« The Helms Legacy | Main | Does The Press Matter? »

Contingency, Irony, Patriotism

05 Jul 2008 03:04 pm

Flag_of_the_United_States.svg%201.png

As a July 5 observation on patriotism, it's become increasingly common to think that there's a liberal form of patriotism and a conservative form, and that the liberal form has something to do with a self-critical spirit whereas conservatives take on a more of a "my country right or wrong" attitude. You can see Peter Beinart for some well-done thoughts along these lines.

Increasingly, though, I think this is wrong and would instead describe the liberal attitude toward patriotism as a special case of the kind of thing Richard Rorty deals with in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Up on a terrace yesterday with a bunch of somewhat buzzed people watching fireworks and shouting taunts against England and Canada and extolling the virtues of America as seen in explosions, loud noises, old TV theme songs, and grilled meats it seemed to me that the liberal experience of patriotism is really just the same as the conservative one.

And that's as it should be. American liberals and American conservatives are both Americans so our American patriotism is very similar. We just have different ideas about politics. Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there's something arbitrary about it -- we're just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you. The conservative view is more like those Bill Simmons columns where not only is he extolling the virtues of this or that Boston sports team or moment, but he seems to genuinely not understand why other people don't see it that way. But of course Simmons is from Boston and others of us aren't.

All of which is to say the liberal doesn't, as a political matter, confuse the emotions of patriotism with a description of objective reality or anticipate that the citizens of Iraq or Russia or China or wherever will drop their own patriotisms and come to see things our way. Patriotism is a sentiment about your particular country but it's also a sentiment that's much more widespread than any particular country, and if you can't understand the full implications of that then you're going to go badly wrong.

Share This

Comments (72)

Confusing personal preferences (whether ingrained or chosen) with objective reality is, indeed, the fundamental attribute of being a Republican. It is a lack of understanding the situation, needs, and wants of others that makes the Republican certainty so troubling.

It is also this situation that leads to conservatives such as Sullivan only giving a rat's ass about issues that affect them personally. Liberals, on the other hand, understand that things that affect ONLY other people are still worthy of considering and addressing. It's not about patriotism, per se, but more about how we think we should go about being a proper American. We all love this country, we just have different ideas about how that love and reverence should be expressed in our daily lives.

Well, the problem with that theory is people like me who were born on another country without any desire whatsoever for the American dream but who travelled to the USA and fell in love so deeply with the country they moved and took the citizenship and would put my patriotism up against any of these conservatives' anytime.

The rub is that back in my original country, I did feel very patriotic and proud of it. But I could care less about it now but would literally die defending the US. How to explain it/fit it in either theory ?
(I am a liberal)

Matt, that is one opinion, ie. yours. There are many other ideas of what patriotism is, whether a liberal version or a conservative one. They are all different and that is what makes America great.

I think you and Beinart are both wrong. We love different things about this country than the conservatives do. We might even describe the greatness of the country differently; if we didn't, we would mean different things by the same words.

That said, I'm not all that well-positioned to disagree, as I'm not all that liberal. (OTOH, as far as I can tell, either are you.)

Where is George C. Scott in that picture?!?!?!

Well, the problem with that theory is people like me who were born on another country without any desire whatsoever for the American dream but who travelled to the USA and fell in love so deeply with the country they moved and took the citizenship and would put my patriotism up against any of these conservatives' anytime.

The rub is that back in my original country, I did feel very patriotic and proud of it. But I could care less about it now but would literally die defending the US. How to explain it/fit it in either theory ?
(I am a liberal)

And that's as it should be. American liberals and American conservatives are both Americans so our American patriotism is very similar. We just have different ideas about politics.

...except that a key part of conservative politics it to attack liberals on entirely bogus, hateful, and substance-free "anti-patriotism." That's their M.O. (tied to race, religious, and homosexual baiting). Or weren't you around in 2002? Or any year since? Or since 1968 for that matter? It's OK to call American conservatives on this, just as it's OK to call the late Jesse Helms on his racism.

Discovering and reading Rorty in the 90's was a major went for me, thanks for the mention of him. Rorty was both left & patriotic and wrote of how being such is his best understanding of America, which he wanted to "retrieve" while there was still time.
The friend who turned me on to Rorty summarizes him well: "Because of the Contingency and resulting Irony, we NEED the Solidarity".
Yep.

I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there's something arbitrary about it -- we're just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you.

Sure-- that's why I would rarely describe myself as proud of being American (except when we actually do something worthy of pride, of course), since it was just an accident of birth that made me a citizen, not any particular effort on my part. And part of that good fortune is negated IMO by having been born in the deep south, the least prosperous, healthy, and educated part of the country, and also having been born into a family that, while privileged racially, did not have the means to dismiss all of the regional disadvantages.

Then again, if I had to name one trait that consistently defines modern conservatism, it's the need to claim unearned privilege- economic, racial, gender, you name it-- as a matter of personal merit. Being 'proud' of something as completely unearned, and often poorly understood, as one's nation of birth is just one example of this.

Thank you for your flag, Matt.

[wipes patriotic 'merican tear from eye]

I'll just add that the liberal version of patriotism is right, the ideology that conservatives follow that they call patriotism is wrong, and that the conservative leaders are a bunch of criminals for spreading their anti-American sedition.

Specifically, I would say that liberals do a better job of recognizing that much as we may love America there's something arbitrary about it -- we're just so happen to be Americans whereas other people are Canadians or Mexicans or French or Russian or what have you.

Liberals may sometimes pay lip service to the idea that favoring America and Americans over other countries is "arbitrary," but few of them are willing to actually behave as if they really believe that. Hence all the liberal whining about Americans who lose their jobs to much poorer people in developing countries as a result of international trade.

In the end, pretty much everyone agrees that it's okay to favor your own country over other countries. No one really believes that "citizen of the world" crap. The disagreements have to do with how much favoritism and what types of favoritism for your own country are proper, not whether it's proper at all.

