Furthermore, they continued, those ideas are deemed to have a universal and all-encompassing quality; therefore, the defense of the United States is not merely the protection of a particular society with a particular regime and a particular culture and history, inhabiting a particular piece of real estate, whose chief virtue is the fact that it is "ours. Small wonder, then, that the United States has, for so much of its history, been so welcoming to immigrants. For one is, in this creedal view, made an American not so much by birth as by a process of agreeing to and consciously appropriating the ideas that make America what it is.
Converts are always welcome. In fact, in this view of America, we are a nation of converts. The use of the term "homeland" seemed to the critics to be a betrayal of precisely this core meaning: the openness at the heart of the American experiment. One finds evidence for this view from the very beginning of the history of the United States. For example, in Federalist No. The particular mission of America is part and parcel of a universal quest of humanity.
There can be no doubt that, on some level, this view is right in stressing that this strong sense of American universalism is a key element in the makeup of American national self-consciousness. But it is far from being the only element. There is in the United States, and in all reasonably cohesive nations, an entirely different and completely indispensable set of considerations also in play. These are not best understood as matters of blood and soil.
As Renan explained,. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future. Renan strongly opposed the idea that nations should be understood as entities united by racial, linguistic, geographical, religious, or material factors. None of those factors were sufficient to account for the emergence of this "spiritual principle.
The ballast of the past is similarly indispensable to the sense of American national identity, and it is something quite distinct from the dualism of descent and consent. It forms a strain in our patriotism that is in some respects far less articulate than the universalistic strain, precisely because it conflicts with American assertions of universalism; its intellectual basis is less well-defined. But it is every bit as powerful, if not more so.
And it is a very particular force. Yet, paradoxically, the experience of this particularistic strain is something that we share with the peoples of nearly all other nations. It is universal precisely because it is not universalistic, just as the love of one's own parents or one's family or one's spouse is universal precisely in its particularity. As mentioned above, this aspect of American patriotism is not always well-articulated, particularly in academic settings, where it faces incomprehension and a deeply rooted disdain.
One will have better luck searching in popular culture, in songs and fictions where one can find the more primal aspects of American patriotism expressed with great directness and vividness. Consider the words of the patriotic songs that have become part of the American canon, songs in which the sense of "home" and particularity are ever-present. That the composer of this song, one of the formative geniuses of American popular music, was born in tsarist Russia with the name Israel Baline is, of course, both utterly amazing and entirely appropriate.
Even immigrants lacking a shared descent, language, culture, or religion could find a way to participate in the sense of America as a home, as a place where they could be "born again. This astonishing feature of American life illustrates a quality about the United States that sets it apart from every other nation in the world. It also serves to illustrate the immense distance between the actual form taken by American particularism and the blood-and-soil nationalisms to which it is so often inaccurately and ungenerously compared.
There is a vital and living tension in the makeup of American patriotism, a tension between its universalizing ideals, with their rationalist and contractual tendencies, and its particularizing sentiments, with their emphasis upon memory, history, tradition, culture, and the land. I do not wear my patriotism on my shoulder wrapped in a flag, nor do I run around with a gun although I own several , but I try to practice patriotism honestly, knowledgeably and quietly every day.
I think Jon Stewart is wrong. I think conservatives do own patriotism, at least in its contemporary manifestation. Patriotism means standing up for views contrary to my own, and for people unlike myself, because diversity is the greatest American characteristic.
From the earliest days of the republic, we have been a nation as varied politically as we are geographically. Losing sight of that richness and complexity threatens to undermine the very essence of our national character. Patriotism means never letting go of the multiculturalism that informed the birth of this great country, and showing up to dutifully stand in the face of tyranny in any form.
To me, patriotism means supporting the values set forth in the constitution, helping to ensure that everybody — regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion — has the opportunity to enjoy the democratic freedoms of our nation. Understanding that equality means everybody, not just a chosen few. I live out my patriotism by helping people wherever and however I am able. I have neighbors who are refugees from Syria and I try to help them with everything — from dealing with everyday issues such as the electric company to agencies in regards to their residency.
I write a blog and also publish in an online publication, speaking out against social injustices around the world. I share what I have with those in need. I try to give more than I take. I try to always be kind and have a smile for everyone. I am not patriotic. I am not excited that I am an American. I live here; it is the hand I was dealt. The rhetoric from the patriots is simply gross, ugly, xenophobic isolationism. They really do sound like fascists, and in fact display a lot of characteristics of earlier fascist states.
This indignant belief that we are right because we are American and our way is best is inflammatory and destructive. This is dangerous, tone-deaf, and ethnocentric all negative characteristics encompassed by Donald Trump. She came as the head of kind of a Quaker delegation.
And Lincoln very much appreciated the visit. Not because she was coming to hector him about something, but they wanted to pray with him. And the Quakers were in a difficult dilemma because they were antislavery. They favored emancipation and anti-slavery and yet at the same time, we know they are anti war. And Lincoln appreciated that dilemma.
