Why Did The Fathers of the American Revolution Hate America?

by John Holbo on July 12, 2008

So I’m listening to this Peter Beinart/Jonah Goldberg bloggingheads exchange on patriotism and, round about minute 8:00 Goldberg grumbles about the rhetoric of progress and ‘parliament of man’ and all that. Then:

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.

Has the man never celebrated the 4th of July? What does he think the fireworks are supposed to represent? His mom told him it’s just a pretty light show (she didn’t want her young son to think revolution is a good thing) and he never thought to ask again when he grew up?

Why did the founding fathers hate America?

I agree with Yglesias that there isn’t that much difference between conservative and liberal patriotism. The difference is that conservatives think (probably rightly) that they can get rhetorical mileage, saying things about patriotism they themselves obviously can’t believe.

Let me rather boringly underscore the point. Ages ago, back in May, I was going to write a post about this. The occasion then was David Frum and Ramesh Ponnuru criticizing Todd Gitlin on patriotism. Ponnuru:

Either Gitlin is saying that he loves that part of the country’s past and present that is compatible with his own liberal political philosophy, or he is saying that the America he loves is an America that neither currently exists nor lives only in his imagination but is instead in a continual process of becoming. Neither attitude strikes me as what most people would call patriotism. It’s not a love of the country as it exists, with liberal, conservative, and apolitical components. I have no reason to doubt that Gitlin feels that love, but his theoretical apparatus may not give him the terms in which to express it.

I wonder what theoretical apparatus Ponnuru would employ if called upon to express his patriotism? Obviously he doesn’t love everything about the actually existing U.S. But if that’s not how he distinguishes himself from Gitlin, then how?

Frum: “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, that is the ultimate failure not just of a single book, but of the whole new approach to patriotism.”

So it is absurd to think the American Revolutionaries were patriots, or that the spirit of the American Revolution is an appropriate object of patriotic attachment? Abraham Lincoln was indulging a wish fantasy, expressing no patriotic sentiment, when he appealed to the ‘better angels of our nature’ (as opposed to the ‘actual, warts-and-all angels of our natures’)? Seems like a sorry sort of patriotism that forbids you to accentuate the positive about your own country, on pain of failure. (Sigh.) Maybe it’s a Canadian thing.

Getting back to bloggingheads, at one point Goldberg describes some editorial backchat at NR, during which Ponnuru apparently made the standard ‘can’t love of my country be like love of my mother?’ point. Which is actually pretty much the right thing to say. All the other stuff – the stuff about loving America because it is objectively exceptional in certain ways – is not really it. If you love America because it is objectively the best at doing certain things that’s fine but not patriotism. That’s like loving your football team only so long as its winning, which is sort of the opposite of team loyalty. As I was saying: who thinks that loving your mother means loving everything about her to the point of being opposed to your mom improving herself or getting her act together or overcoming her problems? If your mom has problems – maybe really serious problems – and your brothers or sisters are trying to help, do you stand athwart the train of helping mom crying ‘stop!’ On the grounds that you love her too much to bear to see her become better, hence un-mom-like? Suppose your mom is a drug-addicted schizophrenic, living on the streets. Is a condition of still loving your mom that you find a way to love the fact of her drug-addiction and mental problems and lack of housing?

But seriously. The point, again, is not that Frum or Ponnuru or Goldberg could believe for a second that it is unpatriotic to desire change – even radical change – for your country. No, that’s too crazy. They are only interested in blaming liberals for not believing it. Bah.

OK, a post on this subject deserves at least some positive thoughts that exhibit a modicum of seriousness. The varieties of patriotic experience:

1) Talking smack about the British on the 4th of July. This is recreational patriotism and is essentially meaningless but highly enjoyable. This is sports-team patriotism.

2) Patriotism as an essentially military virtue. Soldiers are the paradigm patriots and you expect certain character traits of soldiers. We tend to label those traits ‘patriotic’. However, for reasons too obvious to rehease, those of us who are opposed to military dictatorship don’t really expect this model to generalize to all aspects of politics and free life.

3) ‘My country, right or wrong’. Either this is it, or nothing is. The only question is: what’s the right way to understand this, what’s the wrong way? The wrong way I have illustrated sufficiently. The right way is Carl Schurz: “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

Wikipedia has some good quotes from Schurz (I honestly don’t know much about him). But they are so relentlessly sensible I fear Republicans will fail to find any rhetorical use for them, hence will persist in saying nothing about patriotism that they themselves could possibly believe.

{ 145 comments }

1

Witt 07.12.08 at 2:36 am

Time for my favorite James Baldwin quotation: I love America more than any other country in the world, and exactly for that reason I reserve the right to criticize it perpetually.

(And I talk smack about the Brits 365 days a year.)

2

Steve Laniel 07.12.08 at 3:38 am

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

3

Kieran Healy 07.12.08 at 3:47 am

during which Ponnuru apparently made the standard ‘can’t love of my country be like love of my mother?’

I don’t suppose he was referring to Chesterton’s line that saying “My country right or wrong” is like saying “My mother drunk or sober”?

4

Andromeda 07.12.08 at 3:56 am

“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.

5

Chris M 07.12.08 at 4:14 am

The virtues, pleasures, perils, and problems of patriotism have been well known since Thucydides, at least. These people are morons. They’re using their own stupidity to bludgeon their political adversaries. It’s pathetic.

6

Hume's Ghost 07.12.08 at 4:18 am

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.”