We'd all be better off if the conservatives were ejected from our nation, frankly.

What the conservatives are proud of is a lie and hatred. They work to hurt and divide Americans and to put money earned honestly by working Americans into charlatans' pockets. They're about as good Americans as Benedict Arnold.

They work to fill our TV and newspapers with nothing but lies. How can you love Americans want you want to fill their lives with nothing but lies? What you really love is domination and your fantasies.

Typo -- I meant "event" in the comment posted above.
Further re Rorty -- he understood that his cosmopolitan kind of patriotism involved keeping ever-vigilant against our various temptations to ideology. As you say, Right & Left should be first and last expressions of political difference, not something else. Pragmatism, as he traced its history, may be left but it ain't totalistic! (One thinks that Rorty would be on-deck for Obama).
In an odd way, he exemplified that by moving from philosophy through literature to politics.

Anyone who has ever put a lie into American news or a newspaper to help the conservatives dominate politically sure isn't a real American anymore, but you're about as good as a KGB Russkie.

When you try to think up what your nationality is, you should consider yourself an "enemy combatant."

Well, the problem with that theory is people like me who were born on another country without any desire whatsoever for the American dream but who travelled to the USA and fell in love so deeply with the country they moved and took the citizenship and would put my patriotism up against any of these conservatives' anytime.

The rub is that back in my original country, I did feel very patriotic and proud of it. But I could care less about it now but would literally die defending the US. How to explain it/fit it in either theory ?
(I am a liberal)

Sorry for the accidental spamming

Anyone who has ever put a lie into American news or a newspaper to help the conservatives dominate politically . . . When you try to think up what your nationality is, you should consider yourself an "enemy combatant"

And that includes if you work for some department of the government.

Oops!

"Conservatives = Boston sports fans" is an excellent analogy. Perhaps we should call them "classholes".

It brings to mind this children's story, which is actually pretty deep philosophy. (I'm presuming that the readership here will recognize the end of the story, and thus its point, from the description on the Amazon page there. Wouldn't want to spoil...)

"Liberals" are just like us, only better. Of course, there's that time-honored collaborationist streak, but let's ignore that and watch the fireworks.

You miss something that one of the commenters brought up: anyone can become an Americam but that's not entirely true of most other nations. It's also true of Australia and Canada, although I think we've done a far better job of it here.

Consider the alienation issues of non-native born citizens in France, the UK, and Germany, for instance - we have very little of that here. There are reasons for that, and I think you are baffled by them.

Consider the alienation issues of non-native born citizens in France, the UK, and Germany, for instance - we have very little of that here.

Lotsa ressentiment, though, from nth-gen ladder-pullers like Whack O'Mole.

Liberals, on the other hand, understand that things that affect ONLY other people are still worthy of considering and addressing. It's not about patriotism, per se, but more about how we think we should go about being a proper American.

That may be so, but liberals (and conservatives when it comes to foreign policy) too often believe that if they care really really deeply about something, that that somehow suffices - whereas understanding that institutions don't always work as intended might lead them to better results.

Unlike the people Stephen Colbert (barely) parodies, Simmons is a wee bit tongue in cheek and self-aware with his Boston Sportsphilia.

I was arguing over Chris Satullo's 4th of July piece, and I started thinking that it would be interesting to look at different views of patriotism along the lines of Fischer's book Albion's Seed - with liberal patriotism being deeply influenced by the Northeastern Puritan tradition, and conservative ideas much more by those of Southern Cavaliers and backcountry Borderers. (There was a neat series on his work over at Orcinus a bit back). But I've never been sure how much weight to give that whole framework, even . . .

I like how TLB smears liberals as collaborationists. It's almost as if he wants to remind everyone of how George W. Bush's grandfather helped bankroll the Nazi party.

Of course Mixner's idiocy knows no bounds and is pretty much total on every subject. His example here trying to put a nationalist spin on opposition to abusive labor arbitrage.

Hey Mixner, want to provide evidence to back your assertions?

Didn't think so.

Matt writes: "The conservative view is more like those Bill Simmons columns where not only is he extolling the virtues of this or that Boston sports team or moment, but he seems to genuinely not understand why other people don't see it that way. But of course Simmons is from Boston and others of us aren't."

That's truly stupid, Matt. You deserve to be saddled with Gilbert Arenas and his porcelain knees just for that alone.

Swan - hear hear!

Swan - hear hear!

On this Fourth of July weekend we must remember that we are right, they are wrong, and the only way to move our country forward is to put as many of these fucking pigs in jail as possible.

I can't agree with the second part of your posting. Yes, the sentimental part of the deal works out the same. I think you are confusing conservative patriots with stupid patriots. It is my experience that the stupid patriots are really not so much more likely to be conservative than liberal. Intelligent conservative patriots will acknowledge other people's patriotism just as readily as the liberal ones.

Up on a terrace yesterday with a bunch of somewhat buzzed people watching fireworks and shouting taunts against England and Canada and extolling the virtues of America as seen in explosions, loud noises, old TV theme songs, and grilled meats it seemed to me that the liberal experience of patriotism is really just the same as the conservative one.

This has to be one of the most perfect epitomes of Rortyian idiocy I have ever come across – a veritable reductio ad absurdum of the Rortyan rap.

It is one thing to recognize the contingency of one’s affective attitudes, without casting doubt on their genuineness. Obviously, if any of us had been born elsewhere, or elsewhen, in different circumstances, then we would likely have very different attitudes. I deeply love my wife, but my meeting my wife was an event that depended on an infinite number of historical contingencies, and might never have happened if things had been even slightly different. I deeply love my son, but my son’s very existence depends in part on fine details of the spatial orientations of my body and my wife’s body during his making, and probably even on what we had to eat that day. The existence of whatever attitudes any of us might have toward our countries of residence are equally dependent on the vicissitudes of historical chance.

