Why Did The Fathers of the American Revolution Hate America?

It’s certainly not politically palatable to suggest that the whole notion of “loving your country” is misplaced, but suggest it I will.

“There is this one problem: that hypothetical country does not as yet exist. This is not patriotism – it is a wish fantasy. And it is this wish fantasy, this shrinking from realities, this attempt to let phrases do the work of real ideas…

It’s funny, because you can’t read Cicero and the founding fathers without seeing how profoundly the former influenced the latter — in particular, the former’s conception of his Republic. And Cicero’s Republic, his passionately adored Republic, did not exist in his time and probably never had. It was the ideal of the thing that he couldn’t let go of, that he worked for all his life, that had long since died in blood.

I would think the founders would have recognized this, well before embarking on their utopian experiment, their America that did not yet exist.

Barack Obama talks about making America better by remaking it, by reinventing it. The aesthetics of his campaign are about a revolution. Well, it seems to me that if you believe this country needs a revolution, if you believe that it needs to be remade, then your love for it isn’t that profound.

I guess Goldberg must think Ronald Reagan hated America. That is what they say about Reagan over at National Review, right?

http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/speech.asp?spid=18

Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed, but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote–during the darkest days of the American Revolution–“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”

So I’m listening to this Peter Beinart/Jonah Goldberg bloggingheads exchange on patriotism

This sort of thing is why I’m grateful that shiny objects are so damned distracting.

Aside from the American Revolution – and I suppose some will doubt that – can anyone name a revolution that improved things?

But surely you can see the glaring fallacy in your first few paragraphs. All revolutions are not the same.

Tom of the Hills,

The Jonah Goldberg quote with which this post begins suggests that all revolutions are a sign of a lack of patriotism. John Holbo’s principal point in this post is that this view is both ridiculous and obviously not actually held by Goldberg and the other wingnuts.

One can argue about which revolutions are good or bad, or even patriotic and unpatriotic, but that’s really another issue.

Let me first say that I think that Jonah Goldberg is an asshat and a sloppy writer (link goes to unbelievable gross stupidity where he uses “founding fathers” to mean “Nyah, I win”).

But – I think you’re wrong here John. JG clearly believes that because America had a revolution, it doesn’t need another one. The American revolutionary war created the America state. They fought the British, not American reactionaries.

An analogy with religion may help. Most Christian sects believe that when Jesus came along he overthrew aspects of the Torah: the dietary commands of Leviticus for example. But that doesn’t mean that anyone can come along and revise the New Testament willy nilly.

In short, JG is at least internally consistent in his ‘Americans against revolution’ position. Where he’s clearly wrong, is that progress and refinement and ad hoc improvements are not revolution. Barrack Obama is not a revolutionary. America doesn’t need to be remade: like any durable thing (a house for example) it needs constant repair.

‘can’t love of my country be like love of my mother?’

Doesn’t it reveal the infantile nature of this thing right there? Go move back with your mother or shut up.

The American revolution was fought to throw off the incipient tyranny of the British crown

Actually, it was fought largely because a bunch of merchants, smugglers, and landowners didn’t like paying their taxes, and weren’t happy that the Crown wasn’t letting them steal land from the natives west of the Appalachians.

before the colonists were all reduced to outright slavery.

Like those poor folks up in the Canadian Gulag.

You can ‘talk smack’ all you like, but we burned the White House, nyaah-nyaah!

Anyone who tries to define ‘patriotism’ without invoking the need for critical appraisal of existing institutions and policies is just hiding fascism behind a barely-respectable facade. And I mean ‘fascism’ quite literally – devotion to an absolute concept of ‘nation’, endowed with mythical virtues, and treated as a being superior in needs and goals to any actual set of living individuals.

If Jonah’s right, then I remember something said by another lack-luster patriot, who said “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.” Jefferson

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0300.htm

but we burned the White House, nyaah-nyaah!

Colin Mochrie: I’m sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I see you’ve rebuilt it! It’s very nice.

Maybe he would agree that the French revolutionaries were patriotic.

I don’t think any contemporary would have called any of them patriotic _before_ the revolution. You might be able to find some quote talking up the countryside or something, but I don’t think any objective observer could reasonably say those strongly revolutionary tended to be also strongly patriotic.

Only once the Kingdom of France was destroyed, and the Republic of France established, did they become patriots for the newly created country.

And then, over time, the Revolution just become part of Heritage, no different from any other historical victorious war, or memorable sports team win. For this purpose, the advantage of a civil war is only that you can guarantee a home win.

Which is why in america, talking about revolution, instead of progress, is generally a conservative trope; if Obama did it, it could well be part of his current drift to the centre.

And, from the quote, it’s not even clear whether he did;certainly we would have heard if he was seriously proposing armed insurrection.

Funny how most here can’t see the difference between kicking out a royally-ruled army that would hang you for speaking your mind and replacing their tyranny with the bill of rights, and saying that country now needs to be remade.

There was a holiday a few weeks ago but I guess most here did not celebrate.

therefore they were patriots

Yes, but patriots for a country other than the one they were living in.

The Carbonari were not Napoli patriots, Garibaldi was not a Peidmontese patriot (actually, in one phase of his career he was, but that is not what he is remembered for).

It is hard to think of a set of political views that wouldn’t be retrospectively called ‘patriotism’, if a nation expressing them came into existence.

