Yglesias has his response on patriotism up at the Atlantic, and I’m wondering if he can get some of his Harvard money back.
Patriotism is – wait for it – just like being a Knicks fan. There are good Knicks fans, and bad ones.
The attitude toward America that conservatives like to champion is like this latter batch of Knicks fans — not people animated by a special concern for our fellow-citizens and a special appreciation for our country’s virtues, but by a deep emotional investment in a certain kind of national hagiography and myth-making.
The patriotism = fanboy equivalence is one that’s often made by people who don’t believe – or know – much in patriotism. It makes patriotism cute, and kind of demeans it is a backhanded way. because you, know, my wife is still a Cubs fan even twenty years after she left Chicago, so isn’t that just cute?
But the most obsessive Cubs fans don’t get linked to a polity of other Cubbies fans with whom they have to share power.
The mechanisms by which our – or any – political structure are maintained within our culture are kinda significant if we want those structures to survive. Habermas has the best (if most awkwardly written) description of this process, I think, in ‘Legitimation Crisis‘ – I’ll try and do a post on this over the weekend.
Yglesias goes on to recommend Anatol Lievin’s book on American nationalism – which, based on the Publisher’s Weekly review, seems shockingly predictable:
In this provocative and scholarly work, Lieven, senior associate at Washington’s Carnegie Endowment, argues that normative American patriot ism …an optimistic “civic creed” rooted in respect for America’s institutions, individual freedoms and constitutional law – contains a monster in the basement: a jingoistic, militaristic, Jacksonian nationalism that sees America as the bearer of a messianic mission to lead a Manichean struggle against the savages.
plus,as a bonus…
Lieven’s provocative final chapter argues that much of U.S. support for Israel is rooted not in the “civic creed” (e.g., support for a fellow liberal democracy) but in a nationalism that sees the Israelis as heroic cowboys and the Palestinians as savages who must be driven from their land, as Jackson did the Cherokees. Throughout, Lieven takes to task the American liberal intelligentsia for abandoning universalist principles in favor of ethnic chauvinism and nationalist fervor.
…I can’t wait to read it…
Welcome Instapundit readers…it appears to be ‘patriotism’ week here, so please check out the four posts I’ve done this week on the subject: ‘Patriotism – Goldberg to Couric to Yglesias‘, ‘You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me‘, ‘Patriotism Rears Its Head Yet Again‘, and ‘Rorty on Patriotism‘
bq. “The patriotism = fanboy equivalence is one that’s often made by people who don’t believe – or know – much in patriotism.”
He’s saying that there are some people who call themselves patriots, or want to define it as such, who can be so classified. I’m not sure, actually, that what you’ve written so far on the subject below really contradicts this in any substantive, clear and thoughtful way.
So I would withhold my belittling of Yglesias if I were you.
bq. “But the most obsessive Cubs fans don’t get linked to a polity of other Cubbies fans with whom they have to share power.”
I really don’t understand what this means.
Um, AL, it’s a *metaphor*. An *analogy*. He’s trying to re-present the issue in comfortable and familiar terms – hence, sport fans; I don’t think any attempt to demean or cutify can be so obviously inferred. No, it doesn’t have perfect one-to-one correspondence – as you note, it neglects the political-community aspect – but it does highlight the distinction Yglesias is actually trying to bring out. He’s not attempting to make some perfect allegory (by some definitions of the term) of patriotism, but rather explain the difference, as he sees it, between two diffferent kinds of patriotism. If one feels the fan metaphor doesn’t *work*, that’s fine, but otherwise . . .
Now, if I had to select the most appropriate *overall* metaphor, I’d probably go with ‘marriage’, which does get to issues of power-sharing, etc., but whatever, y’know- and at least at this stage of life, sports may come more easily to mind for him than that.
And there’s some research that at least seems to support his metaphor.
What’s wrong with a Jacksonian policy, anyway? Wasn’t Andrew Jackson the mainstream example for Democratic Party foreign policy until 1968?
