Pensees on Patriotism
By Paul J Cella Posted in Culture | mud | patriotism — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Unfortunately, I don’t have time enough right now to give these thoughts the treatment I think they deserve. The importunate urgency in our age is very strong: it militates against my inclination to let them marinate for awhile, in the hopes that a structured essay may issue from the marinade.
In short, I’m going to just throw these two thoughts out there, and affix a French word to the title to make them look grand and important.
Read on.
(1) I wonder if there is a lesson in the Rev. Wright contretemps for our dear Creedal Patriots. Now Creedal Patriots, to review, are those given to stressing the idealism and nobility of the American creed as the ground of American patriotism. Against them in solemn but fraternal dispute stand those (like me) whose judgment it is that these creedal aspects of American patriotism have been exaggerated to our detriment.
Did you notice the method by which Senator Obama sought to dodge the blow aimed for him with the appearance of all those sermon tapes — tapes which, mind you, implicated him in a preacher who teaches the bloodguilt of America? Did you catch the particular form of his sophistry?
Senator Obama’s pastor for many years urged that, in justice, America ought to be thrown down like any common despotism. When some wicked men attempted this foul work, he spoke of chickens coming home to roost. But there is, according to him, nothing common about America’s sins. They are so egregious as to render loyalty impossible. His indictment is a staggering document, discursive too be sure, but hardly obscure in implication. God damn America. Her guilt is indelible. Her judgment is coming, and no avenue of redemption is open to her.
There is some reassurance in the fact that, whatever else Senator Obama’s speech did, it certainly presented an avenue of redemption. He denied that the guilt is indelible. He spoke movingly of the possibility that America may indeed better approximate that more perfect union spoken of in the Preamble to the Constitution. “The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons,” Obama told us, was that, alas, “he spoke as if our society was static, as if no progress has been made.” Ah yes: our old friend Progress. Loyalty to America becomes loyalty to her progress toward proffered goals.
In fine Obama is a Creedalist in his patriotism; and he may have (we cannot yet know) evaded a crippling political blow by means of the vulnerabilities of this theory. Put another way, Obama managed to escape the fact that he and his family have sat under the teaching authority of an openly anti-American preacher, by means of an appeal to the ideals of America.
My question for the Creedal Patriots is this: If your doctrine can be employed to inoculate against even rank anti-Americanism, might there not be some flaws in it meriting attention? If a politician can appeal to American ideals in order to cover up even this, a brazen repudiation of patriotism, how secure can this theory of patriotism be?
(2) Now and then, in the course of this debate (which I do hope will remain fraternal and fruitful), someone arguing against non-creedal patriots like myself will deliver themselves of a certain type of sneer or dismissal. One prominent columnist, in a moment of weakness, put is thusly: “When you say you love America, you’re not saying our mud is better than the other guy’s mud.”
But as a pulverizing fact, in the great bulk of our patriotic songs we are saying something very much like that — though not with the note of supremacy indicated by “better than.” To declare one’s love of a thing is not, in point of fact, to assert its supremacy over similar things. But we do indeed sing of the beauty of our land — our mud, even. We do profess love for land qua land — especially such land as now holds the remains of our fathers.
I walked out of the house yesterday afternoon into the exhilarating warmth and brilliance of the April sun, peaking through the drab gray of clouds that had hung around for days. It was my fortune to have gotten the children down for naps in time to enjoy this moment, cold beer in hand, in my front yard. I looked around — at the Japanese maple which just a few days ago was barren but now boasted a coat of maroon leaves, at the carpet of colorful flowers, courtesy of the pavilion of weeds and wild grasses that I call a lawn, at the emerging plumage of the oaks behind my house, greening by the moment — I looked at all this and I thought, “By God I do love this mud.” There was an edge of defiance in it.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | Honoring Reverend Wright — Comments (12) »
Pensees on Patriotism 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We've been arguing over patriotism here at Redstate for years now. There is quite a bit of history. Search for diaries by TheSophist, Johne, absentee, and myself if you are interested in it.
But, to answer briefly, of course there are ideals more powerful than mud. I do not set out patriotism out as the highest virtue. Far from it.
I do insist that we get patriotism right, and I think the Creedalists have it wrong.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
there's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. I don't know if they're honest or not.
"A man does what he can and endures what he must."
Now, I do not flatter myself your equal in argument, logic, or persuasion, but perhaps you may answer some questions your post raises in my feeble understanding of these matters:
Perhaps it is because I am new to the discussion, or that in combination with my aforementioned weakness of mind, but I do not understand what form of patriotism you find in opposition to the "creedal" form. Is it just as you conclude, a loyalty to dirt?