7

tom of the hills 07.12.08 at 4:34 am

American patriotism consists in reverence for the “self-evident truths” expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which I paraphrase from memory:…that all men are created equal, that they have certain inalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

I know, this stuff is hopelessly quaint. Neither presidential candidate is on speaking terms with these ridiculous notions.

And of course, neither are you. But surely you can see the glaring fallacy in your first few paragraphs. All revolutions are not the same. The American revolution was fought to throw off the incipient tyranny of the British crown, before the colonists were all reduced to outright slavery. (Don’t bother pointing out that they had slaves of their own. Whatever their failings in living up to their ideals may have been, the ideals themselves are none the worse for it.)

So, what’s Obama’s revolutionary ideal? In the last few days, Obama has publicly fantasized about a civilian police force with the same “power, force and funding” as the US military. Whatever for? He has talked about requiring uncompensated “public service” from citizens. That’s the kind of thing the colonies waged a war to avoid. Perhaps if you stick “counter-” in front of Goldberg’s uses of the term “revolution”, it will start to make sense to you.

8

Righteous Bubba 07.12.08 at 4:43 am

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.

9

tom of the hills 07.12.08 at 4:52 am

Since I’m going out in the woods for the night, I’ll just expand a little on what I wrote above, and you may chew on it or not.

I say that patriotism consists in reverence for a particular moral ideal. And perhaps, in the belief that one’s country is a feasible vehicle for the worldly advancement of that ideal. Which would therefore make one’s country worthy of love, admiration, sacrifice, etc.

The alternatives to this view are the empty, confusing “varieties of patriotic experience” you listed. Racial identity, historical grievance, the last refuge of the scoundrel, and all that stuff.

The presidential candidates snipe at each other over patriotism. The chatterers waste ink on it (including a big dumb editorial in Time lately). None of these people has the wit or courage to wonder what might make a country actually, you know, GOOD. And without at least asking that question, it’s impossible to say anything about patriotism, especially in the USA.

10

PersonFromPorlock 07.12.08 at 6:58 am

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

11

Jim Harrison 07.12.08 at 7:43 am

The Glorious Revolution (1688)

12

Ben Alpers 07.12.08 at 7:46 am

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.

13

John Holbo 07.12.08 at 8:00 am

thank you, ben.

14

Dave Weeden 07.12.08 at 8:11 am

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.

15

John Holbo 07.12.08 at 8:30 am

“In short, JG is at least internally consistent in his ‘Americans against revolution’ position”

Well, that’s as may be, dave, but not really to the point in this case. Goldberg is claiming desire for revolution is evidence of non-love of country. But it’s quite obviously true that ‘revolutionary patriot’ is not an oxymoron, nor does Goldberg believe it. It doesn’t really have anything to do with whether you think it is good or bad revolution. Nor would Goldberg think so. For example, I doubt that Goldberg would deny that highly nationalistic French revolutionaries were patriots. Or that Chinese revolutionaries were patriots, after a fashion.

He’s obviously also wrong about how Obama is a revolutionary – literally – and about how progress and refinement can be good. In any field of political discussion there are any number of rakes that are sure to pop up and smack Jonah Goldberg in the face. That’s the nature of the beast. But, in all modesty, I think the rake I pointed to will hit him first. Then those others.

16

abb1 07.12.08 at 8:47 am

‘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.

17

Thers 07.12.08 at 8:52 am

Patriotism is just the second to last refuge of the scoundrel. Liberal Fascism is ten times worse than scoundrelism. Totally.

18

Mike 07.12.08 at 8:58 am

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.

19

virgil xenophon 07.12.08 at 9:02 am

dave weedeeden’s point is essentially the one many people make when they say that America is the “most Revolutionary nation in the world” when what they really mean is that it is constantly dynamically _evolving_, as opposed to being in a constantly revolutionary state. But I would say that if one forced those critics of Obama to be more specific, they might say that unlike Obama, they don’t want to _change_ anything, they just want to _improve_ _everything_. Now I know such a statement is, on one level, nonsensical, in that ultimately, “improvement” is, ipso facto, change. But on another analytical level such a statement
implies the concept of fine tuning as opposed to
rebuilding the engine–or even replacing it.

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.

20

Dave 07.12.08 at 9:02 am

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.

21

virgil xenophon 07.12.08 at 9:07 am

should have been “do” viz “does.” I duzen’t proof-read so well at this hour(2:05 PDT)

22

phillip 07.12.08 at 9:49 am

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

23

Dave Weeden 07.12.08 at 9:52 am

John, I see your point. Really. But you’ve quoted Goldberg “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.” My emphasis. Maybe he would agree that the French revolutionaries were patriotic. (Since he’s on record as thinking that people called Mussolini a ‘Fascist’ because they didn’t like him, I find second-guessing Goldberg to be a waste of time.) I think part of the problem here is what exactly patriots are supposed to love. Goldberg presumably thinks that American patriots now are supposed to love the American state, specifically the Constitution. He may believe something like this. Pre-revolutionary France country != state; patriots love one, but not the other; Present day USA country = state; patriots must love both.

But I don’t understand why anyone takes Goldberg seriously. And I think your post is much more interesting when discussing Frum, who is at least worthy of respect.

24

John Holbo 07.12.08 at 9:57 am

“And I think your post is much more interesting when discussing Frum, who is at least worthy of respect.”

We can agree about that.

25

Geezer 07.12.08 at 10:03 am

John McCain said over and over in the primary, “I was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution.”
Well, it seems to Jonah that if McCain believed this country needed a revolution, if he believed that it needed to be remade, then his love for it wasn’t that profound.

