I wasn't sure what was going to get me up tomorrow, because the paid work I do is uninspiring, and not many people read my blog, and the career seems without traction. But then I saw Noam Chomsky on Charlie Rose and I remembered the world needs people who know what a phoney that guy is, and why. I mean, he sounds so reasonable and soft-spoken as he delicately waves his hands around in tight circles referencing dark and unknown history documented only in the deepest catacombs of his private stash of data, until you realize that he just said he wants to replace the US political system and culture WITH BRAZIL'S.

So, I'll get up in the morning because Noam Chomsky is absolute proof that there's a war to be fought againt bad philosophy right here in the homeland.

Oh yeah, the reason I thought of Chomsky in relation to this debate is that he actually claims he LOVES the US. He's able to build an illustrious career here not only because of the intellectual freedoms and resources given him, but because of the absence of civil strife and the presence of social stability created by the Madisonian design, that he would render up like hamburger to those lovely slashing knives of the factions that he calls "lively politics."

Here's a fellow who has broken the social compact with his meta-tribe, and simply presumes the rest of the tribe are too dumb to notice. And, no doubt, the fig leaf he'd employ should anyone think to look would be his tender allegience to his fellow man. Well, their meat at least... properly shredded.

Armed Liberal,

I find Julian's argument compelling.

Armed Liberal,

BTW, you misinterpret Julian's argument; its not about "tribalism" per se, but the neccessary implications of tribalism - that the fault of 9/11 would lay squarely on the shoulders of Americans for allowing it to happen.

"There's a whole literature on obligation and citizenship; Waltzer and Schaar would be good places to start."

Arguments from authority are hardly arguments at all; which is essentially your argument - see these guys, they agree with me.

BTW, criticism of Sanchez concerning rude behavior in an argument coming from you is awfully funny; pot + kettle = black.

I'm glad I didn't go to college.. if I did maybe what this Julian guy said might strike me as something other than complete wankery.

cheers,
=darwin

JB -

Actually, I'll disagree with you on all three points:

"its not about "tribalism" per se, but the neccessary implications of tribalism" - How would you separate those? I find myself in the position of Shylock on this (I can't separate the pound of flesh from the blood it contains);

"Arguments from authority are hardly arguments at all; which is essentially your argument - see these guys, they agree with me." Well, it's a blog post, not a journal or an essay, both of which are longer forms of argument rather than the shorthand used here. I'll suggest that arguments from authority are a reasonable form of argument in such a compressed format; without them I wouldn't have time to write much and no one owuld have time to read it. But for a somewhat more extended view of my point (which, admittedly, I could have linked in the post, look here or here.)

As to rudeness, I made it quite clear that when people don't treat others with some measure of civility, I reserve the right to do the same. (I do commit not to do it pre-emptively, however...)

A.L.

BTW, you misinterpret Julian's argument; its not about "tribalism" per se, but the neccessary implications of tribalism - that the fault of 9/11 would lay squarely on the shoulders of Americans for allowing it to happen.

I can see how one might mount a contributory negligence sort of argument, and there might even be some degree of merit to it. But your eagerness to overstate the case just leaves me wondering how you're wired. It's as though you've assumed that humans breathe methane, and then mounted an argument about how critical it is that we remove the polluting oxygen from the atmosphere.

I think you could mount a reasonable argument, or case, that two tribes with conflicting interests might be well-advised to resolve their differences and form a composite tribe, or federation, with rules based on some kind of synthesis, and that this process might go on to eventually establish a meta-tribe with federalism and constitutionalism as basic values. But I can't bring myself to leap to the conclusion that the duty of the tribe members is, originally, to take up the cause of the opposing tribe for the sake of a universalist ideal , especially when that other tribe has an avowed intent to annihilate them. I'm just saying you're going to end up one confused puppy if you routinely take those kinds of leaps. Chris Hitchens has argued that we should begin to call our local anti-Americans "domestic masochists." He has a way of getting to the point, that guy.