Soru, why ‘retrospectively’? They called themselves ‘patriots’ right then and there, motivated (seemingly) by the love for their country; what authority reviewed their claim and denied them the honor?

“What critics of those on the left fear is that
the left wants to replace the engine. And that Obama’s previous(i.e., prior to the campaign) associations with extreme leftists, former violent terrorists and communist party member advisers, and his own writings and voting record, does nothing to disabuse them of that fear.”

The Alternate-World Wide Web. Doesn’t it all make sense now? – all the emails clicking over from a slightly different timeline where Obama actually is a secret Muslim, the anxious conservative critics posting from another where all of the above is in any meaningful sense true . . . Hey, I spent much of the last week arguing with <a href = “people convinced that the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Chris Satullo was a radical far left, and honestly, I can’t think of any other possible explanation. (more seriously, that post is fairly interesting in the light of this one, since it arguably involves misunderstanding or -representing liberal patriotism to exaggerate differences (which are there, but seem more an issue of variations on a theme or differences in polarity . . .)

What is it with you Americans and patriotism. I don’t mean to sound like a condescending European here (or do I?) but honestly, it seems indicative of deep insecurity of your country’s worth to constantly be going on about how flipping fantastic it is.

While Goldberg’s post is utterly foolish, and although a nuanced and sophisticated redefinition and reconceptualization of “patriotism” can obviously redeem it for use by people of progressive persuasion,there is, first, the question of whether the concept deserves redemption and, secondly, whether or not this misses an important truth accidentally imbedded in Goldberg’s moronic post.

That simple but important truth, well worth noting, is that after a revolution is accomplished, “revolution” becomes eo ipso counter-revolution.

This is worth noting since it reminds us that the American revolution was not waged on behalf of some flattering reactionary “progressive” notion of America as perpetual revolution. The parchment didn’t say “we hold these hypotheses to be sufficiently intuitive pending further evidence and experimentation…”

So. Yeah. You can’t be a proponent of _substantial_ structural change to a country (Obama of course has no worries here) and claim to love it. But one can’t meaningfully “love” a conceptual entity, so it’s a moot point. Patriotism would be dangerous bullshit–if it existed. What we refer to as “love of country” is no such thing. It is simply love of self–projected, disguised, and displaced. I’d add that significant elements of “love of mother” are the same…

The other merit of Goldberg’s imbecilic post is that it points out a very real practical dilemma for Obama’s campaign. A sophisticated and nuanced definition of patriotism can reconcile it with the platform of change, but the “change” campaign is precisely Obama’s bumpersticker salespitch, aimed at the gut, not at nuanced, sophisticated interpretations of abstract concepts.

So. Yes. America _is_ going to interpret “change” as “I don’t love my country.”

The reason you love your mother is because when you were a little baby she held you in her arms all the time and got you hooked. Just like you used to love your blanket and that special stuffed toy.

I think the most innocent case of ‘loving your country’ is something similar – familiar scenery, faces, language, mannerisms, etc. make you feel comfortable; sure, you love the place, but you don’t really need to talk about it. The rest is for the scoundrels and demagogues.

Yah, abb1, that’s like those little rhesus babies?
They put em in a lab cage with a cat scratching post in it?
And them cute little monkeys “bond” with it cause it’s the only maternal shape they can find?
Love can get analyzed away into insignificance, unless you feel it. Nothing there but some evolved mammalian circuitry that enables the gene momentum. The culture presently disavows emotion, reveres rationality. This is fundamental, part and parcel of the denial of the feminine, and a significant contributor to the damage done to the world – e.g. anthropogenic climate forcing.

Maybe there’s something a little less insectoid about love, but if you’re looking through the lens of cold reason alone, maybe that’s all that appears to be there.
As shown in the rhesus data, love can be perverted by circumstance, and that makes it even easier to rationalize it away.
It comes down to an assertion, non-rational, emotional, aesthetic as much as anything.
The American thing is more than landscape or political experiment, but as with sports team fans the rubric of loyalty gets spread so thin it becomes little more than brand name affinity.
Slavery and the genocide of the indigenous undercut the thrill of freedom that in its beginning really was new and hopeful.
And present circumstances have hollowed it out to travesty. But freedom was the idea.
It’s a good idea, much better than security and safety as primary life-goals.
The state motto of New Hampshire “Live Free or Die” wasn’t coined by boosters. There were people then who lived that, and died living it. The full quote adding “Death is not the worst of evils”.
Jimmy Carter, of all people, wrote a book about the Revolutionary War “The Hornet’s Nest” that has some chilling historically accurate depictions of the horror or that contest. Families burned in their houses for being on the wrong side, worse. It wasn’t just a bunch of silly redcoats trading musket fire with Natty Bumpo.
Loving your country, like loving your mom, isn’t always just about feeling comfortable.

Why, is it necessarily an either/or – emotion or rationality? Can’t you experience these emotions while simultaneously observing yourself from the outside?

As far as “live free or die” and all that – sure, it’s a part of patriotism – but it’s cognitive and thus it’s not exactly what we call ‘love’, at least not the mother/child sort.

First sentence: “It isn’t an either/or…”

“So. Yes. America is going to interpret “change” as “I don’t love my country.””

