Thoughts on Patriotism
1) A conversation about what it requires for a country to defend itself would probably be a lot more productive if the word patriotism couldn’t be used by any of those involved. If you want to see what I mean, read Jim Manzi’s wonderful post on the subject.
2) Jonah Goldberg wrote:
The Fourth of July, President’s Day, and even Veterans’ and Memorial Day are celebrations of the nation-state created by the American founding. In short, our other holidays are about patriotism, not nationalism. Thanksgiving meanwhile celebrates a pre-constitutional relationship with the Almighty. I wouldn’t quite say it’s a pre-modern or blood-and-soil holiday, but it is about Providence and the great gift being here, in this place, is. A little mystic nationalism is a good and healthy thing because it provides the emotional sinew that helps us hold onto our patriotism.
If by “mystic nationalism” Mr. Goldberg basically means what Jim Manzi described in his New Jersey town, or what Abraham Lincoln alluded to in this proclamation — and given the context of the full paragraph, I think that is what he is saying, though it’s hard to be sure — then I’d quibble with his word choice, but agree that what he calls mystic nationalism is both good and provides “emotional sinew that helps us hold onto our patriotism.”
3) Will Wilkinson writes:
I strenuously disagree that a little mystic nationalism is “a good and healthy thing.” But I heartily agree with what I take Jonah to imply: that patriotism has little emotional substance without mystic nationalism.
I think Mr. Wilkinson is taking “mystical nationalism” to mean something very different, though I can’t tell exactly what.
4) Mr. Wilkinson and PEG, for all their disagreements, seem to regard patriotism as beyond reason, and nonsensical without nationalism, but is it? The colonists of 1776 managed to begin a rather intellectually rigorous Revolution. I won’t pretend that everyone who fought in that struggle coldly reasoned things out, or delve into the many reasons that soon-to-be Americans rebelled against the British, but it is certainly the case that even after their victory, the generation that fought thought they owed primary allegiance to their states, and drew up the Articles of Confederation as a democratic expression of their values. That wasn’t a document of nationalists or National Greatness Conservatives! Indeed, the Constitution of 1789 stopped far short of what Weekly Standard national greatness conservatives would recommend for our polity.
5) In recent years, when patriotism has been used as an explicit argument for some policy or other, disaster has been the result far more often than any other outcome, and it is difficult to think of a particular good that it’s brought us. I’d argue that is explained by the fact that since 9/11 we’ve seen a perversion of patriotism.
If loving the United States of America means admiring, upholding and defending the values found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, patriotism is a good thing indeed, even if that intellectually driven love is bolstered by an emotional attachment to our community, our friends and our culture. That is my feeling, and I therefore consider myself a patriot. But if loving the United States of America is severed from admiring, upholding and defending those values — if America is supposed to be some ill-defined thing, and I am supposed to lend my support to whatever the person elected as its president decides — then patriotism is better guarded against than embraced.
Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard
Signature——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Nothing is impossible for a willing heart.
[url=http://www.uggshelf.com/UGG-Bailey-Button/View-all-products.html][color=black]ugg bailey button[/color][/url]
— hanyu · Nov 27, 06:13 AM · #
I’m on board with this. I’d just add that all of the confusion and controversy about patriotism speaks badly of the concept itself. All human groups with any kind of shared identity will feel something like this emotion when pushed, it’s unsurprising and automatic.
— Steve C · Nov 27, 06:52 AM · #
let’s remember the variation in visions of the american nation. men like jefferson were pro-state. men like alexander, not so much. the federalist vision of the united states of america lost out to these united states of america until the civil war due to he ascendancy of the democratic party (which came out of the democratic-republican societies). but i think it was there from the beginning among some. though really contemporary american nationalism can only be well understood in a sense of the evolution of the nation from then to now.
i would agree that the rebellion had intellectual vigor. but i think the scholarly consensus is that this framework was post facto after the die was cast for rebellion. after all, reasons for rebellion differed a great deal. most of the virginia planters were apparently in major debt to british finance. new england was finding its own industries and commerce being choked off by the mercantile policies of the homeland.
