Citizens of the World
Jun 10th, 2009 | 30 responses
To thunderous applause, Mr. Newt Gingrich said the following during his speech at the recent Republican fundraiser dinner in Washington:
Let me be clear. I am not a citizen of the world. I think the entire concept is intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous.
Many political observers claim that Mr. Gingrich’s remarks were a clear slap at President Obama, including at Obama’s remarks during his July 2008 speech in Berlin, Germany:
I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. A citizen—a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.
But I won’t engage in interpreting or parsing the words.
Because, if there was ever a case when just the words of others—without the need for any commentary or second-guessing—”say it all,” this is certainly one of those cases.
Some of these other words and some of these “others” are:
I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.
–Socrates, from Plutarch, Of Banishment
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC – 399 BC)
I am a citizen of the world.
— Diogenes Laërtius
Biographer of ancient Greek philosophers (3rd century AD)
And more recently,
“Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:
I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world. I come with the heartfelt wishes of my people “
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, in remarks in New York City before the United Nations General Assembly Special Session devoted to disarmament.
June 17, 1982
30 Responses to “Citizens of the World”
“Citizen of the world” is naive and unrealistic, and at its very best, idealistic (to a fault); in practice, it is sinister because of the collectivist nature of its usage in the past (with anti-nationalist sentiment as well as blatant anti-USA sentiment).
Now the childish or the collectivists may resent the foregoing but I can handle them easily, and with a chuckle — the last word goes to Fritz Haber: “A scientist belongs to his country in times of war and to all mankind in times of peace.” [wink]
Thanks for your comment. DLS.
The title of this post was “Citizens of the World,” and was limited to the comments made by the gentlemen I quoted.
There are, at least three books with the title “Citizen of the World.” I would not even begin to comment or pass judgment on them or their authors, without first reading them.
If you are referring to President Reagan's remarks as “naive and unrealistic,” I am surprised, but I respect your opinion.
Actually, your own content included similar quotes from others, not only Gingrich.
Comments (not titles) are not limited in any way, particularly when these limitations are not expressed.
There is no pressing need, more than ever, to be a citizen of the world at this time.
I was also very kind not to mention world government and the UN, which is often a joke and a disgrace in reality.
“The title of this post was 'Citizens of the World,' and was limited to the comments made by the gentlemen I quoted.”
The concept (and phrase) is routinely susceptible to being abused and as I have already stated, has a sinister collectivist taint because of its political history (something it along with the UN is supposed to be above, but in fact is not).
Enough said by me. Floor yielded.
If I'm not a citizen of the world I live in, what the heck am I?
Since when is being a “citizen of the world” anti-USA? From your logic it's anti-every nation on the planet. If you hold those views then it's obvious you don't at all, understand it.
I always took the statement “I am a citizen of the world” to mean that the speaker values people of other countries as much as those in hir own. I agree that Newt is probably not a citizen of the world.
I think the left and the right regard the term “citizen of the world” differently. I suspect many on the right hear it as “citizen of the world first, US citizen second” and that there will be a tendency to put the needs of the world ahead those of the US. I would guess the left sees it as more of a “work for everyone's mutual benefit including ours” statement.
In other words the right sees it as a divisive statement and the left sees it as a unifying statement. Until it is more clearly defined it's difficult to discuss it.
DaGoat says:
“I think the left and the right regard the term -citizen of the world' differently. I suspect many on the right hear it as 'citizen of the world first, US citizen second' and that there will be a tendency to put the needs of the world ahead those of the US.”
DG, can you share with us how you arrived at such conclusions–or is it just a gut feel?
How did Ronald Reagan “regard” it?
The Republican Party proudly continues its de-evolution into the Know Nothings. And it is likely to meet the same historic fate as that party, if the adults don't take charge soon.
DG, can you share with us how you arrived at such conclusions–or is it just a gut feel?
How did Ronald Reagan “regard” it?
While I think Reagan believed in the importance of the US being a good world citizen, I think in general he put the needs of the US ahead of those of the rest of the world.
My conclusions were arrived at through reading thousands of articles, blogs and comments from both liberals and conservatives. I don't know it's the kind of thing I can provide hard evidence for, but I think the term “citizen of the world” is heard and used differently depending on your political leanings.
I agree with DaGoat though I can't provide evidence either- it's something you pick up on when you read extensively from both sides of the spectrum.
And I think context matters (to help explain Reagan using the statement.) It's kind of the flip side of the flag pin scuttle that came up with Obama. The left isn't against the display of patriotism in general but some felt at that time that flag pins had become a particular symbol for hypernationalism. The flip side here is that some on the right feel that people like Obama are going too far to pander to an international audience to 'prove' that we aren't going to put American interests ahead of the rest of the world's interests- and some of us don't think that he goes too far with this and as POTUS he sometimes MUST put American interests first.
OK, DG, you ” think Reagan believed in the importance of the US being a good world citizen,” and you ” think in general [Reagan] put the needs of the US ahead of those of the rest of the world.”
