’t think that clarification would have been needed.
SENGENBERGER:   Alright.  Who was about to say something?  Was it Tom, or Marv?
TREIGER:   Yeah, I’d like to throw something in here.
SENGENBERGER:   Go ahead, Marv.
TREIGER:   So, listen: today, what is the major conflict, ideologically and philosophically going on in the world?  It’s between, I would argue, between Nationalism and Globalism.  And Globalism is the real danger facing us because it’s undermining healthy Nationalism, without which there could be no World.  This is very important to understand.  This is the genius of Trump.  Trump has said a million times, ‘Patriot’, ‘America’, ‘Love’, ‘Make America Great Again’, blah, blah, blah, all of that wonderful stuff.  And then he starts to realize, ah, maybe they’re not quite getting it, and then he said the word, ‘Nationalism’ and then they go loony as if the word suddenly is a bad word.  The truth of it is, it’s Nationalism vs. Globalism.
And I would like to know what your opinion, Rob, or you, Jimmy, is on this question of Globalism.  Do you think that that’s the way of the future, that that’s how we should move?
SENGENBERGER:   Well, define —
SENGENBERGER:   Define Globalism, specifically.  Because there are certain things – like, I’m a big free-trade guy, folks who listen to this program know I vehemently oppose President Trump’s policies on trade 90% of the way, on China, the European Union, even on the NAFTA 2.0 – but I agree with him on so many other things on the international stage.
So, I guess we’re up against a hard break.  Thank you, Tom for the call, I do appreciate it.  (303) 696-1971.  We’ll get into this conversation a little bit more on this, the last hour.  Brian, stay on the line if you can and we’ll get to your call as well.  Dr. Rob Margesson in studio.  On the line, Dr. Marv Treiger.  Keep it right here, it’s “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” NewsTalk 710 KNUS.
[Commercial Break]
[PODCAST 22:19]
SENGENBERGER:   Ah, always feeling like Christmas here on “The Jimmy Sengenbeger Show,” even when it’s not the Christmas season.  This is Eric Clapton doing “It’s Christmas” from his new album that came out last month, “Happy Xmas”.  Welcome back to “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” with the best Christmas bumper music known to man, starting tonight on through December 22nd, here on 710 KNUS… Welcome back to the show.  Dr. Rob Margesson… here in studio.  On the line, Dr. Marv Treiger… and then I’m pleased to welcome here on 710 KNUS, Brian in Denver, at (303) 696-1971.  Brian, good evening to you, welcome to the show.
BRIAN:   Hey, Jimmy.  Anyway, hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.
SENGENBERGER:   Did, indeed.
BRIAN:   I’m just calling in for the definition of ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Sovereignty.’ See, people aren’t getting this, because Nationalism is the sovereignty of a nation, okay.  And what Trump’s saying is he is keeping America as a sovereign nation, okay, by being a Nationalist, and so many people don’t understand that.  Patriotism means, ‘love of country’.  And, you know, the oath that you took in the military, right?
SENGENBERGER:   I didn’t serve in the military, but –-
BRIAN:   Oh, you didn’t?  I’m sorry.
BRIAN:   Alright, I thought you did.  Anyway, so, there’s God, Country, Honor and Family, okay.  Without God, you don’t have Country.  Without Country, you don’t have Honor, right?  You don’t have Family.  Okay, Sovereignty of a nation means border walls, okay.  Patriotism means protecting your country.  That’s all it is.  That’s all he’s saying.  Without a sovereign nation, we cannot go forward as The United States of America.
SENGENBERGER:   How about that, Rob, in the sense of, Donald Trump, what he means about Nationalism is, let’s put America First, he says the term, ‘America First”, focus on the priorities of our country and the idea of a sovereign nation being the United States, and advancing those interests on the world stage as well as here at home?
MARGESSON:   Well, I’m going to sound like a broken record here, [chuckling] because I’ve just got to keep making the same argument, right?  I have no problem with anyone who supports those things.  Again, I think it was an unfortunate word choice —
BRIAN:   [cross-talk]
MARGESSON:   I mean, that’s, like, the end of my argument —
SENGENBERGER:   Hold on one moment.  Let me actually ask Rob a clarifying point relative to this, because, you’re saying that the use of the term ‘Nationalism’ is the problem, that the ideas are not as much of a problem as the use of the term, ‘Nationalism’.  Why, what is it that really is so significantly bad or harmful about using that word even with some of the historical backing?