— razib · Nov 27, 07:46 AM · #
Conner says:
One thing I’ve always admired about America is that it succeded more than most in turning it’s politcal foundaton into a kind of religion with two goodn’ proper holy texts. In most other countires, such “intellectual” ideas of patriotism as Conor’s seam weak and bloodless. In America it is indistinguishable from instinctive, emotional patriotism.
— Adrian Ratnapala · Nov 27, 08:22 AM · #
Conor:
Thanks for your post.
1) Yes, Jim’s post is very beautiful. But it’s a little bit hard to talk about patriotism and what it means without using the word, isn’t it? Should we write “the p word”?
2) Agreed.
3)
I don’t know about Will, but that’s not true for me. I think that patriotism, like religious faith, is both eminently reasonable and endowed with an intrinsic streak of irrationality.
I don’t think it’s “nonsensical” without nationalism. At all. I subscribe to the “patriotism = good/nationalism = bad” dichotomy.
What I understood Jonah to say, and agreed with, is that it’s good and healthy every once in a while to reconnect with the primal (as opposed to the reasonable) reasons why we love our countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean that patriotism is indistinguishable from nationalism. I don’t think that at all.
5) Sure. Patriots are the first to stand up against the perversions of patriotism. But that those perversions exist doesn’t mean patriotism is always bad.
— PEG · Nov 27, 09:33 AM · #
Yes, both nationalism and patriotism are meaningless unless the principles involved are defined in light of judgement, choice and preference. Patriotism which is externally motivated by a false duty of adhering to authority is unreasonable, yet, patriotism which is internally motivated in times of external threat is reasonable in the sense of protecting principles, even though the principles might not be fully realized under the present authority — you can always handle that problem later — and this is due to a nationalism which might mean you don’t like what your country has become under its modern authority, but you still have faith that the underlying principles can be applied if enough people wake up and re-embrace these principles. None of this is necessarily in relation to other countries — however, at times of judgement and comparison, one might say “My country is the place I’d rather be.” I see patriotism as protecting values, and meaningful only under certain circumstances when values are threatened, which can mean a domestic resistance to forces which threaten values. But none of this means anything if you believe in moral relativity, and one set of values is as valid as another set of values, or unless you can, indeed, apply certain values to a nation.
Those who abuse the ideas of patriotism and nationalism are another topic, and really have little to do with concepts in and of themselves. “Liberalism” can be perverted by particular people who call themselves “liberals” but this doesn’t change the concept of liberalism.
— mike farmer · Nov 27, 01:16 PM · #
It’s just very strange for me for the patriotic PEG to write a gushing post about Jonah Goldberg, who is a notorious, explicit and unapologetic hater of the French. And that’s one of the biggest problems with patriotism as it is actually practiced: it drives people not to love their own country but to hate and deride others. As is often the case, we are being driven to debate something here on a level of philosophy that is deeply disconnected from the actual practice, on the ground, of what we’re talking about. We don’t need to look far afield to find an example of patriotism having noxious effects such as aggressive and ugly attacks on other nationalities; Jonah Goldberg himself is that example.
— Freddie · Nov 27, 02:55 PM · #
It seems that my patriotic French self defending the French-bashing Jonah Goldberg precisely proves the distinction between patriotism and nationalism.
You claim that we speak we speak philosophically, removed from on-the-ground realities, and yet you refuse to acknowledge my own experience of patriotism.
— PEG · Nov 27, 03:17 PM · #
“It seems that my patriotic French self defending the French-bashing Jonah Goldberg precisely proves the distinction between patriotism and nationalism.”
In what way? You can’t pluck out one thing Jonah has written and ignore the context of the rest of his life. Goldberg’s invocation of patriotism is usually less “my country is great” and more “that other country sucks”.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 27, 04:42 PM · #
“And that’s one of the biggest problems with patriotism as it is actually practiced: it drives people not to love their own country but to hate and deride others.”
Perhaps some people, but not all people. What about patriotism necessitates hate and derision of other countries. Do you know of any studies showing that people who claim to be patriotic hate and deride other countries, are is this a hunch of yours based a few example you’re familiar with?