Well fanboyism is what Patriotism folks are asking for when they demand a more Patriotic whatever.
Greenwald talks about Sunny Day fans and dedicated fans (my choice of terms).
The Sunny Day fans like their team when it is winning, but stop going to games when their team doesn’t win. They would enjoy watching another team beat theirs as lose to it. They are not really fans of the team, if you ask me. They are fans of the game. They are like people who are not patriotic, but see themselves as cosmopolitan citizens of the world.
The dedicated fans like their team when it wins and when it loses. They go to games in the rain, in the snow, at the end of a losing streak. They are fans of the team. These team fans are like real patriots who love the world too, but love their own country even more and want it to stay the way they like it.
So Greenwald thinks that it is better to be a well adjusted sports fan than an unbalanced team fan. He is obviously not a fan of Chicago sports.
Degrees of cosmopolitanism and Sunny Day fanaticism aside…
The more important difference between liberals and conservatives, as I’ve stated elsewhere, is that most liberals judge the morality of a thing by intentions and most conservatives judge morality by means and results. As many actions have paradoxical or non-linear results, if you don’t understand how the process works it is possible, indeed likely, for a naive observer to mindread malignant intentions for conservative actions.
Perhaps liberals should change their internal question when thinking about conservative thought from, “how does that action make me feel at the time they do it?” to “what is the eventual total fallout of that action and how does it affect things?” Try judging by results. It may open your eyes.
And perhaps conservatives should pander more to liberals by explaining the intentions behind their actions in warm and fuzzy ways, and also explaining the likely means and results in equally warm and fuzzy ways so that the whole system makes sense.
Ann Coulter on women:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
Now, THATS a patriot!
Dan – there is nothing butthe political-community aspect to patriotism that means a damn thing.
That’s why ignoring that aspect of it is ridiculous. It’s like talking about physics without math.
A.L.
But of course you can talk about physics-at length-without math, and many physicists do this well (just ask Brian Greene, Murry Gell-Mann, etc) in order to better illustrate difficult concepts for those without post-graduate math training.
The first order of business in any good analysis is to define the problem and the definitions for the terms that you will use. You have failed to address these issues before jumping headlong into a debate with someone who easily outclasses you in the analytical thinking/expository writing categories, I would say.
Yglesias should be commended for trying to do the same with his post, for being thoughtful and for caring enough about being understood to use whatever rhetorical tools are at his disposal. Instead, you scorn him and blather on vaguely about a concept you don’t seem to understand fully yourself but yet feel compelled to 1) broadcast your confusion widely and sloppily, and 2) deride those who don’t “get it”. Where does that place you along the intellectual spectrum, I wonder (or the marriage spectrum, as Dan suggests: ever been divorced?)? Those are the traits of an impatient child, not a person who wants their opinions to be treated seriously.
Assuming that Americans can rediscover the true meaning of American patriotism by having it explained to them by a left-wing British intellectual, here is some dust-jacket fluff from Lieven’s book “Ethical Realism – A Vision for America’s Role in the World.“:http://www.randomhouse.com/pantheon/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375424458
So Truman and Eisenhower are the way to go. Everybody got that? Anybody need to borrow a tie?
Now I have not read this book, but the opening chords are sooooo familiar. What threat does America face since 9/11? The threat of a warmongering America, of course. Whence this pressure to monger war? From people who blindly (Blindly! Mindlessly! Missionary Style!) believe in “American power” and “the transformative effects of democracy.” (Cue the creepy organ music.)
I wonder who those people are?
It is very common to draw a big line in American history at Truman and Eisenhower. Because with Kennedy and Johnson you get Vietnam, right? Wrong, in this case. With Kennedy and Johnson you get Israel, and Israel is what gets the British lefthead’s knickers in a knot.
Suddenly the source of all that pressure becomes clear, and apparently the culprit is not red-blooded American character – not the true patriot. How do you spell JEW with half a million letters? This might be the answer.
