The American Heritage dictionary says that nationalism is:

1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation.

2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.

That’s quite interesting, isn’t it? After all, Abe’s on the side pushing to rewrite the Constitution in order to allow collective self-defense. Domestically, he sure seems like a nationalist though…

And this is why I think what Matt D has been talking about recently is relevant. Abe as the nationalist as home and neocon abroad – I’m still not 100% sold on the latter half, but don’t slam me for that just yet…

Then, Albion makes a very good point about the role of ‘individualism’ in the current political dialogue, and I think it’s one that hasn’t been talked about as much as it should be. The Minister of Education, and many others (even…shudder…academics) have certainly talked about ‘individualism’ being the cause of what’s ‘wrong’ with Japan today.

If all this ‘individualism’ is the problem, the opposite must be to then love the country, according to the logic we’re seeing here. I’m just wondering what kind of metrics they’re using to judge the balance of that weight…

I think anyone who advocates “meddling in people’s lives” (though they certainly don’t phrase it that way) does so based on the belief that they are within their moral right to do so.

They may be wrong.

That is why debate over the extent to which governments have the right to control people’s behavior will probably never be settled to everyone’s satisfaction.

But you are right: “that’s a whole ‘nother country” and I don’t think it would be constructive to get into a debate over abortion in this forum.

Regarding the “imbalance” between US conservatives and liberals: You may be right about that. That’s an interesting observation.

Thanks, as always, for your insightful comments.

I would dispute that on several grounds. First, I don’t think the extent is anywhere near as imbalanced as you make it out to be. Second, if someone thinks abortion is murder–and surely you cannot deny that is a carefully considered view by serious people worthy of respect–then it would be difficult to call preventing murder “meddling in people’s lives”.

But that’s a whole ‘nother country.

Considering what I just posted above, perhaps the term “reactionary” is most the most appropriate way to describe many of the Abe-government’s statements.

By “reactionary” I mean: “A reactionary (sometimes: reactionist, or regressive) is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era. The political attitude of a reactionary is reactionism or regressivism. Reaction is always presented against something that it opposes.”

That definition is courtesy of Wikipedia.

I think that the problem with statements like these is that they either imply or explicit state a desire to REPLACE indiviualism either wholly or partially with “love of country.”

I wish the Abe government were saying things like:

“While recognizing the advances made by Japanese society as a result of greater recognition of individual rights in law and society, we perceive a need to support efforts to strengthen community bonds and reinforce traditional Japanese customs, such as sharing and empathy for others.”

As a result of current Abe-government rhetoric, people are liable to conclude that the policy is “country before self.” That may not be what Abe intends, but it sure is the message that comes across.

Oh, and Ampontan, I never said that liberals don’t try to get involved in people’s private lives. I was simply pointing out that the tendency is most often observed in US conservatives. US liberals certainly do try to meddle in people’s private lives as well from time to time, but certainly to a lesser extent than US conservatives (think of abortion, gay marriage, etc) .

Interesting how Japan seems to receive strict scruitiny over its political/diplomatic postures whereas most Asian countries seems to be able to be nationalistic as they please. Why do I not see any westeren media covering South Korean nationalism which seems much more extreme than Japan’s and worse, quite ethnocentric?

France…if a German chancellor made the same kind of speech,I guess there would be an outrage. So maybe Japan and Germany are doomed to be treated forever as inherent criminal nations?

Great post!

You are right to point out that Japan seems to be held to a much lower level of tolerance when it comes to expressing a love for one’s country; however, I do not see a problem with the AP article, which seems to be using the phrase “nationalistic Abe” to mean “a patriotic Abe.”

In other countries, Abe’s level of patriotism would probably be considered the required standard for any politician, but maybe in Japan, Abe’s level of patriotism exceeds that of the average Japanese, which may be why AP decided to use “nationalistic” to describe Prime Minister Abe. For example, how would Abe be described in relation to the other Japanese prime ministers over the past couple of decades?

Yes, the Chinese and Korean governments seem to be trying, very hard, to convince or, at least, suggest to the rest of the world that Prime Minister Abe is an ultra-nationalist with territorial expansion in mind, which is ridiculous, but it may not seem so ridiculous to ignorant Western journalists who do not really understand just how petty and conniving Chinese and Korean leaders, jounalists, and scholars can be when it comes to Japan.