And whether or not that is correct, I'm not sure the argument turns on the dichotomy. Might one affirm love of country, both in creed and in some other form, perhaps to its mud, or its funny meld of people, or in all of the above? Perhaps I am insufficiently grounded in the meaning of patriotism, because I find no conflict in these many forms.
But beyond that question, to assert that Senator Obama wrapped himself in the patriot's creed to escape the mess of his mentor's creed seems to miss the mark. While I agree that he made the attempt, he failed by his application of it. What Obama did was to tie the redemption of guilt to the adoption of his agenda. He said that if whites do not agree to fork over to him a sweaty wad of cash to spend on his pet programs, or at least vote for him, they are disharmonious racists and the blood of national division is on their hands -- and subtextually, may God damn them for it.
At the bottom is the same noxious liberalism: we do good when the government does what we ourselves ought to do. And that "good" is the only patriotism in which he's interested.
Or, so it appeared to me.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
I do not understand what form of patriotism you find in opposition to the "creedal" form
I do not recall whether I have laid this out in full detail. Whatever I have laid out is perforce incomplete; there is not perfect "full detail" about it.
I do certainly agree with you that one might "affirm love of country, both in creed and in some other form, [. . .] or in all of the above."
You will see, of course, why I am reluctant to attempt the expounding of the Omnibus Theory of Non-Theoretical Patriotism. It resists theory, and is often demeaned by it.
I do believe that patriotism is a many-faceted thing, of the head and gut, the reason and the passions, that it, like much else, reflects the dualistic nature of man.
But I guess I would say that patriotism, as I understand it, shades measurably, but not overwhelmingly, toward the Passions rather than the Reason. As Chesterton put it, the patriot is a lover, and the lover always a sort of artist. It is not rationality that moves him.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Or at least, I think I do.
Obama doesn't love his country the same as you or I do, unconditionally. When an American soldier is accused of an atrocity, or some grave identipolitik injustice is asserted, I don't think less of my country, but I would wager that Obama does in either case.
Rather, his patriotism, and I grant such, is like the man who loves a particular investment, as long as it shows signs of bringing a return. When it fails, it earns his scorn. He loves the country for what he sees as its potential, because of what it might become rather than because it exists.
Perhaps that's overstating it, but there's something there.
And I am unsure, without full exploration, whether I ascribe to the patriot's creed because I am a patriot or vice versa, but I know that both emotions and intellect agree in the matter.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Like Socrates said, I only wish I had the wherewithal to engage the topic so well.
I realize Barack is an example to express a larger point. However, I'm not convinced he can even be categorized with those who believe the essence of America is the ideals and ideas, those you refer to as creedal patriots. It's the patriot part I'm hanging up on.
It's taboo to question the patriotism of a Democrat, but Barack is testing the strength of that taboo.
I ask the question about Reverend Wright first: What patriotism? I don't see any at all. He holds no respect for the founders or their documents. He has no love for our institutions or philosophies. He expresses no affection for any specific mud other than that of Africa. What patriotism? What is it that Wright loves in America?
When you take out loving her people, her land, her institutions, her history and her philosophies ... what is left? Liberals think because he professes to love "democracy" and "freedom" that we have sufficient evidence of patriotism. That's nonsense! Their definition encompasses everything that isn't treasonous, and leaves room for that which is!
Wright is no patriot. So what about Obama? It may be that he believes that our American foundation is something to build on, even if only in the manner of the creedal patriot. That may be so. More and more, however, his actions are speaking louder than his much ballyhooed words.
His speeches tell of a love for America, but so far his deeds show love only for ideology. What's more, not to specifically American creeds, but creeds independent of her ... even contrary. Even the creedal patriot must find some flaw in this.
If your doctrine can be employed to inoculate against even rank anti-Americanism, might there not be some flaws in it meriting attention?
That is clearly the most important question. It cuts not just to the question of America the Ideal vs. America the Entity, but broadly to the core philosophy of the American left. Committed to freedom and liberty? It's possible.
Patriotic? ...
absentee
It seems to me that vis-a-vis America, Wright is not merely not a patriot; he is an anti-patriot. He teaches that American patriotism is wicked, because its object is wicked, through and through.
Now I do think that Obama has repudiated this position at least. But the question for him is the further one: is a man culpable for merely trucking with Wright and his sedition?
You and I probably both answer: Yes. We affirm that such works as these should be actively shunned.
But it still seems to me that Obama's method here is to press his advantage over the Creedal Patriots on the issue of progress toward ideals. And I further think that they are particularly vulnerable to this maneuver, and that if they cannot adapt their thinking, tighten up some loose ends, batten down some loose hatches, then Obama's maneuver may succeed. And, finally, that it should not.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I like that anti-patriot designation.
