Contingency and solidarity

by Henry Farrell on July 6, 2008

“Matt Yglesias”:http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/contingency_irony_patriotism.php on patriotism:

American liberals and American conservatives are both Americans so our American patriotism is very similar. We just have different ideas about politics. Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there’s something arbitrary about it — we’re just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you. The conservative view is more like those Bill Simmons columns where not only is he extolling the virtues of this or that Boston sports team or moment, but he seems to genuinely not understand why other people don’t see it that way. But of course Simmons is from Boston and others of us aren’t.

By coincidence, this is something I’ve been thinking about the last few days (as I’m not a political theorist, I offer no guarantees whatsoever that my thoughts on the topic are original, or that they haven’t already been comprehensively refuted by someone somewhere). My best guess approximation is that even if we accept that patriotism/loyalty-to-our-sports-team or whatever is in some absolute sense _contingent_ (if we grew up elsewhere, we would be patriotic about a different country, or root for a different sports team) it doesn’t imply that there is something wrong or silly about being patriotic. Here, a good analogy might be with our love for our children. That I have one child, and not another is contingent, given the realities of biology, on a very improbable event – that two particular cells fused together (the odds against a particular combination of cells being chosen are surely in the order of billions to one). Yet once I have a child, my love for that child isn’t in the least invalidated by the contingency of the event, even if I know in some abstract sense that I would equally love another child that might have been conceived if a different pair of cells had combined. Moreover, we would think that there was something very strange about somebody who wanted to revisit that moment of combination and choose a different outcome.

I’m not sure how far the analogy can be pushed, and I am sure that there are other good arguments against patriotism (George Kateb’s book on the topic has been sitting unread on my shelf the last couple of years, causing me occasional moments of guilt). But it gets at a slightly different critique of certain kinds of vainglorious patriotism than the one that Matt presents. Nearly all parents are quietly sure that while all children are wonderful, _their_ children are the most wonderful of all. But equally so, most people find parents who insist on blowing their childrens’ trumpets, insisting on their unique skills, intelligence etc to be both silly and obnoxious. Perhaps we should have the same attitude towards the more overblown forms of braggart patriotism.

Update: “Siva”:http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200807030006#2 has some interesting thoughts on patriotism as a second generation immigrant.

{ 67 comments }

1

geo 07.06.08 at 5:31 pm

as I’m not a political theorist, I offer no guarantees whatsoever that my thoughts on the topic are original

How very odd. Is being an academic political theorist positively correlated with having original thoughts about politics?

2

Righteous Bubba 07.06.08 at 5:37 pm

I insist that my child control your child’s sandbox as your child is concealing a slingshot within it and mistreats the beetles living there.

3

Rich Puchalsky 07.06.08 at 5:58 pm

The problem with the inability to generalize patriotism is that — following your example — you don’t understand why other parents would care for their own children. The conservative is unable to understand why an Iraqi rejects the invasion and occupation of his country by a foreign power, and why those who take up arms against this occupation may fairly be called Iraqi patriots.

But even that’s giving conservatives too much credit. They aren’t American patriots, because they couldn’t care less about the Constitution, American high ideals about e.g. torture, or anything else defineably American. They love those parts of it that can be made to fit movement conservatism. They’re traitors.

4

banned commenter 07.06.08 at 6:01 pm

“…As always Agafnd, you speak with great wisdom. Your
words ring of great knowledge concerning the nature of one such
as he ,” sayeth , the king. The noble turned toward the prisoner
with a noticable shimmer reflecting in his frog-like eyes, and
his lips contorting to a greasy grin. “I have decided to void my
previous decree. The prisoner shall be removed to one of the
palaces underground vaults. There he shall stay until I have
decided that he has sufficiently simmered, whereupon he is to be
allowed to spend the remainder of his days at labor in one of my
mines.”

5

bi 07.06.08 at 6:24 pm

Yglesias says,

Up on a terrace yesterday with a bunch of somewhat buzzed people watching fireworks and shouting taunts against England and Canada and extolling the virtues of America as seen in explosions, loud noises, old TV theme songs, and grilled meats it seemed to me that the liberal experience of patriotism is really just the same as the conservative one.

Wait, ‘liberal patriotism’ is like ‘conservative patriotism’ because both involve grilled meats? Isn’t that, um, a bit shallow?

