I'll definitely check out the video, but I'm not yet persuaded. I think nationalism is dressed-up tribalism. Further, propaganda, especially of the Goebbels sort, is directly opposed to the pursuit of widespread thinking and big ideas that this article is promoting.
Also, nationalism isn't a big idea in the same sense that communism or western democracy are. Communists and democrats of many nations work in common cause for their ideals, but nationalists of many nations are by definition opposed. What they share isn't so much an idea as a set of behaviors and a style of thinking. In Gabler's framework, nationalism is more an observation than it is a big idea.
> propaganda, especially of the Goebbels sort, is directly opposed to the pursuit of widespread thinking and big ideas that this article is promoting.
The problem I have with the article is that many of the "big" ideas that happened during past history were only big and influential because they were absorbed by vast numbers of ill-informed people. In other words, it wasn't so much that an idea itself was big, but that most people didn't have alternative sources of information and therefore were ripe material for absorbing the given idea. Totalitarianism thrived on persuading people through clever control of the (new at the time) mass-media channels to believe into this or that idea.
> nationalism isn't a big idea in the same sense that communism or western democracy are.
You are equating "big" with "well-intentioned," which I believe are different things. There can be no doubt that nationalist ideas had a major impact on modernity, from Nazism to Balkans to post-colonialism. Regarding tribalism, it can take many forms, not just nationalism. One of the channels which the early USSR used to spread communist ideas was precisely tribalism. Russians were imagined as good and communitarian "by-nature" while people from Western countries were portrayed as more mean-spirited and selfish.
> many of the "big" ideas that happened during past history were only big and influential because they were absorbed by vast numbers of ill-informed people
Sure, and I think Gabler would agree. He is, after all, arguing in favor of "rationality, science, evidence, logical argument and debate". He doesn't want people to have a single big idea; he wants lots of them to be discussed.
Your basic argument is that if X sometimes causes problems, we should be glad to see X gone. On its own, it's a weak argument, because it ignores the positive side of the ledger, and it supposes that the problems you associate with X won't occur in the absence of X. Neither looks true to me; big ideas also have plenty of benefits, and a vast number of ill-informed people isn't going to get any less dumb or manipulable if Enlightment culture dies out.
> You are equating "big" with "well-intentioned,"
Not at all. American nationalism isn't the same idea as Chinese nationalism or Indian nationalism. Nationalism is an observation about ideas (or perhaps a meta-idea), not an idea in the sense that the author is talking about.
> Your basic argument is that if X sometimes causes problems, we should be glad to see X gone.
That's not my basic argument. My basic argument is that the very concept of "big" ideas as defined by Gabler is fundamentally flawed because: (1) the "bigness" factor of an idea he uses is a measure of how influential the idea is; (2) ill-informed people (think children, some rural communities etc) are much, much easier to influence than well-informed ones; and finally (3) there were proportionally many more ill-informed people in the past than there are today.
So we might as well be in the golden age of ideas but neither one of them ever becomes "big" because they are all in fierce competition with each other. Or perhaps not -- but the basic point is that the way we measure this "bigness" is flawed.
> American nationalism isn't the same idea as Chinese nationalism or Indian nationalism.
Of course it isn't. America was founded before the wave of nationalism took over Europe. American nationalism is to European nationalism as ham is to hamster -- only the name is similar. Nationalism in most countries in the world was modeled on European nationalism. Examples: Lebanese nationalist Kataeb party was modeled on Spanish and Italian Fascist parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataeb_Party). Pakistani nationalism stems from utopian visions of Muhammad Iqbal, an idealist poet influenced by Romanticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Iqbal). Ukrainian nationalism holds as holy populist-Romanticist ideas of Taras Shevchenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Shevchenko) and owes its ideologic form to Dmytro Dontsov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmytro_Dontsov).
One of my biggest realization in the past years has been that nationalism isn't some "natural" tribal tendency but an ideology like any other that only uses ("perverts") the tribal tendencies for its own purpose and which was built and formulated nearly exclusively on a populist form of Romanticism that spread throughout Europe in the middle of 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism).
Also, nationalism isn't a big idea in the same sense that communism or western democracy are. Communists and democrats of many nations work in common cause for their ideals, but nationalists of many nations are by definition opposed. What they share isn't so much an idea as a set of behaviors and a style of thinking. In Gabler's framework, nationalism is more an observation than it is a big idea.