I think Obama can succeed as you've outlined. There is a distinct lack of refinement about the notion of patriotism today. On left-wing blogs, it means nothing more than a general support of somewhat western ideals, no single one of which is considered non-negotiably essential to being thought a patriotic person.
In short, the word has essentially no meaning whatsoever to that far left. The weaking of the meaning is spreading out from there, and Obama and his pastor are doing their share to weaken it further.
I can at least understand both refined points of view about patriotism, yours and the true creedal patriot. I agree the latter is highly susceptible to the Wright-Obama disease, but I can understand both when they are serious intellectual understandings.
... But Obama patriotism itself conceptually leaves much to be desired. Such an amorphous blob of an idea is hardly worth professing, and hardly compelling enough for hands over hearts for the songs of our republic.
absentee
But, am I roughly correct in thinking, from the context, that the "Creedal Patriot"is "stressing the idealism and nobility (as he defines it) of the American creed as the (only proper) ground of (i.e., basis for) American patriotism"? If so, then the True Creedal Patriot would be willing to cling to the ideal and abandon the country if it falls too short of this ideal, right?
Hmm, I've seen a few Constitutionalist arguments that come very close to this. (Thinking of the Ronulons.)
I'm closer to the old saw: My country! When right to keep right, when wrong to make right, but right or wrong, my country!
and a nation, and these tangible things claim our loyalty. And that is the primary basis of patriotism.
The mud, however, may be going just a little too far! :>)
But I bet the Rev. Wright loves his mud, all 10,000 square feet of it. And Obama slid into a little manse of his own, with a little help from his friends.
I can't really opine about their patriotism. But since self-love and self-aggrandizement do interfere with that emotion, I would say that there are some risk factors with these two gentlemen.
Actually, Wright may have a better sense of community than Obama (in his whacked-out way). Obama is too preoccupied with his place on the holy cards of the affluent, secular and white elites.
So despite some of our differences in world view, Paul, here I think we are very much in agreement!
I like this post a lot.
One thing I've learned in church is that when you love something, you praise it, be it God,your spouse, a piece of art, or a country. I like your point about our patriotic songs. We love America -- it's soil, it's people and it's culture -- and so we sing its praises.
I think liberals like to emphasize the creedal aspects of patriotism because it allows them to remake America into whatever image they choose. If America is entirely a set of propositions, then America can be refashioned in a multitude of ways without betraying its genius.
I think the creeds are important. But I also think that at the core of America is a dominant culture based around norms and folkways inherited from Britain. Obviously subsequent immigrant groups have modified this, but they have also been assimilated into it.
So a proper conservative definition of patriotism should include adherence not only to the creeds, but also to the cultural values which birthed those creeds. IMHO.
- J Wesley
I myself, through the debates on here at Redstate, have come to appreciate that our patriotism should be anchored in our traditions, history and founding values along with the creedal aspects.
The traditions, history and founding values provide a base that will not allow the purely creedal to be taken advantage of by those who wish to bend our culture to their will.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
Patriotism. or love of country, is somewhat like the true love of another person, be it wife, husband, child, friend - whatever. You love the the totality of the person, warts and all. The founding fathers saw that love of country meant love of the underlying principles framed in the shared core morality, place and experience - history - and that even though the government, culture, etc. would inevitibly grow "warts", the underlying concepts codified in the constitution would guide us. As long as our patriotism is guided by these principles, we are on track. I fear we have strayed too far. Liberal patriotism cherry picks items of the constitution and distorts them to justify a political philosophy that is essentially amoral and anti-constitutional. For example, I do not believe that the founding fathers meant the freedom of speech to mean the freedom of media corpoations to make huge profits contaminating our children with sick ideas.
The mud may be wonderful, but what about the people?
Things are so divisive today that you have one side hating America (mostly meaning authority - government, corporations) and the other side hating American institutions (the media, Hollywood, gay activists, pro-abortion people).
I left the Democrat party because I felt they were full of haters. Reagan said a man could be a good American and wrong on the issues. Today, a man who is wrong on the issues is likely to be called a traitor.
What is the honest middle ground?
I read this week about a law suit in Japan where some "patriots" sued for libel somebody who wrote honest, truthful and very ugly facts about the Japanese army encouraging civilians to commit suicide on Okinawa.
Is the writer of the book not a lover of the mud?
Is there an ideal (like truth) that is more powerful than the mud?
Do you have to love the people (even if they are wrong) as much as the mud?