How, if they fall on one side of the equation, they cannot support the war effort. If they fall on the other side of the equation, they seem to be in violation of their religious beliefs. That was going to be left obviously to each person, each member of the Quaker faith, to have to work out for themselves.
So that was a very powerful example, a real world example, of that kind of very, very serious conflict of duties between patriotism and, in this case, religious fidelity. There are others too. I consider some examples from literature, some from film. Things are real. I also deal with the question of patriotism and protest.
We hear this almost as a cliche. Like so many things in politics, it depends on the context. So I try to sort that out a little bit as well.
But my point being in general, patriotism does not automatically just trump every other loyalty and obligation that we have. It is, as I say, contested. It remains and always will remain a contested virtue. Steven Smith, thank you so much for your time. The Bible teaches first that God, and not the nations, is sovereign over national borders, and yet, nations have a real purpose.
Steven Smith : Thank you, Richard. Richard Reinsch : Steven, thinking about the book, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes , why do we need patriotism?
Steven Smith : Patriotism has always been contested. Steven Smith : I agree. Steven Smith : Sure. Richard Reinsch : You said loyalty. Steven Smith : You probably said it, at least as well, better than I would. Richard Reinsch : Thinking here, angry libertarianism. Richard Reinsch : I agree wholeheartedly there. Immigrants can be a source of new blood- Richard Reinsch : Yeah, new businesses. Steven Smith : New ways. Steven Smith : Wonderful question.
Oct 10, The Nation and the Bible. James R. Aug 10, Immigration, Open Borders, and Libertarianism. Mike Rappaport. Nov 5, Patrick Lynch. James Bond, Christian Knight. Graham McAleer. Book Review. Rachel Lu. A New Era of Stagflation? David P. Theodore Dalrymple. Nor is it an accident that during periods of stress—security threats and demographic change, for example—the latent tension between these strands often reemerges.
A reasonable patriotism gives particularity its due without allowing the passions of particularism to drown out the voice of broader civic principles. There is a difference between cosmopolitanism and universalism. We speak of some principles as universal, meaning that they apply everywhere.
But the enjoyment of these principles requires institutions of enforcement, most often situated within particular political communities. In this vein, the U. Declaration of Independence attributes certain rights to all human beings but adds immediately that securing these rights requires the establishment of government s.
Note the plural: not only will there be a multiplicity of governments, but they may assume a variety of forms, all legitimate as long as they defend rights and rest on the consent of the governed. As you can see, there is no contradiction, at least at the level of principle, between universal principles of right and patriotic attachment to particular communities.
Universality denotes the range in which our principles apply; it has nothing to do with the scope of our primary allegiance. By contrast, there is a contradiction between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. You cannot be simultaneously a citizen of the world and of a particular country, at least in the sense that we must often choose between giving pride of place to humanity as a whole as opposed to some subset of humanity.
There is a contradiction between patriotism and cosmopolitanism. But if we dig a bit deeper, the matter becomes more complicated. For example, we can observe many kinds of cosmopolitan groups—scientists and mathematicians, for example, whose quest for truth depends on principles of evidence and reason that take no account of political boundaries.
There is a form of cosmopolitanism, finally, that may be observed among some government officials—the belief that it is their duty to maximize human wellbeing, regardless of the nationality of those who stand to benefit. As subsequent events showed, there is a tension between global utilitarianism and the expectation that leaders will give priority to the interests of their own citizens.
Indeed, it is hard to imagine a political community in which the belief in the legitimacy of collective self-preference does not hold sway—which is not to say that most citizens attach a weight of zero to the interests of human beings beyond the borders of their community, or that they should do so. Self-preference is one thing, moral obtuseness another.
There is a distinction, on which I need not dwell at length, between liberal and populist democracy. Unelected bureaucrats and experts, it is alleged, are making decisions over the head and against the will of the people. The referendum is the purest expression of this conception of democracy. Liberal democracy, by contrast, distinguishes between decisions that the popular majorities should make, either directly or through their elected representatives, and issues involving rights, which should not be subject to majority will.
The defense of fundamental rights and liberties is not evidence of a democracy deficit no matter how intensely popular majorities may resent it. Along with independent civil society, institutions such as constitutional courts give life to democracy, so understood. It is this conception of democracy on which I rely in the remainder of my remarks. Keller has put his finger on a dangerous tendency, one that I suspect most of us can feel within ourselves.
Sometimes monsters masquerade as patriots and manipulate patriotic sentiments to serve their own ends. Just as patriots can go astray, they can also acknowledge their mistakes and do their best to make reparations for them. No one ever accused Ronald Reagan of being deficient in patriotism, but he was the president who formally apologized to Japanese-Americans on behalf of the country for their unjust internment during World War II.
But just as patriots can go astray, they can also acknowledge their mistakes and do their best to make reparations for them. Or, if you prefer, we can see patriotism as a sentiment that needs principled regulation. Patriotism does not mean blind fidelity, no matter what. In sum: I can believe that my country has made serious mistakes that must be acknowledged and corrected without ceasing to be a patriot. I can believe that other objects of regard my conscience, or God on occasion outrank my country without ceasing to be a patriot.
0コメント