My feeling the difference in politics — and epistemology — is the big difference here, and ‘liberal patriotism’ of Americans has more in common with ‘liberal patriotism’ of, say, Iraqis, even if the details are different.

— bi, International Journal of Inactivism

6

banned commenter 07.06.08 at 6:29 pm

Zee prublem veet Ygleseees es fur muny oozeers is thet he-a understunds thet petreeutism is cunteengent he-a steell “feels” thet Emereeca is “zee necessery cuoontry,” und veell inseest thet by sume-a “neootrel” meesoore-a thees is cleerly zee cese-a. Seence-a vhee ere-a Emereecun leeberels nut elsu Emereecun ixcepshuneleests? Cundescenseeun is nut respect. Um de hur de hur de hur. Und Ygleseees ves ooreeginelly in fefur ooff zee infeseeun ooff ireq.

7

Martin Bento 07.06.08 at 7:36 pm

Hey, I kind of like “banned commenter”s pidgin. Is that you, abb1? Please don’t impose it on me though; I make enough mistakes of my own.

I think your analogy shows the problem with even well-intentioned and non-jingoistic patriotism: it is as difficult to see your country objectively as it is to see your kids objectively. Well, maybe not quite, but the same dynamic is at work. Particularly in the uS, where the country is almost synonymous with the government (most countries have existed under various governments), it makes people feel that the government may be wrong, but its motives must be good. “I know he gets in trouble, but he’s basically a good kid, Your Honor” We have had years of ridicule of those “no blood for oil” signs, and only now are people looking at their gas pumps and saying “you know, maybe it did have something to do with oil”

8

banned commenter 07.06.08 at 8:26 pm

Retrieving his ax from where he had
sheathed it beneath his girdle, he hefted it in his mighty hands
with an apiesed grunt, and wedging one of its blackened edges
into the crack between the portal and its iron rimed sill.

9

Kieran Healy 07.06.08 at 8:52 pm

I think the book-of-the-moment on this general topic is Simon Keller’s The Limits of Loyalty.

10

Matt 07.07.08 at 3:44 am

I haven’t read Keller’s book yet (I’ll have to wait for it to come out in paper given the crazy price for it in hardback but his paper in Ethics from a few years ago, _Patriotism as Bad Faith_ was really terrific, one of the better papers I’d read in quite a while. If the book is as good as the paper was it will be worth the wait for the paperback.

11

Dr Paisley 07.07.08 at 4:06 am

Moreover, we would think that there was something very strange about somebody who wanted to revisit that moment of combination and choose a different outcome.

Perhaps the parent of a severely autistic child, or one with CP, or some other genetically-based problem might look at that question differently.

12

jk 07.07.08 at 4:06 am

Of course, Harry has much to say about both points (published and otherwise) — patriotism and the family — and how they, in theory, don’t lend themselves analogously to each other very coherently; though he may disagree as to some of the published pieces worth.

13

Dr Paisley 07.07.08 at 4:07 am

Moreover, we would think that there was something very strange about somebody who wanted to revisit that moment of combination and choose a different outcome.

Perhaps the parents of a severely autistic child, or one with CP, or some other genetically-based problem might look at that question differently.

14

"Q" the Enchanter 07.07.08 at 5:14 am

It’s great to love your family more than you love the families of others. It’s obnoxious repeatedly to declare that your family is better than all the other families on earth.

15

Jim Harrison 07.07.08 at 5:25 am

Loyalty to your country doesn’t require a belief that it is the best country on Earth, anymore than belong to a family requires you to ignore its failings. Indeed, the poorly concealed secret of the more bombastic of our patriots is that their chest thumping is a cover story for an uncertain sense of nationality. Those of us for whom being an American is a given don’t feel the need to brag about it. In fact, since we buy into a certain interpretation of “my country right or wrong,” we’re likely to be mighty critical of it when it is in the wrong, which, like any other nation, it often is. That’s because we expect to go down with this ship if it ever goes down.

16

e julius drivingstorm 07.07.08 at 6:24 am

Patriots of a stripe (my country right or wrong) are nationalists first, patriots second. Patriots of another stripe (my country, get it right) are patriots first, with nationalism second or maybe ninth.

17

Delicious Pundit 07.07.08 at 6:25 am

The overbearing parents believes their child to be God’s gift; the conservative patriot believes the same thing, only literally.