Or as – wouldn’t it be nice not to choose between health care or college for one’s kids or a tank of gas . . .?

Abb1-
They’re of the same nature, it’s their focus that’s diametric. The rationalist will see it as almost chocolate v. vanilla. But that’s rationalism for ya.
Despite there being pretty clear genetic “reasons” for altruism, from the individual’s p.o.v., at least at this cultural juncture, self-sacrifice is irrational, heroic FDNY or no heroic FDNY.
People revere those firefighters who went in to the twin towers, who would never do it themselves out of intense self-interest.
There’s a massive and highly exploitable conflict right this minute between those two drives in the American volk. Appeals to self-interest, immediate gratification; and appeals to altruism, self-sacrifice for future generations. Which ones are selling better?
Rationality void of healthy emotion sells its buddies, in more normal hearts and minds the degree of emotion measures the conflict, rising at its most noble to an impassable revulsion at the choice. Conscience.
Though conscience these days mostly just means internalized rules and taboos.
In a lot of concrete ways this schism is like the one between religion and science. They were once parts of an indissoluble whole, now they’re antagonists competing for dominance. Emotion, specifically here patriotism or loyalty, is discounted when it isn’t condemned, or used.
Goldberg et al seem to be arguing for the return of emotion to its covalent position, in that sense of “America, love it or leave it”, an emotional imperative – which meant when it was first used accept everything the government does without complaint, but I don’t see how they can, given that the country they argue should be accepted as is has been altered so horrifically these past years.

I think patriotism is only useful or justified in the case of foreign oppression – and even then one has to be careful that it doesn’t morph into nationalism or genocide.

Under normal circumstances people mainly identify with the region they live in and the people they know there, i.e. things they can relate to in a non-abstract way. If they feel that their country does or should embody certain values, fine, but the connection between values and nationality is as such contingent, so that a rational person would consequently embrace cosmopolitanism, i.e. moral universalism.

Everything else is just a glorified circlejerk.

Roy, I think that self-interest is as much a ‘love’ phenomenon as ‘loves’ for your country, your mother, your child, and your buddies. ‘Rationality’ I would define as a process of finding an optimal compromise between all your conflicting ‘loves’.

If you are an ordinary – rational – individual with a typical emotional pattern, you probably won’t sell out your buddies, you will help them somewhat, but without exposing yourself to too much danger. I think that selling them out is about as irrational as using your body to shield your casual acquaintance from a bullet.

You think the ‘self-interest’ form of love is excessive in the culture? Perhaps you’re right, but don’t forget that love’s other species, like ‘love for your country’ or ‘for justice’, or ‘for your gang’ can be very ugly too.

virgil xenophon:

the legitimacy of the very foundations of our society and country.

Depends a good lot on what you see these “foundations” as, no? Did Thomas Jefferson mention a God-given right to build walls between the US and Mexico? Did George Washington write about an America founded on ‘capitalist’ principles?

It’s clear that Obama’s working for change within the framework of the US Constitution, the rule of law, and all that — changes may be huge, but nevertheless the changes are according to the rule book. If that’s not enough to count as accepting “the legitimcy of the very foundations” of the US, then what is?

(The same holds for McCain and Ron Paul, no doubt. But Timothy McVeigh’s “patriotism”, which apparently involves blowing up stuff, is another story…)

 – bi, International Journal of Inactivism

I agree with Yglesias that there isn’t that much difference between conservative and liberal patriotism.

Given the comments here, it’s hard to see how anybody believes that. Perhaps Yglesias and Holbo would like to reconsider? (Obviously, somebody neglected to send out the election-year talking points beforehand).

Liberals are obviously far more suspicious of patriotism. They immediately cite Bierce and Johnson. They tend to agree with Katherine when she says:

What is it with you Americans and patriotism. I don’t mean to sound like a condescending European here (or do I?) but honestly, it seems indicative of deep insecurity of your country’s worth to constantly be going on about how flipping fantastic it is.

They tend to be embarrassed by patriotic symbols and displays, finding them kitchy.

And then there are liberal attitudes toward America generally. It seems clear that they tend to share European attitudes about American people and popular culture (e.g. Americans are fat, monolingual and ill-informed, the food is atrocious, the portions are absurd, etc. America is the first country to go directly from barbarism to decadence, or in Michael Moore’s, words, we’re “the dumbest people on the planet”, etc). Liberals are more likely to accept and share these beliefs, at least in part.

That same thing goes for international politics — or does anybody think liberals and conservatives would produce similar percentages on the question of whether or not America has generally a positive influence on the world?

Clearly, both liberals and conservatives want to change the country (though, obviously, in different ways). So, too, do libertarians (probably more radically and in different ways than either liberals or conservatives). But there seem to be clear differences between liberals and conservatives in how much affection and esteem they have for the country in its current state before the hoped-for changes are made. Does anyone doubt that liberals, in general, take a much dimmer view of the current America?

That doesn’t mean that Liberals’ assessment of the situation might not be more accurate, but I’m not sure it fools anybody to try to pretend that there’s no difference.

As for myself — I’m neither liberal nor conservative. My attitude toward patriotic displays is more like the typical liberal one. For example, I’d say it’s well past time for the WWII practice of the national anthem before sporting events to be retired. And I’m really not keen on collectivist, communitarian, ‘national greatness’, what-can-you-do-for-your-country talk. So, for example, I think Obama’s mandatory ‘voluntary’ community service is a really terrible idea.