So the truest love is compatible with recognition of the very contingent existence of that love.

But it is quite another thing to say that my love for my wife and son would be the same, even if it were mediated by several dozen layers of hipster detachment and emotional cowardice; to say that my experience of love for them would be just the same even if it were all some kind of big joke, and my professions of love for them were somewhat like my having fun with fake play-acted denunciations of Brits and Canadians.

Irony is all about distance, the distancing of the person with the ironic attitude from the object of that attitude. And if you are very distant from something, you probably don’t love it. It’s quite ridiculous to say that two people have the same experience of love if the one’s engagement with the object of his love is rapt, ingenuous, un-self-conscious, devoted, and un-embarrassed, while the other’s is self-absorbed, reserved, sarcasm-filled and emotionally stand-offish. Indeed, it is pretty clear that latter simply doesn’t love his love object as much as the former loves his. He possibly doesn’t love her at all. Matt in love: “I really love you, my dear, but my love for you consists in my ironic participation in time-honored rituals of flower-bringing, sweet talk, feigned devotion and kissing, aware as I am all the while that I can’t really take any of this crap seriously.”

There really is a difference between, on the one hand, feigning an attitude, playacting with that attitude, or trying a simulacrum of that attitude on for the sheer fun of it, in the way one might try on a dangerous-looking eye patch or a funny hat, and on the other hand really feeling that attitude.

Irony is all about distance, the distancing of the person with the ironic attitude from the object of that attitude. And if you are very distant from something, you probably don’t love it.

Me, I try to go on people's behavior rather than their words. I've had plenty of "detachedly ironic" friends who stood by me in times of difficulty, and plenty of "sincere" friends who couldn't quite manage to return my calls when times were tough. And I imagine that it's the same way when it comes to people's civic duty.

I realize the foregoing comes across as a somewhat patronizing attempt to dismiss this entire thread, but I just figured I'd put it out there.

From resident moron Mixner:

In the end, pretty much everyone agrees that it's okay to favor your own country over other countries. No one really believes that "citizen of the world" crap.
Feel free to back this up with studies, surveys, or anything else that might qualify as evidence. Otherwise we will have to assume that you are just making this up because you are a notorious liar who likes making things up.

"Up on a terrace yesterday with a bunch of somewhat buzzed people watching fireworks and shouting taunts against England and Canada and extolling the virtues of America as seen in explosions, loud noises, old TV theme songs, and grilled meats it seemed to me that the liberal experience of patriotism is really just the same as the conservative one."

Who the f*** taunts England and Canada?? Hope you were more than 'somewhat' buzzed. I don't think a hard core GOP BBQ would (they save taunts for France. Jesus Christmas, I can only imagine the-out of touch/media memes don't matter-crew that was up on that roof. I'm sure Ezra brought a fine dish.

Also, on Simmons: dude we all know you hate Boston. Do you know it is really pathetic that someome from New York City adopts the friggin' Bullets as their favorite team?

In the end, pretty much everyone agrees that it's okay to favor your own country over other countries. No one really believes that "citizen of the world" crap.

Only minor figures such as Kant and rootless cosmopolitans such as myself would hold such strange views.

Well Dan Kervick has never read Rorty. Irony is all about distance? What's ironic about that? I think you are confusing irony and facetiousness there Dan.

I think Matt's shot at Simmons demonstrates well the nature of patriotism.

I don't know what the liberal conception of patriotism is, but I think I can fashion a couple of comments about the conservative conception. Patriotism is like pornography, you know it when you see it. Furthermore, these ivory-tower analyses of what patriotism is are what commiepinkodemlibs do. If you commiepinkodemlibs don't experience patriotism at the profound level of Lee Greenwood then maybe your commiepinkodemlib ass ought to be shipped off to Gitmo where true patriots will play Charlie Daniels at 120 decibels for you 72 hours straight while you stand on one leg saluting an 8x10 of Jesse Helms. Hey, commiepinkodemlib, analyze THIS [fires rocket from predator drone, missing you but hitting several Muslim women and children standing behind you]!

And the funny thing is, while the commiedemlibs fret every July 4 over the meaning of patriotism, the conservatives will know what it means and keep murdering brown-skinned folks in patriotism's name over and over and over and over...

Matt: "American liberals and American conservatives are both Americans so our American patriotism is very similar."

Right - you're both members of the "War Party" and believe the US has a unique right to kick other people's asses whenever the excuse arises - whether it be "rape them for the oil" or "liberal internationalism" - which usually turns out to be "rape them for the oil" in practice.

I don't "love America" - I just live in it.

In a way, this is like those arguments for God that claim there must be one because the universe is so ideally suited for human life (except of course 99.99999999999 percent of it isn't) instead of realizing that we evolved in the universe and therefore it's obvious that we "fit" in it.

Your feelings for this country are entirely an adaptation because you grew up here, nothing more. And the more rational you are, the less those feelings matter and the less you make decisions based on them.

Anybody who does the opposite is a jingoistic fucktard - as demonstrated by many of the posters at this blog and almost every cover story of the Fourth of July in the MSM.

I have read Rorty more than I care to recall, Berger. When I was a philosophy professor for 18 years, he was sometimes even on the syllabus.

I won't tire people with yet another of my diatribes on the harmful and debilitating influence of Rorty and a few other like-minded thinkers on the intellectual life of the left, and against the decadent and enfeebled form of bourgeois liberalism he and his acolytes have promoted. But in fact, that's where I'm coming from.

Irony is indeed about distance. Linguistically, irony roughly consists in making statements or engaging in extended discourses that carry certain face value commitments, but doing so in such a way as to signal some sort of reservation, lack of commitment or outright opposition to the face-value content of one's own statements. The speaker thus distances himself from the primary content of his own statements.