Even when I was a kid, it always struck me as illogical that God, who has by definition seen it all, should be especially worried about our piece of land in our particular time. But then I was raised to believe in a God who is unusually interested in Rome.

18

Chris Bertram 07.07.08 at 6:48 am

I completely agree with Henry that one can feel an affection for and connection to a particular object whilst recognizing that things could have been otherwise. So I think that the arbitrariness point shouldn’t do anything to undermine feelings of patriotism.

I do, however, think that there’s a peculiar pathology among American liberals which consists of an anxiety to demonstrate their patriotic credentials to other Americans. Unfortunately, these parochial concerns often feed into the literature in political philosophy (too many papers on the legitimacy of loving one’s country, more or less transparently driven by said anxiety).

19

banned commenter 07.07.08 at 7:51 am

Abb1 – if you continue to repeatedly post comments to my threads, where you know you are banned, I will be pushing with my colleagues to ban you completely from CT. Consider yourself under warning.

20

bad Jim 07.07.08 at 7:57 am

To a first approximation American patriotism is American exceptionalism which is mainly a matter of ignorance. Most Americans are certain that America is the best, but have never actually visited another country.

This makes certain political arguments rather frustrating, since many, if not most, Americans are certain that, for example, universal health care is impossible, an unrealizable pipe dream, unaware that it’s generally provided in comparable countries. Or that high gasoline prices represent a crisis demanding immediate action, including offshore oil drilling and oil shale extraction, because gas at $4/gal is an unsustainable threat to our way of life. (Climate change considerations tend to be conspicuously absent from such conversations). Few Americans seem to be aware that full-size pickups are not actually the average ride everywhere.

I do however agree with my mother that her latest grandchild is an absolutely adorable prodigy, though I suspect she’d have the same opinion of her first great-grandchild if she saw him more often.

21

h. 07.07.08 at 8:44 am

There seems to be an idea in the U.S. that to be a good American is to be a patriotic American. My feeling is that this is a much less widespread view in Europe, where being a good citizen is about obeying the laws and treating your fellow citizens decently. Whether you love, hate or feel indifferent about your country is another matter.

22

novakant 07.07.08 at 8:46 am

After long deliberation, I’ve come to the conclusion that patriotism is a bunch of dangerous hooey – and fortunately I’m not alone:

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Johnson

Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.

Shaw

Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

Wilde

23

Laleh 07.07.08 at 8:51 am

I think drawing an analogy between parental love and patriotic love actually obscures certain very important characteristics of patriotism.

While children are concrete persons with whom we establish a reciprocal relationship of affection and obligation, countries/nations are abstracts constructs (an amalgamation of territory, ritual, people, and often unequal citizenship) to whom obligations tend to be both collective and individual, and reciprocity from whom for large swathes of the public (often) non-existent (i.e. the plight of US war veterans).

Aside from that, I have never really understood the fine distinctions made between nationalism and patriotism and it has seemed to me that these distinctions are often drawn by Anglo-Americans who are somewhat uncomfortable with Continental varieties of nationalism and so want to distinguish their love of patria by calling it patriotism, rather than its proper name.

24

stostosto 07.07.08 at 9:11 am

American patriotism is insufferable. I say this as a big fan of America. Why can’t you grow the hell up?

25

Matt 07.07.08 at 11:11 am

Chris- who do you have in mind? The biggest philosophical supporters of patriotism or something like it that I can think of off the top of my head are David Miller (British), Tom Hurka (Canadian), Alasdair MacIntyre (British), Charles Taylor (Canadian), Yael Tamir (Israeli), and Michael Walzer (American). But of these, it seems that Walzer’s version is the most “civic” in form, at least in his book _What it Means to be an American_. I may well be over-looking some people, perhaps even some obvious choices, but most of the ones who were obvious to me were not American. (I think that much of your more basic point is right, but I don’t see it in philosophy as much, I guess.)

26

ajay 07.07.08 at 12:00 pm

19: which gives rise to the interesting point that US troops and government officials are sworn to value (for example) the right to free assembly more highly than they value the lives of their fellow citizens; that their oaths of office dictate that, if the only way to win a war of national survival is to search people’s homes without warrants, they must choose defeat and annihilation.

