"Patriotism is putting the country first,… before anything"
July 3, 2008
A couple of days ago, Obama delivered an honest and heart-felt oration about the meaning of patriotism. Naturally, John McCain responded by giving his own speech on patriotism.(*) Hilariously, he did so by saying things so completely crazy and unhinged from reality that he can’t possibly mean them.
If John McCain were to mention in casual conversation that “patriotism is putting the country first, before party or personal ambition, before anything,” there wouldn’t be a story. Everyone exaggerates and makes silly comments from time to time. Normal conversation doesn’t repay a literal parsing of the text in that way.
But when he declares in a set speech that patriotism means having no obligations greater than service to the state, I have to consider how unpleasant it would be to actually think that way, and how unfortunate it would be for our country to elect someone who thinks that way to lead it. There’s a reason no one puts Lieutenant Worf in charge of the ship.
It goes without saying that there are ethical and moral obligations — whether one is religious or not — more important than fealty to the nation. Certainly it’s impossible for a Christian to believe that the first and greatest commandment is “render everything unto Caesar”.
Just as problematic, McCain goes out of his way in his speech to denigrate “sentiments about place and kinship” — a kind of patriotism that really does enrich and strengthen, and which is an unalloyed good — as unworthy of the name. When I heard him, I was reminded of an argument from C.S. Lewis about first and second things: “every preference of a small good to a great, or a partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made”.
There are two possibilities. One, John McCain is going around saying that people should put their country “before anything” because, like some 19th-century German philosopher, he thinks it’s true. Two, John McCain thinks most Americans believe to be true, and he wants to win our votes by appealing to the most base nationalistic fervor imaginable.
Fortunately, if the polls are any guide, we don’t seem to be going for it.
(*) “Do you love your country” is apparently an open question in American politics these days, along with “can the president order the torture of prisoners” and “is it okay for the president to ignore the law”. Stay classy, Republican Party.
July 4th, 2008 at 11:29 am
It is the fourth of July and we are now engaged in the annual ritual of praising all things American as good and wholesome. The Bush administration will no doubt be wrapping themselves in the flag and proclaiming the rise of freedom under their watch. Hypocritical platitudes will drip from their lips and land with audible plops at their feet, rather like what falls in the barn-cleaner gutter at milking time.
I have been thinking about patriotism a lot lately and have come to the conclusion that it has morphed into an ugly caricature of what it once was. Patriotism gets used to justify all sorts of evil, stupid and silly things. Just yesterday the Republican candidate for the president of these great younited states stood up and said that if we had only bombed more and fought harder we would have “won” Vietnam. That statement sounds patriotic and good and no doubt played well among the reality-deniers that seem to be all that is left of the republican party, these days, but it exposes him as an almost Bushian dumb fuck.
We have seen patriotism perverted beyond our wildest nightmares by the Bushies into a justification for doing everything they can to cancel our freedoms. Bush, who actually seems to believe he is some sort of hyper-patriot, never appears without 15 American flags around him and a flag lapel pin. I personally think they are there so he can remember what country he is in at the moment, but the real reason is so he can gull the rubes into believing that the profoundly anti-patriotic things that he does are good and wholesome and all-American.
I can’t help but think that the world would be a saner and more peaceful place if patriotism were eradicated. Of course, if that happened, politicians would have to invent something else to distract us from what they are really doing. It is ironic that Jesse Helms died today, on the most holy of patriotic days. He spent a lifetime flagrantly waving a flag while he ass-raped freedom. He will be eulogized as a great American patriot, I am sure.
I rest my case…
July 7th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
No, I think it’s simpler than that. John McCain is trying ANYTHING to get just a little enthusiasm going with voters. He tried fighting against the torture administration, and then embraced them. He tried pandering to the voters with the repeal of the gas tax (and now includes this argument in an environmental ad which I don’t really understand). He says he doesn’t understand why Obama is against nukuler power in an ad touting his own environmental platform. He tried courting the far right Christian lunatics and then had to denounce them because independent voters are disgusted by hypocrisy.
He’s just having trouble finding a position that can energize a party that believes in smaller government, and increases the power of the executive branch….a party that loves the second amendment, but not so much the first. A party that wants to deregulate all markets and then is befuddled when the markets screw regular people. Hell, he even tried to use Obama’s symbol. I sorta feel bad for him, but I don’t think you need to try to apply logic to his statements, he’s just pandering to a base he cannot find.
July 8th, 2008 at 1:03 am
I have to say that I think that John McCain may be more correct than you’re all willing to admit. I think that patriotism can include anything up to and including putting country before anything. I think that’s still very open. What’s good for the country?
But, as a matter of principal, let me ask you this. Do you think people who voluntarily sign up for the military, understanding that they could have to go to war, and possibly get killed, put country before all else? And, from your liberal perspective, do you think that deserters, who choose to not go to a war that they don’t agree with, are putting their country, and what they think is right for it, before all else? I sure do. Even if I think that they are dishonest, lying cowards who are unwilling to meet the commitment that they made. They sacrifice their own dignity and their image of themselves as honest and upstanding for something.
Now, do I think it’s possible to be patriotic and also put other things before that? I’m not really sure. Perhaps the problem with America today is that it’s not acceptable to say, “I”m glad for what I have, but being patriotic is not my first priority.”
http://zachthinks85.blogspot.com
http://gamingtips.today.com
July 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Do you think people who voluntarily sign up for the military, understanding that they could have to go to war, and possibly get killed, put country before all else?
No. I think they are doing a dangerous job for any number of reasons, including love of country or a sense of duty. But loving your country and feeling a sense of duty towards it doesn’t preclude you from loving other things more (your family, your friends, your God), or from feeling a sense of duty to more important things as well.
And, from your liberal perspective, do you think that deserters, who choose to not go to a war that they don’t agree with, are putting their country, and what they think is right for it, before all else?
Personally, I think that the duty to one’s honor and one’s conscience, after pledging to go to war, of fulfilling that pledge, is more important than one’s duty to his political belief that the war is misguided. So no, I don’t think desertion is some kind of noble sacrifice. (But this ordering is clearly dependent on a level of decency and chivalry in our national life — I would probably feel differently about a German deserter during the second world war, although even in that case, there are commitments to fellow soldiers, civilians, etc, that make the calculus difficult.)