26

Mike 07.12.08 at 10:12 am

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.

27

Robert the Red 07.12.08 at 11:13 am

… saying things about patriotism they themselves obviously can’t believe …

Actually, I think they do believe them in some sense. My personal theory is that the current generation of conservatives was raised on the Republican propaganda of the post-WW2 era, and has internalized it to a great extent. So that what was over-the-top “obviously can’t believe” stuff has become “obviously we believe this” stuff.

Kind of like the explicit late 1800s Japanese internal propaganda deifying the Emperor. The WW2 generation of leaders had internalized this, and many of them — highly intelligent and able men — were willing to see their nation obliterated rather than let the Americans demean the Emperor. I offer this analogy as an example of how one generation’s deliberate political propaganda can become the next generation of leaders built-in God-given philosophy of life.

28

soru 07.12.08 at 11:18 am

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.

29

abb1 07.12.08 at 12:20 pm

Nah, Soru, there was certainly a nationalist streak in the Jacobins right from the beginning, and therefore they were patriots. I think the Carbonari and Garibaldi represent a clearer manifestation of this phenomenon.

30

harkin 07.12.08 at 12:52 pm

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.

31

novakant 07.12.08 at 1:15 pm

can anyone name a revolution that improved things?

The French Revolution, no? Alright, the aftermath wasn’t pretty, but hey, a revolution is not a picnic and the medium to long-term effects were undeniably positive.

Also, the revolutions of 1989.

32

soru 07.12.08 at 1:23 pm

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.

33

abb1 07.12.08 at 1:47 pm

Revolution happens (according to Lenin) when the lower orders won’t and the upper classes can’t keep going as usual. One experiment failed, the next one is about to begin.

Does it improve things? You’re moving in the dark and you hit a wall. Will changing direction improve things or should you continue banging your head against the wall?

34

abb1 07.12.08 at 2:23 pm

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?

35

Steve LaBonne 07.12.08 at 3:35 pm

Conservatives have thoroughly f’d up the country, so naturally they’re kind of sensitive about anybody pointing out that things aren’t exactly peachy-keen. They can’t help but take that personally. Poor dears.

36

Dan S. 07.12.08 at 3:41 pm

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 . . .)

37

Gene O'Grady 07.12.08 at 3:46 pm

In case it’s really not well known, as seems clear from a couple of the posts above, the American Revolutionaries certainly did fight “American reactionaries.” (In addition to, less palatably, native Americans.)

I personally could not count the number of “Second American Revolutions” in US history.

38

Katherine 07.12.08 at 5:44 pm

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.

39

Righteous Bubba 07.12.08 at 5:45 pm

it seems indicative of deep insecurity of your country’s worth to constantly be going on about how flipping fantastic it is.

America is a world-class country and don’t you forget it!

40

CK Dexter 07.12.08 at 6:25 pm

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.”

41

Delicious Pundit 07.12.08 at 6:25 pm

Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that Jonah Goldberg is in it.

42

abb1 07.12.08 at 6:45 pm

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.

43

Steve LaBonne 07.12.08 at 6:53 pm

Ambrose Bierce nailed it, as usual.

PATRIOTISM, n.
Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

44

Roy Belmont 07.12.08 at 7:27 pm

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.

45

P O'Neill 07.12.08 at 7:49 pm

It seems that one could reconcile the positions by having a single ruling party describing itself as an “institutional revolutionary party”, if you will.

46

abb1 07.12.08 at 7:55 pm

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.

47

Roy Belmont 07.12.08 at 9:06 pm

It is an either or in its natural state. We don’t live there right now. Rationality is a virtue, emotion is a vice.
It’s functionally cognitive, but the drive is an emotional engagement, at least at the upper end of the complex. The place where the mother and child live has a tangible element of the future in it.
Love of home, land, country, all have that human bond central.
Without the love part, as you can see all around you at the moment, there isn’t much motivation to defend that, or anything other than narrow self-interest.
It makes rational sense to sell out your buddies in the underground to the Fascist Sekurity – viz. the recent Colombia hostage bouffe. Love says something different.

48

Roy Belmont 07.12.08 at 9:07 pm

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

49

Daniel Nexon 07.12.08 at 9:10 pm

“The Glorious Revolution (1688)”

How’s that line go? Something like: The British defeat an invasion, and it’s a victory for Britain. An invasion defeats the British, and it’s a victory for Britain.

Seriously, the “Glorious Revolution” was a Dutch (or, at least, Orangist) invasion to make sure the British didn’t wind up allied with the French.

Oh, yeah. On point: Goldberg’s confused about the distinction between “country” and “state.” Like many of his ilk, he’s actually a closet statist (yeah Liberal Fascism was one giant projection) . Which is why he can’t understand that one could love your country and, as a result, seek to remake it for the better.

Real conservatives understand the difference. They just oppose radical change on other grounds.

50

Dan S. 07.12.08 at 10:01 pm

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 . . .?

51

abb1 07.12.08 at 11:10 pm

Roy, you define the motivation for ‘selling out your buddies’ as ‘rationality’ and for, say, ‘sacrificing yourself for your buddies’ as its antithesis – ‘love’, but these are just arbitrary definitions. I don’t see why they aren’t of the same nature, the same sort of thing.

52

Roy Belmont 07.13.08 at 12:02 am

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.

53

Danny Yee 07.13.08 at 1:19 am

I remain convinced that patriotism is bad.

All its apparently good aspects can better be described as something other than patriotism.

54

novakant 07.13.08 at 2:04 am

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.