27

Freeborn John 07.07.08 at 12:13 pm

It is possible to a liberal nationalist, like Jefferson or Ghandi. I am using the term “liberal” in the classical sense rather than its as left-wing., i.e. a liberal for me is someone who prioritise liberty over other ends (such as equality) and therefore believes that people should be free to do what they want, so long as it does not cause someone else harm.

The term “nationalist” does not distinguish between liberal and illiberal but it is the illiberal nationalists that gave the term nationalism its negative connotations. When people describe, say Hitler as a nationalist, they actually mean that his foreign policy was illiberal. So long as he only sought to unite German speakers voluntarily under one state his policy was not inconsistent with liberal nationalism (and the Western powers left him alone). But when he began to invade other countries, starting with Czechoslovakia, he was revealed as an illberal nationalist, or “imperialist”.

Today I sometimes hear Serbian politicians referred to as “nationalists”, by those that see them as the bad guys regarding Kosovo. However it is Kosovans that wishes to exercise their right to national self-determinations through the creation of a sovereign state which is nationalism no different from that of Ghandi or Jefferson. The Serbs may be nationalist to the extent that they wish to live in a state where they form the majority, but when they cross the Rubicon of denying Kovovo the same right they become imperialist too, which is what people really object to.

The distinction I make between liberal nationalism and illiberal imperialism can be decided on an international version of J.S. Mill’s principle of harm. For example a country that wages a defensive war is not imperialist, but if it attacks another for any other reason than to prevent harm to its own citizens then its actions are no longer liberal and cannot be supported. (John Rawls “Law of Peoples” is also consistent with this distinction).

28

Freeborn John 07.07.08 at 12:17 pm

It is possible to be a liberal nationalist, like Jefferson or Ghandi. (I am using the term “liberal” in the classical sense rather than its as left-wing., i.e. a liberal for me is someone who prioritise liberty over other ends, such as equality, and therefore believes that people should be free to do what they want, so long as they does not cause harm to others).

The term “nationalist” does not distinguish between liberal and illiberal but it is illiberal nationalists that give the term “nationalism” negative connotations. When people describe, say Hitler as a nationalist, they actually mean that his foreign policy was illiberal. So long as he only sought to unite German speakers voluntarily under one state his policy was not inconsistent with liberal nationalism (and the Western powers left him alone). But as soon as he began to invade other countries, starting with Czechoslovakia, he was revealed as an illiberal nationalist (which I prefer to call an “imperialist”).

Today I sometimes hear Serbian politicians referred to as “nationalists”, by those that merely see them as the bad guys regarding Kosovo. However it is the Kosovans that wish to exercise their right to national self-determinations through the creation of a sovereign state. Therefore the Kosovans are as nationalist as say Ghandi or Jefferson were. The Serbs may be nationalist to the extent that they wish to live in a state where they form the majority, but when they cross the Rubicon of denying Kovovo the same right they become imperialist too, which is what people really object to.

The distinction I make between liberal nationalism and illiberal imperialism can be decided on an international version of J.S. Mill’s principle of harm. For example a country that wages a defensive war is not imperialist, but if it attacks another for any other reason than to prevent harm to its own citizens then its actions are no longer liberal and should not be supported. I believe John Rawls “Law of Peoples” is also consistent with this distinction.

29

Chris Bertram 07.07.08 at 12:59 pm

Matt: I might have been too hasty in translating my impressions into fact, but it wasn’t the forthright communitarians that you list that I had in mind. Rather it was the people who think of themselves as liberal but are anxious to make room for patriotism. And it isn’t that I disagree that there is room for some patriotism as much as I’m slightly repelled by their keenness to demonstrate their “good American too” credentials. Late Rawls can suffer from this, as does Elizabeth Anderson, perhaps Richard Miller, probably others.

(Maybe I should write a post about the way in which political philosophy (supposedly aiming about the truth re justice, legitimacy, liberty etc) gets regularly intruded on by rather parochial concerns driven by US politics and history.)

30

Nathan Schneider 07.07.08 at 12:59 pm

Oddly, I happened to see a pretty apt commentary on this subject, which I write about here at The Row Boat (the discussion touches on Slajov Zizek and Alistair MacIntyre). Basically, the liberals and conservatives in town are about to kill each other until they realize that, in a real way, their different mindsets work symbiotically with each other. Could liberals get by without conservatives, in their undiluted patriotism, to staff the military? And would the military have any moral superiority to cling to without bleeding heart liberals back home?