MARGESSON:   Because of, the context of that word has changed over the course of history.  And if you look at the, you know, the violent Alt-Right racist organizations in the country, they, most of them – not most – a lot of them have the word ‘Nationalist’ or ‘Nationalism’ in their title, it is a term that has been co-opted by individuals and they have altered the meaning of that term over the course of time.  That’s it.  That’s ~~ if you want to say, you know, you should love your country, if you want to say —
SENGENBERGER:   ‘Sovereignty’?
MARGESSON:   ‘Sovereignty’, I’m fine with ‘sovereignty’, right.  I think it was an unfortunate decision to use that term.  That really is the end of my argument, I can repeat it —
SENGENBERGER:   Okay, but — 
MARGESSON:   — but I’m done with it.
[PODCAST 26:43]
SENGENBERGER:   Thanks for the call, Brian, I do appreciate it.  Marv Treiger, your thoughts specifically on the idea that there’s a big problem with the word, ‘Nationalism’.
TREIGER:   Well, I thought Brian’s call was really very spot on.  What I’d like to say about this is that it is the Left and its agenda and the Democratic-Socialists and their agenda and the Liberal-Imperialists and their agenda that are combining to discredit the term ‘Nationalism’, it’s very important to understand that.  Who are the Communists, the Marxists?  They are the Internationalists.  They counterpoise Internationalism to Nationalism, which they see as the evil framework for capital and they want to change that.  The Globalists are the people – and Jimmy, you raised this before the break – the Globalists are the people that use government to make arrangements, so that there appears to be free trade but in fact that trade doesn’t take into account the well-being of the country that is involved in the trade, like The United States —
SENGENBERGER:   I think that that doesn’t bear out with history.  I think the global trading system over the last several decades isn’t perfect but has worked vastly to the advantage and best interest of The United States.  And I don’t think that it makes me a Globalist to think that when it comes to free trade a global trading system is positive, while also recognizing the fundamental interests and needs of The United States when it comes to trade, but also when it comes to a whole range of issues from border security – which I support, I’ve stated many times on this program I support building the wall, boosting border security, those kinds of things. I also think that we need to be more cognizant about how we engage with other countries in terms of foreign aid and so on and so forth.  A lot of the things that President Trump is doing I agree with.  I don’t think that the trade issue and thinking our global trading system is on net a good thing for the benefit of The United States makes me a Globalist.
TREIGER:   Well, there are many benefits to the trading system, but one of the non-benefits has been the hollowing-out of the Rust Belt.  And it as those forgotten people that were interested in a system of trade that would not only not hollow them out but revive them and enable them to flourish.  That’s why it was important to put America First.  And that’s why the term ‘Nationalism’ was counterposed to that sort of Globalism.  There’re other forms of Globalism and I don’t think that the economic ones, even the principle one to focus on, but things like the UN, things like giving all the sovereignty —
SENGENBERGER:   Well, can I just get a clarifying point, Marv?  Because you’re saying, well, Economic Globalism, you’re then bringing up the UN, isn’t Globalism an all-encompassing phenomenon?  That you can’t just, say, use one aspect – well, let’s say me, let’s say my position on trade, which disagrees with yours, interestingly, in terms of the idea of hollowing-out of the Rust Belt, we can have that discussion on a future show because I disagree that trade is the driving source of that – but that is one aspect that some Globalists do espouse, I will grant that.  But then you do put that into the ideals of having the United Nations as a very important organization in the global system and how that functions you look at the European Union, you look at a variety of things, I think if you’re going to say Globalism, you should encapsulate everything and not start chopping it down.  If it’s Globalism vs Nationalism, then we need to understand there can be occasional overlaps but Globalism espouses all of those things while Nationalism espouses quite the opposite.
TREIGER:   My main concern is sovereignty. Wherein does sovereignty lie?  Wherein does the Democratic-People express themselves so that they’re represented?  And the movement in the world toward global institutions of sovereignty, in the case of Europe of the continual expansion of the units of sovereignty embracing nations ends up disenfranchising and undermining the democracy of those countries.  So, that’s my principle concern.  These are utopian schemes.  On the Left of International Socialism and Communism, and amongst the Neoliberal groups of an Imperial system that is primarily of benefit to the home country – not even to that, it’s primarily a benefit to the corporations who actually lose their mooring and cease to be connected to a nation.  It’s a difficult problem to be addressed, for sure, there’s not an easy way.  But what I’m saying for our broader discussion here is that today the issue of Nationalism is counterposed to the issue of various global and larger sovereignty entities, and that borders is a really key part of that.  It’s a key part of sovereignty.
