Utopianism vs Nationalism

A few years ago, former-President Bill Clinton revealed the he could have had Osama Bin Laden, who would go on to plan and lead the 911 attacks, killed. Why didn’t he give the order? Well, there were civilians, and President Clinton could not have the death of civilians on his conscience. More recently, President Trump banned citizens of 6 countries from entering the US, because we cannot be sure that they are not terrorists. What’s the connection? I bring these two cases to raise a question: To whom should a President’s allegiance belong? To the citizens of the country that elected him? Or to his conscience?

Typically, a President will answer this question based on his philosophical leaning. Those leaning to the left, consider themselves to be a “citizen of the world,” with grand notions of utopianism. They see no difference between the US and any other nation. There are not good guys and bad guys, only right and wrong. Therefore, their allegiance is to their conscience. Hence Bill Clinton refraining from eliminating the man who would kill thousands of Americans, since then at least America is moral. Those on the right however, put their people before all else. They are citizens of the USA, they see themselves as responsible for the safety of the nation that elected them. Hence Donald Trump ignoring the suffering of thousands of non-Americans because he can’t guarantee that his people won’t be hurt by it.

Which do you hold by? Is the presidency a job with the specific duty of protecting the people who elected him/her or is the president supposed to try to fix the world? Are you a Globalist or Nationalist? Make your opinion known in the comments!


0 Comments

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

What's Your Opinion? Post a Comment

*


Comments must be approved before being published. Thank You!