I also have an article here about a fabulous piece in The American Scholar that attempts to ground liberalism in empathy, using a particular moment in the life of Frederick Douglass to do so.

31

matt 07.07.08 at 1:11 pm

Thanks Chris- I can see the cases you mention though I’d have to think on them a bit more. I’d like to see the suggested post- This is clearly sometimes a question but I’m also unsure how abstract political philosophy can be and still be worth doing so it’s hard to know how to cut things here, I think. (It’s also surely not only Americans who have this problem, of course, though I don’t suspect you think otherwise. Kymlica, for example, seems to me to generalize a particular Canadian problem into a general view in a way that’s not really legitimate.)

32

Barry 07.07.08 at 1:13 pm

Posted by ajay:

“19: which gives rise to the interesting point that US troops and government officials are sworn to value (for example) the right to free assembly more highly than they value the lives of their fellow citizens; that their oaths of office dictate that, if the only way to win a war of national survival is to search people’s homes without warrants, they must choose defeat and annihilation.”

Which is a d*mn good thing, because government after government after government has eagerly claimed that they really, really needed ‘temporary’ emergency powers, or their country faced annihilation. In a few cases, they were right, but in most, the government wanted those powers, and regarded ‘temporary’ as nothing more than lubricant.

33

John Meredith 07.07.08 at 1:20 pm

“and fortunately I’m not alone: Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Johnson”

You are not alone, but I wouldn’t be too hasty in inviting Johnson to your party. That quotation is famously ambiguous.

34

Chris Bertram 07.07.08 at 1:38 pm

Matt: Well yes, absolutely, the abstraction thing (the subject of my last post here, in fact). But my complaint here is about the tendency to treat as a fixed point in reflective equilibrium something that is merely a locally shared prejudice. (Can of worms here, of course.)

You’re quite right about the baleful influence of Canadians (and Israelis for that matter) on the nationalism literature. Perhaps my British prejudices are insufficiently visible to me!

35

Nur al-Cubicle 07.07.08 at 2:22 pm

A US flag lapel pin is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

36

lemuel pitkin 07.07.08 at 2:25 pm

Anybody else recall a line from Le Pen along the lines of “I like my family better than my neighbors, my neighbors better than my countrymen, and my countrymen better than anyone else. What’s wrong with that?”

37

joseph duemer 07.07.08 at 2:35 pm

“Saying ‘My country right or wrong’ is like saying ‘My mother, drunk or sober’.” (G.K. Chesterton)

[Quoted from memory: may not be the exact wording.]

38

Martin James 07.07.08 at 2:54 pm

Just to add to the nastiness of patriotism a bit. The conservative movement has weakened the “God and Country” tie a bit by allowing in catholics. Scalia, Alito and Roberts just aren’t very convincing as American exceptionalists.

I guess one could argue that the upside of movement conservatism is the death of American exceptionalism.

On the other hand, I prefer the people who say how different the USA is from other countries but also argue that its not exceptional.

39

apthorp 07.07.08 at 3:29 pm

The analogy brings to mind “where all of the children are above average”. A pleasantly sensible definition for a patriotism.

40

ajay 07.07.08 at 3:43 pm

32: I wouldn’t be too happy about that – I was pointing out that that’s what their oaths dictate, not implying that they actually follow those oaths.

41

roger 07.07.08 at 3:52 pm

It is interesting that the analogy is to one’s nuclear family, a group that, presumably, you know well, Henry. And not to your extended family, say, to your seventh cousin, the one who claims he is the son of your great aunt Judy’s daughter Marge by her second husband and wants a small loan from you to start his own auto repair shop.

As I understand the sociologists, familialism is, in fact, historically the enemy of the nation. In, say, Southern Italy, there’s long been a struggle between ties of loyalty to the family and the demands of the nation. Interesting that, as the nation curbs or breaks the power of the extended family, it then portrays itself as a family substitute – a thing to evoke an emotional tie. And of all ties, love. Why love?

42

Matthew Kuzma 07.07.08 at 5:28 pm

While the arbitrariness of your association with a given country, religion, or child is not an invalidation in itself, the fact that the initial conidition is arbitrary, and you can readily choose to change it begs for some deeper and more well-reasoned judgement when it comes to patriotism and religion. You can’t change who your child is, but you can easily move to another country and very easily choose to believe something other than what you were taught. That makes a person’s stubborn adherence to what they were given look awfully silly in the case of nations or religions but not at all in the case of children.