55

virgil xenopowhon 07.13.08 at 2:21 am

ck dexter seems to agree with critics of “changeyness” that one _”can’t be a proponent of substantial structural change to a country and claim to love it”_ on the one hand, but then proffers that Obama really doesn’t advocate such
“substantial” change. I find such outright confidence inexplicable–unless it’s based on “hopeyness.” Even a cursory review of Obama’s writings, speeches and voting record put him at the far left of end of the spectrum for elected democratic party officials. (Of course that’s not far enough left for many here, so seen through the eyes of much of academia this fact is hardly seen as a fault) However, of even greater concern
to many “on the right” is the extent to which he has absorbed the teachings and ideology of most of those he has surrounded himself with–most of whom he has himself _in his own words_ labeled as his most trusted long-time “mentors.” Again, even the most shallow, cursory examination of the actions, utterances and writings of these individuals does not inspire confidence that what
Obama has osmoticly absorbed from these “mentors”
is something less than a belief in the legitimacy of the very foundations of our society and country.

To believe that Obama, self-described as someone searching for a philosophical identity, has been totally immune to their social outlook and admonitions is to believe in ghosts, goblins, witches, werewolves, vampires, virgins, and other totally fictitious creatures. Most of his critics “on the right” are not quite ready to buy the Brooklyn bridge, no matter how fashionable the latest paint job. As such, it seems to me that, as far as “progressive notions” of Patriotism go, notions that Obama has eagerly identified with,
those on the right are saying: “No Sale.”

56

abb1 07.13.08 at 6:38 am

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.

57

bi -- IJI 07.13.08 at 7:35 am

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

58

bi 07.13.08 at 7:36 am

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

59

novakant 07.13.08 at 10:04 am

Of course that’s not far enough left for many here, so seen through the eyes of much of academia this fact is hardly seen as a fault

You have conveniently ignored the fact that Obama is considered “left” only in the US. The rest of the world would consider him centrist to center-right – that’s both due to the US never having had a significant left and the rightward shift of US politics in the last eight years.

So, no: it’s not only wooly-headed academics who don’t see Obama as being on the left, let alone the “far left” (gimme a break).

60

Slocum 07.13.08 at 11:57 am

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).

61

minneapolitan 07.13.08 at 1:14 pm

So, just what is it that true US patriots love about this country? Capitalism? We didn’t invent it, and we’re hardly the most assiduous or successful practitioners of it. The Bill of Rights? A useful document, but it’s only as strong as the current Supreme Court says it is. The land? I’ve crossed the border into Canada — I didn’t feel and mystical severing of connections. The people? Clearly not, or they wouldn’t be so quick to condemn the 73% non-crazification component. Or is it some gestalt of America-itude, conveniently nebulous and able to be molded to the fashion of the day?

An accident of birth put me here in the belly of the beast, and my experiences have made me an anarchist, atheist, anti-nationalist and skeptic. 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. Anyone who argues against change, both rapid and massive, in favor of clinging to some fairy story about men who cross rivers standing up in small boats strikes me as dangerously deluded.

You say you’re a patriot? Well and good. But what are you going to do about it?

62

SG 07.13.08 at 1:24 pm

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).

63

Steve LaBonne 07.13.08 at 2:08 pm

To a considerable extent it is American-style “patriotism” as mocked by Bierce (which should more properly be called “nationalism) that has enabled this country to be screwed over so thoroughly by the Bush clique. It anesthetizes people to the point where the politicians can feed them shit and persuade them that it’s filet mignon. By the time a significant proportion of mainstream America started to wake up, it was far too late.

“Patriotism” as our right wing describes it is just mindless loyalty to those in power, and also (rather ominously) to the (bloated and over-mighty) military. It’s an attitude suited to a fascist state rather than a democracy.

64

Slocum 07.13.08 at 3:35 pm

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?

65

Steve LaBonne 07.13.08 at 5:13 pm

o, 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.

Stop being an ass. The perpetrators have long since admitted this (certainly the oil part), as if it weren’t obvious from the start.

66

virgil xenophon 07.13.08 at 5:22 pm

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.

67

SG 07.13.08 at 5:27 pm

slocum, cutting off the end of my sentence and answering the first part with “survey results” is incredibly disingenuous. Downright rude in fact. I didn’t ask the question you answered, I asked an entirely different one. Why did you do that?

68

virgil xenophon 07.13.08 at 5:44 pm

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?

69

Righteous Bubba 07.13.08 at 6:16 pm

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?

Congratulations for an argument Jonah Goldberg would be proud of, although he’d likely follow with “This is not to say that Steve LaBonne’s ilk beat kitties over the head with dishwashers, but baby steps.”

70

Steve LaBonne 07.13.08 at 6:33 pm

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.

71

Slocum 07.13.08 at 8:04 pm

slocum, cutting off the end of my sentence and answering the first part with “survey results” is incredibly disingenuous. Downright rude in fact. I didn’t ask the question you answered, I asked an entirely different one. Why did you do that?

Um, because ‘surveys’ is a good answer for both the long and short versions:

1. How would you substantiate that liberals take a dimmer view of America as is?

And also

2. How would you substantiate that liberals take a dimmer view of America as is because they want to make it better?

Surveys would work fine to assess both that liberals take a dimmer view and also the reasons why. Both would be useful in establishing that the proposition that “there isn’t that much difference between conservative and liberal patriotism” is false.

Rounding back on ‘patriotism’, here’s a question — consider the attitudes toward America of the typical western European social democrat. Would those same attitudes, if they were held by an American citizen, constitute ‘patriotism’?