— mike farmer · Nov 27, 06:23 PM · #
or, not are, and “examples”
— mike farmer · Nov 27, 07:06 PM · #
Freddie is a whiny bitch, but he does have a point. It’s just so damn awful to say anything with bite about the other side, especially when such awful awful statements are spurred and bolstered by self-righteousness, which, of course, is how ‘an attachment to worldview’ is actually done in practice. Sad really, and awful. Mostly awful.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Nov 27, 07:21 PM · #
Re: patriotism, why does everything have to be either/or? Patriotism is energy. With it great feats can be, uh, feted (after they are done, of course). With it, bad acts can be perpetrated on global scales. With it those same bad acts can be stopped.
A tool like any other. Will thinks it too unwieldy; he would rather lose the potential to avoid the risk. Too bad for him, patriotism can’t be set down. The best patriotisms are tied to lofty values, the worst are tied to vulgar and discriminatory characteristics.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Nov 27, 07:32 PM · #
Yes I can — watch me. Just because I agree with something someone’s written, I should have to agree with everything else they’ve ever written, in order to be allowed to agree with that one thing?
I’m not writing a doorstop titled Jonah Goldberg: The Work, The Life, The Man. I’m using something he wrote as a launching pad for my exploration of the theme of patriotism. And then Conor used my thoughts as the launching pad for his own thoughts on the subject. What’s the big deal?
— PEG · Nov 27, 08:11 PM · #
One more thing. Patriotism is converted and canalized tribalism, and tribalism is adaptive in a world of other tribes. The only way getting rid of patriotism makes sense as a strategy is to dissolve all ties that bind into a universal solvent. Will believes this universal solvent can be an enlightened capitalism and political libertarianism, a kind of autoplectic chaos that kindasorta resembles a multi-D political-evolutionary Ising model, and which can be relied upon to, over time, achieve a deep state with a long continuous history so long as temperatures are kept low and islands of noise are kept small.
Unfortunately, in reality that can’t work long-term without a decisive global government run by selfless individuals who know what they’re doing. Good luck with that.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Nov 27, 08:15 PM · #
“Just because I agree with something someone’s written, I should have to agree with everything else they’ve ever written, in order to be allowed to agree with that one thing?”
No, but you have to take into account everything else they’ve written when evaluating the thing you want to agree with. Or to put it another way, you shouldn’t join in with a statement of Jonah’s when he’s a living refutation of that statement. It’s like echoing Carrie Prejean on the importance of sexual propriety. You can’t spin off a Goldberg comment on patriotism without first dealing with the fact that Jonah is talking out of his hat when you relate his comment to his own behavior.
This is how a 3nd rate intellect and a 4th rate temperment like Jonah Goldberg remains a significant part of conservative discourse. There are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of conservative commentators in the blogosphere that are either funnier, more provocative or more insightful than Jonah Goldberg. Yet he’s the one with a louder megaphone than all of them put together.
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 27, 08:38 PM · #
A close analogy to patriotism is the psychology and extensional effects of honor. Some good, some bad. Suppressing the honor instinct avoids extremities but also tends to shrink horizons.
Which to choose, which to choose.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Nov 27, 10:33 PM · #
“What’s the big deal?”
You’re right, your approach is perfectly valid.
It’s just that Goldberg is a self-righteous dick, so it naturally brings out the critics.
Liberals are fascists, right? That’s just not easy to put to the side…
— Socrates · Nov 28, 12:01 AM · #
“There are dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of conservative commentators in the blogosphere that are either funnier, more provocative or more insightful than Jonah Goldberg.”
Including, my invitation to him to kiss my ass notwithstanding, PEG. I’d put the stranglehold of Goldberg and NR and WS and WSJ – and their fealty to the cast of characters on Fox and radio plus the Cheney clan – on conservative “thought” in 2009 as conservatism’s biggest problem. I’m imagining almost everyone around here would rank that as obvious though.
— Steve C · Nov 28, 02:01 AM · #
No, but you have to take into account everything else they’ve written when evaluating the thing you want to agree with. Or to put it another way, you shouldn’t join in with a statement of Jonah’s when he’s a living refutation of that statement.
Amazing (and disgusting). Back in the days when there were liberals we were never taught to act that way.
You think I should never agree with Barak Obama on anything he’s said, because his whole life is a refutation of anything good he’s ever said?
