Nationalism vs. Style Guide

Jonah Goldberg took the bait and responded with a bit more on nationalism. I want to say something substantive on the patriotism/nationalism distinction tomorrow. For now, though, let me just observe that if the best the right can come up with in terms of "why do liberals hate America fodder" is old tongue-in-cheek blogposts of mine about historical counterfactuals then I find that a bit sad. Why not just use the Steyn method and use some pseudo-facts?

This week, though, I'm in the midst of my own nationalism moment as I try to bring my manuscript in according with Wiley-approved style. Mostly this involves fixing my charming typos, spelling errors, grammatical screw-ups, or habit of saying "key" seven times on every page. But. Every so often I'll write something like "four American troops were killed" or "American policy requires" or similar. And they, out of what I guess is deference to the delicate sensitivities of our friends south of the border, want that to be all "U.S. troops" and so forth. On this point, at least, I'd happily embrace linguistic unilateralism.

Photo by Flickr user Daveynin used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Nationalism and patriotism are two varieties of the same insanity, which in essence boils down to the assumption that we owe something to someone for our rights. Not so. That's why we call them rights. We own no one, and no state, anything for them. A state in which we have our rights is no more than the way it should be, and deserves no special thanks; one where we do not have our rights is illegitimate and can survive purely by force or fraud (such as "patriotism").

We do need organizations and structures to protect, enforce and elaborate rights. These structures are called states. A democratic state is entitled to the obedience and support of those it rules, at least to its lawful enactments. Such obedience and support is strictly in the citizens' self-interest, since no one person can protect all of his or her rights alone. This support may in extreme cases endanger the life of the individual citizen, but provided it is demanded to ensure the survival of the system that protects that citizen and his or her associates, and provided the burdens are fairly distributed across society, the demand is legitimate.

But a state is not entitled to worship or reverence. Such emotions get in the way of the pragmatic considerations that should always be to the forefront when citizens reflect on how to make their state and its structures fairer and more efficient. A state is no more than a structure to produce the greatest good for the greatest number in an enduring and equitable fashion.

In short, if someone is promoting something with patriotism that can't be sold on pragmatic grounds, then that something is probably a scam, and more likely than not is making a profit for the promoter. Patriotism/nationalism is strictly for suckers.

Posted by sunsin | October 3, 2007 2:27 PM

Goldberg's talk of "nationalism" is hilarious.
After six years of rule by Jonah Goldberg's Republican pals, the one thing New England and the South agree upon is that they want to secede from the Union. Which tells you how much of a "uniter" George W is.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement

An excerpt:

"Secessionists meeting in Tennessee By BILL POOVEY, Associated Press Writer
Wed Oct 3, 3:15 AM ET

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.

Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.

That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.

"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South.

Separated by hundreds of miles and divergent political philosophies, the Middlebury Institute and the League of the South are hosting a two-day Secessionist Convention starting Wednesday in Chattanooga.

They expect to attract supporters from California, Alaska and Hawaii, inviting anyone who wants to dissolve the Union so states can save themselves from an overbearing federal government...."
-----------
Ha ha ha ha. I wonder who's going to be stuck with that $10 TRILLION bar tab run up by "fiscal conservatives" Ronald Reagan, George H Bush, and George W Bush???

I do know that it sure as shit ain't going to be Pennsylvania.

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM

I may be dense but to me he seems to be saying that historically progressivism has been at odds with nationalism. Probably that's very true, if the meaning that Jonah Lucianne ascribes to the word 'nationalism' is the same as in Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei .

Posted by gregor | October 3, 2007 2:38 PM

Don't be snippy about your copyeditor. He or she is making you sound smarter. Just remember what Stephen King said; "To write is human, to edit, divine."

Also, be nice to the compositor.

Posted by merciless | October 3, 2007 2:40 PM

And don't forget to bracket your modifiers properly. For example, "'why do liberals hate America' fodder".

(Bless me, fodder, for I have sinned.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 3, 2007 2:43 PM

As a liberal chickenhawk my nation is the human nation, I just happen to reside in the US. So I'd rather watch the BBC news, because it has more, better foreign coverage.

Goldberg probably considers BBC news only slightly better than al Jazeera.

Posted by Peter K. | October 3, 2007 2:57 PM

"And they, out of what I guess is deference to the delicate sensitivities of our friends south of the border, want that to be all "U.S. troops" and so forth. On this point, at least, I'd happily embrace linguistic unilateralism."