So is this totally unfair? Well, if some Brit scribbler wants to start a war of stereotypes, insinuations, and hysterical adjectives, I got Andrew Freaking Jackson chained up in my basement.
Now, if I had to select the most appropriate overall metaphor, I’d probably go with ‘marriage’, which does get to issues of power-sharing
Ok, let’s run with the marriage metaphor here.
If you see someone who continuosly belittles, denigrates their spouse, harps on every little mistake, error, and bad habit. Who condemns every mention of strengths, good points, or accomplishments as being evidence of blind loyalty which merely enables the bad behavior. Who excuses and defends far worse behavior in other couples, usually by pointing out far more minor offenses in their spouse. Who blames everything wrong in their lives on their spouse.
Yet becomes offended when anyone questions whether they actually love their spouse.
Interesting metaphor.
Well, that’s correct in the case of people who like to use a percieved lack of patriotism as a political sledge hammer. I think McCarthy would have loved the statement. Me, not so much. But it’s telling.
I know I was feeling pretty patriotic when I enlisted, and re-enlisted. Whether or not I was truly patriotic at those times can certainly be argued and I may even be swayed by the right argument.
In the end, patriotism is a lot like pornagraphy. People know it when they see it, but often disagree about what they see.
But perhaps the most damning aspect of this whole post is what you chose to leave out.
It’s an admission, yet with a qualifier. From a person who was almost bit as enthusiastic about launching into our current quagmire as Marc.
But he made the fatal mistake of admitting his error. Hence, he’s fair game.
Personally I think a script for Ambien might be more useful.
Isn’t there a third type of Knicks fan? The fan that spends countless hours criticizing every move of the players, the coaches, explaining at nauseum to co-workers and friends at the bar how he would do better or how the franchise is doomed. Perhaps he goes to the game and shouts obsenties at Knicks players that don’t get back no defense quickly enough. You know the kind of guy who puts “He’s a fan?” into fandom.
China is doing so well…there’s a danger they may make Communism seem respectable one day.
That has to be eating into even the truest believer in our system’s…patriotism.
Specially when we have to borrow money from them to keep going.
Davebo, I’m talking political theory – how political communities work.
I’m disinterested in using lack of patriotism as a way to isolate people from the political process – in fact you may have noticed that trying to isolate people from the political process is one of the sins in my book. I do think that there’s a group in my party that’s badly mistaken abotu these issues, and I think that I can suggest that their stance has damaged the Democrats pretty badly – why else are the Republicans in contention this cycle?
So I’m happy to suggest that Yglesias’ disinterest in patriotism is a bad thing, and that the movement to make progressivism more and more isolated from American patriotism is a particularly bad thing both for America and for progressivism.
But if you think that makes some grand point about me, think away.
A.L.
“ Dan – there is nothing butthe political-community aspect to patriotism that means a damn thing.
Well, I’d tend to agree that it’s extremely important -but again, I think this is an entirely different issue from what Matt’s addressing. Whether or not he agrees on how important it is, he’s taking it as a given:
“ Now it’s true that you have some people on the left — and some people on the libertarian right — who adhere to genuinely post-national cosmpolitan views, but I think that’s pretty rare.
And focusing instead on two distinct ways of conceptualizing/experiencing/etc. patriotism. (Although I think he’s mistaken in drawing the line between liberals and conservatives.) The post I linked to in my previous comment discusses some poli psych research which labels them (somewhat unfortunately) as blind patriotism (agreeing with statements such as ” It is un-American to criticize this country.” “I would support my country right or wrong.””) and constructive patriotism (” “I express my love for America by supporting efforts at positive change.” “I oppose some U.S. policies becaues I care about my country and want to improve it.””) And interestingly, the two studies found that”
“Blind patriotism was positively correlated (†= statistically significant) with nationalism†, national vulnerability†, and cultural contamination†. . . Constructive patriotism, on the other hand, was . . . negatively correlated with nationalism, national vulnerability, and cultural contamination†. Furthermore, blind patriotism was positively correlated with conservativism and self-identification as Republican, while constructive patriotism *was not correlated with either political identity or political affiliation*. A second study . . . showed that blind patriotism was positively associated with a preference for symbolic (e.g., “Children should learn to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school,” or “Renovation of a national monumen”) over instrumental (e.g., “”Children should learn about our system of government in school,” or “Renovation of a national highway”) expressions of patriotism†, while constructive patriotism was associated with a preference for instrumetnal over symbolic expressions. Furthermore, blind patriotism was associated with selectively exposing oneself to positive information about the United States†, while constructive patriots exposed themselves to both positive and negative information.”