I shouldn’t admit that a single thing Karl Marx ever said is true, because he’s such a lowlife?
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that flavor of hatefulness before.
— The Reticulator · Nov 28, 02:29 AM · #
Liberals are fascists, right? That’s just not easy to put to the side
Hey, I’ve been referring to them as leftwing fascists for years before Jonah Goldberg ever thought of his book (which I haven’t read, btw). I’ve been pointing out that there are no more liberals, except for Nat Hentoff and maybe one or two people nobody has ever heard of.
So shouldn’t I at least get some credit and a share of the hate that you guys are spewing?
— The Reticulator · Nov 28, 02:33 AM · #
I haven’t read his book, but as I understand it it’s an exploration of the philosophical and historical links between left-wing thought and so-called “right-wing” totalitarianism. As a student of modern history it has been an understudied pet peeve of mine for a very long time, and I was very glad that someone wrote a book — a best-seller, even — on the subject.
But of course pointing out the historical links between liberalism and fascism is not the same thing as saying that liberalism is fascism. You wouldn’t ascribe that thought to Goldberg, right? That would be the sort of dishonest approximation that you ascribe to… Goldberg.
— PEG · Nov 28, 08:16 AM · #
Jonah Goldberg: The Work, The Life, The Man
If PEG were to write this book, I just might buy it.
Kristoffer Sargent hits the bullseye by analogizing patriotism to honor. Maybe even better would have been chivalry.
— Ben A · Nov 28, 03:17 PM · #
“liberalism is fascism” are your words, not mine.
Gee, that “dishonest approximation” thing is pretty tempting, isn’t it?
— Socrates · Nov 28, 03:27 PM · #
So many words have become “hot” it’s necessary to cool them down by explaining what’s meant.
I think most of us could agree that there’s nothing wrong with having love for one’s nation, even if that nation is not perfect, but, nonetheless, offers, for the most part, opportunities for community, diversity, creativty, expression and innovation. Patriotism, in the form of being willing to protect these values, is also acceptable, unless it ignores the faults of government and blindly defends the State, right or wrong, regardless of what monster government is created.
This is not just philosophy vs the-way-things-are, it’s the way, I believe, most people would look at nationalism and patriotism.
I’m not familiar with Goldberg’s writing, but I’ve seen him on different talk shows, so I suspect his positions are being exaggerated in order to discount what he has to say about nationalism and patriotism. I doubt this is quite like that idiot WH communicator using Mao to inspire high school kids. Goldberg appears to be enough in the conservative mainstream to avoid comparisons of Hitler recommending tolerance and compassion.
— mike farmer · Nov 28, 05:05 PM · #
When someone says “France sucks” all the time and says that his thinking France sucks is a function of his patriotism, and a Frenchman who is patriotic says that he respects this person’s vision of patriotism, well— that’s just nonsensical. It makes no sense at all.
Also, PEG should really get out of the business of reviewing books you haven’t read and clearly know nothing about.
— Freddie · Nov 28, 07:12 PM · #
“But of course pointing out the historical links between liberalism and fascism is not the same thing as saying that liberalism is fascism. You wouldn’t ascribe that thought to Goldberg, right?”
Well, a lot of conservatives these days (see, for example, Jonah Goldberg’s frequent interviewer and friend Glenn Beck) do say liberalism is fascism, or at the very least a local species of it, and Goldberg’s book had a lot to do with injecting that idea into political discourse. And I don’t think that was an accident. Goldberg may claim he was trying to make certain distinctions between the two (book-cover Hitler mustaches on smiley face liberal logos notwithstanding), but that seems more like an exercise in plausible deniability and disingenuousness than anything else. While it’s good to assume good faith on the part of others in most circumstances, in some circumstances that is unwise and naive. This is one of them.
— Mark in Houston · Nov 29, 01:15 AM · #
When someone says “France sucks” all the time and says that his thinking France sucks is a function of his patriotism, and a Frenchman who is patriotic says that he respects this person’s vision of patriotism, well— that’s just nonsensical. It makes no sense at all.
This isn’t true. I watch Russian movies and TV shows that constantly get in digs at Americans. I don’t particularly care for it, but I respect the sense of patriotism that goes with it. There is nothing at all nonsensical about it.