In Rorty's case, the "liberal ironist" leads a sort of double life, maintaining certain kinds of commitments and aiming at solidarity in the public sphere, while engaged in a private sphere practice of self-discovery or self-creation which constantly undermines any intellectual basis for those commitments. Rorty imagines, like the fideists of old in whose tradition he follows, that people can somehow keep these spheres separate, regarding them as involving two different kinds of "incommensurable" discourse. But he is really deceiving himself here. He preaches a melancholy and jaded philosophy of despair, which he disingenuously tries to pass of as "hope".

Matt's anecdote is a shining example of Rortyan double-think and political lameness, although he doesn't finesse it as well as Rorty. No mature individual reading Matt's account of his ironic patriotic terrace "commitments" could ever really find in them any reason to invest confidence in Matt on that score, or expect a durable relationship of solidarity with him grounded in his ostensible patriotic love of country. That is, if you had to decide whether to bet your life or "sacred honor" on these professed commitments of Matt's, you would be a fool to do so, since they are clearly so shallow. Attempting to compartmentalize one's life into the half that makes the commitments, and the other half that recognizes how shallow they are are, doesn't work, no matter how hard one tries to hang onto one's faith in the wall of incommensurability between the two areas. The ultimate lack of commitment is too transparent.

I think this is a good Johnny Cash video for liberals and conservatives alike: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN2jhWjeVw

It's not that there are different forms of patriotism, it's that the Right keeps confusing Nationalism with Patriotism. Actual patriots care about the underlying values that make a country what it is and fight to preserve those, nationalists care more about the concept of the nation, much as they would care about a football team, as it is their nation. The values that form that nation aren't even part of the picture.

Sadly, the blind nationalism that the Right often embraces leads to undermining the actual values that make the country what it is, making them in some situations ANTI-patriots.

Re Dan Kervick and his love for wife and country.

The much revered and loved West-German president Gustav Heinemann had it right:

Ich liebe nicht mein Land, ich liebe meine Frau.

(I don't love my country, I love my wife.)

This attitude has served both him and Germany rather well.

Also, Rorty's discussion of irony is more descriptive than prescriptive. He is simply acknowledging the fact that it is impossible for an intelligent and philosophically educated person of today to buy wholesale into the rhetoric of "patriotism" and "[insert country or subgroup here] values" without kidding oneself. Such concepts, while still virulent, have outlived themselves in the Hegelian sense, and this is not due to some pomo philosophers or cynical hipsters taking potshots at them, but the result of a natural dialectical process.

This does not mean that there aren't goals to achieve or ideals to be upheld and that realizing these might not be more practical on a local, regional or national level first. Realizing that such goals are contingent and have no foundation either in philosophical argument or group identity does not preclude anyone from pursuing them. Instead of relying on such false foundations, however, the reader is asked to imagine what kind of world he would like to live in and the answer is indeed reliant on the character of the person asked. It is worth noting that Kant poses similar questions to the reader and Rorty's concept of solidarity has a fair bit in common with Kant's concept of cosmopolitanism.

There are many other ideas of what patriotism is, whether a liberal version or a conservative one. They are all different and that is what makes America great.
posted by Bajsa

Not so, IMO. Deconstructing patriotism down to a level of individual whim and maintaining each person's version is equally valid, equally true and makes patriotism a pure function of "diversity that makes America great"? That is not seeking to examine it, but to render it incoherent as a philosophy. To make it so subjective as to be meaningless.

Imagine saying ethics are simply a matter of personal discretion, and diverse ethics are what make America's people in government and business and jail so great.

What is true is that there are competing visions about what patriotism is. There are some that are reconcilable with others, while yet more are in hard conflict with other visions of patriotism and cannot be glossed over as "wonderful multiculti, wonderful diversity!".

While we can be live and let live, we still need to teach future generations what basic patriotism is, what standards apply to patriotism, what philosphies seek to destroy patriotism as an honored attribute in citizens.

Kids and immigrants need to get a message of what individual and civic activities are tending towards promoting or showing patriotism, what political movements are attempting to eradicate it as a function of the nationalism they wish to end so we can have a Global, borderless, transnational community run by International Law, internationalist lawyers and government professionals who will make most decisions. What are the profound differences between how nations like the USA, China, Brazil, Turkey, India, Russia, Japan, UK see patriotism? And on the other side, continental Europe & Canada & the Jewish Transnationalist philosophy & the hard Left?

The debate on "standards" is ongoing. I will write a following post on a few of the different standards and perhaps fallacies of what is patriotism, and which "camps" those standards lie in.

Re Dan Kervick and his love for wife and country.

Don't know what you're talking about novakant. I never said I loved my country. I have a lot of confusing and mixed up attitudes toward my country, but I don't think any of them are love. Nor for that matter are any of them hate.

What I object to are other people who don't really love their country pretending they do while at the same time claiming it's a new kind of hip, ironic love that consists in the whimsical postmodern enjoyment of patriotic kitch and pop national-cultural ephemera.

I'm not saying there aren't lots of liberals who do sincerely love their country. And maybe it's true that there is a special kind of liberal love based on the country's ideals and aspirations rather than the impressive kick-ass power and myths of divine favor that seduce conservatives.

I don't want to put myself forward as some kind of expert on love, since I'm most certainly not. But I think know enough to know that the bullshit Matt is describing isn't it.

Arbitrary? What, did our ancestors choose America to emigrate to by throwing darts at a map? "Od, drat, we missed Montreal; oh, well, on to Ellis Island, then..."

People CHOSE to come to America. Maybe they wanted what they believed it offered, or what they believed it stood for, or because we wouldn't kill them out of hand like their current neighbors. But there was nothing arbitrary about it. They looked at America and they saw their best hope, or their last hope, and they boarded the ships.