But on the other hand, my attitude is more like that of conservatives in my assessment of the current state of America and its influence in the world. There are things I very much would like to see changed — but even so, I have a hard time figuring out where else in time or history I’d want to be (the worst country in the world except for all the others).

slocum, I don’t think “liberals” are critical of patriotism per se (necessarily), just patriotism as it is generally constructed. I don’t think there are many liberals who quote Bierce, for example, who would really just willingly up and move to another country because they think all countries are equally good. I think they quote Bierce because he’s funny, and in the context of the current conservative/Republican view of patriotism he’s right.

In fact, besides the selfishness of “I live here and I would prefer to live this way”, I think it’s unreasonable to assume that liberals desire to change their country for what (in their opinion) is the better is based on anything except patriotism. They want to change their country because they love it. And people don’t usually love their country because it represents an abstract ideal, but because it’s the place they love.

How can one test or contradict, for example, the possibility that liberals take a “much dimmer view of America” now precisely because they love it and want to make it better? Maybe conservatives have ruined America because they don’t love it? (You can answer that question without agreeing that America is in a poor condition).

All such arguments proceed from an assumption about the motivations of the individuals involved. You really only have 3 options – 1) a bad faith initial assumption about one side or other, 2) no (or equal) assumptions about both sides, or 3) inferring people’s motivations from the results of their actions. I think John Holbo is suggesting we should do 2). Most liberals do 3), but in doing so they make caustic pronouncements which lead you to incline towards 1).

How can one test or contradict, for example, the possibility that liberals take a “much dimmer view of America” now

Oh, I don’t know — how about survey results?

All such arguments proceed from an assumption about the motivations of the individuals involved. You really only have 3 options – 1) a bad faith initial assumption about one side or other

No, I’m not assuming bad faith. I assume liberals truly believe what they profess to believe, and that these beliefs tend to lead them to take a negative view of America (whether the live here or not). So, I think many liberals truly believe, for example, that the U.S. went to war in Iraq to grab the oil, to enrich Haliburton, and/or to expand imperial power and that spreading democracy had f*ck all to do with it. I think many liberals are suspicious of the free market and corporations and, especially, the American variety. I think liberals don’t much like the kinds of communities Americans prefer (e.g. large, suburban, single-family neighborhoods, with transportation via private vehicles). And so on.

I don’t assume bad faith in any of these beliefs, but they can’t help but lead to a much more negative view of the current state of their country than conservatives hold, can it?

I mean, pretty much every other comment on this thread is yet another exemplar. For example:

“The geist of America is just as ephemeral and alien to me as that of Uruguay or Singapore or Russia. We find ourselves in a world of almost unimaginable horrors, a civilization that is clearly unstable and unsustainable.”

I don’t assume bad faith on the part of minneapolitan, but it seems pretty clear he/she has a much more negative view of the U.S. than your typical conservative, doesn’t it?

Yes, Novakant is correct, the US never really _has_ had a far left or _socialist_ party per se, although Eugene V. Debs did his damnedest with some of the finest oratory in history. What has prevented a “European-style” left? As one student of Deb’s times has said: “The ready availability and low price of beefsteak.” In short, the success of Capitalism practiced American-style.

As far as bi goes, when Obama talks about “voluntary” indentured servitude , Hillary talks of “taking” all the profits of the oil industry to invest in _her_ pet projects, and when two Democrat members of Congress openly talk of “nationalizing” the oil industry–well yes, I would say such things are contrary to the up-until-now national consensus as to what comprises the foundations of our society–whether technically done within the limits of our laws and Constitution or not. And it does no good to claim that such public proposals are made by a very “few” on the left, when two of those “few”
are the two main leading contenders for this years’ Democratic Presidential nomination–especially when not repudiated by anyone in the Donkey party at large. Some animals ARE more equal than others. “Seizing” profits, “nationalization” and “involuntary” servitude
seem to me to be slightly more than fine tuning
the engine–and these proposals come from the
more “moderate” left, as posters here are quick to point out. All one has to do is stroll thru Daily Kos or DU for a few nano-seconds to capture a feel for what the really _smart_ people
want to do to the engine–and it ain’t fine tuning.

Does steve labonne include as objects of his scorn
all the Democrats who voted to give legal imprimatur to the Bush administration’s actions? Are they not also to be labeled as “perpetrators” under his philosophical schema?

Does steve labonne include as objects of his scorn all the Democrats who voted to give legal imprimatur to the Bush administration’s actions? Are they not also to be labeled as “perpetrators” under his philosophical schema?

Hell yes I include them. And I’ll add that I’m pretty hacked off at Obama right now, as well. It would be kinda nice if we had a real opposition party instead of having to “choose” between a center-right corporate imperialist party and a loony right corporate imperialist party.

The critical difference between most American liberals and European social democrats is not in their view of the current state of the US, but in their view of its past and its future. I think American liberals believe that the US has been and can be again the best hope of mankind, the nearest thing to an ideal state possible in an imperfect world. I think Europeans are far more likely to see the US as another state like others, which inherently is likely to be no better and no worse than any others, though its relative performance may vary over time.

again Slocum, misinterpreting me. I said “because they love it and want to make it better.” That’s an important additional word. I don’t think that is easily quantified in surveys, because if they didn’t love it and just wanted to make it “better” out of spite (as suggested by the JGs of the world) they would hardly say so would they? The bad faith assumption, implicit in the JG argument, is unfalsifiable. Which is why I think the accusation comes either from viewing the results of policy, or assuming nasty motives from the start.