Given that: 1) America is the name of the landmass that runs from southern Argentina to northern Canada, divided into N and S, connected by a lovely isthmus; and 2) One country has a history of claiming that the whole damn thing is theirs to control (manifest destiny); and 3) that same country has continued to follow through on that claim by causing a lot of suffering -- blessing these smaller countries with dictators, overthrowing democratically elected governments, and occasionally invading outright; then one can see how one's sensitivities don't have to be all that delicate to resent a term that continues the tradition of claiming overlordship over the whole hemisphere.

Posted by nolaboyd | October 3, 2007 3:08 PM

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that the Bible tells us to worship God, not our nation.

Posted by FS | October 3, 2007 3:11 PM

And they, out of what I guess is deference to the delicate sensitivities of our friends south of the border,

You have friends north of the border, too, who feel that way...as Canada is also part of the continent of North America. But we're kinda used to being ignored.

Posted by McKingford | October 3, 2007 3:25 PM

I'm not sure I buy that over-boiled reading of the term 'Americans,' nolaboyd.

Isn't it possible that the name of our country simply provides no other attractive descriptive adjective (aside from the initials, which can be awkward in some contexts)? Every other country on the American continents has an associated adjective that's more useful and descriptive for the purpose (Canadian, Argentinean, Ecuadorean) . . . so they aren't particularly injured by the usage, it seems.

I mean, we call people from the United Arab Emirates, 'Emiratis.' Are we claiming their overlordship over the whole form of government?

Can't we call EU policies 'European' and still recognize that the organization does not comprehend the entire continent of Europe?

Posted by southpaw | October 3, 2007 3:34 PM

"Nationalism and patriotism are two varieties of the same insanity, which in essence boils down to the assumption that we owe something to someone for our rights."

I'm not so sure that it has to do so much with rights than a form of attachment. North Korea have a lot of nationalism but no real rights, as do the people of Burma. In both cases, the deprived people have no real rights protected by law and a lot of nationalism, but one of the populaces is much more brainwashed by the government.

Posted by Reality Man | October 3, 2007 3:34 PM

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I believe that the Bible tells us to worship God, not our nation.

Didn't you know, God is an American! Or at least He made the America the Shining City on the Hill, according to some.

Posted by Peter K. | October 3, 2007 3:34 PM

Maybe I'm giving him too much credit, but Goldberg's Corner posts confirms my suspicion that his column is an advance strike in what we will be a coordinated conservative initiative to discredit the "America is an idea" type of liberal nationalism. The movement conservatives know that when a liberal (particularly an inspiring liberal like Obama or Edwards) appeal to the better angels of our natures and demand that America live up to ideals and cast off the yoke of fear with which the current administration has been driving the country, people will respond.

I think the conservatives are crazy because in a presidential election the side with inspriing rhetoric about American exceptionalism will beat the side saying we're really just like other countries 10 times out of 10. But what else can they do? At this point, the only things left in the conservative bag of tricks are fear, xenophobia and tax cuts.

Posted by Led | October 3, 2007 3:45 PM

"This country is an idea, and one that’s
lit the world for two centuries . . ." -Sam Seaborn, West Wing

The proposition that America is an idea worthy of loyalty and respect is not exclusively held by liberals. And the realization that America's soil holds the bodies of men and women who died for that idea, so that we can enjoy the rights sunsin correctly identifies as our own, does not arouse the patriotism of conservatives exclusively.

Whatever its faults, the United States of America--defined by its ideals--is an experiment that's worth preserving and defending. I'm not sure why its necessary that our two political tribes should disagree about that proposition.

Posted by southpaw | October 3, 2007 4:12 PM

A nitpick: you have two links about Mark Steyn, which would seem to imply that you are linking to two different examples of Steyn's use of pseudo-facts. But actually, both links lead to the same example. Either link to two examples, or just choose one post to link to.

Posted by style editor, blog division | October 3, 2007 4:16 PM

I was unable to access the Doughboy's post--must be lacking the secret decoder ring.

Anyway, it's just as well, because I am almost physically sick of being preached to by insincere, manipulative, chickenshit rightwing nuts about how I should feel about my country and just about every other goddamn thing.

Jeez, can't they just STFU?

Posted by Baldrick | October 3, 2007 4:19 PM

Every so often I'll write something like "four American troops were killed" or "American policy requires" or similar. And they, out of what I guess is deference to the delicate sensitivities of our friends south of the border, want that to be all "U.S. troops" and so forth. On this point, at least, I'd happily embrace linguistic unilateralism.

Silly me. I thought you were going to correct yourself by acknowledging that "troop" is only properly used to refer to large groups, with varying degrees of specificity depending on what we're talking about, but never individuals. "Four American troops were killed" presumably means that four full, separate groups of soldiers were killed.