If your answer is, ‘yes’ then I would have to ask what kind of attitudes toward America one would have to hold in order not to be considered patriotic.

And if your answer is ‘no’, then what are the critical differences between the attitudes of European social democrats and American liberals that would make the former unpatriotic in an American context but not the latter?

72

magistra 07.13.08 at 8:50 pm

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.

73

abb1 07.13.08 at 9:02 pm

I remember back in the 90s during Clinton presidency most of the right-wingers (Republicans, ‘conservatives’) thought the country was totally fucked up. There was, like, no freedom left; UN apparatchiks and jack-booted government thugs were oppressing everybody, snatching innocent children from the arms of their freedom-loving uncles and handing them over to (even more monstrous, but not by much) Cuban government thugs. Atrociously attacking Eastern-European countries that haven’t done anything to us and taking sides in their civil wars. Disgusting nation-building. Appalling government secrecy and corruption on the highest levels. The conservatives really didn’t like their country at all back then. I now see that they were totally unpatriotic, though they would like you to believe that they were indeed the real patriots. Hypocrites.

74

SG 07.13.08 at 9:15 pm

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).

75

Steve LaBonne 07.13.08 at 9:18 pm

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.

And that sorry line of jingoistic bullshit is one of the reasons why I’ve about had it with identifying as a “liberal”.

76

SG 07.13.08 at 9:23 pm

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.

77

abb1 07.13.08 at 9:50 pm

How can you feel anything but disgust for a country that sanctions over a million murders of innocent unborn children every year?

78

SG 07.13.08 at 9:54 pm

… or innocent Iraqis, for that matter

79

engels 07.13.08 at 10:03 pm

I’m not an American. But it seems pretty obvious to me that US conservatives hate America more than liberals do. Indeed a disinterested observer might conclude that hatred (of liberals, socialists, communists, Europeans, muslims, women, gays, ethnic minorities, most other Americans and probably themselves) is one of the few things that holds such a disparate group of mutually contradictory ideologies together.

80

virgil xenophon 07.13.08 at 10:30 pm

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.”

81

Dan S. 07.13.08 at 10:39 pm

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

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? And obviously millions of Americans don’t prefer those kinds of communities. . . .

Anyways, your cut-off version of sg’s question really did misrepresent it, and it really is rather doubtful that survey data sheds much light on the actual question (as they’ve pointed out).

82

engels 07.13.08 at 10:59 pm

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.

83

engels 07.13.08 at 10:59 pm

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, soc1alists, 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.

84

SG 07.13.08 at 11:49 pm

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”?

85

Steve LaBonne 07.14.08 at 12:09 am

By the way, what makes anybody think that a reflexive faith by the denizens of a country in its automatic, innate superiority is actually good for that country? How’d that work out, say, for the Chinese from about 1500 C.E. on?

86

mq 07.14.08 at 1:03 am

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

87

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 1:28 am

Who said anything about “reflexive” faith or “automatic” innate superiority? Cannot faith be thoughtful and superiority earned? You have proved my point by refusing to believe that any sentient being could ever come to a logical, rational conclusion based on history or, frankly, personal observation. Of course Labonne gives the game away as to where his head is by the studied use of”C.E.” And “sg” also proves my point by refusing to believe that rational argument could _ever_ arrive at _any_ conclusion leading to the acceptance of the validity of the concept of American exceptionalism.

Personal invective aside, sg, I really don’t believe that I’ve characterized my _own_ views on Patriotism, but was simply reacting to your post in #76 in which your citation of your experience as holder of three nationalities seemed to imply that such a status made it hard to understand how one could differentiate amongst various cultures sufficient to “rank order” them if you will, and to come to firm conclusions about their various merits. That post also seemed to imply that _any_ rank ordering favorable to America could only be arrived at by “absolutist ideologues”
(as opposed to rational people such as yourself, I’ll guess). It is fairly apparent that your definition of an ideologue is “anyone who doesn’t agree with me” (unless I give permission).

BTW, abb1, the “million murders” of which you speak are a product of the left, not my side of the fence–and yes, they are to be regretted,
but it is the _sum total_ of cultural/governmental/socio-political traits that is the key analytical factor here.

88

Walt 07.14.08 at 1:35 am

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.

89

Righteous Bubba 07.14.08 at 2:09 am

BTW, abb1, the “million murders” of which you speak are a product of the left, not my side of the fence—and yes, they are to be regretted,
but it is the sum total of cultural/governmental/socio-political traits that is the key analytical factor here.

Genocide’s okay as long as my taxes aren’t high: this country remains the awesomest.

The thing I didn’t appreciate until the Internet is exactly how weird conservatives were.

Indeed.

90

Dan S. 07.14.08 at 2:16 am

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.

91

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 3:54 am

No, “magically blessed” by geography, history, and far-sighted and wise Founders. As the old joke goes: “America, designed by geniuses to be run by idiots.” You did not hear from me any attribution of “supersparkle inexhaustible perfect rightness” to my country and, for what its worth, I am an agnostic by trade, so “blind faith” is hardly my forte, dan s. I am 64 years old and my objection to “C.E.” is for exactly the same reason I and others of my generation bridled at the insertion of the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance–things were fine the way they were and such alterations were (and are)seen as needles tinkering, not opposition to religion in the first instance nor promotion of it in the second.

