Candace Owens is perhaps the most prominent woman of color in the right wing media, particularly well known for her adverse consideration to identity politics. Over the past week, Candace set off a social media kerfuffle, suggesting, if I may rephrase Bon Jovi, "Hitler gave nationalism a bad name." She argues where Hitler went wrong was not so much engaging in fascist/socialism policies within his recognized national borders but in his globalism agenda.
The immediate response from progressives was Owens' failure to recognize/denounce the policies underlying the Final Solution, the racist ideology and program of genocide against Jews and other "undesirables" whose very existence conflicted with the interests of the "superior" Aryan race.
Owens' discussion should be seen in the context of Trumpist principles of "America first" nationalism vs. a nefarious globalist "New World Order" of elitists conspiring against American interests, including those adversaries secretly entrenched as the Deep State and the Swamp trying to fend off the legitimate mandate of Trump validated in the 2016 election.
Those of us pro-liberty take exception of Trump disingenuously adopting an old isolationist catchphrase ("America First"). Trump has done nothing to scale back an empire of almost 800 international military bases; he has intervened in Syria, which does not pose a credible military threat to the US, never mind ISIS; he has hired prominent neo-cons like John Bolton. He does not oppose expansion of American meddling commitments in NATO, but resents other members freeloading off America's defense expenditures. He still has not moved away from our commitments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, yet rejoices in an American defense outspending the next 7 or 8 highest spending countries'. He is more than willing to impose, unilaterally or otherwise, tariffs and economic sanctions, which contradicts the old libertarian saying that when goods do not flow freely cross borders, armies will. We would also argue Trump's market interventions as corrupt, arbitrary and counterproductive; for instance, his protectionism on domestic steel occurs at the expense of steel-consuming companies, not to mention has unintended consequences of other exporters who face retaliatory foreign trade responses.
But let me point out that German expansion, based on "more living space" Lebensraum, predated the rise of Hitler. Among other things, like former concessions and lost territories from prior war settlements, an overpopulated Germany (particularly with respect to the farm economy), needed territory to sustain the German economy. Hitler rejected measures to shrink the German population, say by emigration or birth policies. They primarily intended to expand into east Europe, not the west, but England and France declared war on Germany when their ally Poland was invaded (and I'm sure Germans were not happy over the terms ending the previous war). I am not trying to defend Nazi Germany here or justify the Lebensraum principle, particularly under its genocidal implementation under Nazi Germany. But Hitler had limited resources and did not want to risk American intervention or a two-front war. Did he have ambitions for global conquest? Maybe, but I suspect his agenda was a greater Germany spanning east Europe. And his version of ethnic cleansing, including depopulation of target areas, was particularly monstrous.
But Owens' oversimplifying history in the context of the Trumpist nationalism vs globalist battlefield simply reflects her illiterate knowledge of history.
Trump doesn't believe in the legitimacy of international agreements (including trade deals) preceding his Presidency. This itself shows no regard for law. It was not Henry Cabot Lodge moving to block Wilson's ill-fated League of Nations.
What then do I made of Owens' nationalism? Am I not a former Air Force brat, a Navy veteran? Does my heart not stir at the sound of the national anthem? America, right or wrong? Love her or leave her? Do I believe in the Bush Doctrine, i.e., : "1.) Preemption, 2.) Military Primacy, 3.) New Multilateralism, and 4.) the Spread of Democracy"?
Make no mistake; I'm proud to be an American in the tradition of unalienable individual rights and limited government. But I believe an 800 foreign military base empire is a profound overreach and unsustainable; it's not our constitutional role to be the world's unloved policeman. I disagree with nearly all military engagements since WWII. This does not mean I approved of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical warfare, his repression of Shiite Muslims or his invasions and/or conquest of neighbors like Kuwait. I similarly disapprove of innumerable economic sanctions, of Trump's unilateral trade wars. I similarly dislike how the federal government has grown at the expense of state/local government and individual liberty.
Conservatism is not a proxy for the status quo or authoritarianism; in fact, leftists want to restrict political speech, means of self-defense, economic interventions (e.g., nationalized healthcare). In America, conservatism is based on a legacy of the principles of individual rights and limited government. And limited government includes the nature and extent of our common defense. It doesn't mean buying into fear-mongering by the political elite to rationalize preemptive military or economic interventions. We argue that unnecessary initiatives divert attention and resources from legitimate small government mandates and taxpayer pockets.
