“Internationalist” does not mean launching or expanding multiple wars. It implies expansion of international harmony and cooperation, not wars. Hitler was not an internationalist because he conquered all those European nations.
“Nationalist” does not mean isolationist. It has often enough meant to launch wars. Fortress America was not the norm for nationalism. The irridentist ambitions of France and Serbia before WW1 and Mussolini’s Mare Nostrum and Japan’s East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere were more common meanings for nationalism.
Internationalism vs Nationalist does not capture the divide. It cannot be said that either Hillary or The Donald are internationalist in the real sense. Both are nationalists. Hillary is more aggressive than The Donald, much more aggressive.
Likewise, cosmopolitan means enjoying differences, not regime change to force others to adopt American concepts of democracy, including “election” only of people and programs we approve.
Tribalism is judgmental and imposes on other tribes. Hillary seeks to go forth to impose conformity with her wishes. The Donald wants to expell and impose conformity on whoever remains.
Therefore, cosmopolitan vs tribal does not capture the divide.
Both candidates are much smaller than this divide, bickering only over which nationalist ambitions to advance and which factional tribal rights to favor.
I like these kind of comments.
Hillary supports invade the world/invite the world. The old British imperialists favored only invade the world. Sweden Yes! favors only invite the world. Trump, at least on paper, supports neither invasion nor invitation. Some nationalist ambitions are different from others.