In answer to your question, I don’t really know what European social democrats think of America. If we assume that the stereotype of the social democratic view is true (just for arguments sake) then no, I don’t suppose it would be a patriotic view for an American to hold about their own country. But it’s worth remembering that a modern, patriotic social democrat in the UK or Australia would not consider their country to be a good place if it worked according to the stereotype of America (free guns, no nationalised health care, etc.) which is, I presume, how most foreigners imagine America.

The critical difference between, say, Australian social democrats and American liberals would be, for example, that Australian social democrats consider nuclear weapons to be abhorrent and evil; think the death penalty is uncivilised; consider gun control to be an essential part of cohesive society; believe that society should provide healthcare for all regardless of ability to pay (through a strong state) and absolutely consider an abrogation of that principle to be a mark of barbarity; and since the Malaysian confrontation they reject all forms of interventionist war not authorised by the UN. They also believe that it is the role of the state to promote equality. I don’t get the impression that many of these beliefs form a common currency for liberals in the US, but I would say most Australian social democrats would be horrified by their society if any more than 2 of those conditions were broken. Obviously an Australian social democrat would not be proud of their nation if it dumped most or all of those principles.

(I don’t, btw, really believe that left and right have the same patriotism. But I don’t think it’s necessarily the case that the patriotism of the people I disagree with is based in bad motivations as the JG argument implies, though I think it’s reasonable to claim that some patriotism is more easily manipulated for evil purposes than is others).

I have 3 nationalities. I was born with 2, and I took the 3rd one voluntarily when I was a young adult. I’m probably eligible for a 4th, though I haven’t checked. Once you have 3 nationalities, it gets kind of difficult to understand the kind of absolutist crap that gets thrown around about patriotism by ideologues on the right.

… or innocent Iraqis, for that matter

sg and steve labonne: Is it “absolutist crap” or “jingoistic bullshit” to make distinctions? Obviously all cultures/nation-states have _some_
unique aspects that are “superior” to all others in that they are seen by everyone else as either worthy of emulating or cherished because impossible to emulate no matter how desirable. But man does not eat by bread alone, as the saying goes, so it would seem the “total package” i.e., the sum total of everything that comprises a civic culture is what matters. The Aztecs were superior astronomers and architects for their time, but I would not have wished to live under their social umbrella(oe see it extended into our time).

I also much prefer Chinese food to traditional English fare, but would unhesitatingly choose the UK over the PRC if forced to spend the rest of my days in either nation–and constrained to eat only its national fare. So, are you both saying that there is no basis on which to judge differing cultures and political systems from one another? Are either of you absolutely indifferent as to which political system you live under? Do you both each believe that the civic cultures that various “nationalities” create are all of equal worth? If not, why should those who advance
a belief in American exceptionalism, supported by rational argument, be pejoratively labeled and given unbridled hell from either of you? Disagree with them if you wish, but it seems to me that the only “absolutist” mind-set at play here is
the one held by you both wherein conservatives are read out of all rational discussion as to the comparative merits of different social systems.
Conservatives often view American “liberals” as,
shall we say “less than patriotic” if only because of the utter contempt for the dominate culture as exemplified by the views expressed by _minneapolitan_ in his/her belief that life in America is a series of “unimaginable horrors” here “in the belly of the beast.”

I’m not an American, but it has always seemed pretty obvious to me that US conservatives “hate America” more than liberals do. In fact, I sometimes wonder if hatred (of liberals, socialists, communists, Europeans, muslims, women, gays, minorities, most other Americans and, in all likelihood, themselves) could be one of the few things that holds such an otherwise disparate group of mutually contradictory ideologies and interest groups together.

what a shabby question virgil. We’re clearly making distinctions, between countries and between types of patriotism. I have made the distinction between the patriotism of reasonable people on the right and lunatics like you. Why should you bother pretending otherwise?

And what is this “American exceptionalism, supported by rational argument”?

U-S-A! U-S-A!

The thing I didn’t appreciate until the Internet is exactly how weird conservatives were. I thought about conservatives the way most liberals think about anyone different from them. I tried to imagine, “What would make me think that?” or “What would make me act that way?” Reading conservatives on the Internet has taught me that conservatives cannot be understood that way. You’re better off using the same part of your brain that you use to understand a cobra.

“ Of course Labonne gives the game away as to where his head is by the studied use of”C.E.”

Er – the place where one goes, hey, given that not everybody in the world is Christian and doesn’t accept certain fundamental but almost certainly unverifiable claims of that religion, it’s a bit unpleasant to insist upon recognition of these claims even in the dating system that most of us have for shared & common use, but rather than scrapping it entirely, one can retain it only slightly changed in a way that acknowledges its origin and cultural significance without that kind of strident insistence?

Seems like a fairly nice place to me.