Shame on you for denigrating their faith and courage, equating it to a casual choice in a candy store.

> Arbitrary? What, did our ancestors choose
> America to emigrate to by throwing darts at a map?
> "Od, drat, we missed Montreal; oh, well, on to
> Ellis Island, then..."

I hate to use Radical Right troll-speak, but "huh?". Every description I have ever read of the flight of the Irish from Ireland in 1820-1880 (including many of my ancestors) makes it very clear that whether one ended up in the US, Canada, or Australia was the result of 80% random factors. Up to and including the order in which ships at the docks filled up steerage.

Cranky

Conservatives -
The highest form of patriotism is willingly going into harm's way to defend your country and its people from a threat.
That to be true patriotism, domestically, there must be a sacrifice of time, money, personal toil or labor, even engaging in personal risk - all focused not on one's self, or their "identity group" - but aimed at benefiting the people of this country as a whole.

Liberals -
The highest form of patriotism is Dissenting. Against the "authorities", even the majority of it's citizens.
True patriotism is not tied to sacrifice, but can even be done safely and with personal convenience intact by advocacy. Simply demanding more laws and government controls to force people on the right path of social justice. Where sacrifice comes in, it is just as Patriotic to help only those in a favored particular identity group or those in a foreign country as sacrifice done for the American People, collectively.


Conservative Fallacies -

1. Favoring war is patriotic.
2. People in uniform be they soldiers, or public safety gov't employees - are all higher patriots than anyone else.
3. Showing support through symbols like flag pins shows how patriotic you are, simply from the gesture.
4. My country, right or wrong. (jigoism)
5. Mistaking pride in the great things of America and accomplishments of others as patriotism simply from being a spectator.

Liberal Fallacies -

1. Pretending that support for multiculti, a borderless world, transnationalism is patriotic.
2. Seeing soldiers as duped, hapless victims, not patriots.
3. Openly belittling those volunteer military, seeking to end ROTC and military recruiting while claiming such attacks are truly patriotic.
4. Seeing blaming America ultimately for every disaster or global event as patriotic dissent. And when not holding America responsible, for pillorying America for "not doing enough", and when America does go in and things don't go optimally, to blame America for meddling imperialism or cultural/military aggression.
5. Belief that the UN Assembly, "international norms", and International Law represent a higher order than the US Government, "norms of the American People", and the Constitution. And where conflict exists, the "patriotic thing to do is to defer to higher authority".
6. Always finding the glass half empty with America's accomplishments or the patriotic feats of others. The "Yes, but...." factor..

Standards - Kids and immigrants do need to be systemically educated to understand:

1. The differences between nationalism, jingoism, patriotism rather than the three distinct philosophies being taught as conflated.

2. That it isn't patriotism unless it works for or celebrates the American people and their history as a whole.

3. That national service should be honored and respected, never second-guessed. That national service does not exclusively mean the military or government employees - but can be 50 people donating their time to help clean up a stretch of river so future generations can enjoy it, or civic activities like Lions Club, United Way, chipping in time and money to promote the arts, mowing the lawn of a Coast Guard guy deployed in a disaster.

4. That there are philosophies that do aim to destroy patriotism while targeting nationalism. Educate children and immigrants on what those philosophies are, where in the world they predominate, and the objective reasons for their existence. That those philosophies may not be bad, that some believe that war and famine will end when borders and patriotism and nationalism end. And, that it may not be good, either, as other "transnational" philosophies in history haven't been.

5. That the sacrifice of charitable contributions and philanthropy may be patriotic if they are not for a specific identity group or a foreign country, but the general benefit of the public.

6. That celebrating others patriotic accomplishments is good and reinforces patriotism if one believes it is a virtue. But simply celebrating as a spectator it doesn't imbue the celebrator with individual patriotic accomplishment.

Similarly, America, before todays legal and partisan paralysis, depended deeply on dissent and debate to grow and evolve. But simply running ones mouth, marching in total freedom of fear of any repercussions, and demanding other people do things - when there is no risk or sacrifice to the "dissenter" is not patriotism, but a demand others behave or pay out in taxes or lost opportunities as demanded.

7. That wartime is when patriotism may be at it's noblist and highest expression, simply because the stakes rise, so the sacrifice demanded, may be one's life traded for the lives and future lives of others.

8. Patriotism may be expressed in other peoples in other nations who risk repression, even imprisonment and physical harm for speaking out - as that involves personal risk & sacrifice. But that is normally not the case with America's "protestors".
In America, patriotism is now mostly found in individuals or groups that make what they know will be an unpopular decision for the overall good of the country. We call them Profiles in Courage, as JFK, a true Democrat patriot, knew. Nor did JFK add that their view had to be vindicated - just that it arise from courage and sincere conviction. Examples would be Ford's pardoning of Nixon for the good of the People, a City Board that defies frothing at the mouth tax protestors and valid threats they will not stay in office to raise taxes and fund rebuilding a city's water mains before they fail 10 years out because that best serves the general public that will defeat the officials next election over taxes, since they lack the long view needed to serve the whole area's best interests..

9. Kids and immigrants need to understand while it is possible to be loyal and patriotic while one has dual citizenship or loyalty, or consider their religion or the welfare of their race above the nation...that is not going to be always so. And in a choice, patriotism means sacrificing ethnic, tribal interests for the best interests
of the American People.

Look, it's really simple - the United States of America came into being with the Declaration of Independence (and was given its substance with the Constitution.) When Matt says that we would have been even "awesomer" if not for that, then he is quite simply saying that it would have been better had the United States of America never been born.

Now, if Matt wants to try to reconcile that with any known definition of patriotism, he's welcome to try. But it won't fly. If "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is arguably moronic, then "you can be patriotic while simultaneously thinking that your country would have been better had it never existed" is demonstrably oxymoronic.

