A few nice thoughts in there, but...From the anti-gay constitutional amendment people, we've learned that we love the sinner, not the sin.

It seems highly appropriate to apply that to America itself.

We can love a child, but a child is not a perfect being.

Didn't the Bible have something to say about pride? Why is pride so often associated with patriotism?

Personally, I think pride should be taken, at most, in something you've done or earned. Taking pride is something you simply are is, well, kind of pompous. Schuler said:

"If you look down on or despise your fellow Americans (or anyone else for that matter) you may have a lot of great and wonderful qualities but you are not pro-American."

Taking pride in something you are is looking down on other people, who aren't.

And therein is expressed the heart of the liberal multiculturalists' dilemma - to believe it is therefore to be UNABLE to take pride in one's country. Not to mention entirely unable to separate one's country and one's political program.

Couple that with the interesting note that the part Ross objects to is the part about "look[ing] down on or despis[ing] your fellow Americans," and the intrinsic alienation and inability to connect with the very people one purports to want to help becomes crystal clear. It has reached the point where even a number of leftists are alarmed (vid: Walzer's Can There Be a Decent Left article) - rightly so, because as Walzer points out this kind of attitude makes realization of the leftist political program very difficult.

We can love a child, Ross, but what would you think of a parent who seems able to do nothing but find fault, seemed to find it very, very difficult to ever say anything good, openly belittled the child constantly, made invidious comparisons to others while overlooking those others' faults, saw pride in oneself as something that is bad for their child to have (take pride only in what you do... ooh, I can see the psychiatrist bills already), and in general disparaged the child for not being the perfect exemplar of said parent's expectations?

You'd say such a parent was either borderline or outright abusive. They might love their child, or at least say they do, but you'd wonder about both the quality and the reality of that love. And you'd be right to wonder. That's not healthy behaviour.

But it does describe a large swathe of today's Left in America - and a smaller but real section of the Right.

Seems to me that we're in a glass half-full, half-empty sort of argument.

I'd say that just about everybody (right and left) pretty much likes 99% of the aggregate culture that is America. The actions of the current government represent a very tiny part of what America really is; administrations are transient. In four or eight years Bush will be gone, and somebody new will be running things.

Name a hundred things about America and you'll probably find that a lefty likes or loves'em. Pick a hundred right-wing positions or policies, and you might get a different result. It's all in what you choose to compare; what you decide constitutes a litmus test.

This country is pretty evenly split, fifty-fifty left and right. OK, maybe it's forty five, forty five, with weavers in the middle. What do you mean by "large swathe" in percentage terms? Most lefties? Some of 'em?

Exactly how many people in this country do you think "abuse" it, or are borderline citizens?

You may or may not remember that I'm Canadian, living in the US this past ten years.

Outraged comments along the lines of "how dare you question my patriotism" have bugged me for a while. (Mostly because they are usually an attempted diversion from the topic at hand, and an attempt to put the other party on the defensive.)

The larger problem is that this tactic asserts that one's patriotism is not a debatable point--it cannot validly be questioned; it is not falsifiable. At that point, patriotism as a concept loses all meaning.

If patriotism is to remain a meaningful and relevant concept, it has to be definable in a non-trivial way. There must be a metric that describes a given X as patriotic, and a given Y as not patriotic. If someone acts in a generally Y sort of way, then by definition they are not particularly patriotic, and a simple expression of outrage at being called on their behavior should not be proof against an accurate description.

If by pro-American we mean pro-liberty, justice, etc. then the notion of "America" loses geographical significance. Such notions as "living in America," American citizenship, etc. become nonsensical.

IMHO the terms pro-American and anti-American are loaded in such a way as to imply that the actions of the almighty US state by definition advance the cause of "American Values." It's a propaganda tool designed to silence dissent, and little else.

If we really care about liberty, humanity, and discovery, we can just use those terms, we don't need ideas like patriotism and nationalism. If the local state, whatever it may be, supports those values, we can just say so.

Similarly, if someone supports murder, plunder, etc., the notion that they might be "anti-American" doesn't add anything. Furthermore, when people attempt to justify murder and plunder and plunder as being "pro-American", things get ugly fast.