Good enough.
However, I respecfully think that you are wrong in ascribing more nobel intentions to Reagan than to Obama.
However, I respecfully think that you are wrong in ascribing more nobel intentions towards our country to Reagan than to Obama.
I haven't even mentioned Obama in this thread.
In that case, my thoughts were wrong, DG, and I apologize
DaGoat said: “I haven't even mentioned Obama in this thread.”
No DaGoat, you didn't mention Obama by name… you merely made the implication:
“I don't know it's the kind of thing I can provide hard evidence for, but I think the term “citizen of the world” is heard and used differently depending on your political leanings.”
How do you get Obama out of that? If it's referring to anyone it's Gingrich, who is the focus of the original post. What I'm saying (apparently poorly) is that when Gingrich says he is not a citizen of the world he is using it in a much different way than the left is interpreting it. And for the record I don't even like Gingrich.
I see you plenty of words form you DLS, but you didn't say anything, you made no point other than “Citizen of the Wold” as “naive and unrealistic”.
Let me take a shot at this. When Reagan used the phrase it was clear, at least domestically, that he was using it in an ingratiating diplomatic context. There was no question that he was an America-first advocate, especially after his “Evil Empire” reference. His use of the phrase was more than two decades ago.
Prior to Reagan, but increasing in intensity since Reagan's use of the phrase, there has been mounting concern, mostly on the right, about internationalism. This is reflected in distrust of the UN, often justified, and fear of World government. This can be seen to some extent in the comments of DLS above. The unification of Europe, a mini-internationalism, and the emergence of what is referred to as the “global economy” has given substance to the concerns about internationalism and “World government”, as have lesser reported indicators like the World Bank and IMF.
As a result of intervening events and increased attention to internationalism, the phrase “Citizen of the World” now takes on a different perspective, particularly when voiced by a “liberal” like Obama. Put in context, liberals are often assumed to be internationalists philosophically. The phrase “Citizen of the World”, when uttered by a liberal, has thus become “code” for internationalism as opposed to America-first patriotism. Gingrich's use of the phrase reflects not the Reagan use of the term two deades ago, but rather the “code” use of the term as it applies in today's political reality.
This is all brought more clearly into focus by understanding the impact of economic crisis. In times of crisis, internationalism, which sounds attractive in good times, gives way to self interest. During times of crisis, nationalism supplants internationalism as each nation attempts to save its people, often to the exclusion of other nations. Thus, in a time of crisis, raising the spectre of internationalism becomes an effective political tool to, in code, discredit the opposition by implying a lack of committment to nationalist interests.
I couldn't have said it better, tidbits. And @ Rambie- at this stage I don't really feel that Obama has 'put the world's interests first' but it's merely his rhetoric that implies that. I fully realize that he is probably using that rhetoric intentionally to try to reassure other countries that he does not intend to be as much of a unilateralist as GWB was, and that in effect and actions he may end up 'putting America first' every bit as much as past presidents have done. I also have no doubt that if he doesn't do so to the degree that I believe he should, it isn't due to a lack of patriotism or lack of desire to protect our nation's interests. If I do differ with his future policies, I don't assume bad intent on his part but simply attribute it to a difference of opinion on how to reach the same ends (keeping our nation strong and safe.) And then, if such a difference of opinion does come to pass, it will be a matter of time to see whether his policies end up being more effective than I think they will be.
“The phrase “Citizen of the World”, when uttered by a liberal, has thus become “code” for internationalism as opposed to America-first patriotism. “
I really like the meat of your theory, tidbits. I think, though, the sentence above might represent what conservatives hear when Obama says he's a citizen of the world, but liberals — who are not actually worried that Obama will put international interests above American interests — hear it in the same way most people heard Reagan's similar statement. Perhaps conservatives are seeing “code” where there really is no “code”, where there merely is the very idea that if we want to be safe in today's world, we might want to stop pissing off the rest of it.
roro80 – The sentence you quote could certainly have been phrased more artfully. Thank you for pointing that out. When referring to “code” phrases, they always have a particular subset of listeners in mind. Your clarification is welcome, except that I disagree with the final sentence of your comment. I do see this as code when spoken by Gingrich to a certain segment of the electorate.
Whether internationalism is a good idea or not, “we might want to stop pissing off the rest of [the world]“, is a topic for another time.
titbits:
“When Reagan used the phrase it was clear, at least domestically, that he was using it in an ingratiating diplomatic context.”
However when Obama uses such phrases it is considered pandering, selling out America, appeasement, or worse??
“There was no question that he was an America-first advocate, especially after his “Evil Empire” reference.”
Do you have any doubts as to Obama not being “America-first,” not being patriotic, not loving his country??
“As a result of intervening events and increased attention to internationalism, the phrase “Citizen of the World” now takes on a different perspective, particularly when voiced by a “liberal” like Obama.”
Oh, I see, two people can say exactly tyhe same thing, but if one is from one political party it doesn't mean the same as the same words expressed by someone from a different party??