43

bi 07.07.08 at 8:15 pm

Could liberals get by without conservatives, in their undiluted patriotism, to staff the military?

But in the first place, are conservatives — and especially neo-conservatives — really more disposed towards entering the military?

 – bi, International Journal of Inactivism

44

Uncle Kvetch 07.07.08 at 10:09 pm

I liked Novakant’s shout-out to G.B. Shaw in #22, but I like this Shaw quote even better:

“Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”

45

vanya 07.07.08 at 10:32 pm

Nearly all parents are quietly sure that while all children are wonderful, their children are the most wonderful of all.

How old is your child? 7 months? I’m fairly sure that very few parents of children older than 5 are quietly sure that their children are the most wonderful of all. Maybe in some ineffable way, but unless you really have a prodigy you get constant reminders that there are other children out there better than your child in most endeavors. But that doesn’t mean you don’t love them more than any other children. Ironically it seems to be easier for most people to find flaws in their children than flaws in their country.

46

dennymack 07.07.08 at 11:35 pm

So much of this hinges on how we use words, so a couple of thoughts on unbending the language we are using:

1. Liberal has a meaning. It is not a bad or good word, it is a qualitative distinction: one is friendly towards change and reform, or in the sense of “classical liberal” one is devoted to the worth of the individual, viewing the state as merely a necessary mechanism for securing the rights of the individual.(This is how movement conservatives think of themselves today,mostly.)
2. Nationalist is someone for whom national identity is vital. This may take all kinds of forms, from expansionist imperial nationalism to fracturing seccessionist nationalism. Note that one is defined by an internal condition, a feeling. This means the form of nationalism one adopts is somewhat open. I could grow up in California and be stars and stripes patriot nationalist, a stars and bars white identity racist nationalist, or an irredentist Raza nationalist.(For the last two there would seem to be prerequisites, but you get the point.)
There are all manner of historical figures that we think of as liberal (or conservative) or nationalist who don’t fit neatly within this definition. People are complicated, and the sketch of them we get from history rarely encompasses all the difficult political and ideological balancing acts of real life. Hitler was a revolutionary nationalist and socialist. (check out the party platform and make your own judgement: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/25points.htm )Gandhi was a British Imperial nationalist before he became an Indian Nationalist. They were both liberal in that they wanted change, and they were both nationalist. Neither makes them bad or good.

Another little note: the Decatur quote “My country” is usually truncated. The quote in full is more measured and thoughtful, the words of a man who ended the reign of the pirates of North Africa and their hostage taking: “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!”

Fascinating discussion here. I have enjoyed everyone’s comments.
Dennymack

47

Down and Out of Sài Gòn 07.08.08 at 3:03 am

Basically, the liberals and conservatives in town are about to kill each other until they realize that, in a real way, their different mindsets work symbiotically with each other. Could liberals get by without conservatives, in their undiluted patriotism, to staff the military? And would the military have any moral superiority to cling to without bleeding heart liberals back home?

Nathan: I think you’ve confused personality types with political labels. Small “c” conservatives are useful in an organization to balance the experimentalists. A good example of a such a man would be Kevin Rudd – very cautious, extremely process oriented, and quite the prude on certain matters. He’s also the head of the Australian Labor Party (a little to the left of the American Democrats), signed Kyoto, and is trying to create measures to tackle climate change. He’s no big C-Conservative, and to his credit.

Most Australians are small-c conservatives, including myself. On the other hand, they’ve got no use for the Big C-Conservative parties at the moment; they’re out of power in the federal government, and also in every state and territory. Neither do I. I think your thesis needs more work.

48

yobbo 07.08.08 at 7:12 am

Of course Down and Out of Sài Gòn

You have neglected to mention the left at all, the purpose of democratic politics is to represent all factions.

But this isn’t happening, in fact I don’t even believe democracy exists! Only in name. Capitalism and democracy cannot exist in perpetual harmony, they are anethema.

This is why the planet’s atmosphere is changing. Democracy died a very quiet death a long time ago.

I would say a high percentage of the intelligent people I know are of the left. Of course highly intelligent people do make up a smaller percentile.