I am also of the personal opinion, however, that many of those who wish to eschew “BC/AD” do so not in response to complaints from, and concern about, non-Christians, but out of out-right hostility to the Christian religion and an embarrassment(and for some even hatred) about the history and thrust of Western Civilization in general.

92

Henry (not the famous one) 07.14.08 at 4:08 am

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).

93

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 4:11 am

PS: Should anyone doubt the opposition of the majority of my generation to the insertion of “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance, simply consult the “Weekly Reader” (a publication for grammar school students) polls taken of it’s readers during the year the phrase was inserted.

94

magistra 07.14.08 at 7:15 am

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.

95

SG 07.14.08 at 7:26 am

Hey Virgil, you do realise that a “ranking” is an assignment of relative position, don’t you? It’s not absolutist at all. Choosing whether one country is better than another in one area but not another is a fundamentally relativist position. Unless of course your own country always comes out on top…?

“Absolutist crap” would say that one country has to be better by dint of its being that country. Even a relativist argument for American exceptionalism would not be “absolutist crap”. Absolutist crap would be, for example, to argue that only someone born in a country can love it or be patriotic – a position I am of course personally uncomfortable with. Jingoist crap would be to suggest that only people of a certain race can love it. Or, I suppose, to suggest that a dating system based on a historically unverifiable record and applied to a people who eschew that record is inherently better than a method which is neutral with regards to that record, on the basis that “it doesn’t do any harm and I like it”.

You seem to have taken exception to my point that I have 3 nationalities, or that having 3 nationalities would give one a different view of patriotism. I think your definition of patriotism is just a tad too narrow.

96

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 11:01 am

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.

97

Steve LaBonne 07.14.08 at 11:04 am

Ah, Virgil Xenophobe is a conservative of the “things- no matter how stupid or even actively harmful- were fine the way they were”stripe- the kind whose brains stopped functioning decades ago. No wonder he can’t cotton to newfangled new notions such as “the US isn’t necessarily the bestest and specialest of all nations”, since that contradicts what he was told in his youth, when he was last able to absorb new information.

Mr. Xenophobe might also want to ponder Gandhi’s famous quip when asked what he thought of Western civilization: “I think it would be a very good idea.” Then again he might not want to, since it will only make him cranky rather than stimulating thought.

98

Slocum 07.14.08 at 11:24 am

“ 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.

99

Dan S. 07.14.08 at 11:26 am

No, “magically blessed” by geography, history, and far-sighted and wise Founders.

Yes – and this in general sense, one can also speak of, for example, Chinese, British, German, Czech, Indonesian, Australian etc. exceptionalism, as all of them have been shaped by such physical, historic, and human factors. Certainly the U.S. also is the result of a unique combination of factors. And indeed, there are areas where, looking at surveys we do seem to stand out from the crowd – higher than expected religiousity, given our other traits, remarkably poor understanding of biology, currently an impressive level of tolerance towards religious and cultural diversity, etc. At the same time, compared with other postindustrial democracies, it’s not clear that we do more than differ in degree (and not necessarily always in a positive direction). I’m not attributing supersparkly magicalness-belief to you – rather, it often seems that at least in popular usage, even such seemingly natural explanations are largely just secular versions of ‘God has a special destiny & blessings for America’.

I am also of the personal opinion, however, that many of those who wish to eschew “BC/AD” do so . . . out of out-right hostility to the Christian religion and an embarrassment(and for some even hatred) about the history and thrust of Western Civilization in general.

Well, you certainly have the right to your opinion – and indeed, are welcome to provide evidence, if any, to what is otherwise merely argument-by-mindreading – but I will note how this seems like a rather good example of sg’s option #1 – “– 1) a bad faith initial assumption about one side or other“.

my objection to “C.E.” is for exactly the same reason I and others of my generation bridled at the insertion of the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance—things were fine the way they were and such alterations were (and are)seen as needles tinkering, not opposition to religion in the first instance nor promotion of it in the second.

I think you’re right to link the dating issue with the insertion of “Under God” in the Pledge, (and indeed, the widespread use of BC/AD also turns out to be of surprisingly (relatively) recent origin) but I disagree as to the specifics. For example, it’s pretty clear that “under God” is seen by many as promotion of religion rather than needless tinkering, otherwise proposals to remove it wouldn’t rouse such controversy – but you may mean only for your generation. (I’m having some trouble locating that specifically Weekly Reader article – though let me add that this publication was a treasured part of my (1980s) elementary school experience, and is still around today)). As to whether things were fine as they were – well, like the invocation of God in a national oath chanted by schoolchildren, it’s far from the worst form of oppression, but “fine”? Why do you think that explicitly basing our dating conventions – used by people of all religions (and none) – on the divinity of Jesus is “fine”? (Again, not among the worst forms of oppression, sure, but presumably those aren’t up for consideration.

100

novakant 07.14.08 at 12:20 pm

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.

101

Slocum 07.14.08 at 3:19 pm

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.

Well of course not exclusively. But at this point, a negative view of sprawling ‘soulless suburbs’ is far more a liberal than conservative position (at least in the U.S.)

Don’t assume, BTW, on any of these issues that I necessarily agree with the conservative view. We live in a city, not a suburb, and within walking and biking distance of downtown (which I do often). Our house and yard are much smaller than if we’d spent the same money out in a new development. But I don’t like wasting my time and money commuting (or mowing a huge yard and maintaining a huge house).

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. I know people who live out there in new subdivisions — they seem happy enough. Their interests and tastes aren’t the same as ours, and so I don’t expect them to make the same choices.

102

geo 07.14.08 at 3:51 pm

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.