And indeed, this also reinforces some of the arguments here: BP is positively correlated with concerns about cultural contamination, ie “Widespread adoption in the U.S. of cultural practices from foreign countries would trouble me because it might change or water down American culture too much.””, and a preference for symbolism – flags, pledges – while CP is negatively correlated with cultural contamination and instead has a preference (but not statistically significant, or perhaps Chris just got sloppy?) for instrumental patriotism. I mean, we’ve covered a lot of cultural territory right there. As to why there seems to be a correlation between “my country right or wrong”, “Ahhhhhrg, burritos!!!, and “I pledge allegiance to the flag” on one hand, and “protesting secret government torture is patriotic!”, “Mmm, burritos!” and “we need to make sure kids learn about checks and balances”on the other . .. well, that’s an interesting question, and I;m not sure Goldberg’s op-ed doesn’t touch on it (albeit in a way that makes it feel uncomfortable).
So – I mostly avoided the last discussion around this, for no other reason than the rather amusing imagery of Jonah commenting on patriotism, when his “side” has used it as a club for over 20 years. Moreso in the past 6. And I think that more than anything else, this is why people turn away from it, or choose not to embrace it as much – the knowledge that people will club you over the head for it for disagreeing with their worldview, both politicians and pundits.
As we “can see”:http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3690000&page=1 , it is still club – and it is likely to continue to be so for the future, unless someone can guess at any changes.
_So I’m happy to suggest that Yglesias’ disinterest in patriotism is a bad thing…_
Probably. But when it is used as a club against you, and against what you say, and what you believe or who you believe in – not for legitimate reasons, but to gain the upper hand in the discussion of the moment – why not change?
Really. If no matter what you have done – volunteered to go to war, lost limbs, became a constitutional scholar, taught your son the history of the flag, or just invoked your right to assemble – your patriotism will still be questioned, I would think it would be very easy to internalize it and move on.
I should add, the first part of his op-ed, not the end where he completely goes off the rails and starts ranting about globalized elites.
Also: regardless what metaphor is chosen, though, I suspect it’s hopeless – that it’s not going to to its job of carrying meaning from one place to another, because we’re actually talking about differences rooted in utterly different world views, temperaments, or whatever, deep-seated products of upbringing, environment, and/or perhaps partly even inborn thingy-whatsits. Ah, well.
Wolf:
a) which Greenwald are you talking about? I’m a bit worried that you mean Glenn and the ideas he writes about in his recent book – in which case we’re talking a near total failure of communication or understanding – but hopefully I’m wrong on one or both counts . . .
b) re: “The more important difference between liberals and conservatives, as I’ve stated elsewhere, is that most liberals judge the morality of a thing by intentions and most conservatives judge morality by means and results.”
– This almost completely fails to match my experience (indeed, in terms of certain recent events it seems completely backwards; maybe it has greater currency prior to the last few decades?). Perhaps you could give some examples?
AL:
“I do think that there’s a group in my party that’s badly mistaken abotu these issues, and I think that I can suggest that their stance has damaged the Democrats pretty badly why else are the Republicans in contention this cycle?”
Off the top of my head, I’d guess abortion, anxiety, and authoritarianism, to start with (although the next few letters are also very fruitful) – but I dunno – is there a some particular post of yours you might point me to re: this argument?
Dan S. #17:
In response to (a) I had a brain fart and wrote Greenwald when I meant Yglesias.