Dave S.:

Matt never said that. Making nonsense up, just so that you can criticize it for being nonsensical, is not a very patriotic thing to do.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

A couple of humble observations.

1) Matt's anecdote, however ironic its intent, seems to miss one of the crucial distinctions between liberals and conservatives. Patriotic liberals, by and large, think our country is great but do not believe that it is vastly objectively superior to the UK or Canada. We mock them on Independence Day because mockery is fun, and because our play-acted jingoism cuts primarily against conservatives in our own country, not against Brits and Canucks. That's the crucial component of ironic humor -- the target of the humor is usually people who don't get the joke.

Patriotic conservatives, by and large, really do think our country is vastly objectively superior to the UK and Canada, and this belief is central to their entire worldview. They understand neither the contingent nature of patriotism nor the ironic detachment that we feel toward Fouth of July fireworks shows, flag pins, and other performative displays of patriotism as worn on one's sleeve. By their standards, we're a bunch of detached bastards who don't share their earnest, heartfelt love of country.

2) That said, Dan Kervick's screed above is pure and abject nonsense, because he doesn't have the slightest comprehension of what ironic detachment actually is. One can be highly self-aware and cynical about the trappings and expectations of traditional romance -- letters and sodas -- while caring every bit as much about the person you love as someone who earnestly woos his love interest with flowers and candy and values the courtship rituals for their own sake. The ironic detachment is not between people who love each other, but between people and the performative rituals of love.

Those of us who understand, deep down, the contingent nature of love (whether love of country or love of a partner) will achieve an ironic detachment not from the object of their love, but from the drippy, adolescent romanticism of Nineteenth Century novels and Nineteenth Century Nationalism. Love should never compel us to heartbroken suicides or the patriotic collective suicide on display at the Somme. Love does not require showy gestures to impress your friends or a belief that the object of your affection is objectively superior to all the rest. Quiet care, devotion, and appreciation will suffice.

lafollette,

A couple of humble observations. ..... That said, Dan Kervick's screed above is pure and abject nonsense,

Ah, yes. LaFollette, humble as ever.

Patriotic liberals, by and large, think our country is great but do not believe that it is vastly objectively superior to the UK or Canada. .... Patriotic conservatives, by and large, really do think our country is vastly objectively superior to the UK and Canada, and this belief is central to their entire worldview.

So what about people who believe the United States is significantly objectively superior to the UK and Canada, perhaps even very substantially objectively superior, but just not "vastly" objectively superior? Where do they fit into your neat little us-and-them classification system? Liberal or conservative? Patriots or not patriots? Understanding of the "contingent nature of patriotism," or not understanding of it?

Ah, yes. Mixner, as self-unaware as ever.

You see, scientists have recently discovered that between the color we know as "black" and the color we know as "white" there exists an entire spectrum which has been tentatively assigned the name of of "grey". It has been further proposed that some people who speak about black and white in simple, abbreviated fashion may be aware of the existence of shades of grey and may even intutively understand that black and white are designations of extremes that are much less common in the real world than shades of grey, but are nonetheless useful for organizing and measuring these shades.

We love our country like we love our parents: we're thankful for the opportunities they gave us and the values they tried to instill in us. And you hope your own children have the same opportunities, and you want to instill many of the same values in them.

But when you get to a certain age, you start to realize how your parents had their own problems and baggage that they didn't know how to deal with when you were growing up, and developed other issues as they aged, and not all of it is something you want to imitate or are particularly proud of. But they at least had decent intentions most of the time, and they're still your parents.

Another alternate model: liberals love their country like New Yorkers love the Yankees-- they're the loyal fans who are always rooting for them and have their identity infused with the Yankees, but they're also the Yankees' most vicious critics who have no problem badmouthing the owner or booing a particularly incompetent player.

Lafollette,

Well done. Perhaps you do realize after all that the nature of patriotism, not to mention the differences between conservatives and liberals, are rather more complicated and nuanced than your simplistic description suggests.

Matt flunked History 101 at Harvard if he really equates nationalism with patriotism. Or the USA with Canada or Mexico, or other countries which are part of the EU-nuch crowd of whining natterers.

Matt probably doesn't know that the American Rev probably stimulated the French Rev & the Latin American Revs. [The French King was bankrupted by helping the colonials in N. America beat arch-rival England plus the fashionista French began to think revolution was trendy.]

The world owes a lot more than this libtard flunky realizes to the USA---not only the Internet, but Radio & TV that aren't state-controlled. This flunky couldn't publish some of his stuff in most of the countries in the world, including some EU-nuch state-controlled media outlets.

God Bless America, and protect it from "writers/thinkers" who fit the axiom: "There is no fool like an educated fool."

Especially from Harvard.

Matt flunked History 101 at Harvard if he really equates nationalism with patriotism. Or the USA with Canada or Mexico, or other countries which are part of the EU-nuch crowd of whining natterers.

Matt probably doesn't know that the American Rev probably stimulated the French Rev & the Latin American Revs. [The French King was bankrupted by helping the colonials in N. America beat arch-rival England plus the fashionista French began to think revolution was trendy.]

The world owes a lot more than this libtard flunky realizes to the USA---not only the Internet, but Radio & TV that aren't state-controlled. This flunky couldn't publish some of his stuff in most of the countries in the world, including some EU-nuch state-controlled media outlets.

God Bless America, and protect it from "writers/thinkers" who fit the axiom: "There is no fool like an educated fool."

Especially from Harvard.

Mixner--

All irony and mockery aside, I would have thought that went without saying.

800-page books have been written on the complexities and nuances of these subjects. It seems to me the only thing that can be accomplished in a blog is to advance a line of argument in broad strokes and get people talking. I'd like to think that everyone, even fucktards like daveinboca, is capable of more subtlety than they display in blog comments.