Posted by Cyrus | October 3, 2007 4:26 PM

"Troop" and "troops" suck ass as terms. Their only utility is so you don't have to say 'soldiers, marines, airmen blah blah."

In your example it wouldn't hurt you to say "four U.S. Marines were killed."

Posted by witless chum | October 3, 2007 5:10 PM

Okay, I'm as sensitive to the feelings of our friends both south of the border and those to the north as my fellow progressives would want me to be. Especially on the issue of folks in the US referring to themselves as "Americans" when the term should include everyone from Hudson Bay to Terra del Fuego.

But we were the first to claim the moniker and are thus entitled to it. In 1690 Cotton Mather became the first to identify Europeans living in the Atlantic coast colonies of North America as something other than "British." He called them (and himself) "Americans." He didn't invent the usage but he was the first to use it in print.

People everywhere else in the western hemisphere used other words to describe themselves and the countries they lived in. And they continue to do so today.

Yes, every now and then you hear someone argue that we in the US have our nerve usurping the name of two continents. You also have various style mavens, desiring to placate others or to simply be more precise in geographical or political terms, insist on using "US" in every single instance when referencing the nation composed of 50 states and not the land mass comprising two continents.

But 300 years of accepted usage is a lot to correct in style manuals. Despite my slavish devotion to the MLA and the Chicago Manual of style, I'm with you. I'm American.

Or, more in keeping with our delicious homegrown chauvanism, I'm an American, damn it!

Posted by Rob_in_Hawaii | October 3, 2007 5:10 PM

"And the realization that America's soil holds the bodies of men and women who died for that ideas . . .

Well, so does France, if it comes down to that, but what I meant to say was re:

"I want to say something substantive on the patriotism/nationalism distinction tomorrow.

There've been some rather interesting posts about this over the last year or so: -

Chris at Mixing Memory discussed some poli-psych research about Two Types of Patriotism:
". . . These two studies provide initial evidence that the two constructs, blind and constructive patriotism, capture two distinct types of patriotism. The associations of the two types of patriotism also help to explain why the "America hater" label has become so popular among some groups on the right. Blind patriotism, which is positively associated with conservativism and Republican political identification, is opposed to criticism of the country. It is also not surprising that blind patriotism has become more visible after the attacks of September 11, 2001 ( . . . " The distinction between the two types of patriotism also helps to explain different attitudes towards immigration, as blind patriots are more worried about "cultural contimination" form foriegners, which is reflected in much of the conservative rhetoric on the recently revived issue of undocumented immigrants. Finally, the distinction also helps to explain differing attitudes towards symbolic issues like flag burning. Since blind patriots are more focused on symbolic behaviors than constructive patriots, it's not surprising that many see flag burning as an important political issue . . ."

Maha of Mahablog on Patriotism v. Nationalism:
"And I’m arguing that one of the basic differences between a patriot and a nationalist is that patriots value responsibility. This includes the citizen’s responsibility to his country, a country’s responsibility to its citizens, and the responsibility of a country and its citizens to the rest of the world.
Nationalists, on the other hand, do not value responsibility. They value loyalty, and their loyalty is a type of tribalism. The loyalty may not necessarily be to one’s fellow citizens, but only to members of their tribe. . . . Further, nationalists feel no sense of responsibility for the actions of their country. No matter what the country does, the nationalist will either justify it or deny it. Just speaking of the wrongdoing of one’s country is “disloyal” to a nationalist."

And - well, I can't find the other ones.

Posted by Dan S. | October 3, 2007 6:04 PM

Re "Blind patriotism, which is positively associated with conservativism and Republican political identification, is opposed to criticism of the country"
---------------
Bullshit. Bullshit. BULLSHIT!

I can believe how some stupid fucking liberals let Republicans frame things in such a goddamm deceitful way.

I am loyal to my country --which I define as the common citizens of this land and the land itself.

What the Republicans object to is NOT criticism of the Country -- it's criticism of the goddamm thieves they put in control of the government so that those goddamm thieves can cause enormous damage to the COUNTRY in the course of whoring for their rich patrons.

I can't understand why noone ever points out to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly ,etc that THEY are the ones who are unpatriotic -- because they support politicians and causes which have caused the unnecessary deaths of 7000 of our citizens and the lost of $2 Trillion needed for health cares, food and a host of needs.

Just as no Democratic leader has bothered to point out that sacrificing another 1500 soldiers lives for no good reason is NOT "supporting the troops" -- rather, it is murdering our soldiers in order to "Support George W's Delusions" and to "support Republican egos/reputations".