“ any conclusion leading to the acceptance of the validity of the concept of American exceptionalism”

Clearly America’s history and present differs in important ways from many – in specific cases, most or even all -other countries. But that particular concept often embraces the idea that America is in some way not actually a state like other states, pursuing interests and helmed by imperfect humans, but somehow magically blessed with supersparkly inexhaustible perfect rightness. This same idea applied to a person, however virtuous (let alone claimed for oneself!) would be recognized as delusion or unhealthy adoration.

Mr. Goldberg is a piker when it comes to our greatest movie lawyer of recent history, Eric Stratton from Animal House. As he stated:

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests – we did. But you can’t hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn’t we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn’t this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg – isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen (they leave en masse).

If not, why should those who advance
a belief in American exceptionalism, supported by rational argument, be pejoratively labeled and given unbridled hell from either of you?

Because most believers in US exceptionalism don’t use rational argument. It is actually very difficult to decide how to weigh up different factors in any country’s culture. For example, does the US’s much better assimilation of immigrants (as a whole) than the UK make up for its particularly poor treatment of blacks and Native Americans? Does US non-establishment of religion make up for the greater religious prejudice of the US? How do you balance better treatment of the poor in Europe with better opportunities for some to get rich in the US? These aren’t simple questions, but they tend to get simplistic answers from many Americans (as well as many Europeans).

There are also serious questions about the effectiveness of the US Constitution. Does it work as effectively as has been claimed, when Bush has been able to ignore the rule of law? Why has the system been unable to prevent torture becoming US policy? To talk about American exceptionalism without discussing such problems, or even acknowledging them, is not rational argument: it’s simple boosterism.

Well not really, sg. My own personal “lunatic” position is nowhere nearly that narrow. And I agree with your definition of both _absolutist_ AND _jingoistic_ “crap.” What I AM strenuously suggesting is that those on the left simply cannot tar every conservative with a broad-brushed caricature to make themselves feel good about their “superior” abilities to discern “nuanced” and subtle differences between cultures and nations. You’ll find it more than impossible to find ME making the sort of simplistic arguments you attribute to conservatives i general, and I’ve probably traveled to, and lived in, more parts of the world than most who comment hear put together–from Taipei to Tripoli, Durban to DaNang, Incirlik and Istanbul, Turkey. Or Athens. Or Iraklion, Crete. Or try Ipswitch, Cambridge or London–or Hamburg or Munich. Or Garmisch-partenkirchen. How about Bodo Norway? Nancy or Lille? Aviano, Italy? Maybe Madrid or Zaragosa? Sardinia? Osaka? Bangkok? Hongkong? Sydney? Saigon? Manila and Baguio? Jakarta? San Jose, Costa Rica or Tegucigalpa? I’ve got _lots_ of stamps in MY passport–and they’re not all tourist visas either–most were in the RED one. I can DO “relative” and “comparative.” (I won’t bore you with the tourist part of my travel itinerary

I am also perplexed at your reading of my posts. I only commented about your nationalities to the extent that you seemed to indicate that they made it _impossible_ for you to judge one culture superior to another, _not_ that they would give you a “different” view of what constitutes Patriotism _per se._ And that you viewed anyone that deigned to consider America as “exceptional” after all the comparative sifting was done was an un-nuanced, knuckle-dragging ideologue incapable of rational judgment. As in your: “What is this ‘American exceptionalism,’ supported by rational argument?”

So—–thanks, but no thanks. I’ll not lie down in that philosophical/ideological procrustian bed that you want me and every other person on the right to sleep in just so you can deceive yourselves that you are the only truly thoughtful people in this space-time continuum.

“ I think liberals don’t much like the kinds of communities Americans prefer”

dan s:That’s an interesting way of phrasing it – was it your conscious intent to imply that “liberals” and “Americans” were two non-overlapping groups, or have you merely internalized that mindset?

No — my sense is that liberals often don’t much like the communities and neighborhoods that they themselves live in–living in the ‘burbs with the kids, dog, and 2-car garage, but feeling like exiles from the exciting city life their ‘true self’ should be leading.

Also, self-identified liberals are a minority (as are self-identified conservatives, once you subtract out the self-identified independents and greens and libertarians, etc).

sg: That’s an important additional word. I don’t think that is easily quantified in surveys, because if they didn’t love it and just wanted to make it “better” out of spite (as suggested by the JGs of the world) they would hardly say so would they?

I dunno — I don’t get the impression that people who think America just plain sucks are shy about saying so and would necessarily lie to surveyors.

The critical difference between, say, Australian social democrats and American liberals would be, for example, that Australian social democrats consider nuclear weapons to be abhorrent and evil; think the death penalty is uncivilised; consider gun control to be an essential part of cohesive society; believe that society should provide healthcare for all regardless of ability to pay (through a strong state) and absolutely consider an abrogation of that principle to be a mark of barbarity; and since the Malaysian confrontation they reject all forms of interventionist war not authorised by the UN. They also believe that it is the role of the state to promote equality. I don’t get the impression that many of these beliefs form a common currency for liberals in the US.

Hmmm. Living here in the U.S., my impression is that these beliefs are all very common among American liberals. That Obama is not currently running on a straight-up version of this list is not an indication that American liberals don’t believe these things but that there aren’t enough liberals in the U.S. to elect a president on their own.

No—my sense is that liberals often don’t much like the communities and neighborhoods that they themselves live in—living in the ‘burbs with the kids, dog, and 2-car garage, but feeling like exiles from the exciting city life their ‘true self’ should be leading.