Really--it seems you have never read Bill Simmons. Is there one column where he is nearly as provincial and oblivious as you are here? Has he ever suggested that his love for Boston sports teams is anything other than arbitrary? No; rather, Simmons assumes the love of local teams (not Boston teams per se) is universally shared. Now, a New Yorker who, say, becomes a huge Chicago Bulls fan (in, say, the 1990s)? That he would find impossible to condone or understand.

Really--it seems you have never read Bill Simmons. Is there one column where he is nearly as provincial and oblivious as you are here? Has he ever suggested that his love for Boston sports teams is anything other than arbitrary? No; rather, Simmons assumes the love of local teams (not Boston teams per se) is universally shared. Now, a New Yorker who, say, becomes a huge Chicago Bulls fan (in, say, the 1990s)? That he would find impossible to condone or understand.

There is something unique about America. Full stop.

It'd really quite simple.

Since American liberals feel guilt over America's spectacular success, and Europeans (the "liberal" is a given) feel jealousy over America's spectacular success, they both agree that America has to be brought to heel. Preferably via suicide. So, American liberals advocate America's suicide, but wrap their poison in an envelope labeled "Justifiable Criticism." And don't you dare challenge their patriotism: they just want to make America "better." For values of "better" that mean "more like Europe."

American conservatives want America to continue being a spectacular success. So, American conservatives are America boosters, and they don't give a rat's ass about Europe. Nor should they: Europe's mettle's bred out, and it's women are giving their bodies to the lust of Muslim youth to new-store Europe with bastard jihadis.

Liberals are evil.

LaFollette Progressive, you misunderstand; for Mixner, everything must be spelled out. If you tell this moron that the flag consists of red, white, and blue, he will demand that you explain how you can tell.

I understand his confusion. The 656.3 nm wavelength based on hydrogen is red, but it turns out that's not the only red. And white isn't even in the spectrum, so that's obviously false (if you are having trouble with the antecedent to "that" in the previous sentence, don't worry. Mixner will change from one to another so as to continue word games as long as he can possibly find someone willing to engage his monstrous idiocy).

Engaging with Mixner is like boxing jello. Messy and ultimately pointless.

One can be highly self-aware and cynical about the trappings and expectations of traditional romance -- letters and sodas -- while caring every bit as much about the person you love as someone who earnestly woos his love interest with flowers and candy and values the courtship rituals for their own sake. The ironic detachment is not between people who love each other, but between people and the performative rituals of love.

Yes, but those rituals are not what your love consists in, LFP. So while you may be ironically detached from certain traditional rituals, even as you participate in them, you are not ironically detached from your love itself. It is simply psychologically impossible to genuinely love somebody or something and to be ironically detached from the love at the same time.

You engage in the same confused blurring in which Matt and Rorty engage, LFP, between contingency and irony. To recognize that some of one's attitudes are contingent simply does not necessitate - either logically or psychologically - any ironic detachment from one's attitudes. Your awareness of contingency may be accompanied by an additional element of ironic detachment. But they are distinct and easily distinguishable phenomena.

Rorty is a fideist, like some others in the pragmatist tradition, although his fideism is applied to moral and political commitments rather than. But fideism in politics is no more tenable than it is in religion. It's just window dressing for intellectual cowardice and hypocrisy. To finesse the tension between commitment and doubt, Rorty extols an attitude of double-think that draws an artificial and unsustainable distinction between the private and public use of reason, based on an alleged "incommensurability" between the two realms of thought and discourse. But he gives no good reason for thinking the realms really are incommensurable.

I can't tell you how much it depresses me that so many people on what was once the "left" now take Rorty seriously. No wonder that the left has been getting its tail kicked for decades.

It’s probably worth making a (not necessarily very precise) distinction here between what we might call shallow irony and deep irony. Shallow irony involves something like the following: doing something that would, if taken at face value, express your possession of a certain belief (or feeling, at least), even though (a) you don’t really have that belief or feeling and (b) for one reason or another you derive a frisson of absurdity from the idea of actually possessing it. When someone says that Big Momma’s House is possibly the greatest movie ever made, that is shallow irony. "Wouldn’t it be funny if I really did feel this way?" is the idea. Same goes for faux-jingoistic 4th of July rituals. Shallow irony goes together with ironic detachment.

In a case of deep irony, in contrast, your sense of the absurdity of having the feeling, perhaps derived from reflection on its contingency, doesn’t prevent you from actually having the feeling in question. And surely deep irony does occur. Someone can feel that their kid is more charming than any of their friends’ children, while knowing that all their friends feel the same way about their children, and as a result of this second-order reflection feeling that their own response is somehow absurd, without any of this making that first-order response disappear. You might call this ironic commitment. What a sense of the absurd does, however, is provide you with some perspective. You don’t go around expecting everyone else to feel the same way as you do.

(Note that you might be able to argue that irony is in this ‘deep’ case still somewhat corrosive, in that after reflection you no longer exactly believe that your kid is more charming than the others, but it would be hard to argue that you can’t still feel that way. Note also that I’m not assuming that second-order reflection on contingency logically or psychologically requires thinking of your first-order response as absurd, but only that the former often leads to the latter.)

Maybe Matt’s illustrations were ill-chosen in that he gave the impression he was thinking in terms of shallow irony when he meant to convey the idea of deep irony.

PS Wrote most of this last night, but didn’t post it. Since then one of the Crooked Timber people has posted some similar thoughts about the kids example. http://crookedtimber.org/2008/07/06/contingency-and-solidarity. See also http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/only_in_america_1.php

In a case of deep irony, in contrast, your sense of the absurdity of having the feeling, perhaps derived from reflection on its contingency, doesn’t prevent you from actually having the feeling in question. And surely deep irony does occur. Someone can feel that their kid is more charming than any of their friends’ children, while knowing that all their friends feel the same way about their children, and as a result of this second-order reflection feeling that their own response is somehow absurd, without any of this making that first-order response disappear.