So, all of these things are the case, and I could go into the problems with the Euro community, which is the, represents the essence of one of those forms of it.  But, so we want to avoid National Independence that leads to an effort to create an empire, that would be negative.  That’s what Nazism was.  National Socialism, Hitler said —
TREIGER:   “We will come to power in Germany and then we will become mistress of the Globe.”  That was a toxic nationalism, and —
SENGENBERGER:   That was rooted in desires for conquest, which is the opposite, you can see that lay out where President Trump specifically says he doesn’t want to be engaged in all these kinds of foreign entanglements and Imperialism.
TREIGER:   Exactly.  And the Left and the media are twisting it by attempting to make ‘Nationalism’ a bad word because there’re some fringe Alt-Right people in the United States who like the word, ‘Nationalism’.  I mean, it’s ridiculous —
[PODCAST 33:31]
SENGENBERGER:   Alright.  Well, you and I have been talking for a little while, Marv. I want to get Rob in on the conversation now with some thoughts here because we’re getting close to the end of this segment.
MARGESSON:   Well, I don’t want to let it slip that it’s just some fringe-Right groups in the United States that have used the term ‘Nationalism’.  There are a host of nationalist political parties around the world that use the term ‘Nationalism’ as a, again, a strategy of dividing-and-conquering, so it’s not just the Alt-Right in The United States, it’s definitely a term —
TREIGER:   Well, who?  Who?
MARGESSON:   There’re numerous Nationalist parties.  I mean don’t —
SENGENBERGER:   I think of the National Front in – isn’t that France?  The National Front is a French Party —
MARGESSON:   Yeah, I mean, I can pull up the Google machine in my pocket as well.  But —
TREIGER:   Okay.
SENGENBERGER:   No, that’s the United Kingdom.  The National Front is the United Kingdom, but there is the one, um… There is one in France, too —
MARGESSON:   I don’t want to just keep —
TREIGER:   Yeah there’re —
MARGESSON:   — arguing that the term is bad, though.
TREIGER:   Rob, they’re fighting Brussels bureaucracy rule in which they’re for democratic independence.  That’s in the UK —
SENGENBERGER:   Marv, you’re cutting out.  You’re cutting in and out.
TREIGER:   Oh, I’m sorry.  I’m sorry.  In the UK – is this better?
TREIGER:   Yeah.  In the UK, the term ‘National’ is an important term because they were basically losing the sovereignty and the control of their borders and the determination of their internal policies to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.  So, Nationalism in this moment is an effort to restore some semblance of a sovereignty that can be democratic in a world that is moving toward Globalism.  
SENGENBERGER:   Hence breaks —
TREIGER:   That’s my point.
MARGESSON:   I’m not sure what Nationalism looks like in practice now.  It kind of started out as it’s a belief, and now it’s countering Globalism.  So is Nationalism – I know I’m not the interviewer here, sorry Jimmy [chuckling].  This is for you, too, I guess —
SENGENBERGER:   [chuckling]
MARGESSON:   Is that, what’s the relationship between Nationalism and Isolationism at this point, then?  It sounds like, I kind of agree, Jimmy, that there’s overlap, you can have ~~ I’ll jump on the use of the term, you can have nationalistic tendencies but you also have to recognize, like, global economic interdependence and the ability to have allies to combat the rising tide of terrorism —
TREIGER:   It’s where does sovereignty lie.  They key question is, where does sovereignty lie?  A nation might be isolationist and it might be, you know, not-so-isolationist, it may be the opposite of that.  But does the sovereignty lie with the people within the nation and through its institutions, or is that sovereignty bit-by-bit being handed over to larger entities that actually end up distancing themselves from the people in each national state.
SENGENBERGER:   It is an important question to examine.  We’ve got a few minutes left on the other side, try to squeeze in a call before we call it a night, here on NewsTalk 710 KNUS.  And we’ll be back here on 710 KNUS.