Regardless, balance is the key and I do believe every fool is capable of genious, moments of enlightenment. And in this day and age we need every one of those moments. Its almost time gentlepeople! goodluck.

49

stostosto 07.08.08 at 8:52 am

btw, I too took note of henry’s sweeping disclaimer:

I offer no guarantees whatsoever that my thoughts on the topic are original, or that they haven’t already been comprehensively refuted by someone somewhere

Well-nigh universally useful. Better even than the Daily Show’s “its opinions are not fully thought through”.

50

Ginger Yellow 07.08.08 at 11:13 am

I’m an American liberal, although I don’t pretend to be a typical one, and my patriotism, such as it is, is nothing like that of American conservatives. I feel an attachment to the US, I think a lot of its institutions are great, and I want to see it prosper and improve, but that’s about it. I feel the same about the UK, where I live, and to a lesser extent most other modern democracies.

51

engels 07.08.08 at 12:21 pm

in a real way, [liberals’ and conservatives’] different mindsets work symbiotically with each other.

Interesting idea. Does it work a bit like this?

52

engels 07.08.08 at 12:51 pm

Ok, it seems that that was actually the point you were making…

53

Tom Hurka 07.08.08 at 1:04 pm

1. Chris: You’d better not be calling me a communitarian — that’s a serious insult.

2. Nationalism looks different to people in states where it’s a defence against assimilation, either military or cultural. Hence its popularity among Israeli and Canadian academics. But the situation of facing assimilationist threats is hardly unique to those two countries.

3. In my experience US political philosophers tend to be anti-nationalist and pro-cosmopolitan, because of what nationalism has led their country to do. That’s fine, but it’s no less a parochial response to their local situation than the pro-response of Israelis and Canadians.

4. Part of loving a particular person is thinking they’re better than they actually are, and part of loving a nation is thinking it’s better than it actually is. But there’s a limit: and flag-waving American “light unto the world” nationalists go way beyond it.

54

matt 07.08.08 at 1:11 pm

Tom Hurka said, _Part of loving a particular person is thinking they’re better than they actually are, and part of loving a nation is thinking it’s better than it actually is._

That might be right on the person part, though I’m not sure even there, but it seems wrong to me on the nation part, even dangerously so. Shouldn’t we rather say that part of loving one’s nation, if it’s a good thing to be promoted, at least, is seeing it as it is but wanting it to be better, and thinking it can become so? If you think it’s better than it is you’re unlikely to be as motivated to make it better, for one thing. If one must believe lies to be a patriot (as, say, Keller implies) then perhaps it’s better to look for a different view. I’m not sure one must believe lies to have an acceptable form of love of country, but the acceptable form does seem to involve having as clear a view as one can about the true nature of the object in question.

55

Down and Out of Sài Gòn 07.08.08 at 2:06 pm

You have neglected to mention the left at all, the purpose of democratic politics is to represent all factions.

No, it isn’t. Democratic politics is there to represent as many people as possible. Factions are just people grouped together to maximise their representation in the process.

56

roger 07.08.08 at 3:17 pm

It is interesting how little reflection is done about the particular passion that is expressed by the word love in “love of country.”

Is this romantic love? Do people want to have sex with America? Robert Coover’s A Public Burning is all about a sexually charged Uncle Sam, who eventually does have sex with Richard Nixon. I’ve noticed that the more vociferously love for the country is proclaimed, the more that love takes a sadistic turn. In fact, sado-masochistic language is quite common in the lover’s discourse between patriot and country. Perhaps this has something to do with the problem of release. How can the patriot achieve orgasm, in this relationship, given that the country has a certain sexual intangibility? Its bodily form in dispersed among a truly paltry number of symbols.

So isn’t the real question for fourth of July – for the true patriot – how to make love to the nation without falling into the infinite spiral of cruelty and abjection characteristic of the S/M relationship? The frustrated patriot/lover, unable to obtain release positively, will of course try to obtain release negatively, pursuing orgasm through war and torture. That seems to be the usual route.