I do not believe deep irony, as you describe it Amit, is a psychologically real phenomenon.

You may have certain dispositions to believe or feel on occasion that your child is more charming than any of your friends' children. You may also have certain dispositions to believe on occasion that your sometime belief or feeling that your child is more charming than your friends' children is absurd.

But these dispositions to have occurrent attitudes do not add up to a single disposition to have the respective occurrent beliefs actualized at the same time. During those times you are actually occurrently believing that your child is more charming than any of your friends' children, you are not simultaneously and occurrently believing that such a belief is absurd; and during the times you are actually occurrently believing that it is absurd to feel your child is more charming than your friends' children, you are not simultaneously and occurrently believing that your child is more charming than your friends' children. The presence of either attitude immediately destroys the other.

I think Hume had a much better understanding about the interplay of doubt and commitment, and the stability and instability of psychological attitudes, than Rorty.

You engage in the same confused blurring in which Matt and Rorty engage, LFP, between contingency and irony. To recognize that some of one's attitudes are contingent simply does not necessitate - either logically or psychologically - any ironic detachment from one's attitudes. Your awareness of contingency may be accompanied by an additional element of ironic detachment. But they are distinct and easily distinguishable phenomena.

But here again you are taking a sharp turn away from what Rorty actually says.

To recognize that one's attitudes are contingent necessarily entails detachment from the language and symbolic representation we use to convey those attitudes. It entails a skepticism toward claims of universality or superlatives -- i.e. "We're the best country in the world!" This is more or less how Rorty defines irony in his work.

He is not using the word in the sense of literary irony or a hipster's snarky detachment. These are ways that contingency can manifest itself, but not necessarily. The problem is that you're trying to argue with Rorty using your own vocabulary instead of Rorty's. You're acting like the creationists who think they "disproved" evolution with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, because they don't understand the jargon.

"Rorty is a fideist, like some others in the pragmatist tradition, although his fideism is applied to moral and political commitments rather than (?)"

This, as best as I can tell, is pure, distilled nonsense in its highly dangerous crack form.

I can't tell you how much it depresses me that so many people on what was once the "left" now take Rorty seriously. No wonder that the left has been getting its tail kicked for decades.

I can't tell you how much it depresses me to see so many people insist, with all evident seriousness, that the "left" should suck up to the "right" in order to avoid getting our tails kicked, and then watching this strategy lead to us getting our tails kicked.

How long must this country be run into the ground by buffoons and hucksters selling sickly-sweet patriotic schmaltz to finance military adventurism, before we decide it's safe to start trying to shift the terms of the debate in a healthier direction?

Cranky Observer -- Which may or may not be true (I'd be prepared to accept it about the famine) but does nothing to explain the Germans, Jews, Russians, Greeks, Slavs, British, and other nationalities who all seemed to be able tomdistinguish between the dhow to Dubai and steerage to Staten Island...

dave-in-caca:

The world owes a lot more than this libtard flunky realizes to the USA... This flunky couldn't publish some of his stuff in most of the countries in the world, including some EU-nuch state-controlled media outlets.

Um, "libtard"?

God Bless America, and protect it from "writers/thinkers" who fit the axiom: "There is no fool like an educated fool."

Well, thank God you dodged that bullet.

Since American liberals feel guilt over America's spectacular success, and Europeans (the "liberal" is a given) feel jealousy over America's spectacular success, they both agree that America has to be brought to heel. Preferably via suicide. So, American liberals advocate America's suicide, but wrap their poison in an envelope labeled "Justifiable Criticism." And don't you dare challenge their patriotism: they just want to make America "better." For values of "better" that mean "more like Europe."

Er, dude, if we wanted to be like Americans, we'd move to America. When you say "spectacular success", we see a violent socially divided and in many ways retarded culture drowning in its own wealth. People live longer, healthier and happier lives elsewhere.

Of course, your ultra-rich and corporate CEOs do better in the US. Are you a CEO?

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Dan. I know that this is not the sort of issue that is likely to be resolved in a comment thread, but just to clarify, I wasn’t intending to commit myself an analysis of deep irony that requires simultaneous occurrent belief (a) that one’s child is the most charming, and (b) that that belief is absurd. It doesn’t strike me as self-evident that beliefs in tension with one another to this extent can’t correctly be attributed to the one subject, but my hunch is that a distinction between deep and shallow irony sufficient for the purposes at hand can be made even if one does want to rule out such attributions. This was the reason for my caveat:

Note that you might be able to argue that irony is in this ‘deep’ case still somewhat corrosive, in that after reflection you no longer exactly believe that your kid is more charming than the others, but it would be hard to argue that you can’t still feel that way.

What I meant by the idea of feeling, as opposed to believing, that your kid is the most charming is something sub-doxastic, something like an emotional state, a pathos, except that it involves an intellectual compulsion to think positively of (i.e. in the sense of entertaining, as opposed to believing) the proposition that your kid is the most charming. It might be something like an emotionally-laden version of the state you’re in when you believe that the lines in the Muller-Lyer figure are the same length, but continue simultaneously to see them as being different in length. However one might analyse it, though, I think the sort of state in question is familiar to us from experience.

But in a way all this is beside the point. Even if the phenomenon present in cases like the kids example is best understood merely in terms of a toggling between belief and disbelief, I think this makes it significantly different from shallow irony, where there is no tendency towards such restless flip-flopping. There is a tension in the former phenomenon that is missing from shallow irony, and which rescues the former from the sort of frivolousness that is associated with the latter. And I think it’s something like the former phenomenon, whatever the correct analysis of it might be, that Rorty is talking about under the rubric of 'irony'. This isn’t to to say that Rorty’s political philosophy might not have its weaknesses, but I don’t think it encourages exactly the sort of frivolousness you mean.


Comments closed July 19, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.