TJ

The US state, especially in comparison with others around the world, is hardly almighty. And no one I'm aware of on either the right or the left maintains that every action of the state supports "American Values." The question is whether any particular policy of the state supports American Values. Certainly, you may agree or disagree that the war in Iraq supports such values, but to dismiss those values or claim those values inevitably lead to "murder and plunder" (and many on the left make such claims; I know firsthand from my experience in academia) is anti-American. To claim that the Iraq war in particular is murder and plunder is not necessarily anti-American--silly in my view, but not anti-American. To claim that all wars in which America engages are ipso facto plunder and murder because America's is by nature a murderous and plundering culture, society, whatever, is anti-American. You have a point that someone who is anti-American by that definition may have something to contribute to the debate on, say, the Iraq war. But arguments put forth by someone whose views are knee-jerk anti-American, like Michael Moore for instance, warrant closer scrutiny than honest disagreement between those who value America and what it stands for. And there is, in my view, a moral failing in someone who wishes harm on America's soldiers because he opposes America's policy (and many on the left fit this description as well).

Joe:

First, thanks for the link. I sincerely appreciate it. Second, the unstated context of my post is that there really is a spectrum of opinion ranging from anti-American through indifference to pro-American. In my post I chose to concentrate on the positive, pro-American side since I saw plenty of discussion of the negative side of things.

You've introduced another distinction: un-American. For example, I, for one, do not think dissent is un-American, in fact, it is very American. On the other hand I do hold a position that I suspect will be very unpopular: I believe that almost all protest is, in fact, un-American. We are a representative liberal democracy. The appropriate channel for expressing your displeasure is through your elected representatives. If you don't get your way you can attempt to advertise, persuade, or convert but it is wrong to disrupt. That is illiberal and un-American. It's thuggery.

The legitimate exception to this was the civil rights movement of the 1960's. In this case the electoral system itself had been perverted and there just was no way for the republic to function properly.

Railing is also wrong since it's a fundamental violation of justice. It is not legitimate dissent.

Ok, dumb Canadian questions here.... what is "railing"? Our history books talk about it in America, and it seemed to involve things like tar and feathers and being run out of town on one. I trust this is no longer true ;-)

(N.B. Canada was founded by a combination of British loyalist refugees in "Upper Canada" and the Maritimes, and the French population in "Lower Canada").

I believe that almost all protest is, in fact, un-American.

The right to peacefully assemble, ya know. Maybe you'd like to remind your government officials how you are going to vote before the next election. Protesting is free. Advertising is not.

Joe:

Railing or reviling is scolding or taunting with harsh and abusive language which does not allow any decency or humanity in the object. It's frequently circular. Example:

Party A: "XXX is evil!"

Party B: "Why is XXX evil?"

Party A: "XXX does YYY and YYY is evil."

Party B: "Why is YYY evil?"

Party A: "Because XXX does it!"

Re: lower Canada

Indeed. One of my great-great-great-grandfathers was from Canada du Sud. We're getting back there now.

Lurker:

this is a starnage POV

I'm talking about protest with the intent to disrupt or interfere with peoples' regular activities. Carrying a sign is okay. Blocking somebody's way is not. Choking the streets is not. Engaging someone in conversation is okay. Shouting them down with a bullhorn is not.

The right to peacefully assemble, ya know

I'm not saying it should be illegal. I'm saying it's wrong.

Dave,

I'd think the word "peacefully" would answer the objections you raise. I generally agree with you as to the non-peaceful assembly that is frequently practised by self-described "pacifists" on the Left.

Did you have any thoughts as to the issue I brought up near the top of the thread, re: questioning patriotism?

Sam Barnes:

Did you have any thoughts as to the issue I brought up near the top of the thread, re: questioning patriotism?

Part of my intention in the post I wrote was to come at this question from a slightly different perspective. Rather than asking "How do you tell if XXX is patriotic?", I'm asking the question "How do you tell if you're patriotic?"