57

engels 07.08.08 at 3:57 pm

Perhaps there’s not so much that can be said, in moral terms, about national and patriotism in the abstract? I am not sure that either term, in referring to a wide range of cultural and historical phenomena, denote something which is very uniform or cohesive. The kind of defensive nationalism that might be seen among a people struggling against invasion, colonisation or cultural assimilation seems to be a very different thing from that seen in a country which faces no such misfortunes and is perhaps imposing them on others. Maybe each instance of nationalism or patriotism can only be supported or opposed after considering its character, genesis and functional role and so it might not be inconsistent for someone to strongly oppose all manifestations of nationalism or patriotism in a stable, independent, developed country like England (and above all in the US) while supporting some instances in developing countries which may be struggling to liberate themselves from economic or military domination. But perhaps this would just show a lack of the political detachment and love of universal principle which is the first requirement of any system of thought that aspires to the status of political philosophy.

58

engels 07.08.08 at 5:40 pm

Iow is patriotism one thing which ‘looks different’ to people in different places, or just lots of different things? Is it necessary for someone who is sympathetic to some forms of anti-colonial patriotism to cut any slack to the US or English variety? Why do I have to have an opinion about ‘patriotism’ anyway?

59

engels 07.08.08 at 7:33 pm

Siva’s post is quite revealing because it emphasises how Siva’s American patriotism appears to be based in large part on a sense of gratitude for all the good things America has given him. This gets at one central feature of patriotism; that it has a great deal to do with one’s investment in the status quo. The kind of quiet love for England’s gentle countryside is something you are just slightly more likely to appreciate when you are driving through it in your Aston Martin. Pretty directly, then, making a big deal about patriotism is an effective way of stigmatising those who realise themselves to be victims of the current order of things, and giving a veneer of virtue to those who profit from it. Note that this would apply to the most understated forms of patriotism as to the cruder, flag-waving kinds.

Since people above have been wheeling out mots justes I’ll quote Eric Hobsbawm:

It seems that American patriotism measures itself against an outcast group. The right Americans are the right Americans because they’re not like the wrong Americans, who are not really Americans.

60

Righteous Bubba 07.08.08 at 8:45 pm

I’ll quote Eric Hobsbawm

Along the same lines the child analogy falls down – Ha! Ha! – when in fervent nationalism aspects of your nation are seen to be despicable. Few parents have a seething desire to amputate their child’s hand.

61

engels 07.09.08 at 12:35 pm

This is pretty funny.

62

Ponder Stibbons 07.09.08 at 1:59 pm

Along the same lines the child analogy falls down – Ha! Ha! – when in fervent nationalism aspects of your nation are seen to be despicable. Few parents have a seething desire to amputate their child’s hand.

They may have a seething desire to be rid of some aspect of their child’s personality, though. I have parents who have never been able to accept my disregard for social customs.

63

smaug 07.09.08 at 5:00 pm

I’m not sure where the “American liberals are not patriotic” canard arose. I imagine it had to do with the protests against the US war in Vietnam. Conservatives have been critical of the US in its foreign and domestic practices, too (George Kennan was hardly a booster for much of US diplomacy; the conservative criticism of US popular culture is a mainstay of the movement).

I was w/ a fishing guide last weekend who volunteered for two tours in Vietnam as a demolitions expert, was a Chicago cop for 20 years, and then a security contractor for the USG in the off-season. He remarked that he was not a fan of the 4th of July — explosions and drunks didn’t strike him as cause for celebration.

64

Superheater 07.10.08 at 3:24 am

Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there’s something arbitrary about it—we’re just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you. The conservative view is more like those Bill Simmons columns where not only is he extolling the virtues of this or that Boston sports team or moment, but he seems to genuinely not understand why other people don’t see it that way. But of course Simmons is from Boston and others of us aren’t.

Yglesias has it wrong. Liberals don’t do a better job at anything and its not arbitrary. There’s one place in the world people can’t wait to get to, for all its faults.

What a jerk.

65

Righteous Bubba 07.10.08 at 4:12 am

There’s one place in the world people can’t wait to get to, for all its faults.

Rome?

66

stostosto 07.10.08 at 10:38 am

Rome?

Spot on. It’s the Holy See!

Immigrant population as percentage of state population

United States is #40, squeezed in between Moldova and Germany. Patriotise that!

67

Geoff Robinson 07.11.08 at 12:40 am

The Australian Social Attitudes Survey in 2003 found 83% would rather be a citizen of Australia than any other country (liberal nationalists?), but only 43% thought people from other countries should be more like Australians (conservative patriots?) and only 23% said support their country even if wrong.

Comments on this entry are closed.