Maybe it helps to have grown up conservative. Conservatives have to live with little digs and insults all the time — school, church, movies, radio, TV, sports — you can’t get away from it. But they learn to put up with it. Maybe that explains why conservatives are generally more tolerant and easy-going than leftwingers, and learn to appreciate such good things as they can find in others, even in the midst of their ignorance and bigotry.
— The Reticulator · Nov 29, 05:56 AM · #
Wow, total looking glass moment. I especially love how he says all this stuff so matter-of-factly, like it’s true.
— Chet · Nov 29, 06:06 AM · #
“You think I should never agree with Barak Obama on anything he’s said, because his whole life is a refutation of anything good he’s ever said?”
Uh, how exactly is Obama’s “whole life” a refutation of anything he’s ever said?
Mike
— MBunge · Nov 30, 04:31 PM · #
I especially love how he says all this stuff so matter-of-factly, like it’s true.
It is true. The question is where it is true. Generally, if you’ve been on the outside of the “smug we” in a given environment, you’re more tolerant and easy-going. People who grew up ‘out-of step’ — right-of-center in Berkeley, left-of-center in Salt Lake City — tend to be less dogmatic, in my experience.
— Ben A · Nov 30, 09:56 PM · #
The research of Bob Altemeyer makes it pretty clear that conservativism is most strongly associated with a personality type that is not “easy-going”, but rather, fears diversity, reveres submission to authority, is more likely to believe that those different from themselves are bad people, and is genuinely angered by the thought that traditions might be overturned or not upheld.
— Chet · Dec 1, 03:17 AM · #
Let me put it this way.
Person A is a fan of sports team X; meanwhile person B is a fan of sports team Y. Person A likes to make fun of sports team Y, and its fans.
Then comes person C, who says person A specifically, and all sports fans in general, are stupid troglodytes.
Regardless of the merits, does it really make no sense at all for person B to say, “Wait a minute, actually, being a sports fan is cool”?
I think it does make sense.
— PEG · Dec 1, 09:09 AM · #
Whereas Chet would attribute psychological disorders to his opponents rather than strive with their beliefs; whereas Chet wants to submit to a remote undemocratic authority halfway around the world, from whom there is no appeal; whereas Chet believes conservatives are either stupid or bad (racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, greedy) people; whereas Chet is a buffoon.
I’m not a conservative, but even more, I’m not what Chet is.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Dec 1, 05:44 PM · #
Well, you’re not honest, that’s for sure. Where on Earth did I ever say that conservatives had a “psychological disorder”? I think you might be thinking of Michael Savage’s book “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”, Ann Coulter’s “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans”, or perhaps even Beck’s “Arguing with Idiots” (you know, the one where he’s dressed as a Nazi kommandant on the cover, speaking of reverence to authority.)
But, you know, it’s the case that Americans change religion more often than they change their political affiliation. Does it really strike you as odd or unusual to suggest that people’s personalities really do inform the political positions they prefer? It seems perfectly obvious, to me and to any thinking person. Why would one’s political ideology be something they could merely don and cast off, like a shirt? Do you think yours is so divorced from your character and your habits? Isn’t it all of a piece?
— Chet · Dec 1, 07:02 PM · #
I certainly hope so. I have a bad character and even worse habits. I’d hate to think what kind of politics they determine.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Dec 1, 08:13 PM · #
Cute, but evasive. Again – do you seriously not think that your ideology – your outlook – and your self, your nature, are not of a piece? How could that even be possible?
— Chet · Dec 2, 01:39 AM · #
KVS – your statements in the other thread put your statements in this one to the lie:
This is something that is part of you – that flows, naturally, from your character and your inclinations. You believe this because you are who you are.
— Chet · Dec 2, 06:56 PM · #
Not really. I reasoned myself into that one mon ami. If anything flows from my character it is anarchy, or alternatively, a princely state run by yours truly.
The only good authority is my authority! — says my mammalian brain. It took me a long time to convince myself otherwise, not with romantic notions but with prudential reasoning.
I ain’t no Nathan Hale, though. I live and die once then nothing forever, and that changes everything.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Dec 3, 04:17 PM · #