103

novakant 07.14.08 at 4:18 pm

This is the common liberal view.

No, it isn’t: overzealous communitarians and the authoritarian wing of the left are just as much a threat to civil liberties as are crony capitalists and crazy libertarians. You gotta find a balance. I’m a European social-democrat, but also a carnivore, unrepentant smoker and privacy advocate – deal with it.

104

engels 07.14.08 at 4:40 pm

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

So you’ll be disbanding the police force then?

105

geo 07.14.08 at 4:59 pm

novakant@103: overzealous communitarians and the authoritarian wing of the left are just as much a threat to civil liberties as are crony capitalists and crazy libertarians

Just as much? How do you figure that? If political power in the contemporary US could be quantified, crony capitalists and crazy libertarians would easily have several thousand times as much as overzealous communitarians and authoritarian leftists.

106

engels 07.14.08 at 5:09 pm

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

107

geo 07.14.08 at 5:14 pm

I’m a European social-democrat, but also a carnivore, unrepentant smoker and privacy advocate – deal with it.

We’ve begun to deal with smoking. Since it’s now recognized, after decades of corporate stonewalling and governmental foot-dragging, that
second-hand smoke is lethal, cigarette advertising and smoking in public places are now restricted.

If any more people die from the contamination of crops by bacteria from the effluvia of the diseased animals commonly raised in slaughterhouses, or if people who live near the colossal pools of liquid animal wastes generated by industrial meat facilities ever gain a modicum of political power, then meat’s turn may come.

108

Righteous Bubba 07.14.08 at 5:29 pm

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?

109

novakant 07.14.08 at 5:49 pm

If political power in the contemporary US could be quantified

I was making a general point – that said, while it’s obviously hard to quantify, there are countries (e.g. UK) were civil liberties are being eroded by purportedly left governments citing public interest.
Obviously governments on the right have always had similar tendencies with a slightly different slant, but the whole point was that it doesn’t matter who erodes civil liberties in the name of whatever, but rather that they are a good in itself that is constantly threatened from numerous sides and that the right balance has to be found between personal freedoms and the public interest.
Putting one above the other is never going to work unless you want a police state like the GDR and it is the wrong strategy for the left to pursue.

As for smoking or eating meat, I’m too tired to get into specifics – call me back when they have banned cars, alcohol and processed food.

110

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 6:11 pm

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?”

111

Righteous Bubba 07.14.08 at 6:18 pm

Novakant, the list enumerated by geo and the approach to dealing with the problems therein don’t seem crazy or invasive, although I for one will miss corn dogs. Here it is again:

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.

112

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 6:42 pm

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.

113

Slocum 07.14.08 at 6:52 pm

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

Huh? I’m not talking about all forms of coercion. I’m perfectly fine with using coercion to prevent crime.

What I’m talking about, in this case, is coercion to change people’s living patterns and prevent them from making the ‘wrong’ kinds of choices. There are plenty of liberals around here (Ann Arbor) who are actively trying to figure out how to stop low-density development on the outskirts in favor of high density development downtown.

Interestingly, though, their opponents aren’t conservatives (for practical purposes, there are none in Ann Arbor). No, the opponents of the ‘density liberals’ are the ‘parks and preservationist liberals’ who want to build a ‘greenway’ through downtown, lock up as many neighborhoods as possible in development-restricted historic districts, and block every tall building project that comes along.

It’s a bit better to have two competing, bickering groups of social engineers to block each other. Divided government turns out to be useful even when its divided between groups of liberals who despise each other ;)

114

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 7:03 pm

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.”

115

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 7:11 pm

For those who want a good discussion of the urban planning wars slocum outlines, visit a site and forum entitled the ANTIPLANNER. where you’ll meet a whole other set of academics whose concerns often overlap those bandied about here.

116

engels 07.14.08 at 7:11 pm

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?

117

SG 07.14.08 at 7:23 pm

Virgil, how did my comment saying

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

lead to you saying this:

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.

? How does John Holbo’s original post support this interpretation? You aren’t allowing much nuance here.

And how does my comment

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

allow you to infer that I

seemed to indicate that they made it impossible for you to judge one culture superior to another

?

You agree with me about absolutist crap and then proceed to ignore my reference to it. Or do we have to take an absolutist view that all conservatives are ideologues?

I should observe that your version of american exceptionalist patriotism is pretty much in line with John Holbo’s “yay! Go team!” version of nationalism. Either you love America because it’s America, or you love it because it is doing better than everyone else. But in the latter case you aren’t a patriot, you’re just picking the winning team. Unless you are being one-eyed about how much better America is than everyone else, because you were born there and love it… but that would be a relativist position, no? And surely anyway a decent chap like you wouldn’t be one-eyed about anything…?

118

SG 07.14.08 at 7:26 pm

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!

119

novakant 07.14.08 at 7:36 pm

the list enumerated by geo and the approach to dealing with the problems therein don’t seem crazy or invasive

Well, laws should be followed and if not coercion needs to be used – so far so good. Yet, as geo has pointed out himself, he threw out some bait, namely eat meat*, or otherwise behave anti-socially, I gladly took it and upped the ante by bringing up smoking. He took it and confirmed my suspicion that the due democratic deliberation and decision, be induced—with tact, restraint, and minimal coercion-part was just thrown in there to sugarcoat the authoritarian implications of his worldview.

120

SG 07.14.08 at 7:40 pm

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

You tell ’em, you lefty, you!

121

engels 07.14.08 at 7:53 pm

Anyway, it’s nice to have confirmed what I suspected before reading this thread.