In response to (b) I point to LBJ’s Great Society Programs that have destroyed the American black family, to tax rate cuts that increase tax revenues, and to the American anti-war “peace” movement following the lead of Marxist groups like ANSWER and the Workers World Party who believe in armed revolution and killing their political opponents. All three of these examples show that the left has the best of intentions but the results are not what they expect. Yet they do not change their beliefs once the results are in. Thus being generous of spirit I think they must be judging by intentions, as they are not judging by results. Either that, or they are insane given the usual definition of insanity (doing the same thing again and again in hope of a different result).
Speaking of patriotism, what do you think of “this story?”:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html
bq. NEW YORK — Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.
Is it patriotic to want your country to lose a war? Does that count as being anti-war, or is it really anti-American?
Wolf:
“ In response to (a) I had a brain fart and wrote Greenwald when I meant Yglesias.
I know the feeling. Hmm, in that case – well, you have an interesting recasting of the ‘sunshine patriot’ and such, but I don’t think it really has much to do with what Matt’s saying, unless I’m completely confused.
“In response to (b)
Ah, well, I’d have to express qualified disagreement with the first two examples, and question the point of the third, so . . . {shrug} . . .
“Is it patriotic to want your country to lose a war? (re: FoxNews poll)
In some circumstances – for example, if we embarked on an unprovoked war of bloody world conquest for the purpose of genocide and/or enslavement of other people – but this question has nothing to do with the poll, which doesn’t ask about what people want at all. It’s not, “do you want America to lose in Iraq” (whatever that means), but ‘would the world be better off if America loses the war in Iraq’ (again, whatever that means). Indeed, this seeming inability to distinguish between a) what one might want or wish and b) what actually happens, reality in the world – it’s come up quite a few times over the last few years in talk about the war. I find it extremely bizarre and really don’t know what to make of it.
“China is doing so well…there’s a danger they may make Communism seem respectable one day.
That has to be eating into even the truest believer in our system’s…patriotism.
Specially when we have to borrow money from them to keep going.”
Only if you’re an idiot or a very shallow thinker. Which you are. What the hell does “…..eating into even the truest believer in our system’s…patriotism.” even supposed to mean?
In all seriousness, what’s wrong with you? Are you just very young? Or is this a game for you? Really, how do you constantly come up with….well, crap…..everywhere you post?
With an ever growing number of posts, Yglesias is slowly but surely revealing his deep seated anti-Semitism. This post of his is but the latest in a series of such posts.
I’d have my doubts about the Cubs fan that roots for the Cardinals in every head-to-head matchup. It’s one thing to criticize your club for losing to your mortal enemy, it’s quite another to revel in it. And what we see from the Left today is far too much of the latter.
Once again, the first responders are liberal/progressive… Interesting
Choosing sports fans as a metaphor for patriotism is perhaps more revealing than intended. I mean, is there really any difference between being a Cubs fan vs being a White Sox fan? I don’t really follow baseball, but I am a (very) mild Cubs fan, simply because my Little League team 30 years ago was named the Cubs.
Is this at all comparable with regard to countries? Anyone who thinks so is either an idiot, uneducated, or (at least if they are American) almost certainly unpatriotic. Look at the staggering percentages of Democrats who either root for us to fail in Iraq or aren’t sure if it would be a bad idea (19 and 20 percent respectively). The people we are fighting now would make the Nazis look good in comparison (though fortunately our current opponents aren’t nearly as efficient or militarily powerful). Yet nearly half of Democrats either root for their victory or can’t decide if it would be a bad thing.
Is there anything remotely patriotic about an American rooting for an Al Queda victory? Is it fair to question their patriotism? Or would that just be an unfair use of patriotism “as a club”?
PS Regarding the excerpts from the review of Lieven’s book: Yes, American DOES have a mission to bring our values to the rest of the world. Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Association, Democracy, Economic Freedom, Rule of Law, etc, etc, etc. A LIBERAL would agree. Unfortunately, a very scary percentage of today’s “liberals” aren’t merely faux liberals, they are instead anti-liberals.