Posted by Don Williams | October 3, 2007 6:32 PM

Re Don Williams

This is very painful but after much soul searching, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Williams. What the liberals need is some attack dogs who will go after fascist cocksuckers like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck et al and put the wood to them. Time to stop being Casper Milquetoast and start being George Patton ("what am I doing in North Africa, I'm here to kill Germans").

Posted by SLC | October 3, 2007 6:53 PM

"America" is the name used by the residents of the USA for that country, in the language (US English) of that country. Just imagine, for a moment, how any other country would react to the demand that they not use their own preferred name for their own country in their own language. It would, rightly, start at "bite me" and proceed from there.

Posted by DonBoy | October 3, 2007 9:17 PM

We don't call folks from the People's Republic of China "People's Republicans."

The term "United States" refers to the federalist political organization of our government. "America" is the name of the geographic entity that is our country. That other countries happen to occupy locales known as "North America" and "South America", respectively, makes us no less entitled to our given name.

Posted by Spike | October 3, 2007 9:37 PM

Don -
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how you get from the psych studies and commentary to "let[ting] Republicans frame things" - but I guess you're referring rather to the more general point.
Anyway, the thing to remember here, the resolution of this apparent contradiction, is that (in so many cases) when they do it, it's not criticism. In other words, IOKIYAR. In other words, whatever we might call ourselves, we're not Americans, but dirty godless stab-in-the-back-ing rootless cosmopolitans, and millions of Americans are eagerly listening to Rush et al to have this hateful lesson reinforced and hear exactly what they should be doing about it. It's part of the reason that - even back *then* - rightwingers went berserk over Clinton: a liberal government, to some of them, is an illegitimate government. I can only imagine what the reaction to '08 will be.

Anyway: I went to dig up the not-famous-enough Carl Schurz quote ("Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.") to comment on the (far more nuanced) Winds of Change post Goldberg links to (sadly, my browser ate the comment, which had been both good and very time consuming), and found two more that are all too relevant, both to things that matter and Goldberg's argument -
Carl Schurz on ""The True Americanism":

"What is the rule of honor to be observed by a power so strongly and so advantageously situated as this Republic is? Of course I do not expect it meekly to pocket real insults if they should be offered to it. But, surely, it should not, as our boyish jingoes wish it to do, swagger about among the nations of the world, with a chip on its shoulder, shaking its fist in everybody's face. Of course, it should not tamely submit to real encroachments upon its rights. But, surely, it should not, whenever its own notions of right or interest collide with the notions of others, fall into hysterics and act as if it really feared for its own security and its very independence.
As a true gentleman, conscious of his strength and his dignity, it should be slow to take offense. In its dealings with other nations it should have scrupulous regard, not only for their rights, but also for their self-respect. "

and if you scroll down:
"The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to "loving and faithfully serving his country," at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting."

That last quote was 1898 . . .
(did they have cheetos back then?)

Posted by Dan S. | October 4, 2007 12:04 AM

On copyediting and sensibilities, there's also the matter that the long form of Mexico's name is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, United Mexican States. So without the "American" bit in MY's book, how are we poor readers to know which group of united states is being discussed?

Posted by Doug | October 4, 2007 6:02 AM

I'm not saying American shouldn't be used, as there is no easy alternative. But it does have imperialistic overtones, and since those overtones have been backed up by a doctrine (manifest destiny) and actual policy, it's very unfair to cast those who have suffered under it as whiners.

And DonBoy, if Germany started calling itself "Europe," or Libya "Africa", there would definitely be objections, because adopting that name would be to say "bite me" before the conversation started.

Posted by nolaboyd | October 4, 2007 12:31 PM

I’ve got an Amazon gift certificate burning holes in my pocket,
and I want to get the most bang for my buck.

Enter the Secret Amazon Web Pages:

http://tinyurl.com/38sojf

This is where you’re going to find the "latest sales, rebates, and limited-time offers" from
Amazon, and you can score some pretty deep discounts if you’re a savvy shopper.

Next, there’s the special Sale link. This is open every Friday, and ONLY on Fridays.

You can find the same good discounts here as you would in hidden Deals, although some
Fridays you can really get lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit - I’ve seen discounts
there as low as 75% off sticker price.

Posted by illileBem | October 4, 2007 9:38 PM

There's one special secret Sale link on Amazon:

http://tinyurl.com/2r7ldr

This is open every Friday and ONLY on Fridays!

You can find very good discounts here, although some Fridays you can really get
lucky and make off like an Amazon bandit - I´ve seen discounts there as low as 75%
off sticker Price.

Posted by Neexiadab | October 5, 2007 5:12 PM