It is coercion if and only if (1) the government does it and (2) it pisses off middle class white men.

122

novakant 07.14.08 at 8:11 pm

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?

123

Righteous Bubba 07.14.08 at 8:16 pm

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.

You don’t have food and drink at your house?

124

Slocum 07.14.08 at 8:29 pm

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.

125

novakant 07.14.08 at 8:40 pm

You don’t have food and drink at your house?

I do, but the pretty girls are in rather short supply at the moment.

126

engels 07.14.08 at 8:42 pm

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.

127

novakant 07.14.08 at 8:50 pm

it seems that you are only against some kinds of coercion, not others.

And aren’t we all, I doubt that you are either for or against coercion in general, but suspect that you have a certain pattern according to which you evaluate different types of coercion and that’s not a bad thing in itself. It gets interesting when such patterns are disrupted, such as when you’re generally for saving the environment but don’t like the idea of the local council fishing through your rubbish every week to evaluate your recycling performance.

128

engels 07.14.08 at 8:53 pm

And aren’t we all

No, we’re not.

129

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 8:58 pm

sg, I totally agree with the first para you quoted back to me, I obviously ingnored or de-emphasized it in haste when formulating my reply. Still, how do you square your own statement that not all people with whom you disagree base their arguments on bad motivations on the one hand, and then deride them for basing their arguments on “absolutist crap” on the other in the next breath?

I don’t, by the way, equate “patriotism” with “American exceptionalism,” the latter a concept which may be arrived at by independent pathways. Although for some the two are inextricably intertwined. Can’t I love America for it’s intrinsic ownself and yet also believe that it’s doing better than everyone else? (P.S. I’m not “decent” about anything–just ask my long suffering wife. Too much time on my hands and too many cases of Haitian Barbancourt 5-Star rum laid in–I’m just a loose cannon on the deck of life.)

130

virgil xenophon 07.14.08 at 9:04 pm

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

131

engels 07.14.08 at 9:07 pm

Coercion is a bad thing in itself in my opinion. I don’t reject coercion on principle. Anarchists do so and although I don’t agree with their position I think it is a very powerful one. Anyway Novakant as so often I don’t really understand what you think your point is.

132

Righteous Bubba 07.14.08 at 9:09 pm

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.

133

novakant 07.14.08 at 9:22 pm

Anyway Novakant as so often I don’t really understand what you think your point is.

Believe it or not I even know what my point is, namely that criticizing someone for favouring coercion in certain cases while rejecting coercion in others is rather baseless. Unless you are an anarchist (in which case you are proposing an unworkable model of society), which by your own admission you are not.

And while it’s a bit unclear what your position in this regard actually is, I’m pretty certain that you want people coerced into not harming others, paying their taxes and all sorts of other things that benefit society.

134

SG 07.14.08 at 9:23 pm

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.

135

SG 07.14.08 at 9:25 pm

well Virgil in that last comment I should have said “patriot” not “nationalist”.

136

engels 07.14.08 at 9:33 pm

Yawn.

137

engels 07.14.08 at 9:37 pm

Novakant, I’m sorry but you have completely the missed the point and I can’t really be arsed to explain. I’m sure you can find other ways to occupy yourself.

138

abb1 07.14.08 at 9:50 pm

‘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.

139

geo 07.14.08 at 10:07 pm

novakant@119: the “due democratic deliberation and decision, be induced—with tact, restraint, and minimal coercion”-part was just thrown in there to sugarcoat the authoritarian implications of his worldview

These are fighting words, my friend. Epithets at twenty paces?

slocum@124: Libertarians don’t oppose the idea of a safety net

No, any more than liberals oppose the idea of personal freedom. Discrimination, please.

140

geo 07.14.08 at 10:14 pm

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.

141

novakant 07.14.08 at 10:16 pm

you have completely the missed the point

That might appear to be the case because you, willfully or not, misunderstood slocum when he said that he didn’t like policies intended to coerce people into changing their ways. I’ll go out on a limb and say that he is perfectly fine with people being coerced in all sorts of ways (e.g. crime prevention) and that he was talking about a specific subset of coercion, namely policies that are intended to micro-manage our lives. You then go on to criticize him for being only against some kinds of coercion, not others which as a general criticism is ludicrous. The individual cases where coercion is deemed adequate or not might well be disputed and in the course of this someone’s general political stance might be criticized. But 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. That contradiction is simply not there in this case, since slocums stance is coherent, even if you don’t happen to like it. If developers do something illegal, I’m sure he would want them to be punished according to the law. Had he said something like the police should keep tabs on the black folk, but leave the white people alone, such a criticism would have been justified, but he didn’t. Now, I’ll leave it at that, get back to me when you feel the urge.

142

engels 07.14.08 at 10:22 pm

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.

143

engels 07.14.08 at 10:36 pm

If developers do something illegal, I’m sure he would want them to be punished according to the law.

Breaching zoning laws is in fact illegal, you may be surprised to learn…

144

geo 07.14.08 at 10:37 pm

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.

145

bartkid 07.15.08 at 8:37 pm

>Frum: There is this one problem: that hypothetical country does not as yet exist. This is not patriotism – it is a wish fantasy.

Has Mr. Frum never heard of systems thinking problem-solving? You start with your vision of the end goal, then you set your plans with that vision in mind.

I believe Mr. Frum really doesn’t understand when Mr. Obama notes that the founders set the framework for a more perfect union, never perfect, but always allowing for improvements to be made.

Comments on this entry are closed.