[Commercial Break]
[PODCAST 37:22]
SENGENBERGER:   Groovin’ back, a little “Christmas Boogie” by Joe Bonamassa as we wrap up and wind down this Saturday, November 24th edition of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show”… We’ve got Prof. Rob Margesson… here in studio, Dr. Marv Treiger on the line, and John in Arvada getting into the final minutes of the conversation here on the show.  Good evening, John.  Let’s get right to it, what’s on your mind, sir?  And welcome.
JOHN:   Hey, Jimmy.  Thanks for taking my call —
JOHN:   First-time listener, first-time caller.
SENGENBERGER:   I appreciate it.
JOHN:   So, I wanted to jump in on this conversation about sovereignty vs. Globalism, the worry that American voices, American values might be overshadowed by global values.  I was wondering, are there any examples of domestic policies that have actually been Trump’s, like global policy, bills passed by our Congress that the UN said, we can’t do this, you couldn’t do this?  I’m wondering where the real rub is and is it more just a rhetorical kind of concern than a practical concern?
SENGENBERGER:   Marv Treiger, any thoughts on that?
TREIGER:   Well, there ~~ we have resisted, we have successfully resisted most of the efforts that have come out of, actually, Europe to restrict our sovereignty, such as The International Criminal Court.  We block, we do not hold them sovereign in cases, we retain that.  But there’s tremendous pressure for the because a lot of us are [cross-talk] joining up for it –
JOHN:   So, the [cross-talk] ten people a year?  So, if the only issue is the ability to have, like, ten to twelve prosecutions, the ICC, where are our economic policies being curtailed?  I mean, as much as people might not like NAFTA that was voted on by a Republican-controlled Congress, these are all things that came out of the American legislator.
TREIGER:   Yeah.  So, well, I guess basically what I’m saying is that it is not just rhetorical ~~ well, for one, here’s one way it’s not rhetorical.  There is a ~~ what is the situation in Europe today, for example, with regard to sovereignty and borders?  Their position, Merkel’s position – they’re now changing it and beginning to shift —
SENGENBERGER:   But, but that is Europe, Marv.  I think John’s looking for an example of policies encroaching upon the United States in terms of sovereignty.  And I think most of the policies, John, that have gone into effect on the world stage have been things that we have acquiesced to, in terms of some decisions like when it comes to the World Trade Organization when they rule against the United States, which has happened a few times in history, that we then have to comply in that regard – although I’m in favor of the World Trade Organization, so —
TREIGER:   [laughing]
MARGESSON:   [laughing]
SENGENBERGER:   I don’t necessarily find that to be a very negative instance.  But I do think that there is a concern about the encroachment of expanding that to certain areas that are more harmful.
JOHN:   Well, I guess my follow-up to that then is that, if it’s all about the risk of future consequences and Trump’s policies, whether you can say it’s Trump or his cabinet, etc, have tried to pull us back from some of these global institutions, if we’re really patriots, should we trust American arguments to win [phonetic] in those international courts of public opinion?  Shouldn’t we be engaging the United Nations and the World Bank and World Trade Organization, if we really love the United States, are [inaudible] pushing on the global stage, not withdrawing them?
SENGENBERGER:   Marv, on that fundamental point, we’ve got less than a minute left.  I’ll give you the word, the thought on John’s question.  Real quick.
TREIGER:   Well, just real quick, and then I just want to say something on Buddhism at the end.  And, yeah, I don’t think we should withdraw from such organizations but I think we should continue to resist the loss of sovereignty through them, especially given the players involved on a world scale, very problematic.  So anyway, but what I wanted to say about —
SENGENBERGER:   Real quick, we’ve got, like, fifteen seconds.
TREIGER:   The essence of Buddhism is really not about getting happy or all of those kinds of things, it’s not even about changing your experience, changing your life experience.  It’s about how you hold your life experience.  And when you become able to hold the inevitable suffering, illness and death and other difficulties and hold the happiness and joys and hold them all, you then actually move into, really, what the Buddha’s teaching is.
SENGENBERGER:   Alright.  On that wonderful note – really appreciate the time, thank you, Marv Treiger, thank you Rob Margesson — 
MARGESSON:   Thank you.
SENGENBERGER:   With love of further conversation on other issues with both of you down the line, that’s it for us today.  Check out the podcast if you missed the beat.  I’m Jimmy Sengenberger.  Have a great weekend.
[PODCAST 42:50]
[End of Tape]