Oh please, while there is absolutely nothing wrong with small-town or suburban life per se (I lived in a town with a pop of 3000 in Iowa for a year and actually liked the experience, though I wouldn’t want to spend the rest of my life there), the urge to get out of such places and to see the big city or the world even is hardly an exclusively liberal instinct. And it is a simple fact that social control, conformity and boredom is much more prevalent in these communities, simply because everybody knows each other and there isn’t much to do really. This has been described by many authors (Hawthorne, Henry James, Sherwood Anderson, E.A. Robinson, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Thomas Wolfe, Updike form the top of my head) through the ages and they certainly weren’t all ‘liberals’, unless you define the yearning for a life different from the one you’re actually living per se as ‘liberal’. But then you have to discount the vast majority of good writing since this dynamic is one of its major driving forces. While telling people not to complain, not to question, to be happy with what they’ve got, to get a job and a haircut and shut up for life might be more indicative of a conservative than a liberal attitude, I really don’t think that this line of thinking is shared by most conservatives.

slocum @101: The difference between my view and the common liberal view is that I’m not interested in adopting policies intended to coerce people into changing their ways.

This is such an invidious libertarian shibboleth that I’d like as much help as possible in jumping on it. People who like to cruise through red lights, blast through fragile ecosystems on monster vehicles, dump toxic waste any old place, clear-cut old growth forests, prevent subsistence farmers from saving their seeds for replanting, bribe (legally or illegally) legislators and other policymakers, build on wetlands, eat meat*, or otherwise behave anti-socially should, after due democratic deliberation and decision, be induced — with tact, restraint, and minimal coercion — to behave otherwise. This is the common liberal view.

*My hobbyhorse, just thrown in to raise the blood pressure of slocum and other libertarian carnivores.

I’m not interested in adopting policies intended to coerce people into changing their ways

So you’ll be disbanding the police force then?

Interesting discussion question. How would Slocum’s life be different if people like Slocum actually meant what they said about coercion?

How would Slocum’s life be different if people like Slocum actually meant what they said about coercion?

Taking only “The difference between my view and the common liberal view is that I’m not interested in adopting policies intended to coerce people into changing their ways” as a guide, my guess is no different. People with this view remain few and far between. Unfortunately every last one of them has an internet connection.

But what if Slocum was suddenly our benevolent dictator?

steve labonne: “NEW” information doesn’t make me cranky–I was born cranky. BTW, I’m familiar with “newfangled” but “newfangled new?” You’ve got me there, fella. Is that same same “once more once?”

This to magistra, someone with whom I have previously differed: An overall thoughtful comment which pretty much covers the waterfront concerning the intellectual difficulties involved in such thought processes, but my complaint is with such statements of yours that “most” conservatives are mere Chamber of Commerce-like “boosters”(and I’ve known my fair share of the real Chamber of Commerce types and their single-minded focus) who eschew rational thought. In this I am disappointed in your side. The conclusions about America reached by those Conservatives with which you disagree may indeed be in the event wrong–but that does not mean their conclusions were reached by irrational pathways–only that they are wrong. Lots of very wrong decisions have been made by very rational people. And to claim that Conservatives ignore the factual problems you spotlight is over-broad and does both you and them a very real intellectual disservice–they simply reached a different conclusion while weighing the same facts as do your side–but the processes involved are hardly mindless. I really do despair that discussions between our two camps is/has become a dialogue of the deaf and, like ships passing in the night(another cliche) each side only views the ghostly outlines of the other’s arguments.

To dan s: My generation didn’t mind so much the promotion of religion aspect of the insertion, but objected as a matter of screwing up the free flow of the verse. Try reciting aloud the pledge without the “Under God” phrase and you’ll see what I mean. Its a matter of form. And I guess my complaint about the BC-AD bit falls under that category also. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
It’s confusing to many people in the same way it would be confusing if the language used to conduct the world’s air traffic control system
were changed to a language other than English.
English is hardly the most spoken language in the world, but since America invented modern commercial air transport, that’s the language everyone uses–by law and international convention, I might add. And NOBODY is proposing that THAT status quo be changed so as to comfort the culturally “repressed.”

What about using coercion to stop people who can not find work in their home countries from coming to the US? Coercion to stop Americans who can’t afford drugs for their children from taking them from a drugstore without paying? Coercion to stop people who have no shelter for the night from spending it in your porch? Are you okay with those kinds of coercion, Slocum?

And slocum, your latest comment about liberals and hating America – it’s just throwing insults into the conversation. You have no proof, you admit it, so you make the bad faith assumption anyway.

How exactly are you behaving any more politely than the average big government Rethuglican? “Anyone who criticises America must hate it”, that’s what you’re saying. Such sophistication!

are you saying you should be able to give workers in pubs cancer Novakant?

You tell ’em, you lefty, you!

are you saying you should be able to give workers in pubs cancer Novakant?

Well, we could have fun with statistics and evidence now, but never mind. There should at the least be licensed places where consenting adults can get together and smoke, served by those who smoke themselves (a rather large percentage of those working in the bar and restaurant business) or who are just willing to take that risk.

And while we’re talking about risk: do you drive? Are you saying you should be able to cause one of the 40.000 deaths or 600.000 injuries caused by car accidents each and every year in the US?