For me it comes down to, do you love your country, but think that it could use a few changes and tweaks to make it even better, or do you think that only you or someone like can can make the country great, because at present it isn’t? The first example would be a patriot, the second would be Obama. You don’t have to like the president to love your country – a country, especially one as vast and dynamic as America is so much more than the guy or gal in the White House. And of course it isn’t perfect, but it is pretty much the best (or at least one of the best) on offer – sure Japan hs higher educational standards, and Sweden has longer Mat Leave and more free healthcare, but those countries also have a lack of personal freedom and opportunity to innovate that I think would shock most Americans, though I would never say that we cannot learn things from other countries.
Really, it is all in the emphasis and attitute – and SOME Dems seem to take the approach that America is basically a disaster that can only be rescued by their program, and to me that’s not very patriotic. It might be revolutionary, or evangelical (in the secular sense) but does not really speak to a love of country – rather it’s a love of self.
I can understand that Obama maybe did not want to wear the lapel pin, given that some Republicans have sort of coopted it (not the flag generally, but the wearing of a pin) – but couldn’t he just have said something to the effect that he does not need a pin to demonstrate his deep and abiding love for America, a country which has given him fantastic opportunities and which he hopes to have the honor of one day leading?
a deep emotional investment in a certain kind of national hagiography and myth-making.
He’s talking about the myth that losing Vietnam was a great victory for American leftists that ended an unnecessary war and didn’t lead to the fall of Laos and Cambodia and the deaths of millions, the myth that WW II was an unalloyed victory that didn’t hand half of Europe over to Sovet oppression with FDR’s blessing or involve us allying and arming a country as bad as Nazi Germany, and that persistent media-sponsored myth in the 1980s that America was no better than the Soviet Union?
That must be what he means. Or maybe it’s the Rather memos.
I can understand that Obama maybe did not want to wear the lapel pin, given that some Republicans have sort of coopted it
Not so, Democrats just don’t like America as much. Polling shows this over and over. Dems tend to see the country as deeply flawed and in need of more European-style socialism, Republicans tend to see it as the freest and therefore best country in the world.
Look, patriotism isn’t complicated. It’s just a measure of how much you like the country. Do Democrats, on average, like America less than Republicans? Of course! Many leftist intellectual openly declare themselves global citizens first, and are much more comfortable letting the UN run things. Almost half aren’t sure we deserve to win in Iraq, or actually want us to lose. They’re embarassed of our backward little country, and want to fix its many (perceived) terrible problems. And this predates Bush.
And if Dems have the strength of their convictions, let them stand up and say so, instead of trying to have it both ways by claiming they love America but hate everything about it.
#10 from Treefrog at 8:19 pm on Oct 04, 2007
Heh… my wife asked me my thoughts about patriotism and lefties a year or so ago (when it was also sort of a hot topic) and I used the same relationship metaphors you did. They like, don’t like anything about their spouse, and want to totally change them, but act funny if you wonder if they love them. 🙂
Chuck[le], you were banned – banned means banned. Go play somewhere else.
A.L.
Patriotism? Get serious. Think:
The Flushing Remonstrance
“America is the only country ever founded on a creed.” — G.K. Chesterton
The Knox Trail
“We hold these truths to be self-evident… ”
Valley Forge
“What hath God wrought?” — Samuel F.B. Morse
Col. Chamberlain & the 20th Maine
“It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.” — Lincoln
“Mary had a little lamb… ” — Thomas Edison
Belleau Wood, Omaha Beach, Guadalcanal
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” — Winston Churchill
Free Europe, The Marshall Plan, Japanese Reconstruction
Chosin Reservoir
“… to assure the survival and success of liberty.” — John F. Kennedy
Khe Sanh
“Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” — Neil Armstrong
Fall of the Soviet Union, Free Europe II
“We win, they lose.” — Ronald Reagan*
*And he wasn’t making any daft sports analogy.
-30-