“The phrase “Citizen of the World”, when uttered by a liberal, has thus become “code” for internationalism as opposed to America-first patriotism.”
So when a Conservative says “citizen of the world” it means something patriotic, when a Liberal says it is is “code” ???
“Thus, in a time of crisis, raising the spectre of internationalism becomes an effective political tool to, in code, discredit the opposition by implying a lack of committment to nationalist interests.”
Wow!! How those four little words can signify completely opposie things depending on who says them
Very interesting.
DER – Methinks you misread my entire train of thought, or perhaps my ability to articulate a point is lacking. Probably the latter. My points are threefold. One, the meaning has changed over time. Example, the phrase “states rights” actually meant states rights before, over time, it became “code” for segregation. Two, it sounds different to a certain segment of the population when it comes from a liberal, particularly Obama. That certain segment of the population being hard core Republicans who view Obama's America-first creds with distrust. Third, internationalism is an easy, or easier, target in times of crisis.
Maybe the point I didn't make and should have is that most people thought Reagan didn't mean it, and some of those people, particularly on the right, worry that Obama just might.
Yes, most decidedly, two people can say the same thing and have it not mean the same thing coming from someone of a different philosophy. If a Christian hears “Praise God” from another Christian it is a signal of faith. If a Christian hears “Praise God” from a (pick your non-christian source) it is heresy. Note: I hate using religious examples; it's all I could think of on short notice.
“so when a Conservative says 'citizen of the world' it means something patriotic, when a Liberal says it, it is “code???” No, no, no. Completely misses my point…..When a Conservative refers to a liberal saying “citizen of the world” it is code to other conservatives that he is accusing the liberal of a lack of patriotism.
“Do you have any doubts as to Obama not being 'America-firs', not being patriotic, not loving his country.” No, I personally do not have any such belief, but many on the right do believe that. Nowhere do I suggest that Obama's use of the phrase was meant differently than Reagan's. In fact, I think Obama was quite sincere in pointing out his love of country first and identifying with his audience, the rest of the world, second. He may well have had Reagan's quote in mind at the time. My point is that some on the right believe Obama to be less than American and this is “code” to them designed to remind them of that bias.
Finally, from your comments, I think you mistake me for a conservative/Republican who actually believes that the coded message is true. No, I simply believe it is , or is becoming, in right wing circles, “code” for un-American internationalist. My goal was to exlain a phenomenon, not to take sides, and, if it appeared that I was taking sides, I sincerely apologize for my absence of artful articulation. DER, please re-read my previous comment, and see if you view it now as you did the first time through.
Dorian said: “Very interesting.”
“Very interesting” indeed… It's also “Very interesting” that those on the right are willing (nay, anxious) to go to the wall trying to defend the idea that Reagan's “Citizen of the World” comment was/is different than Obama's “Citizen of the World” comment.
Keep up the good work boys (girls) and thank you Newt… Rush… Carl… et al. Your efforts on my behalf are most appreciated.
tidbits said: “DER – Methinks you misread my entire train of thought…”
Well said tidbits!
Tidbits:
Thanks for taking the time to re-state and/or explain you train of thought.
And, I don't think that your “ability to articulate a point is lacking.” Not at all. It is rather excellent.
After reading your latest comments, I see where you are coming from, albeit I still respectfully disagree with you on one minor (?) point:
“Yes, most decidedly, two people can say the same thing and have it not mean the same thing coming from someone of a different philosophy. If a Christian hears “Praise God” from another Christian it is a signal of faith. If a Christian hears “Praise God” from a (pick your non-Christian source) it is heresy”.
On this one, at first I though I was being nitpicky, but on second thought I believe that this example may go to the core of one of our (previous) differences. When a Jew, or a Hindu, or a Muslim says “Praise God,” (of course the Muslim may use the words “Praise Allah,”) I wouldn't call that “heresy.” On the contrary, everyone of those persons means to say exactly the same thing as you or I when we say “Praise God.”.
Perhaps, tidbits, you just picked a bad example, as you were fearful you might be doing.
Anyway, I now understand your premises and I thank you for explaining.
Dorian
Oh, I see, two people can say exactly tyhe same thing, but if one is from one political party it doesn't mean the same as the same words expressed by someone from a different party??
I think it's quite obvious that this happens all the time.
Like when Obama wears a flag pin, it doesn't seem to mean the same thing to liberals as it did when conservatives were wearing them.
And although I agree that tidbits' religious example wasn't a great one- I'd give a different religious example. When Democratic candidates like Obama use references to their faith, most people on the left don't feel concerned that he has a religious agenda, nor that he's pandering to religious leaders. But when conservatives talk about their faith, it's considered either pandering to the religious right or a dangerous mixture of faith and politics.
@SteveK — Let us please not soil the awesomeness of girls by including Newt and Rush and Karl in the same category. Let us please also not use the term “girls” meaning, in essence, “bad”.
Kudos to CStanley for coming up with far better examples than I did of two people saying the same thing only to be perceived differently.