And what about alcohol? Should the state really allow people to consume more or less without any restriction a drug that causes quite a few of those accidents mentioned above (the leading cause of death among young people), is involved in 60% of all violent crime, in a third of all murder cases, half of all rapes and a large percentage of child abuse and domestic violence cases, not to speak of other externalities?

engels: What about using coercion to stop people who can not find work in their home countries from coming to the US?

I’m much more in favor of open borders than the typical liberal here, but some control of borders seems unavoidable to have a functioning society.

Coercion to stop Americans who can’t afford drugs for their children from taking them from a drugstore without paying? Coercion to stop people who have no shelter for the night from spending it in your porch? Are you okay with those kinds of coercion, Slocum?

Uh, yeah, I think coercion is appropriate for both shoplifting and trespassing. And, BTW, providing drugs and medical services to people to poor to pay for them is what Medicaid is for. Libertarians don’t oppose the idea of a safety net (the EITC is a libertarian idea).

sg: And slocum, your latest comment about liberals and hating America – it’s just throwing insults into the conversation. You have no proof, you admit it, so you make the bad faith assumption anyway.

So where did I say that liberals hated America? What insults did I throw? As for bad faith, I said (in response to one of your earlier comments):

“No, I’m not assuming bad faith. I assume liberals truly believe what they profess to believe.”

How exactly are you behaving any more politely than the average big government Rethuglican?

Well, let’s see — I haven’t insulted anybody. Haven’t used terms of endearment like ‘Rethuglican’. I seem to surpassing your standards of politeness rather anyway.

Fine, Slocum, so contrary to what you originally wrote–

The difference between my view and the common liberal view is that I’m not interested in adopting policies intended to coerce people into changing their ways

–it seems that you are only against some kinds of coercion, not others. Coercion to get poor people who steal food or medicines to change their ways seems to be hunky dory for you. Coercion to stop developers from building in the green belt otoh brings on an outburst of FIGHT THE POWER. I can’t say I’m surprised.

And aren’t we all

No, we’re not.

Is righteous bubba going to consign us all to house arrest and neglect the more “communal” aspects of social life?

Is righteous bubba going to consign us all to house arrest and neglect the more “communal” aspects of social life?

If being able to walk into any restaurant in town and order all sorts of delectables along with a wonderful assortment of beverages means house arrest, yes I am.

Slocum, your response to my claim that liberals’ hate (or not) of America was not testable to say

I don’t get the impression that people who think America just plain sucks are shy about saying so and would necessarily lie to surveyors.

This is pretty clearly a case of assuming that anyone who criticises America hates it. It’s not polite, in fact it’s the Michelle Malkin form of argument, just a little more subtly put. You can try and pretend you weren’t talking about the people you had been talking about up until then (liberals) but it won’t wash.

Virgil, you can square my comments about nationalism with my comments about absolutist crap very easily – assume that it is possible for a conservative to be either a nationalist OR a nationalist of the absolutist crappist strain, and assume that I don’t question the nationalism of the former and reject the absolutism of the latter. I presume you agree that Hitler would be of the latter strain of thought, while Churchill or Chamberlain might be the former? Could we even extend the former to include Barack Obama, who by my lights (as an Australian) is conservative?

I would be amused to see your “independent pathway” to American exceptionalism. Is it the late abandonment of slavery, the genocide, the guns or the lack of nationalised healthcare which makes America great? (Or do you mean “exceptional” in its denatured sense of “a very long way away from anyone who can stomp us”?)

Novakant I agree with you about smoking, but given the practicalities of licensing an establishment where the staff are going to get cancer, and the huge costs to everyone else of you smoking (i.e. healthcare costs) I don’t think we are going to get very far with a licensing proposal, so really I was just ribbing you. (Like you I believe people should have the right to destroy their own health and have society pay for it – actually I don’t know if you agree with that part – because boxing, drinking alcohol, driving and having unsafe sex are fun). Nonetheless I think smoking is a disgusting habit and I really hope you don’t throw your butts away in the street like 99% of your kind.

Yawn.

‘Coercion’ is a somewhat ambiguous term. Anarchists too suggest a form of coercion – shunning, ostracism, that kinda thing. One man’s ‘incentive’ or ‘persuasion’ is another’s ‘coercion’, there is no bright line here. To be fully and radically consistent you have to be against any form of ‘manipulation’; ‘coercion’ being just one specific example of it. But then, without it there is no society, no family, no economy, no nothing.

virgil@114: objected [to] screwing up the free flow of the verse

This is the most inspiring thing I’ve read in a long time. Whatever else we all disagree about, I hope at least we can agree that rhythm, clarity, and grace of language are eternal, all else ephemeral.

that’s not what you’re doing, rather you are trying to construct some contradiction that is supposed to be inherent in being for some types of coercion and not others

Nope.

novakant@141: slocum was talking about a specific subset of coercion, namely policies that are intended to micro-manage our lives

Not exactly. He was talking about policies that would try to reverse decades of government favoritism for “sprawling soulless suburbs” and their colossal macro-consequences, like petroleum dependence, air pollution, climate change, separation of city dwellers from green areas, etc. Instead of addressing the merits, he tossed out a hackneyed and insulting shibboleth about liberals fondness for coercion, and so far he hasn’t had the grace to withdraw it.