Scott,

"But I can't bring myself to leap to the conclusion that the duty of the tribe members is, originally, to take up the cause of the opposing tribe for the sake of a universalist ideal , especially when that other tribe has an avowed intent to annihilate them."

And no one implied this leap; at least I didn't. You seem to think that since I don't buy into your "blut und boden" notions of nations that I must accept the complete opposite. I thought we got over such primitivism and slavery to the state after the disasters of the 20th century.

A.L.

Sanchez sounds angry that Rob’s post got a mention from you know who. Or maybe he got out of the wrong side of bed that morning, or maybe he always writes like that. In any case, his sentiments obscure his argument.

The points Sanchez chose to criticize mirror a couple of the problems I had when I read Rob’s post . In particular (1) Rob’s description of the citizen as “the author of the government's actions” and (2) the idea (elaborated in a comment) that “the duties of the government are the duties of each citizen”.

Stripped of its rage and rhetoric, Sanchez’ post contends that the first proposition is questionable and that the second depends on the fallacy of composition.

I agree that these criticisms don’t address the general point Rob was making about the obligations of the citizen. But Sanchez does raise reasonable questions about a couple of the key ideas Rob introduced in developing his argument.

I think the distinction you make, between philosophy and political theory, is apt. What confused me, when I first read Rob’s post, was that in setting out to make the case that a citizen’s duties are “morally mandatory”, I thought he was talking moral philosophy and not political theory.

It was only when I received “non-philosophical” answers to my questions in the comments that I realized where Rob was coming from.

A fine and thought-provoking post, fully deserving of the attention it's received; Rob got me thinking (and commenting!) about things I haven’t thought much about for twenty years or more.

George Junior,

Rage? I didn't get the impression that Monsieur Sanchez was in a rage; he seemed to more chagrined than anything. In fact, the only way you could come to that conclusion would be if were deliberately misreading his post. Rob's post reads exactly like the "blut and boden" non-sense common amongst nations in the first-half of the twentieth century.

Chagrin/Rage? Can we agree on vexated?

I may be have mischaracterized the tone of Sanchez's post but I didn't deliberately misread it.

Incidentally, Rob's use of the phrase "Tribal Patriotism" also reminded me of the conflicts of 20th century Europe. I prefer A.L.'s term "Communitarian Patriotism", a patriotism informed by tradition, but founded on shared values and common interests not blood ties.

George Junior,

Your phrase reminds me of Soviet "patriotism."

My question of course is how do you deal with "citizens" who are not "patriots?" Of course the question of what is "patriotic" also comes to mind? Such notions of what one's duties are to ones fellow citizens, and thus really to the state, are rife with danger and frightening.

“Soviet ‘patriotism’”, really?

When I wrote the comment, I was thinking about the shared values of the Constitution, the American tradition of service to those ideals and the common interest we have in our nation’s security and prosperity.

Those notions don’t seem dangerous or frightening to me, though I understand some people reject them.

JB,

I was trying to stay out of this, but I can't now.

What I wrote sounds NOTHING like "blood and soil" patriotism. The entire point of my post was to build a case for patriotism which was NOT based on blood or soil.

Instead, I chose to base it on the obligations which citizens of a consesual polity owe to one another. America is far too heterogeneous a country for "blood" to mean much; and no American can claim "soil" with a straight face, given the (often shameful) history of expansionist America.

Lots of people misunderstood my point re: responsiblity and blame; that's my fault for being unclear. You are the only one who came up with this bizarre interpretation which makes me think you didn't read very carefully.

My question of course is how do you deal with "citizens" who are not "patriots?"

You shame them. If they don't meet my definition of patriotism, which can be summed up as "try to keep your fellow citizens from being killed," they are contemptible.

Of course the question of what is "patriotic" also comes to mind?

That's EXACTLY the question I was trying to answer. If you disagree with my answer, fine. Say so. Again, I wonder what essay of mine you were reading that you missed the point completely?

Such notions of what one's duties are to ones fellow citizens, and thus really to the state, are rife with danger and frightening.

Far more frightening is the prospect of people who are afraid to even ask the question, much less attempt an answer.