This is, in effect, a broadside against the "How dare you judge my patriotism?" trope.

BTW I'd go a little farther: in a liberal representative democracy passive resistance—arguably peaceable assembly—is immoral since it arrogates to yourself what rightfully belongs to the elected representatives. Not illegal. But it is immoral.

We should also remember the extent to which "disruptive" protests are the result of State infiltration, like with COINTELPRO.

Dave:
"...what rightfully belongs to the elected representatives." What of the argument that all power is derived from the people and is exercised at the people's discretion? If one believes that our country is wrong in what it is doing - is one not bound by the very fundamental concepts of the Constitution to stand up and make your voice heard? Or in the alternative, to make sure that others are able to raise thier voices in objection? We are of course assuming this is done without violence, threats, etc.

I do believe one's patriotism can be questioned. The KKK always claimed to be "real" Americans - as did many other hyper-patriotic groups. Would any but another group member not question their patriotism?

Ah TJ...another urban legend survives. The FBI's agent provocateurs have been vastly exagerrated. The street violence of that time hardly needed any encouragment. See Weather Underground, SDS, Black Panther Party, etc. You may also wish to read up on Days of Rage, Colombia U takeover, bombing of UW-Madison Math Center, numerous other bombings shootings and takeovers. Lots of wannabe revolutionaries were running around practicing armed struggle against the system.

It is just the usual hysteria in the run up to a possible change in the alpha male.

The losers will get increasily hysterical.

It all dies down for a year or two and then starts up for the next election cycle.

A lot of the viciousness is a cover up for errors in judgement by Bush's opposition. Of course the viciousness is just another addition to the error side of the balance sheet.

Bush in my opinion is not a very appealing candidate. The Democrats have managed to field a team with less appeal. They truly have miracle workers in that party.

In the more primitive societies loss of the alpha male struggle often meant death or slavery. The current hysteria is just a vestige.

So is war.

Fortunately or unfortunately we are done with neither for the time being.

>>The US state, especially in comparison with others around the world, is hardly almighty.

Do you have the guts to disobey it? I certainly don't. Try not paying your taxes or defying the myriad regulations. See what happens.

On a larger scale, even SDB has pointed out that the USG can fight ten major wars at a time -- its just that eight of them will be nuclear. Wretchard has pointed out that if the Al-Q situation gets much worse, the USG will inevitably unleash the machinery of genocide. That's old-testament biblical, real wrath-of-god type stuff.

"Almighty" doesn't seem too extreme to me.

The psychosis of feeble leftist and the desire of control.

Leftist, living only in the mind’s ego must confirm one's own meaning through the judgments and reasoning of others. Without conformation from others, their feeble minds feel a need of 'want' and 'emptiness,' because the ego only can be validated by others. To control this sad state of existence, the leftist must attempt to control others. So they try as hard as they can to convince you to use less gas, recycle cans, oppose confrontation, they say things like, ‘we can give humanity all it needs if you would only listen and let us control,’ you know the mantra. When people don't listen, two things happen, 1) depression, self loathing, 2.) hate toward those who one can't control. This is the state of existence of all socialists, this is the psychosis behind the fascist socialist, Hitler. This is the psychosis of all tyrants who want to centralize the powers of man upon a single linage of control.
The leftist is a simple loathsome creature indeed. From an Anthropological perspective, I would deduce the leftist not be accepted into genome of the Great ape , but known as the putrid remains of evolution gone amuck. All tyrant loving leftist elitists, should be recognized and spoken down, for their puny philosophy is the religion of heathens.

Why not tell Americans the Federal government is now in the property business, and they want yours!!

The term "anti-American" and "un-American" are all used by people that suffer from the same deficiency: they have little or no knowledge of America's history. In looking into America's actual history of how it's acted both towards its own people and in the foreign policy sphere it becomes painfully apparent America is not at all what it is so loudly trumpeted to be, and quickly nullifies the "intended" meaning of un-American and anti-American as a pejorative. To someone who realizes what America really is and always was, the term "anti-American" means "pro-freedom" as anyone who both truly understands freedom and loves it cannot help but loathe America.